The state has rejected a request to facilitate closing rules that would have allowed for larger meetings and more business reopens in Santa Clara County, a county official said.
The request for a change was made on July 2 and would have allowed all companies to reopen, except those considered high risk that require removing a mask, such as smoking rooms and interior bars, as well as mass gatherings such as theaters and music. Venues Had the variance been approved, the county would have issued one-time orders designed to reopen nail salons, gyms, construction, and more. That order will no longer take effect.
The denial was confusing to Jeff Smith, CEO of Santa Clara County, as California has given more leeway for other counties to reopen.
“They have given variations to virtually every county that applies and denies ours,” Smith said. “Has no sense.”
The news comes as California Alcoholic Beverage Control agents question whether the Santa Clara County order allowing outdoor dining, effective June 5, has opposed state orders. On Friday night, armed ABC agents visited several restaurants in Morgan Hill and Gilroy, informing them that they should shut down the outdoor service on Saturday or risk a date.
That news was greeted with frustration and confusion by business owners, as well as by the mayor, city manager, and police chief at Morgan Hill, who said they had received no warning or guidance from California that your city may not be complying with state orders. The problem, Smith said, is that the state health order does not explicitly prohibit cookouts, which Santa Clara County considered they could allow. The state, Smith said, seemed to disagree with that interpretation.
“If they felt that way, they certainly could have made a phone call,” he said. “I don’t think they needed to show up with armed agents.”
ABC agents visited businesses in the area to inform them of the state rules on Friday night, and told the owners that they could remain open the rest of that day, but that they should only reopen for take-out service. Saturday, the agency said in a statement.
“Agents met with homeowners and explained that Santa Clara County had received no variations to open, and that they were technically violating California home stay orders,” the statement said. “The agents did not issue citations or notices of violations.”
Smith recommended that companies try to get clear guidance from the state, and the county has always said that the stricter orders apply in any given situation, whether state or county. Santa Clara County itself is seeking more information on why its variance was denied.
“State clarity has always been a difficult thing to achieve because they have such irregularities in one county that allow one thing and in a neighboring county they don’t allow the same,” he said.
For example, in neighboring San Mateo County, the state has allowed restaurants, gyms, movie theaters, and hair salons to reopen. San Mateo County has more population-adjusted cases than Santa Clara County – 44.2 per 10,000 versus 24.6 per 1,000 – as well as more deaths – 1.4 per 10,000 in San Mateo and 0.81 per 10,000 in Santa Clara.
The San Mateo County test positive rate is also higher at 4.9 percent, compared to a seven-day average positive test rate of 2.6 percent in Santa Clara County.
For now, Smith said the county will seek more guidance from California on what to do to continue its reopening plans.
“We will have to try to contact the state and find out what they are doing,” he said.
.
