Featured - page 11

SamTrans is set to increase service and resume fare collection and front-door boarding starting Sunday, Aug. 16.

Protective barriers will allow customers to pay their fare while avoiding contact with bus operators, according to the transit agency. SamTrans said it will have extra vehicles available to ensure social distancing can occur onboard.

The transit agency has been operating at a reduced service schedule with suspended fare collection due to the COVID-19 pandemic shelter-in-place orders.

“The new schedule restores more frequent service on 14 routes, including ECR, 120, 130 and 292, to accommodate increased ridership and allow for physical distancing onboard,” according to SamTrans. “The service plan also makes adjustments to routes primarily serving schools in response to their plans for distance learning. SamTrans will continue coordinating with schools to determine potential future restoration of school-day only service for high-need populations when students resume in-person learning.”

Updated timetables are available online, and the transit agency anticipates further service changes as it monitors the COVID-19 situation.

“The drive behind this new schedule is to help support the Bay Area’s economic recovery,” said SamTrans General Manager Jim Hartnett. “In addition to expanding access to essential jobs and services for those who need it most, the service plan allows us to prepare for and respond to further shifts in ridership.”

On Monday, a simultaneous review of nine housing and commercial projects in the downtown Redwood City area is set to begin, in a process that’s been used elsewhere but will be a first for the city.

Over the next few months, the City Council of Redwood City will hold three meetings, including two study sessions, to review the nine proposals for housing, commercial and mixed-use projects.

Monday’s first public hearing will include developer presentations for four housing projects (summaries of each are listed at the bottom of this story).  The remaining five proposals, predominantly commercial or mixed-use projects, are scheduled to be presented at City Council on Sept. 21.

The council will not take action on any of the projects until a third meeting, likely to be held in October. Any project enabled to move forward would require additional public vetting and environmental review, according to the city.

The simultaneous review is part of a newly introduced Gatekeeper process to the city. It’s connected to a broader city strategy to re-envision the downtown area as a transit-oriented center with a focus on housing, especially affordable housing, transportation and safe and healthy environments for children and youth, according to the city.

What all nine Gatekeeper projects have in common is they would all require amendments to the city’s General Plan and/or the Downtown Precise Plan, both of which were adopted roughly 10 years ago. Since their adoption, a booming regional economy skyrocketed the demand for housing and transportation solutions, but downtown growth is limited under the current plans.

In November last year, Council directed city staff to develop a plan for a long-range community visioning process for Central Redwood City. It also launched the Gatekeeper process to determine whether to proceed with any current projects requesting General Plan amendments. The aim of the process is to prevent delay to projects that could benefit the city and that meet the city’s vision for the future, as determined in a strategic plan adopted by council in January. Housing, transportation and children and youth are priorities in the strategic plan. Gatekeeper projects can proceed in advance or concurrently with the visioning process, the city said.

The Gatekeeper process isn’t just an opportunity for the community to begin to weigh in on nine individual projects, but also to provide feedback on the Gatekeeper process itself, according to Mark Muenzer, the city’s community development and transportation director.

“We acknowledge that this is the first opportunity for the public and the community to begin to weigh in on the projects themselves,” said Muenzer, adding there will be “many more” opportunities for the public to provide comment and input on each proposal that moves forward.

Gatekeeper housing projects to be presented Monday, Aug. 10:

• An eight-story, 430-unit project at 1205-1295 Veterans and 1260 Oddstad that would feature 70 below-market-rate units, a child care facility and 3,000-5,000 square feet of retail space, among other amenities.
• An eight-story, 301-unit project at 651 El Camino Real that includes replacement of the aging American Legion Post 105  headquarters with a new structure. Project includes 68 below-market rate units for veterans.
• A 60-townhome project at 505 East Bayshore Road with nine below-market-rate units and a new public bayshore trail and boardwalk.
• Two workforce housing units proposed to be constructed above existing commercial uses in a 4,000 square foot space at 797 Arguello.

*The City Council meeting will be conducted via Zoom Monday, Aug. 10, at 7 p.m. Visit redwoodcity.zoom.us, select “Join” and enter Meeting ID 9844 4726 728. Access Monday’s council agenda by clicking here.

Map of Gatekeeper Projects:

(Note, project at 1322 El Camino Real was formally withdrawn from the Gatekeeper process)

San Mateo County Health Officer Dr. Scott Morrow on Thursday criticized the state’s move last weekend to close certain indoor businesses in the county, saying there’s no evidence to suggest the spread of COVID-19 is higher in those businesses than in others that are allowed to operate.

Dr. Morrow’s statement Thursday drew news headlines for its dissent against the state’s coronavirus watch list, which aims to monitor and curb trends of rising COVID-19 cases. Currently, all Bay Area counties are on the watch list.

“The brand new, arbitrary and constantly changing framework that the State has set up to put counties on the watch list and to determine closures (beyond the State “floor”) is fundamentally flawed in several ways,” Dr. Morrow said.

What’s causing the spread is “not primarily from barber shops, nail salons, or the other businesses that were targeted in this most recent closure,” Dr. Morrow said in the statement.

“While it’s certainly a theoretical possibility that some transmission can occur in the businesses/operations that were just closed by the State, there is no evidence that I have, and no evidence the State has provided to me, that leads me to believe the spread is higher in these businesses than those businesses/operations that are allowed to operate,” he said.

The majority of infections the County is seeing involve front line workers and those who live in crowded multigenerational conditions, Dr. Morrow said in an earlier statement on July 20. Many infections are related to “fairly small gatherings of family and friends,” he added.

“Try getting compliance with isolation and quarantine when the infected person is the breadwinner for the family and the family will be out on the street if they don’t go to work,” he said. “And when they go to work they will, perhaps, interact at that job with you.  There is not enough enforcement capacity in the world to stop this from happening.  The implication of this is that the current business focused restrictions will do little to stem the spread of the virus when the spread is exacerbated by these conditions.”

Dr. Morrow also said the “very restrictive measures put into place in the Spring” didn’t do a lot to drive down the rate of the infection’s spread in San Mateo County. The rate has been “slowly dropping for at least 4 weeks,” he added. Hospitalizations in the county are on a downward trend and deaths are low, Dr. Morrow added.

“If you have read my previous statements, you know I put great import on balance,” he said.  “We have to minimize spread while not destroying everything else in the process. I watch the news and I certainly get alarmed by some of what’s going on in the country, and even in our state.  But I have to make the best decisions and recommendations based on our data which reflects the situation in our community.  Our numbers indicate we are in a relatively stable state in regards to the spread of the virus.  For those who want to drive the spread to zero, this is simply not possible.”

While Dr. Morrow lauded Gov. Newom’s “many great, broad and appropriate actions” over the last few months, he’s come out against the state’s current watch-list policy, citing inconsistency in data and state benchmarks that may not work on a local level.

“The underlying framework has no room to take the context of what’s actually going on in a locality into account,” he said.  “A rational and logical look at the true meaning of the data (which we should do with all data) has no role in the process.”

Dr. Morrow added, “I feel the State has made the wrong ‘diagnosis’ and therefore is prescribing the wrong ‘treatment’ for San Mateo County.

“Probably the biggest problem I see is in the application of public health law.  While it is true the State Health Officer and the Local Health Officer have partially overlapping statutory authorities, it is generally understood, and there is very long precedence, that the State Health Officer doesn’t take action against the Local Health Officer unless there is an ask to do so, the Local Health Officer can’t take action because of extenuating circumstances, or the Local Health Officer is negligent.  I didn’t ask for these actions to be taken, I’m certainly capable of taking these actions if warranted, and I do not believe I’m being negligent. ”

Either way, San Mateo County residents must cease gatherings outside of immediate households, use facial coverings extensively, and practice social distancing to prevent the spread of COVID-19, he said.

San Mateo County Superior Court released a statement Wednesday warning the public to expect significant delays in its operations, as state budget reductions have caused layoffs and mandatory furloughs that will force the Court to cut public hours by 50 percent.

“The pandemic and the social distancing requirements needed to minimize the spread of COVID-19 had already caused the Court to substantially limit jury trials, curtail court hearings, and limit its operations to reduce the number of people in its court facilities,” the Court said in a statement Wednesday. “However, as a result of these budget reductions, the Court must continue limiting services indefinitely.”

The state’s recently-adopted budget includes over $54 billion in reductions, primarily due to the impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic, and that has resulted in $4.5 million in reductions to the Court. Next year, 2021-22, could be worse, Superior Court Executive Officer Neal Taniguchi said in the statement.

In response, the Court is laying off 20 positions, imposing mandatory furloughs of 5 percent, or roughly one day per month, for professional, management, and unrepresented employees; imposing a hiring freeze; reducing its non-personnel budget by 10 percent, or over $800,000; and spending down all of its modest reserves. The Court also plans to suspend Family Court Service appointments at its South San Francisco Courthouse, as well as close the Clerk’s Office and the Self-Help Center.

Court office services will be by appointment only. Online chat and telephone services will be limited to the hours of 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., according to the Court.

The public can expect significant delays in obtaining judgements, electronic file processing, fulfilling records requests and obtaining appointments to file documents in cases.

“The pandemic emergency left us with little time to plan and absorb the enormous revenue losses occurring statewide,” Taniguchi said. “We had no choice but to cut our budget, impose furloughs and issue these layoff notices.”

Taniguchi said it’s possible the state could receive federal bailout funds in the fall, “but the state imposed our budget reductions effective July 1, which left us with no choice but to act as quickly as possible.”

“If the economy does not improve markedly, we could be facing additional layoffs and continued furloughs, resulting in further court closures, and curtailment of services, “he said.

For further information, contact the Court at (650) 261-5016.

Refuse to wear a mask when one is required? You could be fined.

The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors today adopted an urgency ordinance to impose fines on individuals and businesses who violate the COVID-19 public health orders.

Individuals can receive a $100 fine for the first violation, $200 for the second and $500 for additional violations with the same year.

Commercial entities risk a minimum fine of $250 and a maximum of $3,000 per violation “depending on the gravity of the health risk, prior warnings and any good faith efforts to comply,” according to the county.

The administrative fines could be issued by members of the county sheriff’s office, local police departments, county health and parks officials and health and code enforcement officers, and others as designated by the county board.

To cite an individual for a violation, an enforcement officer must witness the infraction, but violations by a commercial business can be determined via a credible report, the ordinance states.

While violations of COVID-19 health orders are already punishable as a misdemeanor offense, county leaders say administrative citations are less punitive and costly than enforcing criminal offenses.

An uptick in COVID-19 cases prompted the fines. Supervisors David Canepa and Warren Slocum jointly introduced the ordinance and said they prefer education as a first step, but felt more needs to be done to ensure compliance.

“This ordinance decriminalizes violations of the health order essentially but at the same time gives us an added tool to enforce compliance of the state’s face covering and social distancing mandates,” Canepa said in a county statement. “If we want to return to normal and save lives then we must wear face masks, it’s that simple. But since many continue to thumb their noses at or do not understand these mandates, we must step up our outreach and enforcement efforts and let people know if you violate the law there will be consequences.”

Contra Costa, Marin, Mendocino, Napa and Yolo counties have all adopted an administrative penalty structure for public health violation fines related to COVID-19.

“Just this weekend, San Mateo County had to close additional businesses due to being on the state’s COVID-19 Monitoring List more than three days,” Slocum said in a statement. “Our case counts continue to rise, our Latino and low-income communities are bearing the brunt and a vaccine is still not in reach. We can’t know when this virus will be defeated but what we do know is a key step to stemming its spread — wearing a face covering.”

For more information about San Mateo County’s response to the pandemic, go to www.smcgov.org.