The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2020-09-22; City Council; ; City of Carlsbad Facial Covering Requirements and Enhanced Enforcement of the County Health Order for Beach Boardwalks, Staircases, Gatherings and BusinessesMeeting Date: September 22, 2020 To: Mayor and City Council From: Celia Brewer, City Attorney Scott Chadwick, City Manager Staff Contact: Allegra Frost, Deputy City Attorney allegra.frost@carlsbadca.gov, 760-573-1125 Pete Pascual, Captain, Carlsbad Police Department pete.pascual@carlsbadca.gov, 760-931-2152 Subject: City of Carlsbad Facial Covering Requirements and Enhanced Enforcement of the County Health Order for Beach Boardwalks, Staircases, Gatherings and Businesses Recommended Action Boardwalks and staircases: Consider adopting a resolution that would require people to wear facial coverings on beach boardwalks and staircases on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays and holidays from sunrise to sunset. Alternatively, consider appropriating funds for two additional police officers to patrol the beach boardwalk area to provide enhanced education and enforcement of the San Diego County public health order’s face covering requirements. Gatherings and businesses: Provide further direction to staff on what additional face covering requirements for gatherings and businesses the City Council would like. Executive Summary The City Council approved a minute motion on July 28, 2020, directing staff to draft a Carlsbad- specific face-covering ordinance that includes time, place and manner restrictions on boardwalks, staircases, gatherings and businesses. Based on the City Council’s request, the resolution attached as Exhibit 1 would require everyone to wear a face covering along the west side of Carlsbad Boulevard from Pine Avenue to Cannon Road, including the upper and lower seawall, and on all beach access ramps and staircases from the Rue de Chateaux beach access point on Ocean Street to the bridge south of Tamarack Avenue on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, between sunrise and sunset. (See map in Exhibit 3). The only exemptions would be for people who are under the age of 2, who have a medical condition, mental health condition or disability that prevents wearing a face covering, or who are hearing impaired, or communicating with a person who is hearing impaired. Sept. 22, 2020 Item #3 Page 1 of 19 Another option to consider is allocating funding for two additional Carlsbad police officers to patrol the beach boardwalk areas on an overtime basis to implement an enhanced face- covering education and enforcement campaign. This option would expand on the work the Carlsbad Police Department conducted over the summer to encourage voluntarily compliance the face-covering requirements. That work included increased bike, lagoon and beach patrol contacts to distribute face coverings and educate the public about the face covering requirements. Staff is also requesting direction on what time, place, and manner restrictions the City Council would wish to see imposed on gatherings and businesses. Discussion Background Public health officials say wearing facial coverings when encountering people outside one’s household is an effective means of slowing the spread of COVID-19. In response, the state and the county issued public health orders requiring people to wear face coverings in certain high- risk situations. The county health order includes several exceptions that make it very challenging for a law enforcement officer to tell whether someone not wearing a facial covering in a public area is in violation of the county health order. (See Exhibit 2, Summary of county health order’s face-covering requirements.) The City of Carlsbad, like other cities in San Diego County, has focused much of its pandemic response on encouraging people to use face coverings when they leave their homes and cannot maintain the physical distance required to slow the spread of this disease. Del Mar, Solana Beach and Encinitas have each implemented public education and enforcement campaigns very similar to what Carlsbad is already doing. Although several cities in Los Angeles County have adopted more restrictive facial covering requirements than their respective county’s public health order, no other city within San Diego County has done so.1 Staff is not aware of any city that has eliminated the exemption for people who have a medical reason for not wearing a face covering.2 To adopt requirements that are more restrictive than the county health order, the city would need to demonstrate the additional requirements: • Bear a real and substantial relationship to protecting the public from the spread of COVID-19 • Are not arbitrary and do not go beyond what is necessary to accomplish this purpose • Do not plainly and palpably invade any constitutional rights.3 The City Council’s July 28, 2020, minute motion directed staff to prepare a “face-covering ordinance that includes time, place, and manner restrictions on boardwalks, staircases, 1 Before the state or county implemented mandatory face-covering requirements, National City mandated face coverings be worn inside essential businesses but did not impose a penalty. The current face-covering requirements in the county health order are broader than what was initially implemented in National City. 2 The face-covering order in the City of Calabasas does not expressly state that persons with a medical disability preventing them from wearing a face covering are exempt, but Calabasas explained that they interpret the order as including a medical exemption. 3 See, e.g., Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1905) 197 U.S. 11, 26, 38. Sept. 22, 2020 Item #3 Page 2 of 19 gatherings, and businesses.” The phrase “time, place and manner restrictions” is generally used in connection with a legal analysis of a government regulation on public forums and the conduct of activities protected by the First Amendment. However, staff understood the City Council’s minute motion as intending that face coverings be worn more frequently along the city’s beach boardwalk and staircases. Staff was uncertain what additional face-covering-related requirements the City Council intends to impose on gatherings or businesses. In addition, there are substantial legal issues related to expanding restrictions on gatherings, as explained below. For these reasons, face covering restrictions on gatherings and businesses were not included in the resolution, and staff is seeking further direction on those two items. If the City Council provides direction on what additional face-covering restrictions it would like imposed on gatherings and businesses, or provides general direction about what problems related to gatherings and businesses it would like to solve, staff will return with an option or options to implement that direction. Boardwalks and staircases The resolution attached as Exhibit 1 would require everyone to wear a face covering on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays and state and federal holidays, between sunrise and sunset, when present in the following locations: • On the sidewalk, walkways and the upper and lower seawall located along the west side of Carlsbad Boulevard from Pine Avenue to Cannon Road • On all beach access ramps and staircases located along Carlsbad Boulevard and Ocean Street, from the Rue de Chateaux beach access point located at 2427 Ocean Street to the bridge on Carlsbad Boulevard south of Tamarack Avenue (See Exhibit 3, map) The only exemptions would be for persons who are under the age of 2, who have a medical condition, mental health condition, or a disability that prevents wearing a face covering, or who are hearing impaired, or communicating with a person who is hearing impaired. This would have the effect of requiring people to wear a face covering even if they are walking with members of their own household or are running, unless they are under the age of 2 or are exempt due to a medical condition or disability. These additional restrictions may be supported by evidence showing that it is difficult or impractical to maintain six feet of physical distance from non-household members in these areas, as required by the county health order, due to the narrowness of the walkways and the frequent large crowds in this area. These sidewalks and staircases are also the access points for Carlsbad’s most popular beaches and are frequently crowded. The average widths of the seven beach access staircases located along Ocean Street range from four to twelve feet. The lower seawall is an average of nine feet wide. Excluding the viewing spots and plazas, the pathways along the upper sea wall range from six to nine feet wide. There are also significantly larger crowds at the beaches on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, as shown in Exhibit 5, which makes it hard or impossible for everyone to consistently maintain the required six feet of physical distance along the narrow walkways in this area. However, the data provided in Exhibit 5 is from August. As fall and winter approach, the crowds, and therefore the evidence in support of the expanded face covering requirement, might decrease. Sept. 22, 2020 Item #3 Page 3 of 19 Staff initially considered recommending the expanded restrictions apply 24 hours a day, seven days per week, out of concern that a more limited timeframe could be confusing to the public and because crowding sometimes occurs during weekdays. However, the City Attorney’s Office recommends limiting any expansion of the face covering requirements to Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, from sunrise to sunset, in order to narrowly tailor the requirements and ensure that there is evidence to support the expansion beyond the county health order’s requirements. For example, staff has not provided evidence to support a requirement that everyone wear face coverings at night, when there are generally few people in the beach areas. The attached resolution includes the limited timeframes recommended by the City Attorney’s Office. The City Attorney’s Office also recommends adopting these restrictions through a resolution under the city’s emergency powers, rather than an ordinance, because a resolution is better suited to temporary actions. Violations of the resolution would be enforceable by citation under Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 6.04.130, Emergency Services - Punishment of violations. A violation would constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not to exceed $500 or by incarceration for not to exceed six months. Violations could be downgraded to an infraction by the City Attorney’s Office. Violations may also be cited as an administrative citation under Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.10 with graduated fines starting at $100 for a first offense, $200 for a second offense and $500 for a third or more offense within the same year. Even if the resolution is adopted, enforcement would continue to be a challenge because of the legal and practical challenge of determining whether a person is exempt from the face-covering requirement due a medical condition or disability that prevents wearing a face covering. However, the proposed emergency resolution could be useful to encourage all members of the public to comply with the face-covering requirement. As an alternative to the Carlsbad-specific face-covering requirements, the resolution attached as Exhibit 4 would appropriate funds for two additional police officers to patrol the beach boardwalk areas on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays and holidays up to eight hours a day for 12 weeks, as needed, on an overtime basis. The officers would hand out face coverings and identify opportunities to teach members of the public about the importance of face coverings. This is similar to the approach taken by Del Mar, Solana Beach and Encinitas, which contract with the county Sheriff’s Department for law enforcement services. Increasing patrols in these areas instead of adopting Carlsbad-specific face-covering requirements has the benefit of remaining consistent with the state, county and other North County coastal cities and providing the public with consistent messaging and less legal risk. This alternative would represent an expansion of the existing police department efforts to distribute face coverings and educate the public about the face covering requirements through increased bike, lagoon and beach patrol contacts. Gatherings As noted above, staff requests direction on what additional face-covering requirements the City Council would like to see imposed on gatherings. the county health order currently prohibits all public or private gatherings. Gatherings are defined as any event that brings together more Sept. 22, 2020 Item #3 Page 4 of 19 than one person in a single room or single indoor or outdoor space at the same time. A gathering does not include: 1. A gathering consisting only of members of a single family or household 2. Operations at airports, public transportation or other spaces where persons in transit are able to practice social distancing 3. Operations at essential and reopened businesses and where other requirements of the county health order are followed 4. A religious service or cultural ceremony including a wedding ceremony which is allowed, provided the state guidance is followed; wedding receptions are not allowed 5. Outdoor protests in which participants maintain social distancing and wear face coverings at all times The state’s restrictions on protests and religious gatherings have faced, and continue to face, significant legal challenges. In May, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a request to halt enforcement of California’s restrictions on the size of public gatherings to slow the spread of COVID-19.4 However, litigation in that case and other similar cases is still ongoing. The governor and the state public health officer have chosen to balance the need to protect public health and First Amendment protections by allowing outdoor faith-based services and protests to resume statewide provided face coverings are worn and physical distancing is maintained.5 Because of the many potential legal issues, the City Attorney’s Office would need time to carefully review any proposed Carlsbad-specific restrictions on gatherings, including restrictions on protests or faith-based services. As previously explained, in order to adopt requirements that are more restrictive than the county health order, additional requirements the city must provide evidence that the added requirements bear a real and substantial relation to the protection of public health from the spread of COVID-19. The requirements also cannot be not arbitrary or go beyond what is necessary to accomplish this purpose and may not plainly and palpably invade any constitutional rights. Businesses Staff also requests further guidance on what additional face-covering requirements the City Council would like to see placed on businesses. It would also help staff to understand what problem or problems related to businesses the City Council is trying to address and whether education or enforcement is the preferred remedy. The county health order currently requires all non-exempt individuals to wear a face covering when inside of, or in line to enter, any indoor public space. However, people may remove face coverings inside a restaurant while they are seated and eating or drinking, if they are able to maintain a distance of at least six feet away from persons who are not members of the same household or residence. Reopened businesses are required to complete and post a safe reopening plan, in accordance with which they must operate.6 The safe reopening plan, which 4 South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom (2020) 140 S. Ct. 1613. 5 Indoor faith-based services are currently allowed in San Diego County with modifications and capacity restrictions, including limiting attendance to 25 percent of capacity or 100 people, whichever is less. 6 San Diego Food Facility, Restaurant, Bar, Winery, Brewery Operating Protocol: https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/hhsa/programs/phs/Epidemiology/ covid19/ Sept. 22, 2020 Item #3 Page 5 of 19 must be posted on each public entrance, informs all employees and customers of the county health order’s requirements for face coverings. Since the July 28, 2020, City Council meeting, the County of San Diego has also implemented the Safe Reopening Compliance Team to help businesses comply with the county health order and increase enforcement. Most issues with businesses operating in violation of the county health order are resolved through education. To date, staff is only aware of four Carlsbad businesses for which an elevated response was needed. In these cases, the Police Department provides the county with evidence of the violations and the county issues a cease and desist order. The Police Department also investigates all potential health order violations that are reported to the department. Finally, the City of Carlsbad has also developed the “Stay Safe, Stay Open” public education campaign, which includes signs that businesses can post encouraging people to wear face coverings.7 Because the city and county have already implemented additional compliance efforts targeted at businesses, staff requests direction as to whether there are other requirements or enforcement tools the City Council would like, and if so, what those are. Fiscal Analysis The cost of implementing and enforcing Carlsbad specific face-covering requirements is uncertain but would depend on how many new or additional signs are needed. The alternate proposal for two officers to patrol the beach areas up to eight hours per day, three days per week, for 12 weeks, on an as-needed basis, is estimated to cost up to $69,210.24. If City Council selects this option, staff recommends that the City Council authorize the deputy city manager to appropriate $69,210.24 from the General Fund to the Police Department’s operating budget for the additional patrols to be conducted as needed. Hourly Overtime 8 hours OT 2 officers 3 days a week 12 weeks Police officer $ 81.58 $ 109.74 $ 877.92 $ 1,755.84 $ 5,767.52 $ 69,210.24 Next Steps If the council approves the resolution in Exhibit 1, staff will take the appropriate measures to implement it, such as posting signs and taking other steps to inform the public of the new rules. If the Council approves the resolution in Exhibit 4, the deputy city manager of administrative services will appropriate $69,210.24 from the General Fund to the Police Department’s operating budget. Up to two police officers will be assigned to patrol the beach boardwalk area up to three days per week, and up to eight hours a day over the next twelve weeks, as needed, to hand out face coverings and educate the public about the face covering requirements. Staff may also conduct further research on potential restrictions on gatherings and businesses if directed to do so by the council. Community_Sector_Support/BusinessesandEmployers/SafeReopeningPlanTemplate.pdf; Restaurants: https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/deh/fhd/food/pdf/covid19sdrestaurantoperatingprotocol_en. pdf. 7 Stay Safe, Stay Open campaign examples: https://cityadmin.carlsbadca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=45264. Sept. 22, 2020 Item #3 Page 6 of 19 Environmental Evaluation (CEQA) This action is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under California Public Resources Code Section 21080, subdivision (b)(4), applicable to specific actions necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency. Public Notification and Outreach Public notice of this item was posted in keeping with the Ralph M. Brown Act and it was available for public viewing and review at least 72 hours before the scheduled meeting date. Exhibits 1.Resolution - Carlsbad specific face covering requirements 2.Summary of San Diego County public health order’s face-covering requirements 3.Map of mandatory face coverings zones 4.Resolution - Additional police patrols for face covering violations 5.August 2020 beach staircase usage Sept. 22, 2020 Item #3 Page 7 of 19 RESOLUTION NO. . A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ISSUING AN EMERGENCY ORDER MANDATING FACE COVERINGS IN CERTAIN HIGH-TRAFFIC PEDESTRIAN AREAS OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. WHEREAS, international, national, state, and local health and governmental authorities have declared a public health emergency due to an outbreak of a highly transmittable respiratory disease, referred to as COVID-19; and WHEREAS, COVID-19 symptoms include fever, cough, shortness of breath, nausea, loss of smell or taste and many other wide-ranging symptoms; and those who have been afflicted have experienced a wide spectrum of severity in symptoms ranging from asymptomatic to death; and WHEREAS, on February 14, 2020, the San Diego County Health Officer declared a Local Health Emergency as a result of the spread of COVID-19, which was ratified by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors on February 19, 2020; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, the Governor of the State of California declared a state of emergency to make additional resources available, formalize emergency actions already underway across multiple state agencies and departments, and help the State prepare for broader spread of COVID-19; and WHEREAS, on March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization began characterizing COVID-19 as a pandemic; and WHEREAS, on March 13, 2020, the President of the United States declared a national emergency as a result of the spread of COVID-19; and WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad passed a resolution ratifying a declaration of local emergency to provide the city with more flexibility and greater access to resources as it responds to the COVID-19 public health emergency; and WHEREAS, effective May 1, 2020, the San Diego County Health Order (“County Health Order”) and all revised versions since this date have required, among other health and safety precautions, that “all persons two years old and older who are present in the county shall have possession of a face covering described in California Department of Public Health Face Covering Guidance issued on April 1, 2020, when they leave their home or place of residence and shall wear the face covering whenever Exhibit 1 Sept. 22, 2020 Item #3 Page 8 of 19 they are in a business or within six feet of another person who is not a member of their family or household;” an exemption was made for persons with a medical or mental health condition or developmental disability that prevents wearing a face covering; and WHEREAS, on June 18, 2020, the California Department of Public Health issued Guidance for the Use of Face Coverings mandating the use of cloth face coverings by the general public under specified circumstances when outside the home including when inside of, or in line to enter, any indoor space and while outdoors in public spaces when maintaining a physical distance of 6 feet from persons who are not members of the same household or residence is not feasible; and WHEREAS, beginning on June 28, 2020, in light of rates of disease transmission in some counties and the need to reduce non-essential gatherings where mixing and disease spread occur, the California Department of Public Health created a COVID-19 county monitoring list and ordered the closure of certain high-risk businesses in various counties statewide, including bars, brewpubs, breweries, and pubs not offering sit-down, dine-in meals; and WHEREAS, on July 15, 2020, the County Health Order slightly revised its face covering requirement to more closely reflect the state’s face covering guidance: “All persons two years of age or older who are present in the county shall have possession of a face covering when they leave their home or place of residence and shall wear the face covering as described and required in California Department of Public Health Face Covering Guidance issued on June 17, 2020, (available at: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/COVID19/Guidance- for-Face-Coverings_06-18-2020.pdf)”; and WHEREAS, the most recent County Health Order effective September 10, 2020, provides for a face covering requirement that mirrors that of the state: “Face coverings shall be worn as described and required in California Department of Public Health Face Covering Guidance issued on June 18, 2020, (available at: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/COVID19/Guidance- for-Face-Coverings_06-18-2020.pdf);” and WHEREAS, the Carlsbad City Council, the Director of Emergency Services, and city staff including the Carlsbad Police Department have urged residents to follow the orders of the San Diego County Health Officer, including the requirements to stay home except to take care of essential needs or go to Sept. 22, 2020 Item #3 Page 9 of 19 an essential place of business and limited other exceptions, the wearing of face coverings, social distancing, and avoidance of gatherings, among other precautions; and WHEREAS, despite the mandates of the County Health Orders, the efforts of the city to urge voluntary compliance with the face covering requirements, many persons within the City of Carlsbad continue to fail to comply with the face covering requirements of the County Health Order, thereby placing themselves and others at risk of contracting COVID-19; and WHEREAS, the transmission of COVID-19 continues to increase in the State of California and in San Diego County and the City of Carlsbad, and there is a significant risk of widespread transmission of COVID-19 in the County of San Diego and the City of Carlsbad without the adoption of stricter measures to slow its spread; and WHEREAS, as of September 17, 2020 the City of Carlsbad has had a cumulative total of 670 confirmed cases of COVID-19, with an estimated 43 active cases; as of September 15, 2020, the County of San Diego has had a cumulative total of 43,445 confirmed cases of COVID-19; and WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad experiences a high volume of pedestrian traffic near the Carlsbad Village beach access areas, making it difficult to continuously maintain adequate social distancing as required by the County Health Order, specifically along the westerly sidewalks and walkways of Carlsbad Boulevard, between Pine Avenue and Cannon Road, inclusive of the upper and lower Sea Wall walkways; and WHEREAS, beach access ramps and stairwells located along Carlsbad Boulevard and Ocean Street, between the Ocean Street beach access point located at 2427 Ocean Street and the intersection of Cannon Road, also experience a considerable volume of pedestrian traffic and are narrow in width, many ranging from 4 to 12 feet, such that it is often difficult to maintain adequate social distancing as required by the County Health Order; during the month of August the access stairwells along Ocean Street averaged approximately 406 persons per day with the Carlsbad Village Drive stairwell averaging 655 persons per day; and WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad experiences a steady but sometimes unpredictably high flow of pedestrian traffic near the above-mentioned beach access areas between the hours of sunrise and sunset, with data supporting the highest volume of pedestrian traffic occurring on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays, and state and federal holidays; and Sept. 22, 2020 Item #3 Page 10 of 19 WHEREAS, numerous and reputable scientific studies suggest that social distancing, avoidance of public or private gatherings (as defined in the most recent County Health Order), and the use of cloth face coverings by the public may help reduce COVID-19 disease transmission by reducing the release of infectious particles into the air when someone speaks, coughs, or sneezes, especially in the case of asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic persons or those with mild symptoms who do not realize that they are infectious and contagious; and WHEREAS, California Government Code section 8634 empowers the City to promulgate orders and regulations necessary to provide for the protection of life and property during a local emergency, and Health and Safety Code section 120175.5 (b) provides that all governmental entities in the county shall take necessary measures within the governmental entity’s control to ensure compliance with the County Health Order; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California has determined that in the interest of public health and safety, as affected by the emergency caused by the spread of COVID-19, it is necessary and prudent to adopt a local face covering requirement more strict than that of the County of San Diego’s most recent County Health Order with an option for local administrative enforcement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the City Council of the City of Carlsbad hereby finds that an emergency order is necessary to protect the residents, visitors, and general public of Carlsbad in order to keep them safe and healthy and to slow the spread of COVID-19. 3. The definitions in the most recent County Health Order apply to the words and phrases used in this Order unless context dictates otherwise. 4. The City Council of the City of Carlsbad hereby issues an Emergency Order pursuant to subsections 6.04.100(A)(6)(a) and 6.04.100(A)(6)(e) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code mandating that all pedestrians, subject to the exceptions outlined in subsections (a) through (c) below, wear a face covering on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays, and state and federal holidays between the hours of sunrise and sunset while present along the westerly sidewalks and walkways of Carlsbad Boulevard, between Pine Avenue and Sept. 22, 2020 Item #3 Page 11 of 19 Cannon Road, inclusive of the upper and lower Sea Wall walkways; and also while using beach access ramps and stairwells located along Carlsbad Boulevard and Ocean Street, between the Rue de Chateaux beach access point located at 2427 Ocean Street and the bridge south of Tamarack Avenue located on Carlsbad Boulevard. The following persons are exempt from this Emergency Order: a. Younger than 2 years old; b. With a medical condition, mental health condition, or disability that prevents wearing a face covering. This includes persons with a medical condition for whom wearing a face covering could obstruct breathing or who are unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove a face covering without assistance; c. Who are hearing impaired, or communicating with a person who is hearing impaired, where the ability to see the mouth is essential for communication; 5. The Director of Emergency Services or designee may promulgate regulations to implement the provisions of this Order. No person shall fail to comply with any such regulation. 6. The Director of Emergency Services or designee is authorized to deputize additional persons to issue administrative citations for violations of this Order, as amended from time to time, pursuant to sections 1.10.010 and 1.10.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 7. The Director of Emergency Services or designee is authorized to enter into any contracts related to the enforcement of this Order, as amended from time to time. 8. Should the directives of the State’s Face Covering Guidance, the County Health Order, this Order, or any regulations promulgated thereunder conflict, the stricter regulation shall apply. 9. Section 4 of this Order and any regulations promulgated under Section 5 of this Order shall be enforceable by: (a) the Carlsbad Police Department and any city officer or employee granted authority to issue written notices to appear pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code section 1.08, to be charged as a misdemeanor pursuant to Government Code section 8665 or Carlsbad Municipal Code section 6.04.130, with the option of Sept. 22, 2020 Item #3 Page 12 of 19 downgrading such charges to an infraction; or (b) any enforcement officer as defined in Carlsbad Municipal Code section 1.10.010, through the issuance of an administrative citation under Carlsbad Municipal Code section 6.04.130, in accordance with Chapter 1.10 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The issuance of a Notice of Violation is not necessary prior to issuing an administrative citation, and all corrective actions shall be immediately required. Pursuant to section 1.10.100(A) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the amount of the administrative penalty for a violation of any provision of, or any regulations issued under, this Order shall be as authorized in California Government Code sections 36900(b)-(d) and 53069.4(a)(1). As of the date of this Order, these penalty amounts are $100 for the first violation; $200 for a second violation committed within one year for the first violation; and $500 for a third violation or subsequent violations committed within one year of the first violation. Each day or portion of a day that any person violates or continues to violate any provision of, or any regulations issued under, this Order constitutes a separate violation and may be charged and punished separately. 10. Pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code section 1.10.110(B), the failure of any person to pay an administrative penalty or late fee within the time specified on the administrative citation without the filling of an appeal will result in the assessment of an additional late fee. The amount of the late fee is 100% of the total amount of the administrative penalty and will be assessed independent of whether the violation has subsequently been corrected. 11. This Order shall take effect immediately and, unless extended or expressly superseded by a duly enacted Ordinance of the City Council or by a further Order by the Director of Emergency Services shall remain in effect until the expiration of the City’s declaration of local emergency. 12. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Order is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Order. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Order, and any Supplement thereto, and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not Sept. 22, 2020 Item #3 Page 13 of 19 declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the resolution would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the __ day of ________, 2020, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: _________________________ MATT HALL, Mayor _________________________ BARBARA ENGLESON, City Clerk (SEAL) Sept. 22, 2020 Item #3 Page 14 of 19 Summary of San Diego County Public Health Order’s Face-Covering Requirements The San Diego County Public Health Order (County Health Order) effective September 1, 2020 states, “Face coverings shall be worn as described and required in California Department of Public Health Face Covering Guidance issued on June 18, 2020.”1 The California Department of Public Health Face Covering Guidance requires everyone in California to wear a face covering when they are in the following high-risk situations: 1.When inside of, or in line to enter, any indoor public space 2.When obtaining services from the healthcare sector 3.When waiting for or riding public transportation, in a taxi, a private car service, or a ride- sharing vehicle 4.While working, if the person is also: o Interacting in-person with any member of the public o In any space visited by members of the public o In any space where food is prepared or packaged for others o In common areas, such as hallways, stairways, elevators, and parking facilities o In any room or enclosed area where other people (except members of the person’s household or residence) are present, when unable to physically distance 5.When driving or operating any public transportation or paratransit vehicle, taxi, or private car service or ride-sharing vehicle when passengers are present 6.When outdoors in public spaces, if maintaining a physical distance of 6 feet from persons who are not members of the same household or residence is not feasible The County Health Order exempts eight categories of people from the face-covering requirement. These include people: 1.Younger than 2 years old 2.With a medical condition, mental health condition, or disability that prevents wearing a face covering. This includes persons with a medical condition for whom wearing a face covering could obstruct breathing or who are unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove a face covering without assistance 3.Who are hearing impaired, or communicating with a person who is hearing impaired, where the ability to see the mouth is essential for communication 4.For whom wearing a face covering would create a risk to the person related to their work, as determined by local, state, or federal regulators or workplace safety guidelines 5.Obtaining a service involving the nose or face for which temporary removal of the face covering is necessary to perform the service 6.Seated at a restaurant or other establishment that offers food or beverage service while eating or drinking, if they can maintain a distance of at least six feet away from persons who are not members of the same household or residence 1 The state face covering protocols are available at: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/COVID-19/Guidance-for-Face- Coverings_06-18-2020.pdf Exhibit 2 Sept. 22, 2020 Item #3 Page 15 of 19 7.Engaged in outdoor work or recreation such as swimming, walking, hiking, bicycling or running, when alone or with household members, and when they can maintain a distance of at least six feet from others 8.Who are incarcerated Persons exempted from wearing a face covering due to a medical condition who are employed in a job involving regular contact with others should wear a non-restrictive alternative, such as a face shield with a drape on the bottom edge, if their condition permits it. Sept. 22, 2020 Item #3 Page 16 of 19 CARLSBAD BL CANNON RDExhibit 3 – Facial Co vering Requirement Areas J:\RequestsMarch2015\CityAttorney\RITM0019496_20OCEAN STCARLSBAD VILLAGE DRCARLSBADBLPINE AVOCEAN S T Legend Seawall Beach Access Sidewalk & Seawall Pedestrian PathsPINE AVCARLSBAD BL TAMARACKAVSept. 22, 2020 Item #3 Page 17 of 19 00111111111101// N‘i• CAN/' S RESOLUTION NO. 2020-191 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE APPROPRIATION OF $69,210 FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S FY21 OPERATING BUDGET FOR POLICE OFFICERS TO PROVIDE ENHANCED EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE COUNTY HEALTH ORDER'S FACE MASK REQUIREMENTS AT THE BEACH. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California has determined that it is in the best interest of the city for police officers to patrol the beach areas to provide enhanced education and enforcement of the San Diego County Public Health Order's face covering requirements; and WHEREAS, the Chief of Police will designate two police officers working up to eight hours per day, three days per week for 12 weeks on an as needed basis; and WHEREAS, the cost is estimated to be up to $69,210 in overtime. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. The Deputy City Manager of Admin services will appropriate $69,210 from the General Fund to the Police Department's FY21 operating budget. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 22nd day of September 2020, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Blackburn, Bhat-Patel, Schumacher. NAYS: Hall. ABSENT: None. MATT HALL, Mayor -61- li Pepj BARBARA ENGLESON, City Clerk &erne 21 (SEAL) Sept. 22, 2020 Item #3 Page 18 of 19 1200 Daily Pedestrian Counts for City Staircases Along Ocean Street 8-1-2020 to 8-31-2020 Exhibit 5 1000 800 600 400 200 ;IL 0 Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Site Name Average Median STDV Min Max Beech & Ocean St-B.A. (IR) (0) • ..... 456.7 361.3 169.2 257.2 761.6 .........._ Christiansen & Ocean St-BA. (IR) ,4_,, CVD & Ocean St- B.A.(IR) (,,.,, Cypress & Ocean St.-B.A. (IR) 74.0 655.9 306.4 57.8 580.3 273.8 240 216.2 100.8 46.4 438.0 170.8 107.6 1,104.6 463:6 Grand & Ocean St-B.A.(IR) 571.3 509.0 194.8 312.3 929.0 Oak & Ocean St-B.A. (IR) (0) 0.0 0 0.0 _ 0.0 0.0 Rue Des Chateaux-B.A. (IR) (D H 373.4 370.8 162.9 145.4 632.0 Sept. 22, 2020 (D) = divide by 2 applied Note: the counteMk & ODMS-1.9asPit of service in August. Mon Tue Sept. 22, 2020 Item #3 Page 19 of 19 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: Sept. 22, 2020 Council Meeting, Agenda item #3: Linda Kranen <Ik42@me.com> Friday, September 18, 2020 4:15 PM City Clerk Public Comment All Receive - Agenda Item # For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL Date 9/.42 CA .'"--CC CM "ACM 115-CM (3) "Facial covering requirements and enhanced enforcement of the County Health Order for beach boardwalks, staircases, gatherings and businesses" I used to walk my dog every day on the Batiquitos Lagoon Trail. I seldom do that now, because so many people are on the trail that don't wear masks. The trail is often not wide enough for six feet of separation, especially now that it is used more heavily as an outdoor resource during the Covid pandemic. You can't pass a pair or group of walkers coming the other way and maintain a safe distance, and when a jogger weaves through, all bets are off. The joggers — especially the men — are especially problematic. They go by, huffing and chuffing, spraying their lung-juice ten to twelve feet, not six, and most of them don't wear masks. I don't care if it's outdoors; they're too close and it's not safe. So I mostly stay away. I know that Carlsbad doesn't have jurisdiction on the trail. But officers or city agents could plunk themselves on the sidewalk at the main entry points and ask people if they brought a mask and if not, either offer them one or tell them to go home and get one. People that are not mask-compliant are essentially denying access to those of us trying to be careful, and the state and city are complicit due to their loose requirements and lack of enforcement. I've treasured having a daily walk on that trail for over ten years; it's what I have enjoyed most about living here, and not being able to do that anymore because of inconsiderate people and Carlsbad's laxity is disheartening. I expected better Covid case numbers in Carlsbad than I've been seeing. Compared to Encinitas and Del Mar, you've got work to do, and I wish you'd get serious about it. Linda Kranen CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Council Internet Email -7) Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 2:25 PM All Receive - Agenda Item To: City Clerk For the Information of the: Subject: FW: Mask Enforcement; Just say NO (.9TY COUNCIL Date 11-2, CA ''---CC .---- CM ' ACM —DCM (3) ---- Regarding Agenda Item #3 From: Michael Curran <mdc@curranlawoffices.conn> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 10:36 AM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.goy> Cc: AASusan <smc@curranlawoffices.conn> Subject: Mask Enforcement; Just say NO Dear Carlsbad Board, There is always a balancing process in enforcement of government infringements, here alleged safety orders, versus protecting constitutional freedoms. With respect to mask mandates, the science is all over the place, as is the science on various mask types. From the Mayo clinic... Surgical masks Also called a medical mask, a surgical mask is a loose-fitting disposable mask that protects the wearer's nose and mouth from contact with droplets, splashes and sprays that may contain germs. A surgical mask also filters out large particles in the air. Surgical masks may protect others by reducing exposure to the saliva and respiratory secretions of the mask wearer. At this time, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not approved any type of surgical mask specifically for protection against the coronavirus. N95 masks Actually a type of respirator, an N95 mask offers more protection than a surgical mask does because it can filter out both large and small particles when the wearer inhales. As the name indicates, the mask is designed to block 95% of very small particles. Some N95 masks have valves that make them easier to breathe through. With this type of mask, unfiltered air is released when the wearer exhales. N95 masks, and even some cloth masks, have one-way valves that make them easier to breathe through. But because the valve releases unfiltered air when the wearer breathes out, this type of mask doesn't prevent the wearer from spreading the virus. For this reason, some places have banned them. Cloth masks 1 A cloth mask is intended to trap droplets that are released when the wearer talks, coughs or sneezes. Asking everyone to wear cloth masks may reduce the spread of the virus by people who have COVID-19 but don't realize it. Again, there is no particular science other than perhaps logic that supports this conclusion. Thus, There Is no conclusive evidence that any particular mask type is effective at preventing the spread of the virus, but there is substantial evidence with the wearing of a mask reduces oxygen intake and has adverse health effects on the wearer. There is no historical precedent to a mandatory mask mandate, not the H1 N1 virus, not ever in US history. In San Diego County, a county of 3.3M people we have had allegedly 44,250 COVID19 cases and 760 deaths, if we believe ever changing reported numbers and CDC just clarified 96% of reported deaths also had serious additional morbidities like heart disease, lung disease and diabetes. Even using these reported numbers and assuming their reliability, only .3% 3/10 of 1% of San Diego County residence have tested positive for the virus and a mere .02% 2/100 of 1% have died from coronavirus, with additional serious morbidities. The numbers and percentages here in even healhier North San Diego County, are even lower. So we know that statistically we have never come anywhere close to a government code defined pandemic, one that either is overwhelming or has the potential to overwhelm a government system, like healthcare. On balance, requiring/enforcing the overwhelming majority of healthy residents to wear a mask and negatively affect their health and immune system, is not justified, and violates both our state constitutional Article 1, And the US Constitution protections of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Please honor your oath's and do not impose or enforce a mask mandate in Carlsbad. Thank you. 2 Michael D. Curran, Esq./ATP CURRAN & CURRAN LAW Email is covered by the Electronics Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C., sections 2510-2521, and is legally privileged. This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution, or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies. CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 3 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: Regarding Agenda Item #3 Council Internet Email Monday, September 21, 2020 2:28 PM City Clerk FW: Police on beach / No Mask enforcement All Receive - Agenda Item For the Information of the: ITY COUNCIL Date CA ----CC --- CM i ACM ----DCM (3) Original Message From: Olmstead Jack <jackolmstead@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 2:25 PM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Police on beach / No Mask enforcement City Council Members, As a long time Carlsbad resident, I implore you to not ask nor order our overworked police to enforce a dubious order for mask wearing either on the beach or anywhere in our City. The "Election Infection" will soon be gone. Sincerely, Jack Olmstead , Carlsbad, CA 92009 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: jamie harrison <jamieh66@gmail.com > Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 4:07 PM To: City Clerk AU Receive - Agenda Item # Subject: Comment Facial covering enhancements and using policie For the Information of the: C)TY COUNCIL Date 11 -4-CA v CC Dear city council, cM x ACM DCM (3) *- I live in the city of Carlsbad, unlike all of Carlsbad's elected officials. I am strongly opposed to the city enacting any enhanced facial covering rules. I am also strongly opposed to using law enforcement to enforce a city rule regarding masks. In an age in which cities are encouraging law enforcement to only enforce real crimes, having them stop a person for not wearing a mask is absolutely ludicrous. This is not a police function and not one dollar of my tax money should be used to enforce this asinine idea. Thanks for the consideration. Thank you, Jamie Harrison CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: Scott Pastore <spastore77@gmail.com > Monday, September 21, 2020 4:43 PM City Clerk City Council Meeting Comment Agenda topic 3 All Receive - Agenda Item # For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL Date -2 CA z CC CM ACM DCM (3) To all the City Council Members, I'm writing today to voice my concerns and feelings about the enforcement of Facial Coverings at the beaches and Businesses. This is absolutely unnecessary and been time and time again scientifically proven not to stop the spread of this virus! We have also found that the sun (UV and Vitamin D) pretty much kills the virus. Making us wear a mask outside in the sun, is making our immune system worse and it ultimately make us sicker than them protecting us. There is also no reason to spend our tax dollars on having our Police enforce this absurd mandate. Our Police should be spending they're time protecting against crimes around our beautiful city to keep it safe! One last comment. Mrs. Schumacher, herself, uses a "medical exemption "to keep herself from being made to wear a mask! That should tell you all everything you need to know about rejecting this mandate! Thank you for your time, Scott Pastore Carlsbad citizen for over 25 years! CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: Darcie <walker.darcie@gnriail.com> Monday, September 21, 2020 9:40 PM City Clerk Agenda item 1=2; All Receive - Agenda Item # For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL Date V/ 7,)3 CA V CC CM ACM DCM (3) Dear Carlsbad City Council, My email relates to an agenda item Oand I desire to have the email read into the record at the City Council meeting Sept 22. Please consider the science! Our COVID numbers do not warrant the start of enforcing mask-wearing outdoors. What a waste of money and resources it would be to pay our valuable police to do so. We are confused as to why the city would put money into that rather than into HELPING IT'S CITIZENS, such as those who own small businesses. If people can no longer make a living, then it's much more likely they will not be able to afford proper healthcare, including preventative care. Businesses dying left and right is extremely more hurtful to our safety and health than the risk of healthy people contracting COVID19 virus at the beach. The numbers speak for themselves... Let's start focusing our resources on the livelihoods of our citizens rather than trying to scare healthy people into submission. This is common sense if you study the actual science and numbers for Carlsbad. Darcie & Jeremy Paul CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: Eldon Thompson <ehtt4reelz@gmail.com> Monday, September 21, 2020 5:38 PM City Clerk Agenda # 3 (wearing a mask in public place. All Receive - Agenda Item For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL Date']! 1-?-CAVCC.--- CM ACM DCM (3) We residents of Carlsbad need 2 put a stop 2 this ridiculous mask wearing in our city. "This idea is absurd & shows that the objective is all 'bout stealing from the residents of Carlsbad. We all have natural rights to choose to stay well or not. It's our choice 2 do what we choose ! Sent from my iPhone CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: Jen Belnap <jenwrite@hotmail.com> Monday, September 21, 2020 10:46 PM City Clerk agenda item #3 All Receive - Agenda Item # For the Information of the: ,CITY COUNCIL Date TCA ? CC -- CM -''ACM = DCM (3) — I'm writing to express my frustration and disappointment in Carlsbad for even considering agenda item #3, enforcing mask wearing outdoors, like at the beach. Furthermore, the council is considering moving police funding to mask enforcement and mask education. This is OUTRAGEOUS! I understand council member Cori Shumaker to be behind this agenda item. Could it be that Cori needs to deflect attention from the fact that she should be investigated for quid pro quo with her PLA push tied to the CEA issue? If that's not the case, let's get back to the masks alone. It is interesting that Cori wants everyone to mask up, and worse, create enforcement of mask wearing when she herself has an exemption for wearing a mask. The hypocrisy here is hilarious! Please, take yourselves seriously. Take your citizenry seriously. We do not want to spend time or money enforcing mask wearing OUTSIDE AT THE BEACH or anywhere else outdoors. There's a Boston University Medical study that recently came out saying Vitamin D greatly reduces one's risk of getting COVID-19. Eghad! What will Cori do now? A scientific study determined that sun exposure, in other words - being outside, greatly reduces your chance of getting COVID. The study further explains that people need to expose their skin to the sun in order for the body to produce a therapeutic amount of Vitamin D. Meaning, take the mask off and let the sun shine down on you in order to stimulate your immune system. Is the city council going to continue to consider the ridiculous ideas that come out of Con's mouth? Please, restore faith in reason, science and critical thinking skills by killing agenda item #3. Thank you, Jen Belnap CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Jessica Price <jessicalangprice@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 12:11 AM To: City Clerk; Cori Schumacher; Matthew Hall; Keith BlacialipmeRtiyaglgIsintWittaiti # Subject: MASK FUNDING - WE DO NOT CONSENT! For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL - Date Li < CA CC --- Dear City Council members, CM ACM DCM (3) I am appalled by the notion that a $70,000 mask enforcement and education will be brought to the table today. DO NOT APPROVE, we as taxpayers do not consent to being harassed. Most physicians believe outdoors, fresh air, vitamin D to be beneficial to your health. Mask wearing is unnecessary when outdoors and teaching the public otherwise is against science and common sense. Please follow the CDC recommendations and newest updates as we have better information on the virus now. Please stick up for the majority and not the cranky, loud minority who would have us all masked indefinitely. Jessica Price Sent from my phone CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: Dianna Isley <dianna.isley@att.net> Tuesday, September 22, 2020 9:20 AM City Clerk City Council Item #3 All Receive - Agenda Item For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL Date CC CM ACM DCM (3) NO to police at the beach educating about masks. This is Carlsbad, not Gestapo Germany. Dianna Isley Carlsbad Resident Sent from my iPad CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: susan gutierrez <schneb6@gmail.com> Tuesday, September 22, 2020 9:27 AM City Clerk Sept. 22. Agenda Number 3 Facial Coverings AU Receive - Agenda Item # ) For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL DateciLZ_ CA ." CC --- CM ACM --KM (3) Good Afternoon„ I am writing today in support of Ordinance number 3- Enforcement of Facial Coverings in high traffic areas. Since June the City of Carlsbad has engaged in a variety of educational efforts, and yet it seems to be of no avail. When driving through the downtown area, it is obvious most are not wearing facial coverings. When this pandemic first started there was a variety of ideas regarding the use and effectiveness of wearing facial coverings/ masks. This was due to lack of information on how the disease was spread. Now months later, through a variety of scientific studies, we are aware that until a vaccine is available the only recourse we have to mitigate infection is the use of social distancing and facial coverings. In many areas downtown, you can not social distance adequately. Infectious disease experts emphasize that the probability of infection is almost nil when all parties are wearing a mask. If we as a community want to preserve our downtown businesses, and return to some semblance of normal, we must stop pandering to the nonsense promoted by anti mask people. I ask that you take into consideration enforcement of facial coverings in the high traffic areas of downtown and the beach stairways. Susan Gutierrez Sue Gutierrez CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Kaylin McCauley From: Sent: To: Subject: Elizabeth Jacinto <elizabethjacinto@gmail.com> Monday, September 21, 2020 6:30 PM Council Internet Email $70,000 of taxpayer funds! All Receive - Agenda Item #3 For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL Date CA ----- CM ----A-CM ---DCM (3) With all the financial strain That the city has and will continue to endure as a result of Covid and reduced tax revenues to the city, we should not be wasting $70,000 of taxpayer money allocated to the police to enforce mask-wearing at the beach. We need to use that money for more useful and important issues. Elizabeth Jacinto 15-year Carlsbad resident. Sent from my iPhone CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Kaylin McCauley From: Kelli Dix <kellijodix@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 8:18 PM To: Council Internet Email Subject: Mask Enforcement To whom this may concern, I am beyond disappointed to learn that there is a proposed vote to decide whether we should allocate 70,000 dollars towards more mask restrictions. We are DONE being micromanaged. You say this is about being SAFE. You say this is about keeping people healthy. I disagree with these motives. Government has lost my trust long ago when prisoners were being allowed to leave the jails. If you cared about our safety then criminals would still be in jail and police would not be asked to waste their time bothering good citizens. A man attempted to kidnap a child in Vista this week. He is now back at his Carlsbad home because of COVID restrictions he was allowed to bail himself out. HOW DOES THIS KIND OF LOGIC KEEP ANYONE SAFE???? If your masks worked then prisoners should be fine 6 feet apart and wearing masks in jail where they have way more control over prisoners. NOTHING MAKES SENSE except that this is about power. I am done. I call your bluff. You do not truly care about your residents here. This is about control and manipulation. I played along in the beginning happily. As did so many. We believed that you had our best interest at heart. We were fooled. The virus is of course real but it does not equate to the type of measures we are experiencing. The children are the ones who are hurt the most through this. The playgrounds are all netted up, families get called the cops when they play at the hoops, people are against each other. If you cared about your Carlsbad residents you would OPEN UP and allow us to all get back to work, school, and to get Vitamin D without Masks at the beach. If you cared you would vote against this stupid idea to police us more and actually put the resources towards helping others not fining your TAX paying citizens. You are not representing the majority opinion. Sincerely, Kelli Dix CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Kaylin McCauley From: Amy Livingston <amyleighlivingston@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 8:28 PM To: Cori Schumacher; Keith Blackburn; Matthew Hall; Priya Bhat-Patel; Council Internet Email Subject: No masks at beach City council, I want to express my disapproval of a city mask mandate and especially of a requirement to wear masks anywhere outside—especially the beach. Thanks, Amy CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Kaylin McCauley From: Danielle Morales <danielleemorales@gnnail.com> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 8:50 PM To: Keith Blackburn; Cod Schumacher; Priya Bhat-Patel; Matthew Hall; Council Internet Email Subject: No mask mandate OUTSIDE Attn: City Council: I want to express my disapproval of a city mask mandate to wear masks outside, especially at the beach, in our lovely city of Carlsbad. It's been over six months, I have seen parks & playgrounds taped off, please look at the data and give your community the option to choose to wear masks outside, if they wish. Our north county constituents have obliged, we have been responsible citizens. Wearing a mask inside is one thing, but mandating one for outdoors in the fresh air would be absolutely crossing the line. Listen to your constituents. Regards, Danielle Morales Carlsbad Resident CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Kaylin McCauley From: Ally Davis <allypace@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 9:23 PM To: Council Internet Email Subject: Please read at city council meeting Hello, I am an OB/GYN physician, mother of 4 small children and live in Carlsbad. I feel it is a wasteful use of resources for police to ticket/patrol at the beach to forcibly make people wear masks. The chance of catching covid outdoors in the setting of passing someone briefly at the beach is very slim. Please spend the money on something more useful for the Carlsbad citizens. I would also implore you to please open the city playgrounds. Children are being unnecessarily punished during this pandemic for a disease that they are highly unlikely to suffer from. With kindest regards, Dr. Allyson Davis CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Kaylin McCauley From: Anna <annaconnelly©gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 9:41 PM To: Council Internet Email Subject: Against money for policing masks Hello city council members, I am writing to ask you to not approve the proposal to take $70,000 of our city budget to police our beaches and hand out citations for not wearing masks. As a citizen of Carlsbad I find the idea outrageous. That money can be spent in so many better ways. Please do not give in to the few who are pushing for this. We do not need additional policing! I am also asking that you please open up our playgrounds! Our children are already being punished in so many ways, it is time to let them play outside again! Thank you, Anna Connelly CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sue & Peter Ladouceur <prladouceur@att.net> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 12:14 PM To: City Clerk Subject: Ordinance #3 To Carlsbad City Clerk, All Receive - Agenda Item # For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL Date CA CC ----- CM ----ACM 6---DCM (3) I am writing in support of Ordinance #3, facial covering requirements in high traffic areas. Please advise the City Council members of our support of this very important ordinance. We are now approaching a high infection period and it is of extreme necessity that the city and its citizens take the responsibility of ensuring that we at least have a chance of not spreading the virus. Masks and distancing are now the only tool we have in fighting this pandemic. We hope that the city will vote for this ordinance and make it a requirement in the stated areas. Thank you for your dedication to the welfare of our Carlsbad citizens. Sincerely, Sue and Peter Ladouceur Carlsbad, CA 92008 Sent from my iPhone CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Colleen Christopher <colleen6831@gmail.com > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 11:33 AM To: City Clerk Subject: Covid guidelines I appreciate how desperate most citizens are about our health and the health of loved ones and I don't want our businesses to keep suffering due to the resistance of the misguided few who still refuse to wear masks and distance. My big ask is that you and our other esteemed leaders consider strict enforcement of health guidelines by any means possible. We do not need any more education since unfortunately it has fallen on deaf ears lately though it was important at the beginning.Thank you for reading this longer than intended email. God bless you. Colleen Burkett CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Art Submissions <artsubmissions@northcoastcalvary.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 11:36 AM To: City Clerk Subject: Item #3 Is the kind of community you want to live in? Dear City Council Members, Please do not pass #3 on the agenda for "Enhanced Enforcement on facial coverings". Not only is this against our rights both constitutional and our right for health, this goes against all scientific research as to the effectiveness of masks actually preventing the public from the COVID virus or viruses in general. It states on the boxes of the masks that they are not effective against viruses. But beyond that, it is the fear that is continuing to be instilled in the public about the possibility of dying from a virus that 99.9% of the people recover from and that is no worse than a normal bad flu or cold that we have experienced our whole lives. This mask wearing guidance, (it is not a law) it is GUIDANCE. By continuing to be promote and enforce it you are turning people against each other and causing hostility in public places and places of commerce. The governor states in his own "Covid PlayBook" that businesses are not to confront or enforce masks. (See below) Many of us have stopped going out and shopping locally because of it, which is bringing our economy down and ruining Carlsbad. Is this the kind of community you want to live in? I don't and I can assure you that majority of the public in your city do not want to live like this. Please do the right thing and be responsible to your citizens for their health and mental wellbeing as well as do not break the law by trying to enforce something that is only listed on the CDC and WHO as "guidelines for the public" not a law. (See below) How can you enforce something that is not a law? You should not put our law enforcement in that position either. They all swore and took an oath to "uphold the law" and you will be putting them in a position to break that oath. I am trusting that you will all vote to uphold your Oath of Office and do the right thing by choosing to allow your citizens to decide for themselves if they need to wear a mask or not for their own protection and be responsible for our own health. Thank you for your time. Barbra Laughlin Carlsbad, CA GUIDANCE FOR EMPLOYERS AND WORKEI ENFORCING MASK REQUIREMENTS Workers should avoid approaching coworkers or members of not wearing a face covering for the purpose of attempting t( covering recommendation or requirement. Guidance People in California must wear face coverings when they are in the high- situations listed below: • inside of, or in line to enter, any indoor public space;' • Obtaining services from the healthcare sector in settings including, limited to, a hospital, pharmacy, medical clinic, laboratory, physic dental office, veterinary clinic, or blood bank;2 • Waiting for or riding on public transportation or paratransit or while taxi, private car service, or ride-sharing vehicle; • Engaged in work, whether at the workplace or performing work of • Interacting in-person with any member of the public; • Working in any space visited by members of the public, regc of whether anyone from the public is present at the time; 1 Unless exempted by state guidelines for specific public settings 2 Unless directed otherwise by an employee or healthcare provider California Department of Public Health P.O. Box 997377, MS0500 $ Sacramento, CA 95899-7377 Department Website (www.cdph.ca.gov) CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 2 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Carrie Powell <tctcp@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 11:38 AM To: City Clerk Subject: Regarding meeting-Facial Covering Requirement, Enhanced Enforcement Dear City Council Members: I strongly oppose the enhanced enforcement of facial coverings. I feel this is overreaching the cities power over the safety of my own body and is negatively impacting myself and others in our community. I don't believe that spending money on enforcement is effective use of my tax dollars. When one is outdoors we should be able to walk without the impediment the mask creates. There is no reason that if I am more than 6' away I should have to wear a mask. Exercising in them is extremely hard. Furthermore, the masks affect my ability to breathe properly and make me extremely light headed and give rise to increased headaches. Never mind the emotional impact it is having on not being able to see people's expressions and turning people into anti-social tendencies when they are behind their masks. You can't hear people, thus your move closer. The constant touching of the face to adjust the annoying mask creates more germs. Please see the article below on the risks face masks pose. Thank you, Carrie Powell Carlsbad Resident & Tax Payer Blaylock: Face Masks Pose Serious Risks To The Healthy POSTED BY PATRICK WOOD 1653SC ON MAY 11,2020 With the advent of the so-called COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen a number of medical practices that have little or no scientific support as regards reducing the spread of this infection. One of these measures is the wearing of facial masks, either a surgical-type mask, bandana or N95 respirator mask. When this pandemic began and we knew little about the virus itself or its epidemiologic behavior, it was assumed that it would behave, in terms of spread among communities, like other respiratory viruses. Little has presented itself after intense study of this virus and its behavior to change this perception. This is somewhat of an unusual virus in that for the vast majority of people infected by the virus, one experiences either no illness (asymptomatic) or very little sickness. Only a very small number of people are at risk of a potentially serious outcome from the infection—mainly those with underlying serious medical conditions in conjunction with advanced age and frailty, those with immune compromising conditions and nursing home patients near the end of their lives. There is growing evidence that the treatment protocol issued to treating doctors by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), mainly intubation and use of a ventilator (respirator), may have contributed significantly to the high death rate in these select individuals. By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain. Russell Blaylock, MD 1 As for the scientific support for the use of face mask, a recent careful examination of the literature, in which 17 of the best studies were analyzed, concluded that, " None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection."1 Keep in mind, no studies have been done to demonstrate that either a cloth mask or the N95 mask has any effect on transmission of the COVID-19 virus. Any recommendations, therefore, have to be based on studies of influenza virus transmission. And, as you have seen, there is no conclusive evidence of their efficiency in controlling flu virus transmission. It is also instructive to know that until recently, the CDC did not recommend wearing a face mask or covering of any kind, unless a person was known to be infected, that is, until recently. Non-infected people need not wear a mask. When a person has TB we have them wear a mask, not the entire community of non-infected. The recommendations by the CDC and the WHO are not based on any studies of this virus and have never been used to contain any other virus pandemic or epidemic in history. Now that we have established that there is no scientific evidence necessitating the wearing of a face mask for prevention, are there dangers to wearing a face mask, especially for long periods? Several studies have indeed found significant problems with wearing such a mask. This can vary from headaches, to increased airway resistance, carbon dioxide accumulation, to hypoxia, all the way to serious life- threatening complications. There is a difference between the N95 respirator mask and the surgical mask (cloth or paper mask) in terms of side effects. The N95 mask, which filters out 95% of particles with a median diameter >0.3 pm2 , because it impairs respiratory exchange (breathing) to a greater degree than a soft mask, and is more often associated with headaches. In one such study, researchers surveyed 212 healthcare workers (47 males and 165 females) asking about presence of headaches with N95 mask use, duration of the headaches, type of headaches and if the person had preexisting headaches.2 They found that about a third of the workers developed headaches with use of the mask, most had preexisting headaches that were worsened by the mask wearing, and 60% required pain medications for relief. As to the cause of the headaches, while straps and pressure from the mask could be causative, the bulk of the evidence points toward hypoxia and/or hypercapnia as the cause. That is, a reduction in blood oxygenation (hypoxia) or an elevation in blood CO2 (hypercapnia). It is known that the N95 mask, if worn for hours, can reduce blood oxygenation as much as 20%, which can lead to a loss of consciousness, as happened to the hapless fellow driving around alone in his car wearing an N95 mask, causing him to pass out, and to crash his car and sustain injuries. I am sure that we have several cases of elderly individuals or any person with poor lung function passing out, hitting their head. This, of course, can lead to death. A more recent study involving 159 healthcare workers aged 21 to 35 years of age found that 81% developed headaches from wearing a face mask.3 Some had pre-existing headaches that were precipitated by the masks. All felt like the headaches affected their work performance. Unfortunately, no one is telling the frail elderly and those with lung diseases, such as COPD, emphysema or pulmonary fibrosis, of these dangers when wearing a facial mask of any kind—which can cause a severe worsening of lung function. This also includes lung cancer patients and people having had lung surgery, especially with partial resection or even the removal of a whole lung. While most agree that the N95 mask can cause significant hypoxia and hypercapnia, another study of surgical masks found significant reductions in blood oxygen as well. In this study, researchers examined the blood oxygen levels in 53 surgeons using an oximeter. They measured blood oxygenation before surgery as well as at the end of surgeries.4 The researchers found that the mask reduced the blood oxygen levels (pa02) significantly. The longer the duration of wearing the mask, the greater the fall in blood oxygen levels. 2 The importance of these findings is that a drop in oxygen levels (hypoxia) is associated with an impairment in immunity. Studies have shown that hypoxia can inhibit the type of main immune cells used to fight viral infections called the CD4+ T-Iymphocyte. This occurs because the hypoxia increases the level of a compound called hypoxia inducible factor-1 (HIF-1), which inhibits T-lymphocytes and stimulates a powerful immune inhibitor cell called the Tregs. . This sets the stage for contracting any infection, including COVID-19 and making the consequences of that infection much graver. In essence, your mask may very well put you at an increased risk of infections and if so, having a much worse outcome.5,67 People with cancer, especially if the cancer has spread, will be at a further risk from prolonged hypoxia as the cancer grows best in a microenvironment that is low in oxygen. Low oxygen also promotes inflammation which can promote the growth, invasion and spread of cancers.8,9 Repeated episodes of hypoxia has been proposed as a significant factor in atherosclerosis and hence increases all cardiovascular (heart attacks) and cerebrovascular (strokes) diseases.10 There is another danger to wearing these masks on a daily basis, especially if worn for several hours. When a person is infected with a respiratory virus, they will expel some of the virus with each breath. If they are wearing a mask, especially an N95 mask or other tightly fitting mask, they will be constantly rebreathing the viruses, raising the concentration of the virus in the lungs and the nasal passages. We know that people who have the worst reactions to the coronavirus have the highest concentrations of the virus early on. And this leads to the deadly cytokine storm in a selected number. It gets even more frightening. Newer evidence suggests that in some cases the virus can enter the brain.11,12 In most instances it enters the brain by way of the olfactory nerves (smell nerves), which connect directly with the area of the brain dealing with recent memory and memory consolidation. By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain.13 It is evident from this review that there is insufficient evidence that wearing a mask of any kind can have a significant impact in preventing the spread of this virus. The fact that this virus is a relatively benign infection for the vast majority of the population and that most of the at-risk group also survive, from an infectious disease and epidemiological standpoint, by letting the virus spread through the healthier population we will reach a herd immunity level rather quickly that will end this pandemic quickly and prevent a return next winter. During this time, we need to protect the at-risk population by avoiding close contact, boosting their immunity with compounds that boost cellular immunity and in general, care for them. One should not attack and insult those who have chosen not to wear a mask, as these studies suggest that is the wise choice to make. References 1. bin-Reza F et al. The use of mask and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: A systematic review of the scientific evidence. Resp Viruses 2012;6(4):257-67. 2. Zhu JH et al. Effects of long-duration wearing of N95 respirator and surgical facemask: a pilot study. J Lung Pulm Resp Res 2014:4:97-100. 3. Ong JJY et al. Headaches associated with personal protective equipment- A cross-sectional study among frontline healthcare workers during COVID-19. Headache 2020;60(5):864-877. 4. Bader A et al. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugia 2008;19:12-126. 5. Shehade H et al. Cutting edge: Hypoxia-Inducible Factor-1 negatively regulates Th1 function. J Immunol 2015;195:1372-1376. 6. Westendorf AM et al. Hypoxia enhances immunosuppression by inhibiting CD4+ effector T cell function and promoting Treg activity. Cell Physiol Biochem 2017;41:1271-84. 3 7. Sceneay J et al. Hypoxia-driven immunosuppression contributes to the pre-metastatic niche. Oncoimmunology 2013;2:1 e22355. 8. Blaylock RL. lmmunoexcitatory mechanisms in gliorna proliferation, invasion and occasional metastasis. Surg Neurol Inter 2013;4:15. 9. Aggarwal BB. Nucler factor-kappaB: The enemy within. Cancer Cell 2004;6:203-208. 10. Savransky V et al. Chronic intermittent hypoxia induces atherosclerosis. Am J Resp Crit Care Med 2007;175:1290-1297. 11. Baig AM et al. Evidence of the COVID-19 virus targeting the CNS: Tissue distribution, host-virus interaction, and proposed neurotropic mechanisms. ACS Chem Neurosci 2020;11:7:995-998. 12. Wu Y et al. Nervous system involvement after infection with COVID-19 and other coronaviruses. Brain Behavior, and Immunity, In press. 13. Perlman S et al. Spread of a neurotropic murine coronavirus into the CNS via the trigeminal and olfactory nerves. Virology 1989;170:556-560. Dr. Russell Blaylock, author of The Blaylock Wellness Report Subscribe or Renew The Blaylock Wellness Report The Blaylock Wellness Report provides vital health information like high blood pressure, cancer prevention, diab... newsletter, is a nationally recognized board-certified neurosurgeon, health practitioner, author, and lecturer. He attended the Louisiana State University School of Medicine and completed his internship and neurological residency at the Medical University of South Carolina. For 26 years, practiced neurosurgery in addition to having a nutritional practice. He recently retired from his neurosurgical duties to devote his full attention to nutritional research. Dr. Blaylock has authored four books, Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, Health and Nutrition Secrets That Can Save Your Life, Natural Strategies for Cancer Patients, and his most recent work, Cellular and Molecular Biology of Autism Spectrum Disorders. 4 Do you like this post? John Barbour, President Creative Stone & Tile, Inc. CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 5 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sharon McKeeman <sharonmckeeman@gmail.com > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 1251 PM To: City Clerk Cc: Matthew Hall; Council Internet Email; Keith Blackburn; Cori Schumacher; Priya Bhat-Patel Subject: Agenda Item #3 We Do Not Consent to More Restrictive Mask Enforcement Please provide this comment to the City Council Prior to the September 22, 2020 meeting and please post it with the other public comments on the website. Please email to confirm that you have received, thank you. Dear Carlsbad City Council, I am a Carlsbad resident and a disabled mother of four who has medical conditions that prevent me from wearing a facial covering. It has been over 200 days since Governor Newsom declared a State of Emergency. Under this emergency order he has issued 46 executive orders and changed 400 laws by fiat. However, the Emergency Services Act does not let him hang onto "emergency powers" as long as he wants. It is very specific: "The Governor shall proclaim the termination of a state of emergency at the earliest possible date that conditions warrant." 201 days ago we were told that we needed to stay home for 15 days to flatten the curve so that hospital capacity and ICU equipment would not be overwhelmed. According to the September 16, 2020 County of San Diego COVID-19 news briefing (https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/hhsa/programs/phs/Epidemiology/covid19/MediaBriefingSlides/m ediaBriefingSlides.pdf) with COVID patients included San Diego county hospitals have less than 80% of their beds full. 20% of SD hospital beds are reserved for COVID patients but COVID-related patients make up less than 5% of those admitted to SD hospitals currently. It also shows that there is a large surplus of ICU beds and equipment available. At the San Diego County Board of Supervisors meeting on September 15, 2020 our Health Director Wilma Wooten verified that the current death rate for COVID is less than 2%. The CDC Weekly Updates shows a graph of provisional death counts that peaked in March, then rapidly fell, had a rise at the start of August that was nowhere close to the peak in March, and is now plummeting. This same report also states that "For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death." That means that 94% of reported COVID-related deaths had 2-3 other comorbidities. This information can be viewed on the CDC website at https://www.cdc.govinchs/nyss/vsrr/covid weekly/index.htrn That data is just a glimpse at the metrics that prove there is no longer justification for an emergency order giving increased power to government officials. There are over 30 lawsuits pending against Governor Newsom because he has failed to "terminate the state of emergency at the earliest possible date that conditions warrant," and has overstepped the bounds of his power through the unconstitutional restrictions that he has imposed on private businesses, public education, and individual citizens. Also September 14, 2020 U.S. District Judge William Stickman IV ruled that Pennsylvania's pandemic restrictions are unconstitutional per the First and Fourteenth Amendments: The declaratory judgment says "(1) that the congregate gathering limits imposed by defendants' mitigation orders violate the right of assembly enshrined in the First Amendment; (2) that the stay-at-home and business closure components of defendants' orders violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and (3) that the business closure components of defendants' orders violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. "Even in an emergency, the authority of government is not unfettered. The Constitution cannot accept the concept of a 'new normal' where the basic liberties of the people can be subordinated to open-ended emergency mitigation measures. Rather, the Constitution sets certain lines that may not be crossed, even in an emergency." As I'm sure you're aware the SD County Board of Supervisors is considering taking legal action against Newsom if he moves our county onto the most restrictive tier due to the cases at SDSU. Without the SDSU cases our county is well below the trigger for moving to the purple tier. Health Director Wooten asked CA to remove the SDSU cases from the metrics for our county because she does not feel they are indicative of where our large county is at as a whole in the fight against COVID. It is also now obvious that policing residents to wear masks, stay in their homes, etc is not going to get our county open. Carlsbad and the rest of the county worked hard to meet the requirements to be removed from the state watchlist and reopen only to have Newsom move the goal posts by introducing new metrics and the tier system. At the County Board of Supervisors meeting the presentation from a panel of experts and comments from professionals in the community made it clear that it is numerically impossible to make it to the least restrictive tier. At the September 15th meeting economic experts updated the SD County Board with the news that unemployment is up from 3% to 14% and that SD county's vital tourism industry has been hardest hit. Health experts reported that there has been a 200% increase in anxiety and depression with cases of severe depression up 500% and substance abuse and drug overdose skyrocketing. They pointed out that much of these behavioral health issues include the vulnerable population of our youth and teenagers. Mental and behavioral health issues can be deadly and we cannot ignore those risks while only focusing on COVID. When SD County was removed from the watchlist at the start of September schools were allowed to reopen and many districts already have. However Carlsbad has delayed for weeks which leaves our youth with few outlets for healthy activity and positive environments. One of the few places our youth can find respite are on the trails and beaches in the area. Also the tourism industry rebounding relies on people being able to come to Carlsbad and comply with CA guidance without being further harassed by Carlsbad restrictions/enforcement. The California guidance on facial coverings states that when outdoors they must be worn ONLY if six feet of distance cannot be maintained from those not in your own household.The CA guidance also states that among several exemptions persons with a medical condition, mental health condition or disability that prevents them from wearing a mask, and persons who are engaging in outdoor work or recreation are exempt. I do not know of any trails or sidewalks in the area that do not have areas where they widen so that individuals can pull off to the side. These can be utilized if needed for passing in order to maintain six feet of social distancing. If someone is concerned about having to spend time passing carefully or at some point having someone come closer than six feet to them they have several options. They can wear a respirator mask that offers them the highest level of protection available, and they can choose trails and outdoor areas that are large enough to remain six feet away from others at all times without having to pass carefully. 2 No one wants those who are at higher risk to have to stay in their homes. At the same time those of us such as myself and councilwoman Cori Schumacher who have medical conditions or disabilities that exempt/prevent us from wearing a mask cannot be excluded from public life either. I am regularly discriminated against now due to my disability and health conditions. The ADA protects the rights of those for whom access to businesses, schools and public areas looks different than their able-bodied peers. Those rights do not just disappear when there are other health concerns. Health experts tell us vitamin D protects against COVID-19 and that it is less likely to transmit COVID outdoors. Our community and especially our youth need places where they can get out in the sun, boost their immune system, and let their spirits be lifted while coping with the loss of school, sports and other important activities and environments. Trails, beaches, sidewalks, businesses that are open, and other positive community spaces are important to the mental and physical health of our community and especially our youth. I am thus shocked and extremely disappointed that Carlsbad would even consider issuing their own emergency order with the intent to impose further restrictions on their residents or allocate almost 70k for mask enforcement when that money could be used to bolster our suffering economy or support individuals and families who are struggling. Governor Newsom's emergency order is being challenged as unlawful and Pennsylvania has had their restrictions ruled as unconstitutional. Why would Carlsbad want to wander into questionable and probably unconstitutional territory by issuing their own emergency order and being even more restrictive than the state's facial covering guidance? This is a vibrant, diverse community and those who are medically or otherwise exempt are already being harassed and excluded from public life. They should not also face this when they try to enjoy healthy exercise and life outdoors. At the County Board of Supervisors meeting we were told that the overreaction to COVID is costing a comparable amount of life years lost as COVID itself. We will not know for years what the full impact of these restrictions and overreactions has been on our children. Many young people do not have healthy safe homes and now in the absence of school or other public places they need somewhere that they can be that is not risky. Beaches, trails, and city spaces offer this to them and they should be able to enjoy those places without fear of harassment or being asked to wear a mask even in situations where the CA guidance says they are not required. And as to the other comments posted on this agenda item...One is from a professional attorney who points out factual data about the lack of proven efficacy of the masks that citizens are being forced to wear and the proven detrimental effects they have. Another comment is from an upset woman who uses phrases such as "spraying lung juice." These words do not sound scientific. I understand that she is frustrated, but her frustrations and fears do not remove other citizens' rights. There are many residents who feel the same as myself and do not want to see any more restrictions forced on our community. However, most of them are so busy trying to keep their business afloat, or facilitate distance learning unpaid that they do not have time to send emails or call in comments. Please understand that this carefully researched and written email represents many voices in our community. Government derives its power from the consent of the governed and we the people DO NOT CONSENT to any further restriction of our rights and liberties in the name of an emergency order which is no longer justified by any current data. We expect the Carlsbad City Council to refrain from instituting restrictions and enforcement that go further than the state guidance and we urge the Council to join the County Supervisors and other individuals, business, and representatives that are challenging Governor Newsom's unlawful and unconstitutional usurpation of power. In the ruling against Pennsylvania's COVID restrictions the case pointed out a crucially important point of law: that a Governor's restrictions on liberty are subject to more scrutiny in month 7 than in month 1. The court stated, "Deference 3 cannot go on forever. It is no longer March." I hope that in the Council's deliberation today you will take into account that this is month 7 and it is no longer March. Thank you for listening to the voices of the citizens you represent, Sharon McKeennan CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 4 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Bob Laughlin <thaevermore@gmail.com > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 12:53 PM To: City Clerk Subject: 9/22/20 Council Meeting Agenda Item #3 FACIAL COVERING REQUIREMENT AND ENFORCEMENT Dear Clerk, Please communicate my strong objections to the Carlsbad City Council's continued efforts to weaponize their "administration" of Health-related "recommendations", including the "Enforcement" of the use of Face Coverings, that are actually REDUCING the health of their citizens and visitors NOT protecting health! SUPPORTING FACTS: 1) Council Members' Oath to Protect the Health and Safety of their citizenry being ignored - Your oath to "protect" the Health and Safety of your citizenry is being obstructed by enforcing use of face coverings - Facial coverings actually REDUCE available oxygen level for wearer by nearly 20% (OSHA requires 19.5%) - How can you in "good faith" promote measures that REDUCE health rather than promote health? 2) Enforcement of Facial Coverings is NOT based on Scientific Facts, but on some secondary, undisclosed agenda - Such actions express total ignorance of current facts stated by the CDC, WHO, FDA and PPE device manufacturers, the very same agencies that Governor Newsom and the California State Department of Health are basing their actions on - Absolutely NO evidence that face coverings REDUCE deaths even on a World-Wide scale - Extensive randomized controlled trial (ROT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of ROT studies, all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles. *see list of Scientific Research documenting these facts below - ALL forms of face masks being recommended for public use, including N-95 surgical masks, have been proven to be INEFFECTIVE in protecting the wearer from infection from a viral pathogen, including the SARS-00V-2 virus - *most face mask manufacturers post such warning notices directly on their product packaging 3) No Evidence of the continued existence of Conditions Required for Local "State of EMERGENCY" - San Diego Board of Supervisors themselves OBJECT to continued lockdown measures *cited: 9/17/20 - County Considers Lawsuit Against Gov. Newsom to Avoid Most Restrictive Tier https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/county-considers-lawsuit-against-gov-newsom-to-avoid-most-restrictive- tier/2407990/ - Inappropriate focus on Case-counts rather than Mortalities - WHERE ARE THE DEATHS IN CARLSBAD? WHY ARE THEY NOT BEING PUBLISHED??? - NO DIRECT CORRELATION between Case Counts with either hospitalizations OR mortalities! - Total San Diego County deaths (as of 9/21/20) = 760 or 0.0225% of total population of 3,379,160 *https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/hhsa/programs/phs/community epidemiology/dc/2019- nCoV/status.html - Total Carlsbad City deaths (as of 9/21/20) = ???? of total (published) population of 118,313 WHY ARE YOU NOT PUBLISHING THE TOTAL DEATHS IN CARLSBAD???? Scientific "Randomized Controlled Trials" (RTC) documentation - evidence of facial covering futility to protect: Jacobs, J. L. et al. (2009) "Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: A randomized controlled trial", American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 37, Issue 5, 417 -419. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.crov/pubmed/19216002 N95-masked health-care workers (HCW) were significantly more likely to experience headaches. Face mask use in HOW was not demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds. Cowling, B. et al. (2010) "Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: A systematic review", Epidemiology and Infection, 138(4), 449-456. doi:10.1017/S0950268809991658 https://www.cambridge.orq/core/journals/epidemiolocw-and-infection/article/face-masks-to-prevent- transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematic-review/64D368496EBDEOAFCC6639CCC9D8BC05 None of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask, in either HOW or community members in households (H). See summary Tables 1 and 2 therein. bin-Reza et al. (2012) "The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence", Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257-267. https://onlinelibrarv.wilev.conn/doi/epdf/10.11114.1750-2659.2011.00307.x "There were 17 eligible studies. ... None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection." Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis", CMAJ Mar 2016, cmaj.150835; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.150835 https://wvvw.cmai.ca/content/188/8/567 "We identified 6 clinical studies ... In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, (b) influenza-like illness, or (c) reported work-place absenteeism." 3 Offeddu, V. et al. (2017) "Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis", Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934-1942, https://doi.orcr/10.1093/cid/cix681 https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747 "Self-reported assessment of clinical outcomes was prone to bias. Evidence of a protective effect of masks or respirators against verified respiratory infection (VRI) was not statistically significant"; as per Fig. 2c therein: Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) "N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial", JAMA. 2019; 322(9): 824-833. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.11645 https://iamanetwork.com/journals/iama/fullarticle/2749214 "Among 2862 randomized participants, 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HOW- seasons. ... Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza." Long, Y. et al. (2020) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis", J Evid Based Med. 2020; 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/iebm.12381 httos://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jebm.12381 "A total of six RCTs involving 9 171 participants were included. There were no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza, laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection and influenza-like illness using N95 respirators and surgical masks. Meta-analysis indicated a protective effect of N95 respirators against laboratory-confirmed 2 bacterial colonization (RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.43-0.78). The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza." Thank you. Sincerely, Bob Laughlin CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 3 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: Lucia Hartman <luciahartman09@gmail.corn> Tuesday, September 22, 2020 1:01 PM City Clerk No to mask enforcement All Receive - Agenda Item #3_ For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL Date (34,29-, CA ----CC ---- CM ACM ,---DCM (3) ---- Good Morning Carlsbad City Council Yesterday I learned about a potential mandate for facial mask coverings on our beach boardwalk and stairs in Carlsbad. Please consider the language that has been used over the last several months that has come from our media and government. Health disorder, epidemic, state of emergency. According to the California Emergency Services Act (ESA) Section 8558-b : a "state of emergency" can only be called if the threat overwhelms the current resources of the state. There is no "threat that overwhelms the current resources of the state" with COVID-19. I speak from reality and personal experience. Here in North County, thousands of health care workers were furloughed and laid off from both Tr-City Medical Center and Palomar Hospital. This happened because the census of patients were at record lows. Other resources nationally have documented this also. www.beckerhospitalreview.com. "More than 260 hospitals in US furloughed workers this Spring". Please consider that 99% of people who test positive for COVID-19 will get over it. It is unlawful to have healthy Americans cover their faces because of the language that is being used by our politicians and media. Thanks for allowing me to share my concerns. Lucia Hartman RN,BSN,PHN,ONC Sent from my iPad CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: RE Ames <rfames@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 1:05 PM To: City Clerk Cc: Keith Blackburn; Matthew Hall; Cori Schumacher; Priya Bhat-Patel Subject: City Council Meeting Sept 22, 2020 - Agenda Item #3 Facial Covering Requirements Enhanced Enforcement Attachments: COVID-19 Deaths by Date of Death.pdf Please read this statement into the official record: RE: Agenda Item #3 Facial Covering Requirements and Enhanced Enforcement It is extraordinarily disturbing that the Carlsbad City Council is considering enhanced enforcement of facial coverings today (the last day of Summer) when just a few days back on September 17th San Diego County was down to 3 COVID-19 deaths. The COVID-19 death rate is declining in San Diego County not getting worse! At the beginning of Summertime there was no facial covering enforcement in Carlsbad July 13th when San Diego County had 12 deaths. And since July 13th San Diego County COVID-19 death rate has steadily declined. Down from 12 deaths on July 13th to 3 deaths on September 17th. It is curios to me why Carlsbad suddenly has an emergency which justifies getting even more heavy handed with facial covering enforcement. Some people in our city government seem to be on a power trip exactly when we should be getting back to work, school and normal everyday living. I have attached in this email the document provided by the County of San Diego that shows the COVID-19 deaths have gone down since the early part of Summer. Why such a dire emergency on the last day of Summer when typically heading into Fall the beach area activity slows down? Please explain why the city council seems to be going in the opposite direction of where we need to go right now. Clearly, we should open back up not shut down! I request that any city council members that are claiming facial covering exemptions please recuse themselves from voting to adopt this resolution because it would be hypocritical to force residents to comply with something that you yourself are not complying with. Thank you, RF Ames CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 COVID-19-Associated Deaths by Date of Death San Diego County Residents, N=760 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 Deaths that occurred during this time may not yet be registered. 1111111111111 I I I I II I I 0000000000600 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNCTINNNNNNNNNNNNINNNNNNNNINNNNNNNINNNNINNNNNNNNNNCTINNNINNIN 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000 NNNNNINCTINNNNNNNNINNNNINNNNNINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNINNNNNNNNINNNINNINNNNNNNNINNNNN .1. IN 0 CO TO 01 01 CO 01 N ol DON NON O1 CO NO M lOGiN In 00H NO CO LC/ 01 ci NO In (001 N LO 051•ct NON (001 N CO rn LO 0.1 N LO CO dl.1. NON WI CO eN o .4- .1- c-• co co co a, al NINNNINN CO CO CO CO CO MI CO cicici01•cr 1.11 Lo Lo un (0(00 0 (000 NNNNNNNN oocococooccooc COCACOCCI COVID-19 Deaths in San Diego County by Date of Death LIVE WELL SAN DIEGO Data are preliminary and subject to change. Data through 9/20/2020, current as of 9/21/2020 8:00 AM. Prepared by County of San Diego, Health & Human Services Agency, Public Health Services, Epidemiology and Immunization Services Branch, 9/21/2020 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Anja W <anja.wietholter@gmail.com > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 1:16 PM To: City Clerk Subject: Agenda Item 3 - Facial Covering Requirements To the Carlsbad City Council, I'm very concerned about the new facial covering requirements and enforcement proposed by councilmennber Cori Schumacher for boardwalks and staircases outdoors. According to the number and latest COVID statistics, I don't see the necessity in involving the police with the enforcement of mask wearing, nor do I see the necessity of spending almost $70k of taxpayer money for additional education campaigns. Until there is evidence specifically showing that infection is spreading on boardwalks or along stair walks outdoors, I don't support Mrs. Schumacher's demands and urge the city council to vote NO on the proposal. Anja Wietholter Carlsbad Resident CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Tom Powell <tpman62@yahoo.corn> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 1:19 PM To: City Clerk Subject: Opposition to Carlsbad City Council Covid-19 Masks, on Beaches, Boardwalks, Staircases, and open spaces Attachments: Dr. Blaylock Newsletter, COVID-19 Masks.docx My name is Walter Powell. I live at 2359 Merwin Dr., Carlsbad, CA. 92008. My self and my wife, Carrie Powell are opposed to the City Council enacting the Emergency Order for mandating face coverings at certain high traffic pedestrian areas as proposed on the the City Councils Agenda, Item 3., for the meeting to commence on 9/22/2020 at 3 PM. I have read and reviewed the reference they have listed for the order from the San Diego County Health Department Order updated on 10 Sep 2020 and do not see any additional evidence nor requirement for this order. Further more, the use of masks has not been scientifically studied or proven to prevent the transmission of COVID-19. It has bee studied and shown to be harmful to the individuals health who are required to wear the masks and can further the intensity of the disease to those infected and made to wear them. Please see the attached article summarizing and referencing of studies reviewed from Dr. Blaylock, that bears this put. It is evident from this review that there is insufficient evidence that wearing a mask of any kind can have a significant impact in preventing the spread of this virus. My self and my wife, and our neighbors are paying attention to this issue and will remember how the Carlsbad City Council responds to this issue. Thank you in advance for not enacting this Emergency Mask Issue. Walter T. Powell CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Blaylock: Face Masks Pose Serious Risks To The Healthy POSTED BY PATRICK WOOD 1653SC ON MAY 11, 2020 With the advent of the so-called COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen a number of medical practices that have little or no scientific support as regards reducing the spread of this infection. One of these measures is the wearing of facial masks, either a surgical-type mask, bandana or N95 respirator mask. When this pandemic began and we knew little about the virus itself or its epidemiologic behavior, it was assumed that it would behave, in terms of spread among communities, like other respiratory viruses. Little has presented itself after intense study of this virus and its behavior to change this perception. This is somewhat of an unusual virus in that for the vast majority of people infected by the virus, one experiences either no illness (asymptomatic) or very little sickness. Only a very small number of people are at risk of a potentially serious outcome from the infection— mainly those with underlying serious medical conditions in conjunction with advanced age and frailty, those with immune compromising conditions and nursing home patients near the end of their lives. There is growing evidence that the treatment protocol issued to treating doctors by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), mainly intubation and use of a ventilator (respirator), may have contributed significantly to the high death rate in these select individuals. By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain. Russell Blaylock, MD As for the scientific support for the use of face mask, a recent careful examination of the literature, in which 17 of the best studies were analyzed, concluded that," None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection." Keep in mind, no studies have been done to demonstrate that either a cloth mask or the N95 mask has any effect on transmission of the COVID-19 virus. Any recommendations, therefore, have to be based on studies of influenza virus transmission. And, as you have seen, there is no conclusive evidence of their efficiency in controlling flu virus transmission. It is also instructive to know that until recently, the CDC did not recommend wearing a face mask or covering of any kind, unless a person was known to be infected, that is, until recently. Non-infected people need not wear a mask. When a person has TB we have them wear a mask, not the entire community of non-infected. The recommendations by the CDC and the WHO are not based on any studies of this virus and have never been used to contain any other virus pandemic or epidemic in history. Now that we have established that there is no scientific evidence necessitating the wearing of a face mask for prevention, are there dangers to wearing a face mask, especially for long periods? Several studies have indeed found significant problems with wearing such a mask. This can vary from headaches, to increased airway resistance, carbon dioxide accumulation, to hypoxia, all the way to serious life-threatening complications. There is a difference between the N95 respirator mask and the surgical mask (cloth or paper mask) in terms of side effects. The N95 mask, which filters out 95% of particles with a median diameter >0.3 pm2 , because it impairs respiratory exchange (breathing) to a greater degree than a soft mask, and is more often associated with headaches. In one such study, researchers surveyed 212 healthcare workers (47 males and 165 females) asking about presence of headaches with N95 mask use, duration of the headaches, type of headaches and if the person had preexisting headaches.2 They found that about a third of the workers developed headaches with use of the mask, most had preexisting headaches that were worsened by the mask wearing, and 60% required pain medications for relief. As to the cause of the headaches, while straps and pressure from the mask could be causative, the bulk of the evidence points toward hypoxia and/or hypercapnia as the cause. That is, a reduction in blood oxygenation (hypoxia) or an elevation in blood CO2 (hypercapnia). It is known that the N95 mask, if worn for hours, can reduce blood oxygenation as much as 20%, which can lead to a loss of consciousness, as happened to the hapless fellow driving around alone in his car wearing an N95 mask, causing him to pass out, and to crash his car and sustain injuries. I am sure that we have several cases of elderly individuals or any person with poor lung function passing out, hitting their head. This, of course, can lead to death. A more recent study involving 159 healthcare workers aged 21 to 35 years of age found that 81% developed headaches from wearing a face mask.3 Some had pre-existing headaches that were precipitated by the masks. All felt like the headaches affected their work performance. Unfortunately, no one is telling the frail elderly and those with lung diseases, such as COPD, emphysema or pulmonary fibrosis, of these dangers when wearing a facial mask of any kind—which can cause a severe worsening of lung function. This also includes lung cancer patients and people having had lung surgery, especially with partial resection or even the removal of a whole lung. While most agree that the N95 mask can cause significant hypoxia and hypercapnia, another study of surgical masks found significant reductions in blood oxygen as well. In this study, researchers examined the blood oxygen levels in 53 surgeons using an oximeter. They measured blood oxygenation before surgery as well as at the end of surgeries.4 The researchers found that the mask reduced the blood oxygen levels (pa02) significantly. The longer the duration of wearing the mask, the greater the fall in blood oxygen levels. The importance of these findings is that a drop in oxygen levels (hypoxia) is associated with an impairment in immunity. Studies have shown that hypoxia can inhibit the type of main immune cells used to fight viral infections called the CD4+ T-lymphocyte. This occurs because the hypoxia increases the level of a compound called hypoxia inducible factor-1 (H IF-1), which inhibits T-lymphocytes and stimulates a powerful immune inhibitor cell called the Tregs. . This sets the stage for contracting any infection, including COVID-19 and making the consequences of that infection much graver. In essence, your mask may very well put you at an increased risk of infections and if so, having a much worse outcome.5,6,7 People with cancer, especially if the cancer has spread, will be at a further risk from prolonged hypoxia as the cancer grows best in a microenvironment that is low in oxygen. Low oxygen also promotes inflammation which can promote the growth, invasion and spread of cancers.8,9 Repeated episodes of hypoxia has been proposed as a significant factor in atherosclerosis and hence increases all cardiovascular (heart attacks) and cerebrovascular (strokes) diseases.1° There is another danger to wearing these masks on a daily basis, especially if worn for several hours. When a person is infected with a respiratory virus, they will expel some of the virus with each breath. If they are wearing a mask, especially an N95 mask or other tightly fitting mask, they will be constantly rebreathing the viruses, raising the concentration of the virus in the lungs and the nasal passages. We know that people who have the worst reactions to the coronavirus have the highest concentrations of the virus early on. And this leads to the deadly cytokine storm in a selected number. It gets even more frightening. Newer evidence suggests that in some cases the virus can enter the brain.11,12 In most instances it enters the brain by way of the olfactory nerves (smell nerves), which connect directly with the area of the brain dealing with recent memory and memory consolidation. By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain.13 It is evident from this review that there is insufficient evidence that wearing a mask of any kind can have a significant impact in preventing the spread of this virus. The fact that this virus is a relatively benign infection for the vast majority of the population and that most of the at-risk group also survive, from an infectious disease and epidemiological standpoint, by letting the virus spread through the healthier population we will reach a herd immunity level rather quickly that will end this pandemic quickly and prevent a return next winter. During this time, we need to protect the at-risk population by avoiding close contact, boosting their immunity with compounds that boost cellular immunity and in general, care for them. One should not attack and insult those who have chosen not to wear a mask, as these studies suggest that is the wise choice to make. References 1. bin-Reza F et al. The use of mask and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: A systematic review of the scientific evidence. Resp Viruses 2012;6(4):257-67. 2. Zhu JH et al. Effects of long-duration wearing of N95 respirator and surgical facemask: a pilot study. J Lung Pulm Resp Res 2014:4:97-100. 3. Ong JJY et al. Headaches associated with personal protective equipment- A cross- sectional study among frontline healthcare workers during COVID-19. Headache 2020;60(5):864-877. 4. Bader A et al. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugia 2008;19:12-126. 5. Shehade H et al. Cutting edge: Hypoxia-Inducible Factor-1 negatively regulates Thl function. J Immunol 2015;195:1372-1376. 6. Westendorf AM et al. Hypoxia enhances immunosuppression by inhibiting CD4+ effector T cell function and promoting Treg activity. Cell Physiol Biochem 2017;41:1271-84. 7. Sceneay J et al. Hypoxia-driven immunosuppression contributes to the pre- metastatic niche. Oncoimmunology 2013;2:1 e22355. 8. Blaylock RL. Immunoexcitatory mechanisms in glioma proliferation, invasion and occasional metastasis. Surg Neurol Inter 2013;4:15. 9. Aggarwal BB. Nucler factor-kappaB: The enemy within. Cancer Cell 2004;6:203-208. 10. Savransky V et al. Chronic intermittent hypoxia induces atherosclerosis. Am J Resp Crit Care Med 2007;175:1290-1297. 11. Baig AM et al. Evidence of the COVID-19 virus targeting the CNS: Tissue distribution, host-virus interaction, and proposed neurotropic mechanisms. ACS Chem Neurosci 2020;11:7:995-998. 12. Wu Yet al. Nervous system involvement after infection with COVID-19 and other coronaviruses. Brain Behavior, and Immunity, In press. 13. Perlman S et al. Spread of a neurotropic murine coronavirus into the CNS via the trigeminal and olfactory nerves. Virology 1989;170:556-560. Dr. Russell Blaylock, author of The Blaylock Wellness Report Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: Athena Runner <athena.runner@gmail.com> Tuesday, September 22, 2020 2:00 PM City Clerk; Council Internet Email; Scott Chadwick Agenda Item 3 - Facial Covering Requirements All Receive - Agenda Item # For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL Date 9L., _1,2_1 CA ---Cr CM '-"A-CM —DCM (3) ----- Dear Mayor Hall, Mayor Pro Tern Blackburn, Council Members Schumacher and Bhat-Patel, and Mr. Chadwick, , I ask that you do not support any resolution that makes facial covering requirements more stringent than the county's current requirements. That goes for certain sections of walkways and staircases on select days, as well as on gatherings and businesses. The administrative enforcement for masks that Council Member Schumacher seeks will be black mark for the City of Carlsbad. The serious legal questions that Chief Gallucci raised at the July 28th council meeting regarding detaining people in order to issue a citation did not disappear. As a long-time resident of our city, I do not want our police officers put in that questionable position by our own city council. I also ask that the city not spend almost $70,000 from the general fund for extra police and mask "education." The city has better uses for that money and the police have better uses for their time. I ask all of this from the perspective of someone who is not "anti-mask." I think wearing a mask is a smart thing to do and wear one when appropriate. Chalking up the resistance to administrative enforcement, even if selective, to "anti-maskers" is not accurate. I think we have enough government telling us what to do and where to do it. We don't need to add our local city government on top of it all, especially when it raises legal issues to do so. I would also like to add that the minute-motion that brought this item back to council never should have passed. I really wish the city council as a whole would reign in the persistent minute-motions made when a council member does not get their way and consider all the additional work this puts on our city staff. Thank you. Athena Runner 92011 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Hector Gomez From: Amanda Hogle <amandahogle@gmail.com > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 2:31 PM To: City Clerk Subject: Agenda item #3 facial coverings City leaders, End the Tyranny!!! No mask mandates in Carlsbad!! Money better used for child/sex trafficking which is rannpid in our area!!! Free Carlsbad and fight for those who voted you in....do what you know is right!!! Concerned carlsbad resident, Amanda CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 8 Hector Gomez From: Paulette Thompson <pdthomps5@me.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 3:02 PM To: City Clerk Subject: No masks I strongly disagree with police ticketing people not wearing masks. Paulette Thompson Sent from my iPhone CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 7 Carlsbad Facial Covering Requirements and Enhanced Enforcement of the County Health Order for Beach Boardwalks, Staircases, Gatherings and Businesses Assistant City Attorney Cindie McMahon Deputy City Attorney Allegra Frost Captain Pete Pascual September 22, 2020 July 28, 2020 Minute Motion Draft a Carlsbad-specific face-covering ordinance that includes time, place and manner restrictions on boardwalks, staircases, gatherings and businesses 2 Legal Standards City must be able to demonstrate that the additional requirements: 1.Are substantially related to a public health or safety purpose (e.g., preventing the spread of COVID-19; 2.Are not arbitrary and do not go beyond what is necessary to accomplish this purpose; and 3.Do not plainly invade any constitutional rights. 3 Beach Boardwalks and Staircases Two options for Council consideration: 1.Resolution expanding face covering requirements along specified beach boardwalk areas and staircases (Exhibit 1) 2.Added police patrols along beach boardwalk area (Exhibit 4) 4 Option 1: Expanded Face Covering Requirements along Beach Boardwalk Area Exhibit 1: Resolution would require everyone to wear a face covering on specified beach boardwalk areas and staircases on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays and holidays from sunrise to sunset. 5 Option 1: Expanded Face Covering Requirements along Beach Boardwalk Area Exemption for persons who are: •under 2 •have a medical condition, mental health condition, or disability that prevents wearing a face covering •hearing impaired or communicating with someone who is hearing impaired 6 Option 1: Expanded Face Covering Requirements along Beach Boardwalk Area 7 Beach access ramps and staircases along Ocean Street and Carlsbad Blvd., from Rue de Chateaux to the bridge at Tamarack Ave Option 1: Expanded Face Covering Requirements along Beach Boardwalk Area 8 The sidewalk, walkways and upper and lower seawall along the west side of Carlsbad Blvd. from Pine Ave. to Cannon Option 1: Expanded Face Covering Requirements along Beach Boardwalk Area 9 (Cont.) west side of Carlsbad Boulevard to Cannon Road Option 1: Expanded Face Covering Requirements along Beach Boardwalk Area Evidence in support: •On crowded days, it is difficult for the public to maintain 6 ft of physical distance along these narrow walkways 10 11 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Daily Pedestrian Counts for C ity Sta ircases Along Ocean Street 8-1-2020 to 8-31-2020 I I I I I Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Site Name Avera e Median STDV Beech & Ocean St-BA. (IR) 456.7 361.3 169.2 Christi.ansen & Ocean St-B.A. (IR) 74.0 57.8 24.0 CVD & Ocean St-BA.CIR) -655.9 580.3 2 16.2 306.4 273.8 100.8 571.3 509.0 194.8 0 .0 0 0 .0 373.4 370.8 162.9 I Sun Min M.ax 257.2 761.6 46.4 107.6 438.0 1,104.6 170.8 463.6 312.3 929.0 0.0 0.0 145.4 632.0 (D d"' dt by l. applied Note: the counter for Oak&: 0c£an St. was out of service in August. Option 1: Expanded Face Covering Requirements Along Beach Boardwalk Area Enforcement would continue to be a difficult because of the legal and practical challenge of determining whether a person is exempt from the face-covering requirement 12 Option 2: Funding for Additional Patrols of Beach Boardwalk Area Exhibit 4: •Two officers to patrol beach boardwalk area while handing out face coverings and educating the public about the importance of face coverings •As needed, Fridays-Sundays and holidays, up to 8 hours a day for 12 weeks •Cost of up to $69,210 13 Gatherings •The County Health Order currently prohibits all public or private gatherings. •Gatherings: any event that brings together more than one person in a single room or single indoor or outdoor space at the same time. 14 Gatherings •Staff requests direction on what additional face-covering requirements the City Council would like to see imposed on gatherings. •The City Attorney’s Office would need time to carefully review any proposed restrictions 15 Businesses County Health Order Extensively Regulates Businesses: •Essential/Reopened/Non-Essential •Safe Reopening Plans •Face covering requirements 16 Businesses Existing Compliance Efforts •The Police Department investigates all reports of potential health order violations. •County Safe Reopening Compliance Team •City “Stay Safe, Stay Open” Campaign 17 Businesses Staff requests direction regarding what additional restrictions Council would like to see placed on businesses. 18 Summary Boardwalks and Staircases: •Two Options: 1.Exhibit 1: Expand face covering restrictions on beach boardwalk 2.Exhibit 4: Funding for added police patrols Gatherings and Businesses: •Staff is requesting clarification and direction 19