Details

Written by: Elizabeth Larson

Published: 26 May 2020

CLEARLAKE, Calif. – During a special meeting last week, the Clearlake Planning Commission discussed the proposed sale of the former Austin Resort property to a developer.

In March, the Clearlake City Council gave City Manager Alan Flora approval to sign a letter of intent with Bailey Building and Loans LLC, which wants to build a resort on the property, as Lake County News has reported.

The former resort property includes two parcels totaling 7.68 acres located at 14061 and 14071 Lakeshore Drive, across from Clearlake City Hall.

City staff took the matter to the commission in order for it to consider whether or not the sale is consistent with the city’s general plan. Staff reported they have found it to be compliant.

Flora told the commission that one of the parcels was purchased by the city’s former redevelopment agency, the other is owned by the city.

There were some plans to develop a waterfront trail along part of it, however, when the city got interest from the developer for this larger project, Flora said staff decided to recommend selling both properties.

He said the intention is to maintain access by the public to the lakeshore.

Flora’s written and verbal reports to the commission noted that the project will be a “large resort-type development,” including a hotel, restaurant, retail and a large marina, and may possibly boat ramps.

“This is a great potential project,” he said.

Flora said the commission’s finding of general plan compliance was the first step in moving the sale forward.

It must also be approved by the city council and the redevelopment oversight committee. Flora said that if those approvals go through, the city would begin working more actively with the developer in establishing its plan.

He said the project also would have to come back before the commission for approval of the use permit.

Flora said the developer is looking at three years before the project is fully developed. The marina portion of the work will require US Army Corps of Engineers permits, which generally take a significant period of time.

Commissioner Lisa Wilson asked Flora about the wording in the letter of intent regarding possible consideration of a lease or license agreement for an adjoining city property.

Flora explained that it refers to Austin Beach. He said the developer wants the project to be a destination and had asked the city if it would be interested in selling Austin Beach.

He said they told the developer that’s probably not going to happen but that the city would consider a lease or licensing agreement. The developer has an interest in making physical site improvements to the beach so it seems like part of the whole resort property, even though it would remain under the city’s ownership.

Wilson said the intention to maintain waterfront access for the public in perpetuity “super.”

Commissioner Robert Coker asked about a roundabout mentioned in the plans and what that would entail.

“We don’t know at this point,” said Flora, explaining that the city initially had started planning for a roundabout at Lakeshore and Olympic Drive. “We kind of put that hold over the last year.”

Flora said they instead tried to focus on finding funding for curb, gutter and sidewalks along Lakeshore Drive.

The developer likes the idea of a possible roundabout there as it would create a focal point entrance into the resort property. Flora said it hasn’t been determined on what that may look like but the developer asked for language in the purchase agreement to speak to that.

Flora said there is some funding that the city could acquire to fund part of the project and that the developer would be expected to participate in the project cost as well.

Chair Richard Bean asked if it’s negotiable that the project should contribute to the roundabout. Flora said yes, that it could be included in the developer impact fee.

Bean also aksed about a requested provision by the developer for the police department to provide additional scrutiny or oversight. “Why was the police department mentioned in that letter of intent?”

Flora said it speaks to the fact that Clearlake’s history of crime still “is out there,” and the developer wants to make sure they have a safe environment and that the city is committed to the project.

Wilson moved to adopt the resolution, which was adopted 4-0. Commissioner Erin McCarrick recused herself from the vote.

Flora told the commission that there likely are going to have several more general plan conformity reports coming up as the city tries to push properties that have been sitting for decades and getting some investment going.

He said he appreciated the commission being flexible and holding the special meeting, as does the developer, as timelines for such projects take a while.

In addition to the special meeting, the city council will have its own upcoming special meeting on the project and the oversight committee has been asked to meet to consider the sale proposal on June 8, Flora said.

Those special meetings will carve off about a month’s worth of time in the effort to move the project forward, he said.

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.

Details

Written by: Lake County News reports

Published: 26 May 2020

The California Department of Public Health announced Monday the statewide reopening of places of worship for religious services and in-store retail shopping.

Modifications are required to keep Californians safe and limit the spread of COVID-19.

Subject to approval by county public health departments, all retail stores can reopen for in-store shopping under previously issued guidelines.

Under the new guidance, places of worship can hold religious services and funerals that limit attendance to 25 percent of a building’s capacity – or up to 100 attendees, whichever is lower – upon approval by the county department of public health.

While the vast majority of large gatherings remain prohibited under the state’s stay-at-home order, the Department of Public Health has released guidelines for in-person protests and events designed for political expression. The guidance limits attendance to 25 percent of an area’s maximum occupancy – or up to 100 attendees.

“Together, our actions have helped bend the curve and reduce infections in our state. As sectors continue to open with changes that aim to lower risk, remember that COVID-19 is still present in our communities,” said Dr. Sonia Angell, State Public Health officer and director of the California Department of Public Health. “As more of us may be leaving our homes, keeping physical distance, wearing face coverings in public, and washing your hands frequently are more important than ever to help protect yourself and those around you.”

The new guidance for religious services and cultural ceremonies encourages organizations to continue online services and activities, including to protect individuals who are most at risk for more severe COVID-19, including older adults and people with specific medical conditions.

To reopen for religious services and funerals, places of worship must:

– Establish and implement a COVID-19 prevention plan for every location, train staff on the plan, and regularly evaluate workplaces for compliance.
– Train employees and volunteers on COVID-19, including how to prevent it from spreading and which underlying health conditions may make individuals more susceptible to contracting the virus.
– Implement cleaning and disinfecting protocols.
– Set physical distancing guidelines.
– Recommend that staff and guests wear cloth face coverings, and screen staff for temperature and symptoms at the beginning of their shifts.
– Set parameters around or consider eliminating singing and group recitations. These activities dramatically increase the risk of COVID-19 transmission. For this reason, congregants engaging in singing, particularly in the choir, and group recitation should wear face coverings at all times and when possible, these activities should be conducted outside with greater than 6-foot distancing.

The existing guidance for retailers, previously allowed for counties approved to advance in the reopening process, now applies statewide. Retail can now open for in-store shopping statewide.

The guidelines help reduce the risk for workers and customers. Retail does not include personal services such as hair salons, nail salons and barbershops.

In 21 days, the Department of Public Health, in consultation with local departments of public health, will review and assess the impact of the religious services guidelines and provide further direction as part of a phased-in restoration of activities.

This 21-day interval accounts for seven days for religious communities to prepare and reopen in addition to a 14-day incubation period of COVID-19.

Details

Written by: Elizabeth C. Tippett, University of Oregon

Published: 26 May 2020

 

With states reopening – or planning to reopen – in the coming weeks and months, you may be worried about what returning to work will mean for you and your family, particularly if it means increased exposure to COVID-19.

As a professor specializing in employment law, I don’t have a lot of reassurance to offer. Employment law is a patchwork at the best of times – let alone during a global pandemic – and legal protections may not cover your situation. Like so many of the challenges people are facing right now, you may be mostly on your own, negotiating the least bad of many bad options.

Here is a basic overview of what your options are under some common scenarios.

I’ve been called back to the office, but I don’t like the idea of being in an enclosed space for nine hours a day.

If you have a medical condition that makes you especially vulnerable to the coronavirus, you may be entitled to a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. That means your employer needs to engage in a dialogue with you to figure out if there is a way to limit your exposure – such as remote work, a temporary reassignment or a modified shift.

Otherwise, your options are more limited.

Unionized workers can ask their union for assistance. If the office opening is in violation of a state stay-at-home order, you might be able to file a complaint with a state workplace health and safety agency. Or you could try negotiating some sort of temporary or intermittent remote work arrangement with your employer.

Everyone else has little choice but to head back to the office. To make matters worse, the Department of Labor has issued guidance suggesting that if you refuse to return to work due to general coronavirus-related apprehension – as opposed to a specific safety hazard – you may not be eligible for extended unemployment insurance.

I believe I’m being asked to work in unsafe conditions.

Under federal workplace safety law, the first thing you are expected to do is talk to your employer about the unsafe condition. Be specific about the condition that concerns you and the fact that you are worried about your safety.

If you are unionized, conveying your concern to the union will enable it to address the problem on behalf of everyone. Even if you’re not unionized, banding together with other employees to advocate for safer working conditions is protected under the National Labor Relations Act.

If your employer does not address your safety concerns, you can complain to the state workplace safety agency or the local branch of the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The agency should send an inspector to examine the situation.

In the meantime, you should refuse to work only if you have no “reasonable alternative” and the unsafe condition would pose a “real danger of death or serious injury.”

I have to go to work but have children at home and no child care options.

If you work for a company with fewer than 500 employees, you may be eligible for up to 12 weeks of paid leave under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. But if you’ve been using this leave throughout the pandemic, you may be in a dicey situation in the summer as child care centers remain shuttered and summer camps are canceled.

Beyond those 12 weeks of leave, companies are not required to make accommodations for employee child care issues. If the leave runs out – or you work for a large company not covered by the leave law – you may be eligible for expanded unemployment insurance under the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act.

I live with a family member who is in a vulnerable population, and I don’t want to expose the person to the virus.

If you need to care for the family member – and work for a company with fewer than 500 employees – you may be eligible for leave under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. Your employer might request documentation that a health care provider advised the family member to self-quarantine.

Otherwise, you may be out of luck – and may not even get unemployment insurance if you refuse to work. That may mean doing your best to limit your exposure at work and transmission at home.

I think I just got sick from exposure to the coronavirus at work.

You should be eligible for two weeks of paid sick leave under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act if you work for a company with fewer than 500 employees. If you are still sick after that, you may be eligible for Family and Medical Leave. You’ll also want to check your company’s sick leave policy. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration advises companies to adopt flexible sick leave policies that actively encourage sick workers to stay home.

You might be eligible to file for workers’ compensation, which covers medical costs and provides some wage replacement for workers who are injured because of work. State law varies a lot when it comes to workers’ compensation, including whether infectious diseases like COVID-19 count as a workplace injury. Your claim will also depend on whether you can show that you contracted the coronavirus at work – as opposed to exposure from other places. Some states are issuing presumptions that certain kinds of frontline workers – like health care workers and first responders – contracted the virus at work.

I was injured by a customer who got violent after being asked to wear a mask.

Some retail workers are reporting being violently assaulted by customers when enforcing new social distancing rules, such as wearing a mask. It’s not clear how common this is, but even prior to the pandemic, workplace violence was a major cause of workplace injury, affecting an average of 1.7 million workers per year.

Injuries as a result of violent customers would generally be covered by workers’ compensation.

Of course, it’s better to avoid being injured in the first place, so frontline workers should consider asking management about the plan for responding if a customer’s behavior starts to escalate.

[The Conversation’s newsletter explains what’s going on with the coronavirus pandemic. Subscribe now.]

Elizabeth C. Tippett, Associate Professor, School of Law, University of Oregon

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.