Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday announced that he has activated the California National Guard to support local communities with additional testing facilities and capacity amid the national surge in COVID-19 cases driven by the Omicron variant.
“California has led the country’s fight against COVID-19, implementing first-in-the-nation public health measures that have helped save tens of thousands of lives,” said Gov. Newsom. “We continue to support communities in their response to COVID by bolstering testing capacity.”
This new action is on top of the existing 6,000 testing sites that have been set up across the state, the recent demand-based expansion of hours at state-operated sites and the 9.6 million tests that the state has distributed to schools since early December.
The announcement comes as Omicron continues to spread rapidly across the globe, accounting for at least 80% of COVID-19 cases in California.
The National Guard plan will deploy over 200 Cal Guard members across 50 Optum Serve sites around the state, providing interim clinical staff while permanent staff are hired, adding capacity for walk-ins, assisting with crowd control and back-filling for staff absences — all in an effort to conduct more tests for more Californians.
Additional members of the Guard will be deployed next week in similar capacities.
These measures will bolster California’s already robust testing program — the most extensive in the nation. Currently, 90% of Californians live within a 30-minute drive of a site. Amidst the surge, the state has been able to maintain a 48-hour turn around for PCR tests.
To date, California has administered almost 67 million vaccination doses and over 122.7 million tests. In recent months, Gov. Newsom implemented a series of measures to slow the spread of COVID-19, including first-in-the-nation vaccine and masking measures requiring that workers in health care settings be fully vaccinated, announcing plans to add the COVID-19 vaccine to the list of vaccinations required to attend school in-person when fully approved, requiring masking in schools and implementing a standard that all school staff and all state workers either show proof of full vaccination or be tested.
To help slow the spread of COVID-19, Californians are encouraged to get vaccinated, get boosted, wear a mask indoors and get tested if sick.
LAKE COUNTY, Calif. — A former Lake County supervisor is throwing his hat into the ring to run for district attorney.
Anthony Farrington announced his decision to run for the office, citing the encouragement of many county residents and his own concerns about increasing crime in the county.
He’ll be challenging first-term incumbent Susan Krones, who plans to run for reelection.
“I bring a unique perspective to this upcoming election, unlike any other prospective district attorney candidate,” said Farrington. “I have been a victim of multiple crimes, and I have often felt that I did not have a voice. It’s personal for me. I know what it’s like to have a father murdered at the age of 7, and not having a voice. As our county’s next district attorney, I will ensure that all victims are given a strong voice, and that criminals be held accountable.”
Farrington, a Lake County native, served four terms as the District 4 representative on the Lake County Board of Supervisors.
During that time, he served on committees related to public safety, including Alcohol and Other Drug Services, the Mental Health Advisory Board; Children’s Council, Public Defender’s Oversight Committee and the Cannabis Cultivation Committee, the latter formed to implement local ordinances to regulate cannabis and secure funding to invest in public safety.
He authored a local ordinance that put cold medications containing pseudoephedrine behind the counter at local retailers which reduced pseudoephedrine products from being purchased or stolen in order to manufacture methamphetamine. He said those measures later were implemented throughout the state of California.
He also introduced a local ordinance to create the state’s first GIS website that showed the locations of registered sex offenders residing within Lake County.
“I have always been an advocate for the safety of our communities, and I still believe today that safe communities are the foundation for a strong economy,” Farrington said.
As a supervisor, Farrington supported local law enforcement while he served on the Rural County Representatives of California Board of Directors, a state organization where he advocated for rural law enforcement funding resulting in $500,000 to be allocated to Lake County annually. He supported pay increases for local deputies, correctional officers and dispatch staff due to ongoing retention issues.
In addition, he was a vocal opponent to the city of Lakeport’s proposed South Main Street annexation which he said would have resulted in a significant loss of funding for law enforcement. The county and city are now considering a sales tax agreement that would allow the annexation to go forward.
Before leaving the office of supervisor, Farrington organized the county’s Cannabis Cultivation Advisory Committee with the intent to regulate local cannabis and to secure much needed funding for the DA’s Office and local law enforcement.
The county annually realizes approximately $10 million in taxes from local cannabis cultivation. As district attorney, Farrington said he will advocate that this money be primarily used to support local law enforcement and the DA’s Office as initially intended, including creating a cannabis and environmental prosecution unit.
Farrington left the office of supervisor at the start of 2017 and has since worked as a private attorney engaged in the practice of civil and criminal law.
Over the past decade, Farrington has handled a significant number of domestic violence protective orders on behalf of abused women with a 100% success rate. Through a state contract he currently represents many abused children that have been taken from their parents by Child Welfare Services due to child abuse and/or neglect.
Farrington attended Mendocino College where he received his Associate of Arts degree in liberal studies, and received his Bachelor of Arts degree in international relations from U.C. Davis. He received his Juris Doctor degree from Concord Law.
He said he is a staunch supporter of the second amendment and supports law abiding citizens possessing and carrying firearms.
In his free time, he likes to go to the shooting range, work on his ranch, go fishing; work on his classic cars and spend time with his family.
LAKE COUNTY, Calif. — The Lakeport City Council on Tuesday held a discussion on how to move forward with a program that has allowed outdoor dining in the city’s downtown as part of an emergency temporary zoning permit process, a measure that’s meant to help restaurants during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The program, which gave rise to what city staff is calling “parklets,” is now the focus of an effort to create permanent rules.
However, some business owners said the parklets made sense in the earlier days of COVID but are now outgrowing their usefulness and have unintended consequences — from blocking off businesses to cutting into downtown’s limited parking.
In May 2020, as the pandemic was still in its early months, then-City Manager Margaret Silveira authorized an executive order approving the emergency temporary use zoning permit process to expand the temporary use of property for businesses impacted by COVID-19 with a no-fee, expedited process, according to Community Development Director Jennifer Byers’ written report to the council.
Byers said Tuesday that the city originally approved 11 of the permits, with eight still in effect. Ten of those original 11 were used for outdoor dining; the 11th was for a church.
She said the eight still being used are for food and beverage establishments.
Most of those in use have been set up like large tents, with heavy plastic roofs and walls over metal frames.
Byers reported that in June Gov. Gavin Newsom extended relief measures allowing restaurants and bars to continue expanded outdoor operations through Dec. 31. In October, Newsom signed a pro-restaurant package of bills that provides relief concerning outdoor dining, sale of alcoholic beverages and outdoor expansion of a business to mitigate pandemic restrictions.
She said allowing outdoor dining was never a mandate. The series of regulatory relief notices and support of expanded outdoor operations were meant to slow the spread of the virus, while assisting the industry in its economic recovery.
“Who knew that we were still going to be in the situation that we're in,” Byers said.
In July, the Lakeport Main Street Association issued a survey to downtown business owners, asking if the parklet program should continue. During the meeting, Marie Schrader, the association’s executive director, said she put the survey together and sent it out several times. They ended up getting 18 responses.
Of those, Byers said 50% said the program should continue, 33% said maybe and 16% said no.
Byers said the city has received some complaints about issues such as parking and decreased visibility, and comments about there needing to be support for businesses other than restaurants.
With indoor mask wearing in public places once again required in the state, “We don't really know where it’s going to go from here,” Byers said.
She said city staff is working with the Lakeport Planning Commission to come up with permanent standards, but those won’t be ready until spring.
Schrader told the council that her biggest concern is that the parklets aren’t very aesthetically appealing and they don’t do anything to enhance the historic look of Main Street.
The council also heard from business owners who raised concerns about their businesses being blocked from view, the parklets taking up space on the sidewalks, reduced parking and the parklets not being utilized much any longer.
Barbara Flynn, owner of Wine in the Willows, said she had taken the Lakeport Main Street Association survey and originally was all for outdoor seating.
However, Flynn said most restaurants now have plenty of indoor seating and have some outdoor seating they don't use.
She said she feels the parklets provide a freebie. “Nobody’s paying for extra space but they’re getting extra space,” she said, adding, “You need to do what’s fair for everybody.”
Travis Nieto, another downtown business owner, called the parklets “hideous” and said they make it look like a homeless camp is there.
He said restaurants are getting preference and hindering other struggling businesses. “The restaurants have been favored over everybody else.”
Deanne Padel, owner of the Gaslight Grill, thanked the council for the parklets, explaining that they helped her restaurant survive. While they don’t look great, “They work for now.”
Council members appeared sympathetic to the need for the parklets but also for taking into consideration other businesses impacted by them.
Councilwoman Mireya Turner said that with the Omicron variant of COVID-19 surging, outdoor dining is safer than indoor.
However, Turner said it’s not OK for some businesses to fail so others can succeed. “It’s about all of our businesses.”
Councilman Kenny Parlet said he had faith city staff can mitigate problems like visibility while working on permanent standards.
The council reached consensus to direct staff to leave the temporary zoning permits in place, allowing the parklets to continue, while city staff finishes developing the permanent standards.
City Manager Kevin Ingram said the city can work with businesses in the meantime, starting with visibility measures such as removing the walls of the parklet tents.
Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.
CLEARLAKE, Calif. — Clearlake Animal Control this week continues to offer a big group of dogs to new homes.
The City of Clearlake Animal Association also is seeking fosters for the animals waiting to be adopted.
Call the Clearlake Animal Control shelter at 707-273-9440, or email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. to inquire about adoptions and schedule a visit to the shelter.
Visit Clearlake Animal Control on Facebook or on the city’s website.
The newest dogs are listed at the top of the following list.
‘Andy’
“Andy” is a male American pit bull mix with a short gray and white coat.
He is dog No. 48995415.
‘Arnold’
“Arnold” is a male American Staffordshire terrier mix with a short brindle coat with white markings.
He is dog No. 49029348.
‘Bear’
“Bear” is a male Labrador retriever-American pit bull mix with a short charcoal and fawn coat.
He has been neutered.
He is dog No. 48443153.
‘Bear No. 2’
“Bear No. 2” is a male American pit bull mix with a short tan coat.
He has been neutered.
He is dog No. 48731556.
‘Bella’
“Bella” is a female American pit bull mix with a short gray brindle coat.
She has been spayed.
She is dog No. 48448381.
‘Gingy’
“Gingy’ is a female terrier mix with a tan and white coat.
She is dog No. 49228146.
‘Holly’
“Holly” is a female terrier mix with a beige coat.
She is dog No. 49159116.
‘Isabella’
“Isabella” is a female Chihuahua mix with a short tan coat.
She is dog No. 49292130.
‘Levi’
“Levi” is a male golden retriever-Labrador retriever mix.
He has a short golden coat.
He is dog No. 48975687.
‘Maria’
“Maria” is a female Shar-Pei mix with a short tan coat.
She is dog No. 49047315.
‘Mitzi’
“Mitzi” is a female Australian cattle dog mix with a medium-length black and white coat.
She has been spayed.
She is dog No. 48443306.
‘Nala’
“Nala” is a 1-year-old female German shepherd mix.
She has a medium-length black and tan coat.
She is dog No. 48289638.
‘Priscilla’
“Priscilla” is a female Brittany spaniel mix with a white and copper coat.
She is dog No. 49089138.
‘Sassy’
“Sassy” is a female American pit bull mix with a short black coat.
She has been spayed.
She is dog No. 48443128.
‘Snowball’
“Snowball” is a male American Staffordshire mix terrier with a white coat.
He is dog No. 49159168.
‘Tanisha’
“Tanisha” is a female Australian cattle dog mix with a short red and white coat.
She has been spayed.
She is dog No. 48443302.
‘Terry’
“Terry” is a male shepherd mix with a short brindle coat.
He is dog No. 48443693.
‘Turk’
“Turk” is a male chocolate Labrador retriever mix.
He is dog No. 48911836.
‘Willie’
“Willie” is a male Chihuahua mix with a short black coat and white markings.
He is dog No. 49141640.
‘Winnie’
“Winnie” is a female Doberman pinscher-Australian shepherd mix with a short tricolor coat.
She has been spayed.
She is dog No. 49228128.
Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.
LAKE COUNTY, Calif. — The final vote count on Kelseyville Fire Protection District’s Measure A tax shows it has failed to pass.
That was the conclusion after a final canvass was completed on Tuesday.
Measure A, which sought to create a new community services district, would have raised millions of dollars to add staff, including as many as six to eight more firefighters, build new facilities such as a new fire station in Buckingham at an estimated cost of $2.4 million and purchase new equipment, said Fire Chief Joe Huggins.
“It’s unfortunate that it didn’t pass,” Huggins said.
The proposed new fire station, Huggins said, “would have helped the whole district,” by reducing response times across the 100-square-mile by three quarters in an effort to keep fires small.
With the measure’s failure, Huggins said the plans of expansion are off the table, and staffing levels will remain the same. Currently, the district has two firefighters on shift at the downtown station and one per shift in the station in the Rivieras.
Looking at the last six years of wildfires in Lake County, Huggins said Kelseyville is the only area that hasn’t been affected yet.
“It’s just a matter of time. It’s not a question of if, it’s when,” said Huggins, who has been chief for the last seven years and in the district for 34 years.
The measure would have instituted substantial tax increases for property owners with no sunset.
The current costs are for up to $1 per unit of benefit. As an example, vacant residential lots currently are listed at 25 units of benefit, single family dwellings are 19 units, mobile homes are 19 units, duplexes are 25 units, triplexes are 30 units and apartments are 15 units per apartment. Huggins said the average homeowner now pays $19 a year for fire services.
Those amounts were set out in an ordinance calling for a special election approved by the fire board in December 1996, according to district documents.
“We’re not going to be able to sustain this forever,” said Huggins, noting the rising costs of everything from gas to staffing.
The total special tax rate under Measure A would have ranged from $175 per parcel for a vacant property under five acres to $870 for more than 50 acres, $175 per parcel for residential properties, mobile homes would be $122 per unit in mobile home parks, multifamily units (apartments, duplexes and triplexes) would be $122 per unit.
Huggins said those new fire tax totals would have put Kelseyville on par with other county fire districts, such as Lake County, Lakeport and South Lake County, that have successfully passed increased fire taxes in recent years. Northshore Fire has tried to pass fire measures in 2018 and 2019, but both failed.
The effort to get Kelseyville Fire’s new measure passed began in March of 2021, Huggins said. “It was time to move and make things happen.”
They hired the firm NBS. CivicMic, which is part of that company, built a website for the measure, established an 800 number for residents to ask questions and hosted multiple virtual town hall meetings which Huggins said was necessary due to COVID-19.
Measure A’s voting was done via mail-in ballots.
Following the final canvass this week, MK Elections, the firm handling the tally, issued a letter which the district posted on its website, showing that the measure was voted down by a substantial margin.
Measure A needed a two-thirds supermajority, or a 66.7% yes vote, in order to pass.
However, the final vote count showed it had only a 46% “yes” vote — about 20% below the necessary approval threshold — with no votes totaling 53%.
An initial vote count was conducted on Dec. 22, at which time the measure appeared headed for failure. That initial count showed 998 votes in favor, or 46%, and 1,134 against, or 52.8% against,with two blank ballots submitted, 11 ballots rejected and a total ballot count of 2,145.
On Tuesday, Jan. 4, the final canvass added another 193 ballots to the overall count.
Of those ballots, 86 or 44.5% voted yes, 106 or 54.9% voted no, one blank ballot was submitted and none were rejected.
The final tally was 1,084 yes votes, or 46.4%, versus 1,240 no votes, or 53%, with three blank ballots submitted, 11 rejected and 2,338 ballots submitted.
Those 2,338 ballots were returned by the 7,342 qualified voters who received ballots, according to MK Elections’ report.
Kristina Navarro, Kelseyville Fire’s financial analyst, said the district paid $94,739 to NBS for work which included CivicMic’s outreach for the measure and MK Elections’ services.
Huggins confirmed that the district paid for the consulting while the firefighters’ union paid for campaign paraphernalia — including pamphlets and banners — and did door to door campaigning.
Navarro said no discussions about Measure A are agendized for the district’s next board meeting.
As for next steps, Huggins said, “I haven’t ruled out anything,” adding, “Things are just going to have to be a little different next time.”
Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.
LAKE COUNTY, Calif. — Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry has announced she will run for reelection to the State Assembly in the newly drawn Fourth Assembly District.
The new district includes all of Yolo, Napa, Lake and Colusa counties, along with the city of Sonoma and Sonoma County communities of Boyes Hot Springs, El Verano and Eldridge.
The constitutionally-established commission is tasked with drawing new districts for the State Assembly, Senate, Board of Equalization and Congress based upon the 2020 census.
The districts will remain in effect until the California Citizens Redistricting Commission reconvenes to draw new maps based on the 2030 census for elections in 2032.
Aguiar-Curry currently represents the Fourth Assembly District, which now includes all or parts of Napa, Lake, Yolo, Sonoma, Colusa and Solano counties.
A Yolo County native who previously served on the Winters City Council and was the city’s first female mayor, Aguiar-Curry was first elected to the state Assembly in 2016.
“Over the last five years, we have brought people together to accomplish great things for our district and our state and made real progress on so many critical issues: empowering parents and teachers to educate our children; providing job training and workplace standards for our workers; building affordable housing and the infrastructure our people and economy need to thrive; funding and deploying broadband and telehealth in the small cities and rural communities of our region; fighting for our family farms; protecting our environment and open space, and combating climate change; responding to the pandemic and resulting health care and economic crises; establishing new ways to prevent and respond to disasters, and supporting victims of wildfires; and so much more,” said Aguiar-Curry.
“I am excited to continue to represent the many communities my team and I have served since 2016, and I am equally excited about meeting my new constituents and local leaders in Colusa and Sonoma counties. Together we will build a brighter future,” she said.
So says the Earl of Salisbury as he ruminates about the future in Shakespeare’s “Richard II.”
During the English Renaissance, people believed shooting stars were luminaries falling from the heavens and harbingers of calamity. But by the end of the 19th century, scientists had established the truth to be far more mundane. What today are commonly called shooting or falling stars are simply small pieces of rock or dust that quickly burn up upon entering Earth’s atmosphere.
But nature has a surprise for you – shooting stars really do exist.
Astronomers are just beginning to understand these real-life shooting stars – called hypervelocity stars – that zoom through the cosmos at millions of miles per hour.
Spinning stars and slingshots
The story of hypervelocity stars begins in 1988, when Jack Gilbert Hills, a theoretician at Los Alamos National Labs, had an inspired idea: What would happen if a binary star system – that is, two stars that are gravitationally bound to each other and orbit a common center of mass – traveled near the massive black hole at the center of the Milky Way? Hills calculated that the tidal force of the black hole could rend the binary system in two.
Imagine two ice skaters holding hands and spinning around until they all of a sudden let go. The two skaters will fly away from each other. Similarly, when two stars in a binary system are wrenched apart by a close encounter with a black hole, they will fly apart. In such an encounter one star might gain enough energy to be slingshotted out of the galaxy entirely.
Astronomers now know that this is how hypervelocity stars are born.
Theory, observations and simulations
After the publication of Hills’ prescient paper, the astronomy community considered hypervelocity stars an intriguing possibility, albeit one without observational evidence. That changed in 2005.
While observing stars in the Milky Way’s halo, a team of researchers using the MMT Observatory in Arizona came across something most unexpected. They observed a star escaping the Milky Way at nearly 2 million mph (3.2 million kph). This was HVS1, the first known hypervelocity star.
Observations tell part of the story, but to help answer other questions – such as what happens to the companion after it separates from the hypervelocity star – my adviser and I turned to computer simulations. Our models predict that the other star in the former pair is often left orbiting the black hole in much the same fashion as the Earth orbits the Sun.
Another exciting result from these modeling efforts was the discovery that sometimes the two stars can crash into each other. When this happens, the stars may coalesce into one very massive star.
If you were wondering what might befall a planet orbiting one of these stars, we modeled that too. In a short paper from 2012, my colleagues and I showed that the black hole in the center of our galaxy can blast planets out of the Milky Way at nearly 5% the speed of light.
As of today, no hypervelocity planets have been detected, but they very well might be out there, waiting for some happy astronomers to chance upon them.
Not all fast stars leave the galaxy
Utilizing data from the Gaia spacecraft, launched in 2013, my colleagues and I discovered that some of the stars that the astronomy community had previously considered “hypervelocity stars” are in fact likely bound to the Milky Way galaxy.
While this result may sound disappointing, it actually reveals two critical points. First, there are different mechanisms to accelerate stars to high speeds. Today astronomers know of thousands of speedy stars. However, just because a star is moving fast does not necessarily make it a hypervelocity star unbound from the Milky Way. Second, true hypervelocity stars that are escaping the Milky Way may be rarer than previously thought.
The future is bright and fast
I find it beautiful that true shooting stars exist. It’s equally amazing that studying their trajectories and velocities can help answer some of the foremost questions in science today.
My students are using NASA’s Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite to search for planets around these blisteringly fast stars. The discovery of even one planet around a hypervelocity star will forever change ideas of planetary formation and survivability.
These stars are speedy, but slowly they are shedding light on nature’s secrets. While you may not be able to see a real shooting star with your own eyes, you certainly can make a wish upon one.
[The Conversation’s science, health and technology editors pick their favorite stories.Weekly on Wednesdays.]
LAKE COUNTY, Calif. — Documented COVID-19 cases are now rapidly climbing in Lake County — as they have around the rest of the state — and with classrooms reopening after the holiday break, outbreaks have occurred among students and staff at local schools, Public Health reported.
“We at Public Health want to encourage flexibility and understanding at this very challenging moment. Our aim is to help the schools stay open, while keeping students and staff as safe as possible,” said Dr. Gary Pace, who continues to act as interim Public Health officer.
Pace said the California Department of Public Health, or CDPH, and the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration have recommendations that guide isolation of positive cases and quarantine of close contacts.
With Omicron spreading through communities, Pace said health officials are better understanding how the variant behaves, and how vaccination status affects transmission. “Guidance has been rapidly evolving, as a result.”
Pace said Lake County Health Services’ Public Health Division has no plans to order schools to shut down to prevent spread of the virus. “However, some sites may be very challenged by staffing shortages, and may have to adapt.”
He said local school staff and administrators are working extremely hard to educate children and try to keep them safe. “In this rapidly-changing environment, they are being handed an almost impossible task.”
Pace added, “We are hoping this surge will only last a month or so. Please take steps to keep your children safe, and the schools open.”
To keep schools open and children and communities safe, Pace urged community members to be vaccinated, be tested when symptomatic or after close contact.
More on vaccination and testing resources are available at the county’s website.
The COVID-19 pandemic upended many family dynamics but one positive consequence of this upheaval: Parents shared more dinners and read to their children more often, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2020 Survey of Income and Program Participation, or SIPP.
Many families spent extra time together in spring and summer 2020, when lockdowns were in place in many parts of the United States.
Most interviews for the 2020 SIPP were conducted during March-June 2020. The data show that parental interactions with children changed from prior years: While parents shared more dinners and read to children more often in 2020, they also took them on fewer outings.
There were, however, big differences depending on parents’ socioeconomic characteristics. Frequent outings with young children dropped for most parents, but more so for parents with fewer economic resources. And parents who were married and more educated read more often to young children.
SIPP and parental involvement
The SIPP collects information on child well-being, including details on parental involvement with children.
Specifically, it asks a reference parent (usually the mother) to identify the number of times in a typical week they had dinner with their children ages 0-17 and how many times another parent (usually the spouse or cohabiting partner of the reference parent) did.
The survey also asks how many outings the reference parent or other parent took their young children ages 0-5 on and whether they or another family member read to them. All of these behaviors have been associated with improved child well-being and family dynamics. All estimates shown are at the reference-parent level at the time of interview.
In recent decades, parents have been highly engaged with children. Since 1998, at least 80% of children ate dinner with their parent often (five or more times per week). Since 2014, about 80% of children were often taken on outings by their parents (two or more times per week) and at least 48% of young children were read to by parents often (five or more times per week).
Impact of COVID-19 on parental involvement
Most likely as a result of COVID-19 lockdowns in early 2020, the proportion of parents taking their young children on outings two or more times a week dropped from 87% in 2019 to 82% in 2020. The frequency of children’s weekly outings with their other parent were not statistically different across those same years (about 67%).
In contrast, parents shared more weekly meals with children ages 0-17.
There was only a one percentage point increase in shared dinners from 2018 (84%) and 2020 (85%). But the change was statistically significant and coupled with the dip in outings, resulted in shared meals becoming the most common type of parental involvement in 2020.
The proportion of shared meals between children and their other parent, as reported by the reference parent, also rose, from 56% in 2018 to 63% in 2020.
Plus, parents or relatives read to children more often in 2020 than in prior years.
In 2020, 69% of parents reported reading to young children five or more times per week compared with 65% in 2018, and 64% in 2019.
Parent-child outings dropped in almost all socioeconomic categories
Across all but one (poverty) of the characteristics considered, the proportion of parents taking kids on frequent outings dropped four percentage points from 2019 to 2020.
Frequent parent-child outings decreased in 2020 compared with 2019 for many reasons, including shutdowns and travel bans.
Many places that families typically visit like restaurants and malls closed and travel, both domestic and foreign, was discouraged or banned during the pandemic.
Families have struggled during COVID-19. Many have had to juggle work and child care responsibilities while also facing food insufficiency and financial hardships such as job or wage loss.
For example, unemployment, stimulus and Child Tax Credit payments have been used to pay for the basics like food, rent, and paying off debt, leaving little discretionary income for outings.
Solo parents — those with no spouse or cohabiting partner present — experienced an 11 percentage point drop in frequent outings with young children: 75% reported going on two or more outings a week in 2020 compared with 86% in 2019.
Solo parents, by definition the sole parental figure living with young children, were especially hard hit during the pandemic with limited time, financial resources and support networks.
Although younger solo parents are typically more involved than older solo parents with young children, young adults experienced some of the highest levels of job loss due to the COVID-19 downturn which may have impacted their involvement with their children.
Even parents with more resources did not take their children on outings as frequently. That includes parents with more education and married parents who may alternate child care responsibilities. Frequent outings among those socio-economic groups dropped about four percentage points in 2020 compared with 2019.
Results for parents in poverty were not statistically different during the period examined (2019 and 2020), which may be due to no real changes or to nonresponse issues (described further below).
Frequent reading to children increased among advantaged parents
The share of married parents who read to young children five or more times a week increased from 68% in 2019 to 73% in 2020.
Groups who read to their young children more frequently:
• Native-born parents (66% in 2019 compared to 71% in 2020). • Parents who were above the poverty level (66% in 2019 compared to 70% in 2020). • Highly educated parents with a bachelor’s degree or more read to their kids frequently at a higher rate than all parents in 2020: 81% compared to 69%.
These characteristics are associated with certain advantages, like higher income, residential and family stability and white-collar jobs with flexible work schedules. That may have allowed these parents to leverage their resources to be more involved with children during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Comparisons of reading together between 2019 and 2020 were not statistically different for parents with fewer resources: poor, solo, and foreign-born parents, which may be due to no real change or to nonresponse issues described below.
However, there is plenty of evidence showing that parents with fewer resources suffered high levels of job losses.
In 2020, parents who were solo (58%), foreign-born (62%), poor (56%), or did not have a bachelor’s degree (60%) read to young children less often than all parents (69%). Still, more than half of parents with fewer resources managed to read to young children five or more times a week in 2020.
Parent characteristics impacted by nonresponse bias
The 2020 SIPP had high nonresponse rates, meaning that many people who were asked to participate in the survey did not. Additionally, there was nonresponse bias, that is, the characteristics of those who responded were different than those who did not respond.
Consequently, reference parents who reported on their involvement with children in SIPP were more likely to be older, foreign-born, married, more educated, and above the poverty level than in the two prior years.
The proportions of parents who were foreign-born or married were not statistically different between 2019 and 2020, but the 2019 SIPP also experienced higher nonresponse rates due to the 2018-2019 lapse in federal funding that stopped operations and other factors.
The results discussed in this story may have been impacted by nonresponse.
The Survey of Income and Program Participation is a nationally representative longitudinal survey administered by the U.S. Census Bureau that provides comprehensive information on the dynamics of income, employment, household composition and government program participation.
The estimates presented here are subject to sampling and nonsampling error.
Yeris Mayol-Garcia is a survey statistician in the Census Bureau’s Social, Economic, and Housing Statistics Division.
LAKE COUNTY, Calif. — A judge has ruled that the county of Lake failed to adequately consider wildfire evacuation impacts in approving a proposed resort and residential project in Guenoc Valley in 2020.
Lake County Superior Court Judge J. David Markham handed down the 16-page ruling on the Guenoc Valley Mixed Use Planned Development Project — also known as Maha Guenoc Valley — in a filing dated on Tuesday.
Markham has ordered the county’s approval, handed down by the Board of Supervisors in July 2020, to be set aside due to errors in environmental review and violation of the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA.
Specifically, Markham found the county failed to consider the project’s impact on the surrounding community’s emergency evacuation routes in the event of wildfire.
At the same time, Markham found the county had adequately mitigated impacts relating to water and species of concern, and that it also had rejected a smaller version of the project based on the necessary evidence.
The Center for Biological Diversity and the California Native Plant Society, with the California Attorney General’s Office intervening in support of them, brought the case against the county in September 2020, two months after the Board of Supervisors approved the project.
By that time, the LNU Lightning Complex had been burning in the area. The case’s plaintiffs pointed to that fire and to the project’s location in a high fire hazard severity zone, where wildfires occurred in 1952, 1953, 1963, 1976, 1980, 1996, 2006, 2014, 2015, 2018 and 2020.
The Attorney General’s Office submitted comment letters regarding inadequacies in the final EIR analysis of wildfire impacts during the environmental review process.
The plaintiffs faulted the county for failing to comply with CEQA not just on the primary matter of wildfire risk but also on other issues such as water, species of concern, roads and greenhouse gas emissions.
“The court recognized that Lake County failed in one of its most important jobs, to consider how a dangerous development in the direct path of fire can increase risks to surrounding communities,” said Peter Broderick, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Given the fire threats facing California, I hope decision makers and developers come to see how absolutely crucial it is to consider evacuation challenges when building projects are this risky. No developer should be allowed to make it harder for people to escape catastrophic fires.”
California Attorney General Rob Bonta said Markham’s decision affirms a basic fact: “Local governments and developers have a responsibility to take a hard look at projects that exacerbate wildfire risk and endanger our communities.”
Bonta added, “We can't keep making shortsighted land use decisions that will have impacts decades down the line. We must build responsibly. This is a win for current and future residents of Lake County, who can rest easier knowing that this project will only move forward if the developer takes proactive steps to ensure their safe evacuation if and when a wildfire occurs."
County Counsel Anita Grant told Lake County News that the next steps are the form of judgment and peremptory writ of mandate.
“The judgment will require the county to set aside its certification of the final EIR, the findings relating to impacts as to an emergency evacuation plan, and the approval of the project,” Grant said Thursday evening.
She added, “At this point, I don’t have any information beyond what is in the court’s order.”
Lotusland Investment Holdings Inc. acquired the 16,000-acre Guenoc Ranch property in 2016. Since 2017, the project has been the subject of numerous public meetings and hearings.
Chris Meredith, a partner in the project, indicated in a statement to Lake County News on Thursday that the project isn’t off the table.
“We are reviewing the Lake County Superior Court’s ruling. We remain committed to working alongside the Lake County community and fire safety experts to ensure this project is built in the right way to improve wildfire detection, prevention and response throughout the region,” Meredith said.
The supervisors approved the first phase of the project, which has a combined 1,415-acre footprint dispersed throughout the overall ranch site.
It was not a unanimous vote. Then-Supervisor Rob Brown had opposed approval of the project, raising concerns about an off-site water well.
“This is the largest land use decision this board will ever make,” Brown said at the time.
That first phase, as approved by the supervisors, included 385 residential villas in five subdivisions; five boutique hotels with 127 hotel units and 141 resort residential cottages; 20 campsites; up to 100 workforce housing co-housing units; resort amenities such as an outdoor entertainment area, spa and wellness amenities, sports fields, equestrian areas, a new golf course and practice facility, camping area and commercial and retail facilities; agricultural production and support facilities; essential accessory facilities, including back of house facilities; 50 temporary workforce hotel units; emergency response and fire center; a float plane dock; and helipads.
The promise of economic development and growth from projects like the resort appear to have figured heavily into the county’s financial planning and expectations of future income for transient occupancy, sales and property tax.
In September, as the board was poised to finalize a new round of raises — bringing its total raises approved over the past two years to $21 million — Lake County News asked the County Administrative Office if the county was projecting a continuing growth in revenue to be able to support these raises over the long-term.
“Our Board is fully committed to furthering economic development and growth in Lake County,” the county responded.
District 1 Supervisor Moke Simon, in whose district the project is located, called Markham’s ruling “deeply disappointing.”
“Lotusland had made considerable efforts to mitigate potential environmental concerns, and honor Lake County’s rich tribal history, in their project planning process. Their flexibility and engagement made them in many ways an ideal partner,” Simon said in a statement released to Lake County News.
He said the investments Lotusland proposed, including adding housing supply and even a fire station and helipad, offered the potential for lasting regional economic benefits. “If the ultimate result of this decision is the project not moving forward, that will be a tremendous loss.”
Simon added, “We will continue to welcome any future opportunities to partner with Lotusland and others to promote thoughtful development in Lake County.”
A closer look at the ruling
Markham’s ruling comes two months after the hearing in the case concluded. He said case documents totaled more than 85,000 pages.
During the hearing — which was stretched over two appearances, one in October and the second in November — the county, its attorneys and the counsel for Lotusland had argued that there had been extensive consideration given to the threat of wildland fire and that CEQA doesn’t preclude development.
At the time, Grant said that the board had balanced environmental concerns with the county’s economic vitality — citing the expectation of 300 year-round permanent jobs in its first phase and at its height 750 construction jobs, plus secondary economic development for the region.
Grant also explained that Lotusland had met the county’s requirements and that the project was not rushed through, but had a considerable public comment period.
“Lake County residents know better than many exactly what devastation means when it comes to wildfire. Nobody has to tell the county of Lake about wildfire,” she said during the November appearance.
Markham’s ruling started by noting that the court had to consider two key questions: Was there substantial evidence to support the county’s decision? And did the county proceed in a manner required by law?
In his analysis, Markham looked at the county’s wildfire protection plan, which included components such as vegetation management and firebreaks. That plan was cited as a mitigation in the CEQA analysis, but Markham found that it actually is a part of the project itself.
He wrote that the EIR’s analysis of the project’s impact on wildland fire risk was “extensive and specific to both the Project and its location.
Markham concluded “substantial evidence supports the County’s findings regarding the Project’s impact on wildfire risks” — with one exception, that being the impacts on community evacuation routes.
Taking the point from the Center for Biological Diversity and the California Native Plant Society regarding the fact that “a significant number of wildfire related deaths in California occur during attempts to evacuate,” Markham said wildfire hazards are “certainly exacerbated if community residents are unable to evacuate safely due to congested evacuation routes.”
Markham said the project is estimated to bring 4,070 new residents to the south county, “a significant population increase” when considering that the project is in two Census tracts that as of 2017 had 10,163 residents.
Because a fire would necessitate evacuation, and because that population increase would exacerbate existing environmental hazards, Markham said the issue has to be addressed under CEQA.
He wrote that the county’s conclusion that impacts to existing emergency evacuation plans would be less than significant was based on the opinions of traffic engineers, law enforcement and fire personnel.
“Those opinions were not based on any identifiable facts,” wrote Markham, who explained that since it wasn’t supported by identifiable facts, it was legally insufficient to be considered as “substantial evidence” under CEQA.
“Because the County’s findings regarding community emergency evacuation routes are not supported by substantial evidence, the EIR does not comply with CEQA,” Markham said.
Markham didn’t agree with the petitioners that a carbon credit program added as an errata to the final EIR wasn’t a mitigation measure the county relied on in making any findings in the EIR. To the extent that it didn’t comply with CEQA, Markham found that it didn’t constitute a prejudicial error because it did not deprive the public and decision makers of substantial relevant information regarding the project’s likely adverse impacts.
In the county’s favor was Markham’s finding that the county had used substantial evidence in its findings regarding an off-site well that had concerned Brown and led to his no vote.
Markham ruled the county’s mitigation measure requiring analysis, annual monitoring reports and quarterly reports for the first five years, and a requirement that a groundwater management plan be developed if the reports show impact on groundwater levels, complies with CEQA.
A key argument in the case had been the consideration of a project alternative, alternative C, which the county had concluded would have been infeasible due to reduced economic benefits.
That alternative would have reduced the project’s footprint, increasing the open space and keeping the total number or residential units at the same number but reducing the average lot size from 4.8 acres to 0.8 acres.
Markham said the evidence supported the conclusion that alternative C would have fewer economic benefits for Lake County.
He noted that the Attorney General’s Office said the county should have considered alternative locations for the project that were closer to a transit stop in order to reduce greenhouse emissions.
Markham rejected that suggestion, noting, “The Project consists of high-end residential, resort, and recreational facilities. It is speculative to conclude consumers of the project will travel from out of the area by public transit.”
As such, Markham found the county had properly considered and rejected the project alternatives.
Also complying with CEQA were proposed mitigation measures for special status plants and Markham agreed that the county’s decision not to recirculate the EIR after the addition of an errata complied with environmental law.
As for other issues the petitioners raised, Markham said he was not discussing all of them due to time constraints.
“The court focused on those issues which it considered to be of primary importance in helping the parties to understand the reasons for the Court’s ruling. As to all other issues raised by Petitioners not specifically discussed here, the Court has determined all findings made by the County were supported by substantial evidence and the County otherwise substantially complied with the requirements of CEQA,” Markham wrote.
Markham concluded that the county’s EIR was insufficient due to the wildfire evacuation routes matter and ordered the county to set its final EIR certification aside, along with findings regarding the emergency evacuation plan and the project’s approval.
He ordered the petitioner and intervenor to prepare the judgment and writ of mandate, but did not give a timeline for when that must be completed, and reserved costs and attorneys’ fees.
Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.
The Western States Scientific Safety Review Workgroup on Thursday completed its review of the federal process and has recommended expanding Pfizer-BioNTech booster dose eligibility to anyone 12 years of age and older who completed their primary vaccination series at least five months ago.
The workgroup also confirmed the federal authorization of a third vaccine dose for certain immunocompromised children ages 5 to 11.
The Workgroup provided its confirmation to the governors of California, Nevada, Oregon and Washington on Wednesday.
The workgroup recommended the following actions regarding the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine:
• Expand the use of a single Pfizer-BioNTech booster dose to include use in individuals 12 through 15 years of age; • Shorten the time between the completion of primary vaccination of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and a booster dose to at least five months; • Allow for a third primary series dose for certain immunocompromised children 5 through 11 years of age.
"It's simple, vaccines save lives,” said California Gov. Gavin Newsom. “Everyone 12 and older should keep their immunity strong and protect themselves and their families against COVID-19, including the highly transmissible Omicron variant, by getting a booster dose. The state has ample vaccine supply, so don’t wait — get your booster today.”
On Monday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorized the expanded use of the Pfizer-BioNTech booster shot and the CDC affirmed those decisions on Wednesday. The Workgroup reviewed and affirmed the federal decisions Wednesday evening and Thursday.
California Health and Human Services Agency Secretary Dr. Mark Ghaly and Director of the California Department of Public Health and State Public Health Officer Dr. Tomás J. Aragón, issued a joint statement on the workgroup’s recommendation.
“Getting a booster shot is the best way to keep your immunity strong and protect you and your loved ones from being hospitalized or dying because of COVID-19, including from the fast-spreading Omicron variant. With today’s recommendation expanding booster eligibility to those 12 and older, as well as decreasing the time between primary series and booster dose to five months for Pfizer vaccine recipients, Californians should go out and get themselves and their children boosted. The state has ample vaccine supply, so don’t wait – get your booster today,” the statement said.
They also said that now is not the time to let our guard down. All Californians, regardless of vaccination status, should continue to practice the safety basics – wear a mask with good fit and filtration indoors, get tested if you’re exposed to the virus or have symptoms, improve ventilation indoors, and stay home when sick.
Washington, Oregon and Nevada joined California’s COVID-19 Scientific Safety Review Workgroup in October 2020.
The workgroup, made up of nationally-acclaimed scientists with expertise in immunization and public health, has concurrently and independently reviewed the FDA’s actions related to COVID-19 vaccines. It will continue to evaluate other COVID-19 vaccines as they go through the federal process.
MyTurn.ca.gov is currently being updated to reflect the expanded eligibility. Parents and guardians are encouraged to check with their youth’s health care provider to schedule their booster appointment.
For the latest information on the Omicron variant, go to CDPH.ca.gov and to find a COVID-19 testing site, call 833-422-4255 or visit your local county public health website.
On Wednesday, with COVID-19 cases rising due to the Omicron variant, the California Department of Public Health updated its masking guidance and extended universal indoor masking for another month.
CDPH said its universal masking for indoor settings, which began on Dec. 15, will now be extended from its original sunset of Jan. 15 to Feb. 15.
The state is requiring masks for all individuals in all indoor public settings, regardless of vaccination status.
Surgical masks or higher-level respirators — such as N95s, KN95s and KF94s — with good fit are recommended.
The agency, citing studies that support the effectiveness of masking, said the measure is meant to protect against serious disease, hospitalizations and death, and an effort to keep schools open.
“This measure brings an added layer of mitigation as the Omicron variant, a Variant of Concern as labeled by the World Health Organization, continues to increase in prevalence across California, the United States, and the world and spreads much more easily than the original SARS-CoV-2 virus and the Delta variant,” the updated guidance explains.
Those who remain exempt from wearing masks at all times include children under age 2; individuals with a medical condition, mental health condition, or disability that prevents wearing a mask; persons who are hearing impaired, or communicating with a person who is hearing impaired, where the ability to see the mouth is essential for communication; and those for whom wearing a mask would create a risk to them related to their work.
CDPH reported that over the last two weeks, the statewide seven-day average case rate has increased by more than sixfold and hospitalizations have doubled.
“While the percentage of Californians fully vaccinated and boosted continues to increase, we continue to have areas of the state where vaccine coverage is low, putting individuals and communities at greater risk for COVID-19,” the updated guidance said.
“Given the current hospital census, which is over capacity, the surge in cases and hospitalizations has materially impacted California's health care delivery system within many regions of the state. Staffing levels are also increasingly impacted by COVID-19 transmission in many critical sectors,” the guidance also noted.