News

State denies Santa Clara County's plan to reopen economy, prompting confusion over outdoor dining

Local leaders plans to continue discussions with California officials on strategy to allow more businesses to operate

Joanie's Cafe customers eat at spaced-out tables on California Avenue in Palo Alto on June 16. Photo by Magali Gauthier.

Santa Clara County suffered a stinging setback over the weekend in its strategy to reopen the economy, when the state rejected its plan to allow more businesses, including gyms and hair salons, to reopen later this month.

The county's new order, which county Health Officer Sara Cody announced on Thursday, July 2, would have permitted more businesses to reopen on July 13. The plan also outlined a set of rules that all businesses must follow during the pandemic, including allowing telework when possible, shifting operations outdoors and imposing density restrictions, with no more than one employee per 250 square feet of gross floor area.

Santa Clara County Deputy County Executive David Campos said during a morning news briefing on Monday, July 6, that the state had issued an "initial rejection" of the variance application. He also indicated that the county will continue to work with state officials to advance the July 2 order.

The surprising denial marked the first instance since the shutdown took effect on March 17 in which the state explicitly rejected an order from the county's health officer. While county officials acknowledged last week that the order would require approval from the state, they expressed optimism that the approval would be forthcoming.

Despite the recent uptick in COVID-19 cases across the state and the nation, the county still has fewer cases per 100,000 residents than any other county in the Bay Area, Cody said last week. In other counties, including San Mateo, indoor dining is already allowed and hair salons are back in business.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Mountain View Online for as little as $5/month.

Learn more

Santa Clara County Supervisor Mike Wasserman said during the July 2 news conference that he was hopeful that the state would "recognize all the work that the people and businesses of Santa Clara County have done to reopen our remaining businesses and approve our request."

Campos did not say why the county's strategy was denied. The county did not immediately provide any documents from the state pertaining to the rejection.

"We are still in conversation and discussion with the state regarding the application," Campos said. "We will continue to keep people informed about next steps."

The county's order also made clear that certain high-risk activities that make it infeasible to wear face coverings or maintain social distancing would remain prohibited for the foreseeable future. These include indoor dining, indoor swimming, concerts and sporting events.

Recent guidance from the state also places into limbo efforts by various cities, including Palo Alto, to allow outdoor dining. Campos alluded to weekend reports by The Mercury News about agents from the state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control visiting businesses in Gilroy and Morgan Hill and telling them to halt operations because they violate California's stay-at-home orders.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

Newsom said at a Monday afternoon news briefing that state agents made 5,987 in-person visits over the weekend to bars and restaurants in counties on the state's monitoring list, with visits generally targeting parts of the state with known violators and establishments about which the state has received complaints.

In discussing the ABC visits, Campos said Monday the county did not receive any advance notice of the action and "cannot speak on behalf of the state."

Information from the California Department of Public Health suggests that the county did not have state clearance when it issued a local order on June 5 allowing outdoor dining. That order prompted Palo Alto to launch a "Summer Streets" program, which initially involved closing California Avenue to traffic to allow outdoor dining.

After a very positive reception, the city followed suit by closing University Avenue to traffic June 26.

The program, however, may be short-lived unless the county gets a green light from the state. Santa Clara County last month was placed on the state's "monitoring list" of counties where COVID-19 cases have been on a steady rise. Last week, Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an order banning many indoor activities, including indoor dining, in 19 counties, including Santa Clara, which make up more than 70% of the state's population. Newsom said the state is not shutting down businesses so much as asking them to shift operations outdoors.

On Monday, the list of counties on the state's watch list expanded to 23. However, Santa Clara County was taken off the list, suggesting that the county is meeting the required thresholds to reopen, Newsom said.

Despite this development, the state Department of Public Health is taking a firm stance on outdoor dining. State guidelines require counties that want to reopen more quickly to submit variance attestation forms, confirming that they have met the state's "readiness criteria." While some counties, including San Mateo and San Francisco, have submitted these forms and are allowed to move more quickly on reopening businesses, Santa Clara does not have an approved attestation at this time, according to the state.

In addition, some counties on the monitoring list have been granted a variance from the state that allows dining but only with outdoor seating (as well as takeout). Santa Clara had not received such a variance last week when it was on the list.

"Santa Clara County issued a local order opening outdoor dining, but the county does not yet have an approved attestation from the state to open indoor or outdoor dining," the state Department of Public Health stated in a response to this news organization.

It was not immediately clear on Monday morning how the disagreement between the state and the county over outdoor dining will impact local programs. Palo Alto officials did not immediately respond to questions about whether the "Summer Streets" program will be suspended to comply with state law.

This is a developing story that will be updated as more information becomes available.

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now

Follow Mountain View Voice Online on Twitter @mvvoice, Facebook and on Instagram @mvvoice for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

State denies Santa Clara County's plan to reopen economy, prompting confusion over outdoor dining

Local leaders plans to continue discussions with California officials on strategy to allow more businesses to operate

by / Palo Alto Weekly

Uploaded: Mon, Jul 6, 2020, 1:47 pm

Santa Clara County suffered a stinging setback over the weekend in its strategy to reopen the economy, when the state rejected its plan to allow more businesses, including gyms and hair salons, to reopen later this month.

The county's new order, which county Health Officer Sara Cody announced on Thursday, July 2, would have permitted more businesses to reopen on July 13. The plan also outlined a set of rules that all businesses must follow during the pandemic, including allowing telework when possible, shifting operations outdoors and imposing density restrictions, with no more than one employee per 250 square feet of gross floor area.

Santa Clara County Deputy County Executive David Campos said during a morning news briefing on Monday, July 6, that the state had issued an "initial rejection" of the variance application. He also indicated that the county will continue to work with state officials to advance the July 2 order.

The surprising denial marked the first instance since the shutdown took effect on March 17 in which the state explicitly rejected an order from the county's health officer. While county officials acknowledged last week that the order would require approval from the state, they expressed optimism that the approval would be forthcoming.

Despite the recent uptick in COVID-19 cases across the state and the nation, the county still has fewer cases per 100,000 residents than any other county in the Bay Area, Cody said last week. In other counties, including San Mateo, indoor dining is already allowed and hair salons are back in business.

Santa Clara County Supervisor Mike Wasserman said during the July 2 news conference that he was hopeful that the state would "recognize all the work that the people and businesses of Santa Clara County have done to reopen our remaining businesses and approve our request."

Campos did not say why the county's strategy was denied. The county did not immediately provide any documents from the state pertaining to the rejection.

"We are still in conversation and discussion with the state regarding the application," Campos said. "We will continue to keep people informed about next steps."

The county's order also made clear that certain high-risk activities that make it infeasible to wear face coverings or maintain social distancing would remain prohibited for the foreseeable future. These include indoor dining, indoor swimming, concerts and sporting events.

Recent guidance from the state also places into limbo efforts by various cities, including Palo Alto, to allow outdoor dining. Campos alluded to weekend reports by The Mercury News about agents from the state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control visiting businesses in Gilroy and Morgan Hill and telling them to halt operations because they violate California's stay-at-home orders.

Newsom said at a Monday afternoon news briefing that state agents made 5,987 in-person visits over the weekend to bars and restaurants in counties on the state's monitoring list, with visits generally targeting parts of the state with known violators and establishments about which the state has received complaints.

In discussing the ABC visits, Campos said Monday the county did not receive any advance notice of the action and "cannot speak on behalf of the state."

Information from the California Department of Public Health suggests that the county did not have state clearance when it issued a local order on June 5 allowing outdoor dining. That order prompted Palo Alto to launch a "Summer Streets" program, which initially involved closing California Avenue to traffic to allow outdoor dining.

After a very positive reception, the city followed suit by closing University Avenue to traffic June 26.

The program, however, may be short-lived unless the county gets a green light from the state. Santa Clara County last month was placed on the state's "monitoring list" of counties where COVID-19 cases have been on a steady rise. Last week, Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an order banning many indoor activities, including indoor dining, in 19 counties, including Santa Clara, which make up more than 70% of the state's population. Newsom said the state is not shutting down businesses so much as asking them to shift operations outdoors.

On Monday, the list of counties on the state's watch list expanded to 23. However, Santa Clara County was taken off the list, suggesting that the county is meeting the required thresholds to reopen, Newsom said.

Despite this development, the state Department of Public Health is taking a firm stance on outdoor dining. State guidelines require counties that want to reopen more quickly to submit variance attestation forms, confirming that they have met the state's "readiness criteria." While some counties, including San Mateo and San Francisco, have submitted these forms and are allowed to move more quickly on reopening businesses, Santa Clara does not have an approved attestation at this time, according to the state.

In addition, some counties on the monitoring list have been granted a variance from the state that allows dining but only with outdoor seating (as well as takeout). Santa Clara had not received such a variance last week when it was on the list.

"Santa Clara County issued a local order opening outdoor dining, but the county does not yet have an approved attestation from the state to open indoor or outdoor dining," the state Department of Public Health stated in a response to this news organization.

It was not immediately clear on Monday morning how the disagreement between the state and the county over outdoor dining will impact local programs. Palo Alto officials did not immediately respond to questions about whether the "Summer Streets" program will be suspended to comply with state law.

This is a developing story that will be updated as more information becomes available.

Comments

Steven Nelson
Cuesta Park
on Jul 6, 2020 at 3:07 pm
Steven Nelson, Cuesta Park
on Jul 6, 2020 at 3:07 pm
2 people like this

Got my 'outdoor dinning' experience (contraband?) at Cascals on Castro St. last night.
** From the State? This seems like 'nonsense' paper pushing when they are Clearly NOT Working with the County Health Department day-to-day. I wonder - is the State Health Dept. possibly 'jealous' of all the good national press the Santa Clara Public Health office got from the 'first lock-down in the state'? Ha - there is unfortunately no lack of inter-agency / between "experts" squabbling in this whole would-wide Pandemic. Trump v. China is not the only squabble.


BDBD
Cuesta Park
on Jul 6, 2020 at 3:16 pm
BDBD, Cuesta Park
on Jul 6, 2020 at 3:16 pm
7 people like this

The right way for the state to sort this out with the county would be behind the scenes, phone and video wrangling over the details. Not in-person visits from agents threatening small businesses who were by all accounts following the county's rules. This is bureaucracy at its worst, even though everyone's got the same goal.


The Business Man
Old Mountain View
on Jul 6, 2020 at 3:17 pm
The Business Man, Old Mountain View
on Jul 6, 2020 at 3:17 pm
Like this comment

Lets get some FINAL clarification here:

The recent Mercury News article titled “COVID-19 quandary: Why is outdoor dining shut down in Santa Clara County and not elsewhere?“ found here (Web Link) stated:

“The state’s crackdown on outdoor dining in Santa Clara County over the holiday weekend in an effort to slow spread of the coronavirus has left restaurant owners granted the al fresco option locally a month ago confused and worried.

“If they shut us down, that’s really rude,” said Helen Nguyen, who was continuing to offer outdoor dining Monday at her Pho Ha Noi restaurants in Cupertino and San Jose until told otherwise. “It’s really stressful on a business owner right now. We don’t know what’s going on.”

The California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control sent armed agents to restaurants in Morgan Hill and Gilroy telling owners they had to cease outdoor dining under a July 1 order by Gov. Gavin Newsom, stunning local officials who said they were not alerted beforehand.

State officials explained that Santa Clara County had not received formal state permission — a “variance” form the statewide stay-home order — to allow outdoor dining. County Executive Jeff Smith said over the weekend that he didn’t believe the statewide order expressly forbade county health officials to authorize that themselves.”

Believe it or not, I believe the state public health laws require an explicit approval before making any changes. Just look at the fact that the County was just denied a “variance” in the last couple of days for gyms and other businesses. THEY KNEW THAT THEY WERE REQUIRED TO GET APPROVAL AND DECIDED TO TRY TO ACT BEHIND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S BACK

What is really happening is that the restaurants wanted to be sneaky. So what they did is used their local political lobbying and intimidation to get the guidelines written on June 5th. The County was hoping it would be not noticed by the state. The claim that the orders recently did not expressly forbade public county health officials to act on their own.

That is unbelievably poor judgement given that the state of CA is in a State of Emergency still. The County KNEW WELL that what they were doing was trying to sneak changes in HOPING that the state would find no good reason to enforce the current Shelter In Place. BUT the COVID is still here and has gotten worse in the state. Thus this gamble backfired on the county, which surely knew better but is trying to act like it was a surprise to them.

I think that the County and Cities of Santa Clara County should have funds withheld due to non compliance, and all businesses should be fined as well, the businesses can file a grievance with the Cities and the County for their losses.


He embarrassed himself again
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 6, 2020 at 3:25 pm
He embarrassed himself again, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 6, 2020 at 3:25 pm
13 people like this

Looks like TBM has migrated to this thread.
Warning to readers, ignore TBM. He does not know what he is talking about.

He is trying to cripple the food industry in SCC. First it was claims about alcohol. Now it is claims that outdoor dining is illegal in SCC.

Bottom line we are off the watchlist. Since we never had indoor dining, that part of Newsome's decree did not matter for us.
With regard to outdoor dining, Newsome's decree last week for counties on the watchlist were allowed to continue with outdoor dining. Plus the SCC health issued an amended order in June which allows outdoor dining (ignore TBM's future claims that it is not allowed).

Plus, since the weekend, we have not heard anything more from those ABC officers.


The Business Man
Old Mountain View
on Jul 6, 2020 at 3:41 pm
The Business Man, Old Mountain View
on Jul 6, 2020 at 3:41 pm
Like this comment

In response to Posted by He embarrassed himself again you said:

“He is trying to cripple the food industry in SCC. First it was claims about alcohol. Now it is claims that outdoor dining is illegal in SCC.”

How much more clearly is this quote:

“State officials explained that Santa Clara County HAD NOT RECEIVED FORMAL STATE PERMISSION — A “VARIANCE” FORM THE STATEWIDE STAY-HOME ORDER — TO ALLOW OUTDOOR DINING. County Executive Jeff Smith said over the weekend that he didn’t believe the statewide order expressly forbade county health officials to authorize that themselves.”

The guidelines published by the Santa Clara County were NOT LEGAL because of both Not Conforming to the Shelter In Place laws, but the state laws as well given that the County was not ever given a variance for “outdoor dining”. You are completely failing to understand the reality here.

Second, I am not trying to damage any business, I am promoting public safety. You just don’t like the fact that the County, the Cities, and these Restaurants are caught in violation of the current Shelter In Place. You said:

“Bottom line we are off the watchlist. Since we never had indoor dining, that part of Newsome's decree did not matter for us.”

Irrelevant because the County never got approval for any of the guidelines so this is irrelevant. You said:

“With regard to outdoor dining, Newsome's decree last week for counties on the watchlist were allowed to continue with outdoor dining. Plus the SCC health issued an amended order in June which allows outdoor dining (ignore TBM's future claims that it is not allowed).”

Irrelevant because the County never got approval for any of the guidelines so this is irrelevant. The fact that the State has no declared that those orders or guidelines were NOT approved makes your statement clearly false.


A Waiter
another community
on Jul 6, 2020 at 4:28 pm
A Waiter, another community
on Jul 6, 2020 at 4:28 pm
4 people like this

I am appalled that SC County allowed restaurants and bars reopen. Take-out food service is an adequate option and the bar scene only accommodates restless Millennials, many of whom feel a dire need to party down.

As a result, the Covid-19 pandemic is spreading.

Besides, who would want to dine in the middle of a street while a foodserver wearing a facemask serves your meal? Such ambience!

Ensuring the public health is a far more important issue and concern...screw the economy in terms of non-essential businesses that cater to self-serving mentalities. Restaurant owners and bar proprietors are no more special than the average citizen and if they go under, there will be alternative jobs for them to consider at a later date.

And anyone who violates SIP mandates, self-distancing or refuses to wear a facemask in public should be arrested and sequestered at Elmwood where they can rethink their stupidity.

In the meantime, perhaps it's best to return to the March 2020 protocols where only essential businesses were allowed to remain open.

BTW...I'm quitting my job as a foodserver despite having lost my unemployment benefits and the $600.00 weekly bonus by returning to work in a hazardous environment.

Biggest mistake I ever made.






Multitalented
Jackson Park
on Jul 6, 2020 at 4:39 pm
Multitalented , Jackson Park
on Jul 6, 2020 at 4:39 pm
10 people like this

I did not realize that the business man was a waiter also!!!!!


A Waiter
another community
on Jul 6, 2020 at 4:41 pm
A Waiter, another community
on Jul 6, 2020 at 4:41 pm
7 people like this

The Business Man's viewpont makes total sense and his facts are well documented.

If others had their way, we would be living in an environment that rivals Florida in terms of shortsightedness and overall ignorance.


The Business Man
Old Mountain View
on Jul 6, 2020 at 5:11 pm
The Business Man, Old Mountain View
on Jul 6, 2020 at 5:11 pm
Like this comment

MY profession is in Information Security.

I have more than 15 yrs experience, I am a internationally recognized expert in the field and i have 2 business degrees.

My work is in containing IT incidents, the most common is virus containment.

BUT I am MORE scared about COVID than any computer virus, you can throw away A COMPUTER, but YOU CAN'T THROW AWAY PEOPLE IF THEY ARE SUFFICIENTLY INFECTED.

I feel for all of these workers, they were convinced that they were starting work the correct way by their employers and the City and County.

This was in effect a big lie. These workers should have grounds to sue their employers for making false claims regarding the conditions and safety of their work place.

Because the employers knew that there was no way they could claim their permissions to operate were legal. Any reasonable attorney should have seen this. The County's Attorney should have alerted the County. The City's Attorney should have alerted the City. And the Employers Attorney should have alerted them.

But ignorance is not a defense, but this was more than ignorance, it was by design.


Multitalented
Jackson Park
on Jul 6, 2020 at 5:32 pm
Multitalented , Jackson Park
on Jul 6, 2020 at 5:32 pm
8 people like this

So TBM, you are not a business man, a waiter or an environmental scientist, all the “facts” that you have presented to us over a number of threads is nothing but your opinion.. you are no expert in the field. Glad we straightened that issue out.
And once again you are presenting false claims by saying that workers have been infected.

Really, if you are so afraid I suggest you shelter in your safe space with a large supply of Depends.


The Business Man
Old Mountain View
on Jul 6, 2020 at 5:51 pm
The Business Man, Old Mountain View
on Jul 6, 2020 at 5:51 pm
2 people like this

In response to Multitalented you said:

“So TBM, you are not a business man”

If you have 2 Bachelors of Science in Business Administration from an Accredited Business School, like the Lucas College of Business at San Jose State University, that is sufficient evidence that I am a certified Business Man. You went on to say:

“a waiter or an environmental scientist, all the “facts” that you have presented to us over a number of threads is nothing but your opinion.. you are no expert in the field. Glad we straightened that issue out.”

That is your opinion, but you haven’t in fact demonstrated any objective evidence that you are an authority to declare anything but your own opinion. You don’t have the authority to declare anything. You said:

“And once again you are presenting false claims by saying that workers have been infected.”

If you careful you should notice I never said that, I said:

“This was in effect a big lie. These workers should have grounds to sue their employers for making false claims regarding the conditions and safety of their work place.”

One of my degrees is in Human Resources Management, an expertise in the proper management of business staffing and hiring. My concept is that being hired under false pretenses is sufficient enough to have a claim against an employer. No one needs to be infected for this claim. The idea that one enticed another to give up their legal rights under the CARE act thus losing those entitled insurance benefits under the false pretense that the employer was legally allowed to operate.

The facts are the news report indicated the opposite, and the County, the City, and the Employer knew about this. Thus the loss of benefits are a liability of the employers. This is a tort case where if one is enticed to do something to their detriment and it was contradictory to any public policy, the one enticing the employees are liable for any loss.

But you wanted to make it look like you had to be infected, YOU DON’T.

Be careful, your walking into an area that I have a demonstrated expertise in.


Multitalented
Jackson Park
on Jul 6, 2020 at 6:03 pm
Multitalented, Jackson Park
on Jul 6, 2020 at 6:03 pm
6 people like this

"That is your opinion, but you haven’t in fact demonstrated any objective evidence that you are an authority to declare anything but your own opinion. You don’t have the authority to declare anything."

and here we have the kettle (TBM) calling the pot black. LOL Same goes for you, TBM


The Business Man
Old Mountain View
on Jul 6, 2020 at 6:27 pm
The Business Man, Old Mountain View
on Jul 6, 2020 at 6:27 pm
Like this comment

In response to Multitalented you said:

“"That is your opinion, but you haven’t in fact demonstrated any objective evidence that you are an authority to declare anything but your own opinion. You don’t have the authority to declare anything."

and here we have the kettle (TBM) calling the pot black. LOL Same goes for you, TBM”

Here is a good definition of hiring under false pretenses from the website Mondaq discussing employment under false pretenses found here (Web Link):

“While the elements of this claim vary depending on state law, in general, fraudulent inducement may be found if the employee can prove that the employer MADE A SIGNIFICANT MISREPRESENTATION CONCERNING THE JOB OR THE COMPANY; the person making the statement KNEW OR BELIEVED IT WAS FALSE AT THE TIME HE OR SHE MADE IT; the statement was made WITH THE INTENT OF DECEIVING THE PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYEE; and the prospective employee REASONABLY RELIED ON THE FALSE STATEMENT AND SUFFERED DAMAGES BECAUSE OF THAT RELIANCE. For the most part, damages must go beyond the loss of employment in order to state a claim.

Misrepresentations that have been found actionable include STATEMENTS ABOUT THE FINANCIAL STABILITY OF THE COMPANY; promises of compensation, benefits and support services that the company never intended to keep; AND ASSURANCES OF LONG-TERM JOB SECURITY THAT THE EMPLOYER DOES NOT INTEND TO HONOR. In fact, CLAIMS HAVE EVEN BEEN BASED ON THE FAILURE TO DISCLOSE HARMFUL INFORMATION, such as corporate financial instability, when the applicant makes inquiries AND THE EMPLOYER’S CONCEALMENT IS INTENDED TO PERSUADE THE EMPLOYEE TO ACCEPT EMPLOYMENT.”

Also consider:

“Penalties can be costly. If the misrepresentation is found to be deliberately made for the purpose of luring the applicant, punitive damages may be imposed. In California, A PROVISION OF THE LABOR LAW MAKES IT A MISDEMEANOR TO MAKE KNOWINGLY FALSE REPRESENTATIONS TO PERSUADE POTENTIAL EMPLOYEES TO RELOCATE IN ORDER TO TAKE A JOB. In addition to criminal penalties, CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE SEC. 970 PROVIDES FOR DOUBLE DAMAGES ON ANY CIVIL CLAIMS BROUGHT UNDER THE STATUTE. In other states, as well, the potential for civil damages is heightened when a false promise or assurance convinces an applicant to give up their present job and relocate their home and family in order to take the new job.”

Why is it that people like to make statements without doing any research at all? Please provide something other than an unsubstantiated declaration? I can go even further but I am trying to keep it short.

Please provide some kind of evidence to support your criticisms? Otherwise, you are just trying to make claims with no proof.


The Business Man
Old Mountain View
on Jul 6, 2020 at 6:44 pm
The Business Man, Old Mountain View
on Jul 6, 2020 at 6:44 pm
Like this comment

NBC news just reported:

If you are doing outdoor seating and the state cites you or orders your closed.

Santa Clara County and the Cities will say your on your own, they cannot interfere.

The news is found here (Web Link)


Gen X Diner
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 6, 2020 at 7:03 pm
Gen X Diner , Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 6, 2020 at 7:03 pm
4 people like this

I am far from being a millennial but I truly enjoy the outdoor dining. I can take kid out for a walk and eat lunch after, or I can meet up with a friend for dinner (the horror!).
There have been NO clusters connected to outdoor events. Transmission from a brief interaction outside is highly unlikely. There have been studies, unfortunately I haven’t saved the links.

As for the issue with rejection of application... I am sure Dr Cody knew full well it was going to happen. She just wanted to shift the blame. She doesn’t want the county open, that much is clear. And no, it’s not supported by science at this point. Not anymore.


Multitalented
Jackson Park
on Jul 6, 2020 at 7:12 pm
Multitalented , Jackson Park
on Jul 6, 2020 at 7:12 pm
4 people like this

Yeah and the report says that county officials have looked at newsomes July 2 order and nowhere does it say that outdoor dining is forbidden. So more of the same from TBM

Gen x diner- yiu are correct this was clearly planned by Cody, she can now say that she tried to loosen things up, Cody cares not for the economic, mental health or domestic abuse issues that have arisen from our imprisonment. Remember when she told us not to wear masks?


The Business Man
Old Mountain View
on Jul 6, 2020 at 7:18 pm
The Business Man, Old Mountain View
on Jul 6, 2020 at 7:18 pm
Like this comment

In response to Gen X Diner that said:

“I am far from being a millennial but I truly enjoy the outdoor dining. I can take kid out for a walk and eat lunch after, or I can meet up with a friend for dinner (the horror!).”

As long as it is in your home, there is no question you have that right. But you said:

“There have been NO clusters connected to outdoor events. Transmission from a brief interaction outside is highly unlikely. There have been studies, unfortunately I haven’t saved the links.”

But the current surges have occurred due to the Memorial Day weekend events, scientific research is proving this. Please provide any study to support your claim? You said:

“As for the issue with rejection of application... I am sure Dr Cody knew full well it was going to happen. She just wanted to shift the blame. She doesn’t want the county open, that much is clear. And no, it’s not supported by science at this point. Not anymore.”

Here we go again, trying to put the blame of the VIRUS on a person or a group. Dr. Cody is doing what she CAN do. She cannot make any false claims in order to make the state open up the County businesses. You claim she “wanted to shift” the blame. The reality is that so far the County cannot validate the evidence to support the relaxation of the Shelter In Place order.

WHAT YOU ALL SHOULD BE DOING IS DEMANDING THAT THE MEDICAL RESEARCH GET THE JOB DONE AND GET THIS DISEASE UNDER CONTROL. GETTING A SPECIFIC DRUG THAT DOES ATTACK THE VIRUS 90% OF THE TIME AND SHORTENS THE COURSE OF IT 90%. OR GET A VALID VACCINE THAT IS 90% EFFECTIVE AND DOES NOT HARM 90% OF PEOPLE GETTING IT.

Isn’t that the truth?


The Business Man
Old Mountain View
on Jul 6, 2020 at 7:24 pm
The Business Man, Old Mountain View
on Jul 6, 2020 at 7:24 pm
Like this comment

In response to Multitalented you said:

“Yeah and the report says that county officials have looked at newsomes July 2 order and nowhere does it say that outdoor dining is forbidden. So more of the same from TBM”

The County did not properly do the proper process, it couldn’t get the “outdoor dining” approval then nor could it now given the required evidence that the Virus is properly being traced to avoid new infections. That has not been proven to be working. So please stop trying to distract from the current situation. The County is not approved to open ‘outdoor dining” yet, and it cannot yet either. You said:

“Gen x diner- yiu are correct this was clearly planned by Cody, she can now say that she tried to loosen things up, Cody cares not for the economic, mental health or domestic abuse issues that have arisen from our imprisonment. Remember when she told us not to wear masks?”

NO ONE IS IMPRISONED. NO ONE IS ARRESTED FOR BEING OUT OF THEIR HOMES. THIS IS NOTHING BUT A PHRASE TO TRY TO INFLAME AND HAS NO BASIS IN FACT. SINCE WE ARE NOT IMPRISONED, ALL OF THIS RANT IS FALSE.


The Humanitarian
another community
on Jul 7, 2020 at 8:41 am
The Humanitarian, another community
on Jul 7, 2020 at 8:41 am
2 people like this

Taking an indirect path towards resolving an issue or problem is oftentimes less direct than addressing it's resolution in a straightforward manner.

Like various STDs where an actual cure has never been developed, certain precautionary measures can be initiated to help curtail their spread. While personal limitations and perceived encumbrances are often involved, this in turn prevents others from being infected from both viral and bacterial infections.

It is both an individual and societal responsibility to ensure a safe and healthful living environment by not endangering the lives of our fellow citizens.

It is very discouraging for health care professionals having to deal with a spike in coronavirus cases
when countless people are refusing to practice common sense (i.e. wearing face masks and not practicing safe distancing). Avoiding large gatherings is another problematic concern and unfortunately it has become a political issue as well.

Until an actual cure can be developed, the closure of various establishments is a small price to pay regardless of their economic impacts.

The choice is either money or staying alive as the last time I checked, dead people do not go shopping for non-essential items, dine at restaurants, drink at bars, work out in gyms, or have their hair & nails done (except by a mortician).

Ensuring 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' also involves consideration towards one's fellow man and in this time of pandemic crisis, certain precautions need to be implemented and maintained.



Gary
Sylvan Park
on Jul 7, 2020 at 9:52 am
Gary, Sylvan Park
on Jul 7, 2020 at 9:52 am
4 people like this

Here is some newer stuff. President Trump is calling for schools to re-open (come hell or high water) ahead of the election. Watch for him to withhold funds from any college or school that offers remote learning. Trump may do anything to get re-elected - including closing the Postal Service so ballots cannot be mailed or delivered. The 65-year-old President of Brasil now has tested positive for coronaviras. He has flaunted the virus but had been coughing in recent days. We shall see if he gets sicker than did UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Donald Trump is 74.


The Business Man
Old Mountain View
on Jul 7, 2020 at 10:19 am
The Business Man, Old Mountain View
on Jul 7, 2020 at 10:19 am
Like this comment

It looks like the County got approval.

But it does not make clear if the "outdoor dining" was part of it?

The reports only talk about personal services and gyms.

And of course it will begin next week.


The Humanitarian
another community
on Jul 7, 2020 at 10:45 am
The Humanitarian, another community
on Jul 7, 2020 at 10:45 am
2 people like this

>>> Trump may do anything to get re-elected...

^ It was mentioned in the New Yorker that if Trump believes the 2020 election was rigged against him via ballot stuffing, he might refuse to leave office and enlist the National Guard from a red- friendly state to protect him from removal.

With the military generals & admirals now questioning Trump's adherence to the U.S. Constitution, this raises the specter of a potential military coup.

With his poor handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, George Floyd protests, domestic social policy and the economy at large,
many citizen voters are restless for a change in leadership.

These are troubling times for America.




The Business Man
Old Mountain View
on Jul 7, 2020 at 10:49 am
The Business Man, Old Mountain View
on Jul 7, 2020 at 10:49 am
Like this comment

Yes, all I asking is what next?

A nuclear reactor disaster, a major drought, a major loss of food?

The trouble just keeps coming?


The Humanitarian
another community
on Jul 7, 2020 at 11:04 am
The Humanitarian, another community
on Jul 7, 2020 at 11:04 am
2 people like this

> "Yes, all I asking is what next?"

^ Gradual human extinction...if your profound insights are not taken seriously and effectively addressed by global leadership on all levels of national and local government.

We are living in a polluted cesspool of ignorance and self-serving motivations.

And it starts at the top culminating with a trickle down effect.


The Business Man
Old Mountain View
on Jul 7, 2020 at 11:05 am
The Business Man, Old Mountain View
on Jul 7, 2020 at 11:05 am
Like this comment

I didn't want to say it.

I was trying to provide at least some hope.

But I can't argue with you.

Unfortunately


multitalented
Jackson Park
on Jul 7, 2020 at 11:22 am
multitalented, Jackson Park
on Jul 7, 2020 at 11:22 am
4 people like this

Bad news for TBM/a waiter

Web Link

"The state's approval of the attestation also creates some clarity for restaurant owners, in Palo Alto and elsewhere, who have been expanding outdoor dining by setting up tables in newly built parklets and recently closed thoroughfares. As part of its "Summer Streets" program, Palo Alto has recently closed California and University avenues to traffic to promote outdoor dining.

While serving meals outside was consistent with the county's June 5 order, which allows such an activity, it clashed with the state's shelter-in-place order, which does not. Because the county had not received a state variance before Monday night, it was not technically allowed to move ahead with indoor or outdoor dining, according to state officials."

Now we have the variance. Outdoor dining is allowed. TBM's career as an enforcer of SIP orders and his attempts to destroy the food industry are over.


The Business Man
Old Mountain View
on Jul 7, 2020 at 11:49 am
The Business Man, Old Mountain View
on Jul 7, 2020 at 11:49 am
Like this comment

In response to Multitalanted

At least it was done right, but you were always saying that outdoor dining was allowed previously.

I am all for it now, since it is now legal.

BUT all previous business was illegal, and such there are fines to still be paid.

I will try to get those fines levied. The facts are you knew this was illegal, and this order doesn't reverse that the prior business was illegal.

So I will try to move forward to have the County, the City, and the Businesses held accountable for their illegal actions.

All business prior to this approval was illegal and it must be addressed.


Multitalented
Jackson Park
on Jul 7, 2020 at 11:54 am
Multitalented, Jackson Park
on Jul 7, 2020 at 11:54 am
4 people like this

LOL. TBM. It was a "he said, she said" issue.

The opening of outdoor dining was allowed. It went for 4 weeks and then the state showed up in Morgan Hill to enforce a ban??? LA County which has more cases then anywhere was allowed to have outdoor dining, but the county with the best numbers was not?? LOL.
Probably. a power play between the county and the state.

"I will try to get those fines levied. The facts are you knew this was illegal, and this order doesn't reverse that the prior business was illegal.So I will try to move forward to have the County, the City, and the Businesses held accountable for their illegal action

There were no fines levied, you powerless IT person.
LOL. Who are you? A lowly IT person. Go for it. Move ahead all you want. You would be better served moving your bowels!!!!!


The Waiter
another community
on Jul 7, 2020 at 12:29 pm
The Waiter, another community
on Jul 7, 2020 at 12:29 pm
2 people like this

Though my request will most likely be denied, I shall try to recover my lost unemployment benefits + the $600.00 weekly allotment having returned to work in the restaurant industry prematurely.

At first I thought that re-entering the work force was the proper thing to do but since so many others could care less about my personal well-being or health, why should I be sticking my neck out for minimum wage + a lousy 15% tip that some patrons don't even bother to pay?

For the ignorant, this 15% gratuity is also shared with the bussers, bartenders and hostesses.

Why even bother and cater to a bunch of effete and narcisstic diners (as well as restaurant ownership/management) who could care less about my well being?

Screw this crummy line of work.




Multitalented
Jackson Park
on Jul 7, 2020 at 12:35 pm
Multitalented, Jackson Park
on Jul 7, 2020 at 12:35 pm
2 people like this

LOL. The waiter (aka TBM, son of a chemist).

Who needs you as a waiter. You do not contribute to society. Go bak to being an environmental scientist or an IT person


The Waiter
another community
on Jul 7, 2020 at 12:48 pm
The Waiter, another community
on Jul 7, 2020 at 12:48 pm
2 people like this

> "Who needs you as a waiter."

^ My sentiments exactly. Thank you for putting things into their proper perspective.

Chances are you are one those diners who leave a 10% (or less) tip.


The Business Man
Old Mountain View
on Jul 7, 2020 at 12:58 pm
The Business Man, Old Mountain View
on Jul 7, 2020 at 12:58 pm
Like this comment

In response to Multitalented you said:

“The opening of outdoor dining was allowed. It went for 4 weeks and then the state showed up in Morgan Hill to enforce a ban??? LA County which has more cases then anywhere was allowed to have outdoor dining, but the county with the best numbers was not?? LOL.”

The County, City and Resturaunts were all in vio9lation of the State orders. Regardless if it was ignorance, ignorance is not a defense. One of your talents is to be in a state of denial. You said:

“Probably. a power play between the county and the state.”

NO, the State “State of Emergency ORDER” made the County subordinate to the State ORDERS. One of your talents is not being aware of the proper procedures You said:

"I will try to get those fines levied. The facts are you knew this was illegal, and this order doesn't reverse that the prior business was illegal.So I will try to move forward to have the County, the City, and the Businesses held accountable for their illegal action

There were no fines levied, you powerless IT person.”

One of you talents is assuming so much without any information. My work is in accrediting and auditing classified governmental systems. Please look up DIACAP DAA and DIARMF DAO, that is my position in the government. In effect I choose whether system are acceptable and do on many occasions reject multibillion dollar systems. So if you can assume I am an IT help desk guy, you show how talented you really are. As far as:

“LOL. Who are you? A lowly IT person. Go for it. Move ahead all you want. You would be better served moving your bowels!!!!!”

This goes without any comment because it is self-explanatory.

Don’t ever assume anything regarding others, you will wind up looking very bad.


Multitalented
Jackson Park
on Jul 7, 2020 at 1:35 pm
Multitalented, Jackson Park
on Jul 7, 2020 at 1:35 pm
3 people like this

The Waiter:

"Chances are you are one those diners who leave a 10% (or less) tip."
Chances you are one of those waiters that deserves a tip of 10% or less


TBM:

"My work is in accrediting and auditing classified governmental systems. Please look up DIACAP DAA and DIARMF DAO, that is my position in the government."

So you plan to misuse government computers for your petty revenge. LOL


The Business Man
Old Mountain View
on Jul 7, 2020 at 1:56 pm
The Business Man, Old Mountain View
on Jul 7, 2020 at 1:56 pm
Like this comment

In response to Multitalented you said:

“The Waiter:

"Chances are you are one those diners who leave a 10% (or less) tip."

Chances you are one of those waiters that deserves a tip of 10% or less”

All I can say is you are a classic internet troll, you are out to simply insult anyone that doesn’t agree with you. You said:

“TBM:

"My work is in accrediting and auditing classified governmental systems. Please look up DIACAP DAA and DIARMF DAO, that is my position in the government."

So you plan to misuse government computers for your petty revenge. LOL”

WOW, you are so petty to think I would do such a STUPID thing? You simply are not worth the trouble.

I use my own equipment, ethically, morally, and legally. You show your colors, you will cheat, steal, lie, and do anything to try to get ahead on anybody.

All I will do is use my auditing experience, the legal and ethical way, to hold thos who cheat, steal, lie and do anything to get ahead on anybody to be held accountable.

You should be concerned because I tend to succeed. I will simply ask the ABC to do a forensic accounting of the restaurants accounts to establish proof of illegal operation. They will be required under the law and the state order prior to this approval to hold these people accountable.

And also understand this, if the numbers of COVID continue to get worse in SCC, this approval can be revoked at any time.


too funny
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 7, 2020 at 3:48 pm
too funny, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 7, 2020 at 3:48 pm
1 person likes this

@TBM
Update 7/7/2020: The County of Santa Clara announced that the State of California approved its variance Tuesday morning, July 7. As a result, outdoor dining can continue in Santa Clara County and the new local health order announced by County Public Health Officer Dr. Sara Cody last week will now go into effect on Monday, July 13.

Hair cuts for everyone


Gen X Diner
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 7, 2020 at 5:51 pm
Gen X Diner , Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 7, 2020 at 5:51 pm
2 people like this

This discussion is taking a hilarious turn!
Honestly, wrt to waiters, I can’t wait for the robots to replace them. Very few care about customers anyway. And very few places in the Valley have an ambiance that would gain anything from a thoughtful waiter.
So much easier to order at the counter and have your plates delivered by a moving robot with a tray on its head. No tipping as an added bonus.
No offense, but good waiters in good places are a rarity...


too funny
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 7, 2020 at 8:34 pm
too funny, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 7, 2020 at 8:34 pm
Like this comment

@tbm
crickets?


The Business Man
Old Mountain View
on Jul 7, 2020 at 8:52 pm
The Business Man, Old Mountain View
on Jul 7, 2020 at 8:52 pm
Like this comment

Not crickets.

This story is out of date now.

Keep up with us. In the updated story.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.