CC 2020-07-14_06a Supplemental No 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: WHITNEY MCDONALD, ACTING DEPUTY CITY MANAGER
JESSICA MATSON, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
AGENDA ITEM 6.A. – JULY 14, 2020 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
UPDATE REGARDING COUNTYWIDE COVID-19 EFFORTS
DATE: JULY 14, 2020
Attached is correspondence received for the above referenced item.
cc: Acting City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Website (or public review binder)
From:VONIE GRIMM
To:public comment
Subject:item 6a public comment 7/14/2020
Date:Tuesday, July 14, 2020 7:40:55 AM
I am writing to urge the City of Arroyo Grande to vote to terminate this "local health
emergency."
The local health emergency and ALL orders emanating from it should be nullified, and not
ratified by the Board of Supervisors, based on this irrefutable evidence:
Health officers are violating two California laws:
1) Calling for a local health emergency when there are no legal grounds, as defined in
California law (ESA 8558 b) and CHSC Section 101080) and
2) Not providing "relevant information" to governmental entities, as required by HSC Div
105, Part 1, Chapter 3, Section 120175.5, which directs the health officers to provide evidence
and information to the governing body regarding communicable diseases.
If the BOS ratifies these illegal orders, they are complicit in violating these California laws:
(ESA 8558 b)
CHSC Section 101080) and
HSC Div 105, Part 1, Chapter 3, Section 120175.5.
DETAILS:
Health officers are violating California Health and Safety Code section 101080, as follows:
NO GROUNDS FOR A LOCAL EMERGENCY:
There are no grounds for a local health emergency. According to the California Emergency
Services Act (ESA), a local health emergency may only be proclaimed by a local health
officer when:
1) There is a release or spill of material that is subsequently determined to be hazardous or
medical waste, or
2) There is an "imminent and proximate threat of the introduction of any contagious,
infectious, or communicable disease, chemical agent, noncommunicable biologic agent, toxin
or radioactive agent"
Based on the definition of the above, there are NO GROUNDS for a local emergency in our
county.
There is no imminent [definition: "about to happen"] or proximate [definition: "immediate"]
threat.
Therefore the covid situation does not meet the definition for a local health emergency.
The "introduction" of this disease was declared on February 25, several months ago.
That does not meet the definition of an "introduction" of the disease.
Therefore the covid situation does not meet the definition for a local health emergency.
It is the exact opposite. There has been a slowing of deaths. The numbers of "positive cases"
are faulty because of the highly unreliability of the tests.
Health officers state as a reason for their local health emergency point (5) that "there is
currently no vaccine to prevent COVID-19.
How is that a local emergency? There is no effective vaccine for the flu, and there is no local
emergency declared for flu season, where fewer county residents die each year, compared to
covd-related deaths.
Further, health officers are violating California Health and Safety Code section 101080, as a
local health emergency can only be called when there is an "imminent and proximate threat of
the INTRODUCTION of any contagious, infectious or communicable disease..."
There is no imminent and proximate threat, and there is no "introduction" of any disease. The
introduction happened 3 months ago, so it no longer an EMERGENCY by definition.
FURTHER, NO EVIDENCE FOR WEARING FACE MASKS:
HSC Div 105, Part 1, Chapter 3, Section 120175.5 states that regarding the administration of
communicable disease prevention and control,
"A local health officer must make any relevant information available to governmental
entities."
This has not happened.
"Where is the science?"
Health officers have "passed the buck" and are breaking California law by not providing
reputable evidence in favor of healthy or asymptomatic residents to wear face masks.
Health officers refer to CDC guidance, which has zero evidence regarding wearing face
masks. None of the links provided by the CDC even mention wearing masks, let alone if they
are effective.
Further, Health officers rely on guidance from the CDP as the evidence for the mask mandate.
Yet, here is what the CDPH states regarding face masks:
1. The CDPH states: (link is here)
"Our best community and individual defense against COVID 19 is washing our hands
frequently, avoiding touching our eyes, nose and mouth with unwashed hands, avoiding being
around sick people and physical distancing, especially by staying at home.
2. "Face coverings may increase risk if users reduce their use of strong defenses,"
"You may CHOOSE to wear a cloth face covering when you must be in public"
"There is limited evidence to suggest that use of cloth face coverings by the public during a
pandemic could help reduce disease transmission. "
And those "who feel comfortable wearing a mask should do so."
HSC Div 105, Part 1, Chapter 3, Section 120175.5 states that regarding the administration of
communicable disease prevention and control:
"A local health officer must make any relevant information available to governmental
entities."
THUS,
WE, THE ELECTORATE, WHO OVERSEE THIS BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CALL ON
THE BOARD TO NOT RATIFY THE UNLAWFUL AND INVALID LOCAL HEALTH
EMERGENCY:
There are no grounds for a local health emergency based on California Law (ESA section
8558);
1) Calling for a local health emergency when there are no legal grounds , as defined in
California law (ESA 8558 b) and
2) Not providing "relevant information" to governmental entities, as required by HSC Div
105, Part 1, Chapter 3, Section 120175.5, which directs the health officers to provide evidence
and information to the governing body regarding communicable diseases.
Additional information can be found at thehealthyamerican.org
Please consider that the people of California are gathering signatures working on
recalling Governor
Newsom https://link.edgepilot.com/s/5f0eaa09/I_DhmHRnU0e4iDzQ3dDKMQ?
u=https://recallgavin2020.com/ and also he has a class action lawsuit against him for masks
and home imprisonment orders. https://link.edgepilot.com/s/1087fd6f/aTeEiEzbRkuwx2U-
aEV82Q?u=https://www.freedomwatchusa.org/gov-gavin-newsom-sued-over-mask-and-
home-imprisonment-ord
Thankyou for your service. Vonie Grimm
REFERENCES:
(2) California Department of Public Health states. "There is limited evidence to suggest that
the use of cloth face coverings by the publc during a pandemic could help reduce disease
transmission." "Face coverings may INCREASE
RISK." https://link.edgepilot.com/s/e3181030/aXnbqeaWrE6ArYlRrx4F9w?
u=https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/Face-Coverings-Guidance.aspx
(2) CAL/OSHA statement that "cloth face covers do not protect against COVID-
19." https://link.edgepilot.com/s/b9a6c620/ZWPWVts1BUqDlebUHCLKuw?
u=https://dir.ca.gov/dosh/coronavirus/COVID-19-Infection-Prevention-in-Logistics.pdf
(3) CAL/OSHA "Oxygen deficient atmosphere means an atmosphere with an oxygen content
below 19.5% by
volume." https://link.edgepilot.com/s/ef55e215/UE2yIJJt8EW0KxLUlUFq4w?
u=https://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/5144.html
(4) CDC has no evidence supporting the wearing of cloth face
coverings https://link.edgepilot.com/s/3e577f7b/uQj_4iOcrUuW79xJtVSmLw?
u=https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/diy-cloth-face-
coverings.html
(5) Video showing no evidence from CDC references regarding
masks: https://link.edgepilot.com/s/4163e295/32qixiZNL0u17D7P6FJMJQ?
u=https://tinyurl.com/ycoeckfv
(6) New England Journal of Medicine: "We know that wearing a mask outside health care
facilities offers little, if any, protection from
infection." https://link.edgepilot.com/s/7b721643/hRpkhElK1EGnfD1_8epebQ?
u=https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372
(7) Psychological harms of mask-wearing: Columbia University: "Many young children burst
into tears or recoil when someone wearing a mask approaches. By putting on masks, we take
away information that makes it especially difficult for children to recognize others and read
emotional signals, which is unsettling and
disconcerting." https://link.edgepilot.com/s/5acc7944/xgSuDJFTtUe0JWKg9vfagg?
u=https://bit.ly/2XDaASx
(8) Physical harms of mask-wearing: "Face Masks Pose Serious Risk to the
Healthy" https://link.edgepilot.com/s/c751b9f6/nF3mDyTaXUyliMDAyIDPfg?
u=https://www.technocracy.news/blaylock-face-masks-pose-serious-risks-to-the-healthy/
(9) "Face coverings present a possible choking or strangulation hazard to your
child" https://link.edgepilot.com/s/18100f62/8Z0vm_tj-UmKlQ7sXvbPig?
u=https://bit.ly/3cEX4SC
(10) California Health and Safety Code Section 120290 -- Exposre to an Infectious Disease in
California. The defendant must (a) know they are afflicted with an infectious disease and (b)
the defendant acts with SPECIFIC INTENT to transmit that disease to another
person https://link.edgepilot.com/s/d9468ac8/OgH6UBkSVUC68HJC_Fwvbg?
u=http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?
lawCode=HSC%26sectionNum=120290
Get Outlook for Android
Links contained in this email have been replaced. If you click on a link in the email above, the
link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to
proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warning.