S.J. gym closes as fines total nearly $1M
A San Jose gym that has racked up nearly $1 million in fines for operating indoors finally has closed, although likely for not very long as Santa Clara County is inching closer to letting businesses reopen now that California COVID-19 cases have dipped to the lowest level since fall.
California Ripped Fitness’ decision to temporarily close its indoor operation at 1035 E. Capitol Expressway comes after months of remaining open in blatant defiance of the state’s public health order.
Over the past two months, Santa Clara County had received dozens of complaints about the gym, conducted repeated site visits and slapped the business with the hefty fines after it refused to abide by rules meant to curb the disease’s spread.
The gym’s justification for being defiant was displayed prominently on its front windows in the form of colorful, handwritten signs that read: “We are exercising our constitutional right to peacefully protest. We are protesting that health clubs and exercise are essential.”
The county on Feb. 17 announced that the owner of California Ripped Fitness finally had submitted a compliance statement indicating the gym no longer was operating indoors.
“The county is pleased that California Ripped Fitness has decided to come into compliance, and we will be working with them on an agreement to resolve the outstanding fines,” the county health department wrote in a statement. “If they reopen in violation of the public health orders, they will be subject to additional fines and potential court action.”
The state’s purple tier for reopening, which currently bounds Santa Clara County,
prohibits gyms from operating indoors but allows them to move equipment and classes outside to continue serving their clients. California Ripped Fitness, located in a large strip mall parking lot, has not yet moved any equipment outdoors.
In an anonymous interview earlier this month, the gym’s manager said he had “no viable option” for moving the heavy equipment
into the busy parking lot and argued that remaining open for indoor exercise was the owner’s only means of paying the bills.
“We’ve got fines, but if we shut down, we’re not going to have our business anyway,” the manager said at the time. “The owner is going to lose everything, so the county and the state are really putting us between a rock and a hard place.”
During a mid-afternoon visit to the gym earlier this month, about two dozen people were inside working out. A sign on the front desk informed people they must wear a mask and wipe down equipment after use.
The gym had closed its sauna, stopped offering group classes and turned off its water fountains — all protocols put in place in the fall when it was permitted to serve clients indoors with a limited capacity.
California Ripped Fitness shuttered for six months at the start of the pandemic. But in September, when Santa Clara County initially moved into the state’s red tier, which allowed gyms to open indoors at 10% capacity, it reopened. About two months later, when the county fell back into the purple tier, the gym kept its doors open despite orders to close.
Unlike in the case of San Jose’s defiant Calvary Chapel — a church in Willow
Glen that was sued by the county for repeatedly hosting large, mask-free indoor services — the county did not take legal action against California Ripped Fitness.
The business, however, was cited and fined for violating public health directives prohibiting indoor operations and for failing to follow social distancing and face mask requirements.
Santa Clara County said California Ripped Fitness was not the only gym that has violated the public health orders, but it was the most difficult gym to persuade to come into compliance.
California Ripped Fitness is situated in one of the ZIP codes hit hardest by the coronavirus pandemic in Santa Clara County — 95121.
In the neighborhoods surrounding the gym, about 8 out of every 100 residents have been infected by the virus, according to county data.
Spurred by a scathing report that called the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority “one of the most expensive and least efficient transit systems in the country,” a South Bay lawmaker is taking action to overhaul the agency’s board.
Assemblyman Marc Berman, D-los Altos, introduced legislation Feb. 18 that would scrap the current VTA board — an 18-member body made up of local elected officials who critics say lack the expertise or time to adequately oversee the authority — and replace it with appointed members of the public with experience in transportation, finance and other fields related to running an agency.
Berman says the overhaul would create a more effective board that holds VTA accountable and steers it in the right direction.
“There is a big problem that needs to be addressed,” Berman said. “VTA needs a board that is really focused on the governance of the transportation authority.”
Berman’s action is in response to a 2019 civil grand jury report that identified the agency’s governing board as a core problem in need of structural change.
A long list of responsibilities falls under VTA’S purview — along with running a bus and light-rail network, the authority is also the county’s congestion management agency, meaning it oversees South Bay highways. And VTA is building the $6.9 billion extension of BART service through downtown San Jose, the largest infrastructure project in Santa Clara County’s history and one beset by delays and mounting costs.
But state law requires that VTA’S board of directors be made up of South Bay politicians. The grand jury report found those mayors, county supervisors and others in many cases regard running the authority as a lower priority compared with their primary office and other responsibilities.
“It’s just impossible for most council members to be able to do all of those things 100% — but VTA needs that,” Berman said.
VTA officials said their board already is considering changes to its structure following the grand jury report but said the current setup “has proven beneficial” because directors have authority both in transportation and land use.
“VTA looks forward to suggestions that will improve the delivery of transit and transportation projects for the people of Santa Clara County and our region,” authority spokesman Ken Blackstone said.
The grand jury report concluded the board has contributed to a “crisis” at VTA, with high operating costs and low ridership driving large deficits even before COVID-19 sent public transportation ridership into a downward spiral. Two other grand jury reports in recent decades have drawn similar conclusions about the board.
Berman’s legislation, AB 1091, would bar people who hold other elected office from serving on the VTA board. It would shrink the board’s size as well — from 12 voting directors, plus six alternates, to just nine members.
Directors would be appointed by local governments, which the legislation mandates “shall ensure that expertise, experience, or knowledge relative to transportation, infrastructure or project management, accounting or finance, and executive management are represented on the board.”
Appointees would come from all over the South Bay — five from the county supervisor districts, two from San Jose and two from other Santa Clara County cities.
The changes would take effect in 2022 if the bill becomes law.