Tag Archives: East Bay

At least 14 dead in COVID-19 outbreak at Concord nursing facility

The outbreak is among the largest in the East Bay

East Bay Times, By Annie Sciacca, UPDATED June 24, 2020
At least 15 people have died from COVID-19 infections at the San Miguel Villa nursing facility in Concord, according to data from the California Department of Public Health as of Tuesday, June 23, 2020. (Photo courtesy of Google Street View)

CONCORD — At least 14 people are dead after COVID-19 infected 75 people at an East Bay skilled nursing facility, according to data published by the state.

The state Department of Public Health’s latest report shows that 14 patients at San Miguel Villa, a post-acute nursing facility in Concord, have died after contracting the virus, which infected 62 residents and 13 workers at the facility.

A call to the facility was not immediately returned, so it’s unclear when the deaths occurred. Data reported to the state by the nursing home within the past 24 hours reveal that there are still 45 patients there infected with COVID-19

The state list on Tuesday showed that at least one healthcare worker at the facility had also died of COVID-19, but a spokesman for the facility, Dan Kramer, said Wednesday that it had been incorrectly reported, and that no workers had died.

The latest outbreak is yet another example of how the disease has ravaged the Bay Area’s most vulnerable population of elders living in congregate settings such as skilled nursing facilities or assisted living centers.

Of the 94% of the state’s 1,223 skilled nursing facilties that reported COVID-19 cases this week, there are currently 2,300 patients and 49 health care workers with confirmed COVID-19 infections, according to the state data. Cumulatively, there have been at least 12,282 confirmed cases across California and 7,655 cases among workers at skilled nursing facilities. And 2,299 patients and 89 health care workers have died from causes related to the deadly virus.

In non-medical residential care facilities — known commonly as assisted living facilities — there have been at least 2,969 confirmed COVID-19 cases among patients and staff, who often provide assistance in feeding, bathing, taking medication and other activities. At least 398 people in those facilities have died from COVID-19.

In Contra Costa County, health services director Anna Roth told the Board of Supervisors during its Tuesday meeting that of the 18 COVID-19 deaths that occurred the past week, 16 were from long-term care facilities, such as nursing homes. She did not identify the facilities.

Dr. Sara Levin, a deputy health officer for the county, told the supervisors a county task force had been set up to visit care facilities and help them proactively beef up infection control protocols and provide support in acquiring masks, gloves and other protective equipment, as well as ensuring they had enough staff if workers had fallen ill. The county at the end of May issued a health order to conduct mass testing as a baseline for all long-term care facilities, and then to continue testing staff monthly.

“Where we’ve seen a lot of the spread is when staff in these low-wage jobs are having to work in multiple facilities to ensure their financial stability, without benefits that don’t necessarily allow them to have sick leave,” Levin said. When federal, state and county mandates prevented most visitors, she said, “many residents were staying in facilities, so it was staff members going out to the community … and bringing it in.”

Concord’s San Miguel Villa is a 190-bed nursing facility on San Miguel Road owned and operated by Mark Callaway, Gary Jarvis and Velda Pierce. Pierce and Callaway also own other Contra Costa nursing facilities: Alhambra Convalescent Hospital, Lone Tree Convalescent and Antioch Convalescent Hospital, according to state records.

Since 2017, the facility has had a total of 106 complaints or reported incidents, and state inspectors found a total of 36 “deficiencies.” Some of those deficiencies included problems with infection control.

In an inspection in April 2019, for instance, state inspectors found multiple licensed vocational nurse staff members had not followed proper handwashing protocols.

Last year, the family of an elderly man who died at San Miguel Villa sued the facility, saying its lack of staffing and training led to the man’s suffering. The facility used drugs to sedate him, the lawsuit alleged.

Staffing shortages and lack of adherence to infection control practices have contributed to the outbreaks in nursing homes, experts have said.

“We are really concerned about the lack of oversight in skilled nursing facilities like San Miguel Villa,” said Nicole Howell, executive director of Ombudsman Services of Contra Costa, Solano and Alameda counties. “This underscores the need to improve regulation and oversight — particularly one that specializes in dementia and memory loss.”

The outbreak and death toll at San Miguel Villa is among the largest in East Bay skilled nursing facilities.

East Bay Post-Acute in Castro Valley has had a total of 16 COVID-19-related patient deaths, and 18 patients at Gateway Care and Rehabilitation Center in Hayward have died of the virus.

In San Mateo County, Millbrae Skilled Care has had 14 COVID-related deaths, and more than 100 cumulative infections among patients and 31 cases among health care workers there. But the state data shows there are no infections reported in the last 24 hours at that facility.

In Santa Clara County, 12 patients of Canyon Springs Post-Acute nursing facility in San Jose have died of COVID-19, and at one point 106 patients and staff were infected with the virus. There were no current cases within the last 24 hours, according to the state data.

Update: An earlier version of this story reported at least 15 people had died of COVID-19 at San Miguel Villa. A spokesperson confirmed the state data incorrectly reported that a healthcareworker had died.

Light rail doing fine; not so for bigger trains

Repost from the Redding Record Searchlight
[Editor:  Mr. Elias mentions the Phillips 66 San Luis Obispo oil train proposal but fails to takes note of the Valero Crude By Rail proposal in Benicia.  His argument is magnified by the potential addition of two 50-car oil trains traversing the rails every day in Northern California on their way to and from Benicia.  – RS]

Light rail doing fine but high speed train plan may derail

By Opinion Columnist Thomas Elias, March 21, 6:00 pm

A little more than one month from now, the Metro Expo Line’s final portion will open for business, making it possible to take trains from the far eastern portions of Los Angeles County to the often-crowded beach in Santa Monica. This will come barely two months after a new section of Metro’s Gold Line opened, allowing a simple, cheap 31-mile jaunt from downtown Los Angeles to Azusa.

Meanwhile, in Sonoma and Marin counties, test trains are running on another light rail line, between Santa Rosa and San Rafael, with high hopes of relieving some of the heavy traffic on parallel route U.S. 101.

Barely any protests have afflicted any of these projects, which together will have cost many billions of dollars.

Meanwhile, protests are vocal and persistent wherever the state’s High Speed Rail Authority plans to build bullet train tracks, bridges or stations, even where it plans to share rights-of-way with other trains, as on its planned course on the San Francisco Peninsula.

There’s also massive resistance to a plan for running up to five freight trains weekly through the East Bay area and Monterey County to a Phillips 66 oil refinery in Santa Maria, which supplies much of the Central Coast.

These trains would bring crude oil to the refinery, something Houston-based ConocoPhillips insists is needed because of declines in production of California crude oil. Oil trains would run from the Carquinez Strait near Benicia through much of the East Bay, raising fears of derailments and hazardous waste problems in populous areas. So far this year, there have been at least three derailments of oil trains in other parts of the nation, with hundreds of temporary evacuations resulting. Another train derailed only last month in the East Bay.

Loud as those protests are, they lack the potency of the opposition to the plans of the High Speed Rail Authority, headed by former Pacific Gas & Electric executive Dan Richard, who also spent years as an aide to Gov. Jerry Brown.

The most prominent current anti-HSR push is a proposed November ballot initiative sponsored by Republican state Sen. Bob Huff of San Dimas and state Board of Equalization member George Runner, which seeks to switch almost $10 billion in remaining, unsold, bonds from the bullet train to water projects, including new reservoirs and desalination plants.

That initiative, which appears likely to make the ballot, is in large part the result of the High Speed Rail Authority’s insistence on a route that makes no sense — meandering north from Los Angeles through the Antelope Valley, then west through the Mojave Desert to Bakersfield before turning north again for a run past and through farms and towns in the Central Valley. When it’s done with all that, the bullet train’s projected path would turn west again over the Pacheco Pass to Gilroy and then veer north to San Jose before heading up the Peninsula along existing CalTrain routes to San Francisco.

It’s a convoluted route that — if built out — will add at least half an hour of travel time to a much simpler route that was available: Heading almost straight north from the Bakersfield area along the existing Interstate 5 right-of-way, where plenty of median land is available for most of the run. Rather than cutting over the Pacheco Pass, it would be far simpler to continue a little farther north to the windswept Altamont Pass, where a turn west could quickly lead to a link with the Bay Area Rapid Transit System and special BART express trains to San Francisco.

That route would cost untold billions of dollars less and be far more direct and faster. But the illogical High Speed Rail Authority opted for the least sensible, most costly route, inviting the lawsuits and public outcries that have now set its timetable back by at least three years. The Huff-Runner measure might just make it extinct.

The difference between the fates of the light rail projects and this ultra-heavy rail couldn’t be clearer: Because the light rail systems heeded where potential passengers want to go and chose direct, non-controversial routes, they are being completed on time, or close.

Meanwhile, the bullet train and the old train plans might just pay the price for making little or no sense and/or wasting money: Extinction.

 

BENICIA HERALD LETTER: Allowing crude by rail is asking for trouble, Kathy Kerridge

Repost from the Benicia Herald
[Editor:  No link is provided for this letter because the Benicia Herald does not publish letters in its online edition.  A version of this letter also appeared in the Contra Costa Times.  – RS]

Allowing crude by rail is asking for trouble

By Kathy Kerridge, August 16, 2015, Benicia Herald

It’s time for Benicia and California to say no to bringing in crude oil by rail (CBR). This is the highly explosive and flammable Bakken crude from North Dakota, which exploded in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, killing 47.  This is what Valero wants to bring into Benicia and other refineries want to bring into the Bay Area.  There have been 30 major crude by rail accidents since 2012, including the latest on July 17 in Montana that spilled 35,000 gallons from a train that was going the legal speed limit.

The refineries also want to bring in tar sands crude from Alberta, Canada.  A spill of tar sands crude in water cannot be cleaned up.  The substances that dilute the tar sands (like benzene) so it can be transported evaporate and the tar sands sink to the bottom of the water.  $1 billion, yes that’s right billion, has been spent on the Kalamazoo River spill of tar sands and the river is still not clean.  Do we want a spill on the Benicia Rail Bridge into the Carquinez Strait or one in the Suisun Marsh?  How about the Feather River Canyon where a train carrying corn recently derailed sending its cargo into the river?

Say no to CRB going over high hazard areas.  Every rail line into the state goes through one.  Say no to CBR by earthquake faults.   Say no to trains carrying crude in cars designed to carry corn syrup.  Say no to the new cars which have also split and spilled in recent derailments.  Say no to bomb trains going through densely populated areas like Sacramento, Davis, and the East Bay.  Just say no to putting people, our water sources and our environment at risk

San Jose council member urges rejection of Central California refinery’s crude-by-rail project

Repost from The San Jose Mercury News

San Jose council member urges rejection of Central California refinery’s crude-by-rail project

By Tom Lochner, Oakland Tribune, 11/26/2014

BERKELEY — As the deadline arrived for comments to an environmental report on a Central California crude-by-rail project, a San Jose City councilman got the early jump, announcing his opposition in a news release Monday afternoon.

The Phillips 66 Company Rail Spur Extension Project would bring as many as 250 unit trains a year with 80 tank cars plus locomotives and supporting cars to a new crude oil unloading facility in Santa Maria from the north or from the south along tracks owned by the Union Pacific Railroad.

Likely itineraries for the crude oil supplies coming from out-of-state include the Union Pacific Railroad tracks along the eastern shore of San Pablo and San Francisco bays that also carry Amtrak’s Capitol Corridor and Coast Starlight trains.

“This will allow mile-long oil trains carrying millions of gallons of explosive, toxic crude oil in unsafe tank cars to travel through California every day,” reads a news release from San Jose City Councilman Ash Kalra. “These trains will travel through the Bay Area passing neighborhoods in San Jose, including Kalra’s District 2 in south San Jose. This proposed plan threatens the residents and families along the rail routes and also threatens the environment and local water supplies.”

Kalra continues by urging San Luis Obispo County to reject the project, saying, “The safety of our community members, our health, and our environment, should not be taken lightly.”

In March, the Berkeley and Richmond city councils voted unanimously to oppose the transport of crude oil by rail through the East Bay.

As of early Tuesday, Berkeley had not communicated to this newspaper its comments to the environmental report. San Luis Obispo County as of early Tuesday had not published what is expected to be a voluminous body of comments from public agencies, advocacy groups and individuals.

On Tuesday, Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates said, “Having 60-car trains going through our town, as many as two a day, is an area of concern for anyone in the Bay Area because of the vulnerability of the rail cars and the problems that would ensue if one of them would explode.”

The Phillips 66 Santa Maria refinery currently receives its crude oil supply via underground pipeline from locations throughout California, but with the decline in crude oil production in the state, it is looking to alternative supplies that would be delivered most practically by rail, according to the refinery website.

“The refinery currently uses trains to transport products, and refinery personnel have decades of experience in safely handling railcars,” the Santa Maria Refinery Rail Project page reads in part. “The proposed change will help the refinery, and the approximately 200 permanent jobs it provides, remain viable under increasingly challenging business conditions.

“Everything at Phillips 66 is done with safety as the highest priority.”