How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
News
- Details
- Written by: Elizabeth Larson
Following a brief discussion on Tuesday morning, the Board of Supervisors — sitting as the In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority Board of Directors — unanimously approved the new memorandum of understanding between the authority and SEIU Local 2015 Union.
In-Home Supportive Services — or IHSS — workers will see their base wages rise by $0.65 an hour over minimum wage, effective Jan. 1.
The contract language said the base wage is the state or federal minimum wage, whichever is higher. At this time, California’s is $14 per hour, while the federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour.
For the rest of 2021, Lake County’s IHSS workers will get $14 an hour. When California’s minimum wage increases to $15 on Jan. 1 — an increase for employers with 25 or more employees — their wages will increase to $15.65.
The agreement went into effect once both parties ratified it. The union approved it on Oct. 15, leaving the board’s action on Tuesday as the final step in the process.
Social Services Director Crystal Markytan said the agreement will be in effect until Dec. 31, 2023.
“These improvements are a huge step toward the $20 wage floor for all long-term care providers,” SEIU Local 2015 President April Verrett said. “The change is a testament to our continued mission behind our Time for $20 campaign. These efforts are propelled by Union members at bargaining tables across the state to raise standards in the industry, including access to health care, professional training, on-the-job safety, and secure retirement.”
The agreement also provides $5,000 annually for a protective personal equipment, or PPE, fund to be managed by the union.
Another $5,000 will be used each year to train IHSS workers. That funding, which also will be managed by SEIU, will include universal precautions, infection control, CPR, basic first aid, proper lifting techniques, symptoms of heart attack, symptoms of stroke, symptoms of diabetic coma, or working with patients who suffer from dementia, Alzheimer’s, mental health issues and autism.
Simone Tatman, a Lake County IHSS provider, said both the PPE and training are important right now.
“The only reason I had masks at the beginning of the COVID outbreak is because the union was able to get us some. But it was still hard to find sanitizer. And for providers who have three or four clients, having fresh PPE gets expensive, so this will really help,” Tatman said.
Until the new contract approval, Lake was among the 12 lowest-paid counties for IHSS workers, with providers getting only minimum wage, according to state data. The highest paid IHSS workers in the state are in San Francisco County, where they earn $18 an hour.
SEIU has announced several other new contracts with other counties over the last few months which are increasing pay rates across the state. Lake County’s new agreement will see local wages fall more into a medium statewide pay range for providers.
A large workforce
IHSS workers provide care to the elderly, those who are blind or have disabilities in their homes as an alternative to recipients having to live in more expensive and less comfortable care facilities.
The California Department of Social Services reported there are more than 520,000 IHSS providers currently serving more than 600,500 recipients across the state.
In Lake County alone, the state said there are 2,165 authorized IHSS recipients, with both the union and county officials reporting there are more than 1,800 providers.
SEIU Local 2015 Executive Vice President Arnulfo De La Cruz said IHSS providers are increasingly in need due to the growing senior population.
He said providers don’t just care for day-to-day needs, but they also are often first responders in emergencies.
The union, which represents 400,000 care workers across California, called the agreement a big win for Lake County’s IHSS workers, the majority of whom are women.
The National Direct Care Workforce Resource Center reports that 81% of direct care workers in California are female and 74% are people of color. Specific breakdowns for Lake County were not available from SEIU Local 2015.
Union officials said it’s the Board of Supervisors that’s responsible for setting wages and benefits for IHSS providers.
However, even though the board has that oversight, county officials told Lake County News that IHSS workers are not considered to be county employees but, rather, are employees of the IHSS program recipients themselves.
IHSS program recipients must be income eligible to the program in order to receive benefits by way of payment to their provider. IHSS recipients retain their exclusive right to hire, fire and supervise their providers. The Public Authority, however, conducts fingerprinting, the county reported.
The California Department of Social Services reported that for September, the most recent month for which data is available, Lake County’s 2,165 authorized IHSS recipients were receiving a total of 253,744 hours, an average of 117 hours per recipient.
The program is paid for by federal and state sources. County officials said the state pays 65% of the program’s total cost, and 35% is paid for by Lake County.
To pay its share of the costs, Lake County draws from sources that include 1991 Realignment funds, the same funding source for other Social Services programs such as Foster Care Assistance Payments, Child Welfare Services, the Adoption Assistance Program, CalWORKs, and administration costs for Foster Care, CalFRESH and CalWORKs.
At Tuesday’s board meeting it was reported that Lake County’s total annual portion for the IHSS program ranges between $6.5 million and $7 million.
Years without a contract
During the past year, a number of IHSS workers who are SEIU members appeared at Board of Supervisors meetings to ask for a wage increase. At one point they also rallied outside of the courthouse with signs.
“We’ve had an expired contract,” De La Cruz said.
De La Cruz said the contract expired eight years ago and IHSS providers had gone seven years without raises, other than minimum wage increases.
The closed-door negotiation process that began this year was the fourth time since 2017 that the county and union had attempted to reach a new contract, the county of Lake reported.
While the three earlier attempts had failed, this time there was progress, and the county and the union reached a tentative agreement on Sept. 17 after what the union said were “months of often emotional negotiations.”
“This contract took four years of bargaining with the county,” said Tatman. “It feels good that we were finally heard. We’ve been through a lot, and the pandemic just made it worse.”
De La Cruz said of the contract, “It’s a real economic generator for the largest workforce.”
He added, “There is a crisis of care in Lake County and we want them to put care first.”
Correction: A previous version of this story had reported, based on statements at the Board of Supervisors meeting on Nov. 2, that Lake County’s IHSS workers would get $14.65 an hour for the rest of the year. However, the union clarified that the increase of $15.65 goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2022, and there is no earlier stepped increase.
Email Elizabeth Larson at
MOU Lake County IHSS PublicAuthority SEIU2015 Through 12.31 by LakeCoNews on Scribd
- Details
- Written by: Elizabeth Larson
The arguments before Lake County Superior Court Judge J. David Markham began on Friday and were held over for continuation and conclusion on Wednesday afternoon.
In nearly two and a half additional hours of arguments, Markham heard the county and its representatives respond to the challenges lodged against the project — whose formal name is the Guenoc Valley Mixed Use Planned Development Project — filed by the Center for Biological Diversity and California Native Plant Society, with support from the California Attorney General’s Office.
Lotusland Investment Holdings Inc. plans to build the resort on a portion of the 16,000-acre Guenoc Ranch. The project will include 1,400 residential estate villas, 400 hotel units and 450 resort residential units at build out.
The petitioners have argued that the environmental impact report that the Board of Supervisors approved in July 2020 failed in its requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, to fully consider key issues, primary among them, wildland fire risk, impacts on species of concern, water, greenhouse gas emissions and roads.
The case record is enormous, in excess of 85,000 pages, Markham said Tuesday. “I haven’t reviewed every page of the record, probably won't be doing so.”
On Wednesday afternoon, Arthur Coon, an attorney who specializes in CEQA cases, offered responses on behalf of the county.
Coon said the purpose of CEQA is to make sure government decisions are balanced and made with environmental concerns in mind, but it’s not meant to be used as an instrument for delay of development.
He said an environmental impact report, or EIR, “is the heart of CEQA.” It’s the highest form of environmental review and the most extensive CEQA document that can be produced or required.
While the fair argument test puts all presumptions about a project on the side of the challenger, once an EIR is prepared, Coon said the resumption flips in favor of an agency and against the challengers. Therefore, the EIR is presumed adequate and it’s the challengers’ burden to prove otherwise.
Coon said the plaintiffs and the Attorney General’s Office disagree with the EIR’s conclusions. “That’s fine but it’s not up to them to design or dictate the contents of the EIR.”
He addressed an issue he said had been brought up repeatedly by the plaintiffs, a computer model for wildfire behavior that they said should have been used but wasn’t. Coon said CEQA doesn’t say such a test has to be done and the petitioners haven’t explained why it was necessary.
Instead, he pointed to a “robust” chapter in the document addressing wildfire impact, which he said lays out in detail the existing environmental setting and the environmental conditions in Guenoc Valley. He said that document carefully reviewed federal and state regulations relating to fire safety as well as the county’s wildfire protection plan and emergency operations plan. Coon said the plan also offers mitigations.
Coon said the Maha Guenoc Valley resort project isn’t like the typical projects that are discussed in the literature on wildfire risks on low density development in the wildland urban interface.
He said all of those projects in the literature pose dangers, while this project doesn’t. Coon added that Maha Guenoc Valley is a “unique and model project” for the prevention of fires in low density development in a low fire area.
Coon finished his arguments by asking the court to “keep common sense in mind” and pay attention to the findings.
‘Wildfire has not made us stupid’
In her arguments, County Counsel Anita Grant explained that the Board of Supervisors, in its decision to approve the EIR, had to balance environmental concerns with the county’s economic vitality.
She said the project is expected to have 300 year-round permanent jobs in its first phase and at its height 750 construction jobs.
Considering the limitations of Lake County’s population, Grant said the board determined the project also would bring economic vitality to areas outside of the county, and would spur indirect secondary economic development from economic growth, pointing to the need for housing, schools, and regional infrastructure for shopping and stores.
Grant said the Lake County economic plan talks about the need to develop more tourism and the project is consistent with the goals of the Middletown Area Plan.
She said Lotusland representatives first came to Lake County several years ago and almost immediately began making contact with county representatives, fire and water districts, local environmental and communities groups, and the Middletown tribe.
Grant said the case suggests the project was rushed through, but the comment period was probably the longest allowed by CEQA.
“Also there seems to be some indication that there was not enough public outreach,” said Grant, noting numerous public meetings and discussions by local groups, and thoughtful comments offered by community members.
She credited the developer with its approach to working with Lake County. “It is quite often that rural communities are treated as being naive or stupid, unaware of consequences,” said Grant. “Lotusland has treated the county of Lake with respect.”
Regarding the consideration of wildfire risk, “Everybody in California is concerned about wildfire. Wildfire has touched so many of us,” Grant said, noting that identifying and dealing with wildfire risk has been part of the process.
“Lake County residents know better than many exactly what devastation means when it comes to wildfire,” she said. “Nobody has to tell the county of Lake about wildfire.”
That’s why the county can strongly recommend the project, Grant said. “The wildfire mitigations here are tremendous,” she said, adding that it can serve as a model for how other projects can operate in rural areas.
“CEQA raises questions and the answers to those questions are obviously not the same for every project,” Grant said.
Grant said the county hasn’t been shy in telling Lotusland what is required and the company has met those requirements.
Cal Fire and South Lake County Fire, along with other community stakeholders, worked with Lotusland, which designed the resort “to drastically reduce not only the factors which could ignite wildfires but those that feed and propel it forward,” said Grant, noting that fire safety in the south county area will be enhanced.
“This is truly a model for rural communities,” and how to develop responsibly, Grant said, adding it stands as an example of how to design a project without exacerbating wildfire risks.
She said the Center for Biological Diversity doesn’t want any development at all in fire zones. “While that may be their judgment, CEQA does not preclude this development,” but rather it requires certain questions be answered and addressed, said Grant.
Grant suggested the petitioners were trying to legislate more draconian CEQA requirements than are actually required.
“Development can’t simply stop. Rural communities have to be allowed to grow and develop,” Grant said, noting that failing to develop here won't solve the problem of wildfire in Lake County or any area.
Grant said the county also wanted to take note of something that doesn’t get much attention — that the project has taken a giant step forward in consideration of cultural resources. She said Lotusland has worked collaboratively with the Middletown Rancheria.
The value of the project “doesn’t mean the county was blinded to the potential consequence of development.” Rather, Grant said work has been done to make sure it’s responsible development.
She also answered statements about an errata to the EIR that the petitioners suggested had shown that the county knew the document was flawed. Grant said it was an attempt to respond to late comments that had come in.
She noted the delicate task for balancing interests when approving a project, which is left to the discretion of local officials.
“Wildfire has not made us stupid. Wildfire has told us what we need to do,” Grant said, and the county is extremely responsive to those messages.
Not ‘outside nit-pickers’
Peter Broderick of the Center for Biological Diversity, who had made his initial arguments on Friday, offered responses on Wednesday, noting that the petitioners are not “outside nit-pickers’ as he said they were portrayed by Lotusland’s counsel last week. “We’re here on our members’ behalf.”
He said a theme emerged on Friday in the opposing counsels’ remarks that many issues raised now can be brought up later, such as roads, water and grazing.
However, Broderick said it will be too late to raise issues once the EIR is certified, as that is a “point of no return.” CEQA establishes strict requirements for EIR approval and once the document is certified, the developer enjoys safe harbor. At that point, he said it doesn’t matter if the EIR’s findings are dead wrong. “There is no recourse.”
That’s why it’s so important to get it right now, said Broderick. “It’ll be much more expensive to ignore them now and have the community and environment suffer the results later.”
Andrew Contreiras of the California Attorney General’s Office clarified that the petitioners were not requiring any specific method of wildfire risk analysis like a computer model, but that some analysis needed to be presented in the document.
All factors that increase wildfire risk are present in this particular project, said Contreiras, arguing that the analysis the EIR required was omitted.
He said wildfire is a critical issue for the state, with potentially disastrous effects not only on a local community but also the surrounding region, in addition to the smoke impact that causes air quality impacts throughout the state. That’s why the state has required specific types of analysis be done on new individual projects located in high wildfire severity zones and the State Responsibility Area.
Noting that the low density residential project would be built over a 25-square-mile area that’s bigger than the city of Clearlake, Contreiras said it requires a project-specific analysis for wildfire risk.
“The question in this case in our view is simple,” said Contreiras: Does the EIR disclose an analysis of wildfire risk adequate for the purpose of public engagement and policy decision making? And could the public and the Board of Supervisors read that discussion and come away with an understanding of this project’s impact on wildfire risk? Contreiras said the answer is no.
He also faulted the EIR for failing to properly analyze “option C,” which the document said “would result in lesser significant impacts than the Proposed Project with respect to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, and hydrology and water quality.”
Option C called for reducing the overall footprint of the project, increasing open space but keeping the total number or residential units at the same number, with the average lot size reduced from 4.8 acres to 0.8 acres.
Contreiras said the county didn’t find that alternative feasible based on the economics, but he said the EIR didn’t disclose the reasons for that decision as it should.
Broderick offered further comments, raising issue with there being no evidence offered of how the project would reduce wildfire risk, that Lotusland didn’t explain how it would use grazing to mitigate wildfire or offer information on wildfire evacuation exits.
He said the EIR found greenhouse gas emissions would be significant despite mitigations, but mitigations weren’t included until the errata included some feasible measures.
“There are some easy fixes here,” he said.
Broderick said there could be agreements to conditions such as using the water only for wildland fire use, or establishing annual limitations on use.
There's a process for dealing with speculative issues so the public understands up front what is going on. “The EIR didn’t do that here,” he said.
Brian Flynn of the California Native Plant Society also faulted the EIR for not analyzing the impacts on plant life, and for not offering more details about grazing.
He said the document also refused to assess impacts on special status plants.
Following the conclusion of the argument, Judge Markham adjourned the hearing shortly before 4:45 p.m.
An additional brief on wildfire evacuation impacts is due on Nov. 19 and Markham is expected to have a ruling within the coming month.
Email Elizabeth Larson at
- Details
- Written by: LAKE COUNTY NEWS REPORTS
At the Oct. 14 regular board meeting, the governing board received a presentation from Cooperative Strategies, YCCD’s demographers, highlighting changes in the YCCD population since the 2010 Census.
Cooperative Strategies also informed the governing board that due to population growth within YCCD’s boundaries since the 2010 Census, under state and federal voting rights laws, the governing board should redraw its trustee area boundaries to satisfy population variance standards between the most and least populated trustee areas.
At the Nov. 10 regular board meeting, the YCCD Governing Board will review and consider map options that ensure compliance with state and federal voting rights laws.
Any changes to the YCCD trustee areas need to be approved by the YCCD Governing Board by Feb. 28, 2022.
The Governing Board encourages public participation throughout this process.
The public can view the current trustee area maps and the draft maps outlining change options the Board will consider on Nov. 10 here.
Two public hearings are planned to receive public input on this process.
The hearings are scheduled for Nov. 10 and Dec. 16, at regular monthly board meetings.
For the first public hearing, the YCCD Governing Board will meet virtually on Nov. 10 at 5 p.m.
The agenda and zoom link can be accessed here after Sunday, Nov. 7.
- Details
- Written by: LAKE COUNTY NEWS REPORTS
“Vaccines are how we end this pandemic, and they’re how we keep our kids safe – it’s time to get our children the protection they need from this deadly virus, especially as we head into the winter season,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom. “California is leading the nation in vaccinations with 54 million administered and 87% of the eligible population with at least one dose, and we’re moving swiftly to implement a robust and equitable vaccination program that will cover this newly eligible age group.”
California will begin vaccinating children ages 5 to 11 immediately, with 500 organizations across the state receiving their first shipments through Monday.
The state was allocated 1.2 million pediatric doses from the federal government, with adequate supply to vaccinate all newly eligible Californians becoming available in the coming weeks.
The state has more than 4,000 locations ready to vaccinate children ages 5 to 11 as supply increases, and is leveraging existing infrastructure and partnerships used to administer vaccines to teens and young adults.
This includes working closely with medical providers, local health departments, schools, community partners and others to administer vaccines safely and equitably through mobile clinics and vaccine pop-ups in the hardest-hit communities across the state.
For example, California has brokered partnerships with after-school programs – including the Sierra Health Foundation and the Alliance for Boys & Girls — to set up 84 pop-up clinics statewide.
Already, there have been over 3,100 school-located clinics covering over two million students, with another 800 planned for November and December, covering 450,000 students.
The state has mobilized an unprecedented multi-pronged paid media campaign to get all Californians vaccinated, including children. In November alone, this campaign will make 800 million impressions across multiple platforms to emphasize the importance of getting vaccinated. The campaign will continue to focus on our hardest-hit communities with an in-language approach and an emphasis on equity.
To date, California has administered 54 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine, with 87% of the eligible population having received at least one dose.
California has taken nation-leading actions to protect the youngest Californians during the pandemic by implementing bold school safety and public health measures.
California was the first to require masks in K-12 settings, vaccine verification or weekly testing for school staff, and has added the COVID-19 vaccine to the list of required vaccinations for students.
State officials said these public health measures have resulted in California keeping more children out of the hospital and keeping more schools open than other states.
Parents are encouraged to call their child’s health care provider to schedule a COVID-19 vaccine appointment.
Parents can also visit http://MyTurn.ca.gov or call the hotline at 833-422-4255 beginning Thursday to find a nearby vaccination site.