Board of Supervisors - Special Meeting

All right, everybody. Uh, welcome back. I will call the order the April 21st, 2026 special meeting of the Santa Barbara County Supervisors. Madame Clerk, please call the role. Supervisor Lavanino here. Supervisor Lee here. Supervisor Caps here. Supervisor Hartman here. and Chair Nelson here.

Just a reminder to the public or announcement for the public if you're just tuning in, um this is considered a special meeting. Um that's it's a technical formality. Um this was originally planned on being a part of our regular scheduled meeting, but out of an abundance of caution and trying to be as legally transparent as possible, um we called the special meeting to make sure it was uh noticed properly. Um with that, Madam Clerk, do you have any announcements or changes to today's agenda? Chair Nelson and members of the board. The only quick announcement I have for members of the public who are participating in today's special uh meeting are regarding methods of public participation and instructions on how to provide public comment on items listed on today's agenda, which is uh just departmental item number one and general public comment. Please refer to page two of the agenda. Individuals that would like to provide verbal public comment may do so via Zoom by registering in advance via the link available on page two. If you have any questions, please contact the clerk of the board's office at area code 805-568-2240. Again, that number is 805-568-2240. And um also for members of the public who are requesting to speak in general public comment, that will be at the conclusion of today's meeting. So that will be after departmental item number one in our special meeting. And uh lastly, as the chair noted, if you did register for the regular meeting via Zoom, please note that link does not work. So you'll need to re-register for the special meeting.

All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. And just so everybody understands what we're doing here. So we're going to go ahead and make a presentation um from uh Supervisor Caps and Supervisor Lee's office and then once we go to public comment um I will close public comment at that as we start the first speaker. Right now we're approaching about 30 public speakers. I'm going to ask that uh public speakers try to keep their public comments to 2 minutes. We'll try to give you a little bit of liberty there, but if you have your public comment that you're looking at right now, please take a look at it. See if you can start to trim it down. If you were planning on 3 minutes, we're going to try to keep it to two minutes. Um we've already gone a little long today. And we appreciate all of you waiting for this item, but um if you can keep it to your public comment to two minutes, we can get through everybody and deliberate on this item um before too long. So with that, um, Madame Cler, can you please read, uh, departmental item number one into the record?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number one is from Supervisor Lee and Supervisor Caps. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding prohibition of unauthorized use of county-owned property such as immigration enforcement. safeguard the integ in integrity of county administrated elections and the protection of ballots once they are cast and evaluate where legally permissible to prohibit immigration detention or enforcement facilities within the unincorporated county. All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Just turn over to our presenters today. Um we've got uh Mr. Henson from the second district. Chris,

good afternoon, supervisors. Chris Henson here with Supervisor Cap's office and I'm joined by my colleague Ellanar Gartner. Together with Supervisor Lee's office, we bring forward this item on preserving access to county property, protecting elections, and exploring local tools related to possible detention center proposals in Santa Barbara County. This is a proactive item focused on county responsibilities, public access, and public confidence. Next slide. The issue. This proposal is a three-part response. First, public access. Protect public access to county property and make clear that county spaces should not be used for unauthorized enforcement activity. Second, safeguard elections and support voter confidence as we move into the 2026 election cycle. And third, maintain local control over land use decisions that may be implicated if this if detention facilities are proposed in the unincorporated areas of the county. The through line here is protecting public access, protecting civic participation, and making sure Santa Barbara County has a say in any detention center proposal potentially affecting our communities. Next slide. The concern here is not abstract. The surge and ongoing enforcement activity has created fear, disruption, and a loss of trust in places residents rely on every day. County-owned and other public spaces should remain accessible, usable, and safe, and should not function as unauthorized staging areas for immigration enforcement. When enforcement activity becomes visible in and around civic spaces, it can deter residents from seeking services, using public facilities, or participating in civic life. Attachment A in your in your materials is the policy before you today. Here we have local examples. These examples show why the issue has become immediate

and local. When residents see enforcement activity near public facilities, campuses or neighborhoods, it changes behavior and undermines trust. Our public spaces are supposed to be places people can use without fear or confusion. Next slide, please. The next part of this item focus focuses on elections. This board has a clear interest in ensuring that residents can vote freely, safely, and with confidence. The urgency has increased because public discussion about federal involvement in voting raises concerns about intimidation or deterrence, and because recent problems with uncounted votebymail ballots underscore the need for stronger public guidance and voter confidence ahead of the 2026 elections. With polling locations across the county, including some on county owned property, a proactive county response is appropriate. With that context, I'll turn it over to my colleague to walk through the election support measures, the voting rights education component, the detention center framework, and the re recommended board actions before you today.

Thank you, Chris. Voter intimidation sadly has a long history in our country. Eligible voters should not feel disenfranchised to exercise their fundamental right to participate in our elections. This slide includes quotes our office heard directly from constituents around their fears to participate in elections in our own county. One woman shared, "Seniors at the center where I volunteer have lost their trust in voting by mail." So, what can we do to help reaffirm our county's commitment to election integrity and safety? The second prong of today's proposal includes a series of proactive actions that will help support the election division's work. We heard during budget workshops that elections thankfully has not had any major issues in the past 24 years. We also heard elections does not have personnel dedicated to outreach to the public around election integrity and safety. The fear that members in our community have had about participating in our elections is real and it's in all of our best interest to amplify the work elections does and the safety measures they do have in place as much as possible. California's Secretary of State has a bill of voter rights. Our elections division sends this out to every registered voter in the county and we appreciate that. Our office put together a supplementary know your voting rights flyer which we've run by the elections divisions. It includes additional information around voter intimidation and we request that county departments help disseminate this resource to the public and to county staff. Attachment B in this item's materials is the full flyer. As part of today's recommended actions, we ask that the elections division come back on May 5th to inform the board and

importantly the public of all the ways they protect our elections, secure our ballots, and promote pole worker volunteer outreach to the public and county employees. The third prong of this proposal is to assess the county's land use tools that may lawfully prevent detention centers and enforcement facilities from being built in unincorporated areas. Jurisdictions across the country are grappling with the possibility of having federal detention centers built in their backyards, often with little to no opportunity for local public input or noticing. This is a proactive framework. This is a proactive approach to developing a framework to have at the ready if and when any proposals do come in from the federal government to build a detention center on unincorporated land. It's about maintaining local control. To paint a picture of the resources the Department of Homeland Security has, this graph illustrates the surge in funding for ICE, the largest recipient of DHS funding. Other jurisdictions have been proactive in how they prepare to tackle this ballooning budget, and it's time that Santa Barbara County follow suit. For example, numerous jurisdictions have passed 5-year moratoriums on permits, licensing, and zoning of all non-municipal detention facilities. To summarize, this proposal is about the protection of our community, our elections, and the land that we get to call home. It's about standing up for our residents, ensuring that public spaces remain safe and the services the county provides to residents remain accessible, that our elections remain free, and that local voices and local control matters. Here are today's recommended actions for the board's consideration. We'll now

hand it over to Supervisor Caps and Supervisor Lee.

Thank you so much. Thank you to my team. I'm very proud of them. I'm proud of all of the work that has gone into this very thoughtful proposal working alongside Supervisor Lee and his team as well as the advocates. I want to thank county council for her excellent guidance in in crafting the ordinance um that is very much on sound legal footing and I want to thank the members of the community uh many of them who brought forward these ideas uh in the first place. We listened and we spent months on this because we wanted it to be thoughtful. We did not want it to be reactionary. And so, you know, I wanted to talk about the values that this is based on. We often speak here, we did so today about local control. And it's really the guidance the guiding principle of our work as it applies here. This proposal is grounded in a simple pre premise. The county has jurisdiction over its own operations and responsibilities. It is this is not about politics or partisanship. It is about standing up for our community, our county community. 40% of our residents rely on county services. That is a powerful number. Every time when I'm out and about and I tell people that, it's a surprise. But right now, too many people are afraid to access our services, to participate in ci civic life, even to vote. This proposal is about ensuring that public spaces that we as county supervisors lead remain safe and accessible, that the elections that we, the county, administers, not the state, not the federal, they remain free, and that local voices are heard in the future land decisions that shape our communities.

I did spend years working on bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform in the US Senate and that commitment is core to who I am. But that work is distinct from what I am leading and addressing today. However, however one may feel about the broader national debate that goes on, that's one thing. But the reality on the ground here in Santa Barbara County is that the current enforcement actions are causing chaos in our county, in our community, and they are making us less safe. And as local elected leaders, we have a responsibility to respond and to stand up for our county and the things that we control in our county, our public spaces, our land use, our elections. Santa Barbara County is strongest when we when people that we represent feel secure, included, and able to participate fully in civic life. And today, that is no longer true. In fact, that's impossible for a significant portion of our community, of the people that we represent. So, that's what we're working on here. Again, it's thoughtful, it's legally sound, and to me, it represents the values that are worth standing for. Supervisor Lee, thank you. Um, thank you, Supervisor Cap. So, I want to start off by saying I want to say thank you to the community who's being very supportive on this. There's a lot there's not a lot that we can do, but we need to try everything that we can. So, as an immigrant myself from Taiwan, I understand what the immigrant community is going through. My mom and dad walk down the street with their US citizen papers every single day because they are terrified. They're terrified that ICE will pick them up and take them somewhere that they don't know and I can't find them. That's terrifying. And

I hope a lot more people can have more empathy to people who experiencing this. There's a lot of people who just don't care. I support law and order but what ICE but the ax activity that we are seeing across our country our county is not law and order it's chaos is pure chaos people being pepper-sprayed on the streets workers being grabbed from Home Depot. We have to do what we can. We have to do our best cuz people are scared. Um people who even our citizens are scared. people who are scared to vote. That's not okay. If we can make people feel safe wherever they go, whether they vote, that is a big improvement. We want to make sure that if people are going to public health or seeking social services, that they're not going to cancel those appointments because it affects us. Whether it's paying your taxes or getting your accounting building per um permits, that's traumatic enough. We don't need to add fear to people lives. That is what we want to protect our county lands. Our immigrant neighbors are the best and important part of our lives. Every one of us. This might not fix all problems, but we do what we can. Also, I want to encourage all the cities to look at what we're doing and take our template and do follow our lead on this. And um finally, I want to say thank you to my colleague Laura Caps, working so hard on this issue and being a champion for the immigrant communities. Thank you.

Right. Thank you, Supervisor Lee. Uh questions from the board before we go to public comment. Supervisor Lavanino.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um so, just on the legal side of it, I I mean, I support all three of these, I think, uh in some fashion. just the one thing that I've tried to do for a long time up here is to to not give people a false sense of security and lift expectations and exactly what supervisor just Lee just said by the way it was very powerful I appreciate that and uh to me like empathy is I get people ask me all the time what do you look for in a leader number one is empathy if you can't figure out what somebody else is going through in life you don't belong making decisions so appreciate that the one thing I'm worried about is if we pass something like this, we lift expectations that person that's coming to the county. I just want to make sure that cuz I'm afraid that some of this isn't enforceable, right? So, what would happen if what would be our recourse? Let's say let's go to number one, like they can't use county resources to assemble and do that thing. We get a report that maybe in Tucker's Grove there's some ICE agents getting together and they're preparing for a thing. What would we be able to do really even if we pass this? What would be I mean would I don't think our sheriff's department's going to go arrest ICE. What I'm just trying to figure out what the real world situation would be or we see people gathering outside social services or something. What could we do? Supervisor Lavinino, members of the board, it really depends on the facts. Um, so I know that's not always a satisfying answer. Um, but this is prohibiting unauthorized immigration enforcement. So there are going to be circumstances where enforcement may be authorized or there's a warrant. So we really would need to see what the circumstances were.

And I do think as a practical matter, we probably whoever is reporting would contact our law enforcement to to go and and check to see whether it's authorized or not. Okay. Well, if I may jump in because one thing that really prompted

uh me to start working on this was the incident that happened at Santa Barbara City College, uh which is in my district. Um we obviously don't have jurisdiction over that, but they did stage in the parking lot and uh it was terrifying. It was right around 5:45 and students were coming out of the library and fearful and didn't know what to do. And frankly, I think City College handled it very well, but there was a lot of confusion about what to do. At least in this situation, there would be a sign that said that it's it's not allowed. At least there would be clear guidance that that is a violation. Again, does that answer your question? I know uh they would still be violating. We have seen that ICE has trampled through all of the laws and trampled the Constitution. Can we can we stop that? I I'm not going to ever stand up stand here and say we can stop that,

but at least there would be a clear violation that is you are crossing a line and I'm just saying the county has to set those lines and we already it is already the line. This is this is literally just making that line known, right? I mean this that's why it's so legally sound is because it's just making that line known. Okay. One other question. So did you when you guys drew this up was county property also considered to be part of the jail the jail part of the county property or how does that work? Yeah. That's where um Christrista do you want to answer this? That's been a lot of questions from the um advocates as well.

Supervisor Levanino through the chair. We understand in that instance it's I think the terminology would be lawful enforcement activity authorized or whatever. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. That with warrants and lawful. Okay. Those are my questions. All right. Thank you. I I guess I have a couple questions. Um the first one um do we know if there are any proposed detention facilities planned at this point in Santa Barbara County? Is there any Not that I'm aware, Chair Chair Nelson.

All right. Thank you. And um I guess I'm just trying to you know, cities don't necessarily have to go through a planning process. And maybe this is a question for county council. Maybe you can help me with this. Other municipalities like or like we don't have to go through the planning process in the city of Santa Barbara. So is that and that's usually true of state and federal government on county property, right? I'm I guess I'm trying to figure that out. So we typically, you know, if we want to do something and it's on city property, we we do it under our own regulations. Um if the federal government owned property in the county, would they have the ability to do what they they wanted to with that property

under the current existing law? Mr. Mr. Chair, members of the board. So I am going to distinguish between cities and counties and then the federal government because the state law covers like if county has property within a city, state law covers whether or not we have to get permits.

Um so on federally owned land, it really depends on how they're using it and how they hold the land. Um so there are in many circumstances for instance on Vandenberg Air Force Base where it's being used for u military purposes and it's held in a certain way we don't regulate but if they have a different activity on federal land um I can't remember all the categories right now but there are some circumstances where the uses although it's on federal land would be regulated by the county. Okay. So, how about the uh over at the Lumpoke Federal Pen Penitentiary? That's where the ICE office had been for many years until it moved to Santa Maria. Um how would this apply to that?

Mr. Chair, members of the board, I'm not exactly sure how that land is held, but my um my assumption would be that it was a it's a federal activity on federal land and something that we would not regulate.

Okay. So, this would just be if what we're going to what would is proposed to be prohibited is if the federal government wanted to maybe lease property that was owned by somebody else that was not federal, like, you know, if they wanted to come to a some of the warehouse and say, "Hey, we want to use your facility for a detention facility." That would be something that would have to then go through a permitting process. I'm just I'm just trying to figure out if they're actually even subject to our permitting rules. And I and I I know under the state government, municipalities don't necessarily have that same concern. Um I just wondering how this impacts other governments. Um Mr. Chair and members of the board, I there are circumstances where if the federal government leased property in the county jurisdiction where we would have permitting jurisdiction um but not in every circumstance. So it does depend on how they hold h you know how they have a property interest and then what use they're using.

Okay. Okay. And then going back to the question that Sarza Lavanino had about um jail property because I think one of the most common sites on county property is having ICE um waiting outside of our jails for people that are potentially going to be released because the state of California prohibits us from communicating with ICE. So often ISIS has to wait and see who comes out and you know knowing who escort dates they can kind of figure that out pretty easily. And so, um, at what time can they I mean, does this they have to have a warrant to be flawful or can they just be out there waiting for people to potentially, um, be released and and how does this ordinance impact that?

Mr. Mr. Chair, members of the board, I mean the example that was used is the city college where um the federal government was, you know, taking over the property and there there are existing restrictions on being able to do that of county land and um public property and so um that's distinguishable for someone just entering the property. I mean, the public is allowed to enter our property. So, it really depends. um they don't necessarily have to have a warrant, but it would be whether they're having authorized activity. I guess that's the distinction. It's the authoriz authorized versus unauthorized. And I guess I'm not clear the difference between those two.

And Mr. Chair, members of the board, that's where I was getting at earlier. It's not a very satisfying answer to say it's fact specific, but you do have to go and you would have to look into whether or not it's authorized activity. Okay. Well, that makes me really uncomfortable. Um, where does the supremacy clause come in with these types of local ordinances and local control with the federal government? I mean, does I hate to use the word, but does federal government trump local government when it comes to this? Sorry, pun really not intended. Wow. So, you go there. Just kidding.

This chair, generally speaking, yes. But it depends on whether the federal government has occupied the field. And so there are still is still ability for the states and local governments to regulate. Okay. And then the next one on the election side, um something I've been talking about all along is a lot of the ICE officers in our community are actually our residents. They live in our community. They're married to county employees. So, you know, when they come on to onto the property, I mean, is it just in their formal act as ICE, this would apply or would this or if they go to vote, right? So, a federal agent goes to vote. Yeah. At a voting place. The distinction is I'm trying to figure out what those distinctions are there.

So, if I can answer this, um, yeah, obviously it's not if they would be in their uniform with their gun and and their this is a federal agent and I, you know, I I didn't realize until we did the research that um, federal agents aren't allowed at polling places. So, I think it's just the purpose of this know your rights exercise is to make sure people understand what their rights are and that that would be considered intimidation to have a federal agent um at a polling place. But if we can go back uh to your previous question about land use, uh what what is before you is not about um banning a detention center. It's directing planning and development to explore what options would be. um because and it is true we've seen in other jurisdictions around the country where these just spring up rather quickly as the um graph indicated uh Department of Homeland Security's budget has increased 75% in the last two years. So they have a massive a budget and they don't ask permission. They don't say hey local government can we do this here? uh they that is a you're asking sort of rational questions about an irrational agency and what we're trying to do is be proactive and get ahead of the game so that we do not have a detention center spring up unbeknownst to us in unincorporated county and we look at the tools that we might have to exert our local voice.

Okay. But I'm happy to answer more of your questions. Um No, thank you. you that that those answer my questions. Again, I think it it becomes as we're we're hearing very facts specific and um again, that's a little bit my concern here, but uh that answers my questions. Any other questions from the board? All right, we're going to go ahead and move to public comment at this time if that's unless uh Mr. Hansen, do you have some additional feedback before we go to public comment? as part of what we're presenting today just and we have an invite to county elections to come back in a couple weeks to answer some of the more specific questions that you may have. Okay. Thank you,

Okay. And I also know that the the sheriff would like to comment um on this item. Um Mr. Brown or Sheriff Brown? Yes. Thank you, chair. Um, I I I just wanted to to weigh in on a couple of things here that have been said and I I I think we're on a little bit dangerous ground when when all of this is going to depend on it depends on on a particular issue. I think it's important for people to understand, for the board members to understand and for the public to understand a couple of things. ICE agents are authorized by federal law to enforce immigration law. They are authorized to do so with two different types of warrants. They can do it with what's called an I247, which is an administrative warrant, which is issued uh by the the agency itself. and they can issue uh they can also seek and obtain uh judicial warrants that are signed by a federal magistrate. Uh a federal magistrate's warrant is valid um essentially anywhere and uh enforceable anywhere. State of California has passed SB54, which prohibits us from using county resources to assist or aid the federal government in their enforcement of immigration laws. And there's going to be a tremendous amount of gray area. I think it's clear we obviously don't participate uh with ICE or allow them to even come into the jail to um pick up people unless they are they meet the criteria for SB54

or unless they um have a judicial warrant. Um there are instances, some that we're aware of, apparently a lot more that we haven't been aware of, where ICE does use um our parking lots and um our lobbies at times to um to go there when they know that someone is going to be released and make an arrest. Um, I I think there has to be a real thorough legal analysis done to before we we we get this, you know, feel that we as a county can c can pass an ordinance that is going to um disallow ICE to uh do what they are federally authorized to do um in certain instances. I think that the problem that we have is that from a practical standpoint, if we were to say ice may no longer come onto jail parking lot property or may no longer come into a um a lobby of the jail, uh we would probably see them staking out the jail itself and being on a public street and then watching someone get out and get in a car and then take off and then go after them and enforce um their their arrest in an area that is uh in a neighborhood or at a home or make a traffic stop or attempt to make a traffic stop and have a car take off and they would engage in a in a pursuit and that puts everybody in danger. many many people in the community as well as the the federal agents and the the people that they are pursuing themselves uh in danger. So, I think it's it's important. I I you know, I'm aware that there are a lot of counties that have passed these types of ordinances, but I am not aware

of any sheriffs that have um been able to uh say and have ICE follow uh you know, a request that they not come on to the jail property. I think the jail is probably in a special um class by itself, but I would I also have concerns about the supremacy uh clause and um we have to be very careful about not being um accused of um interfering with ISIS's um given uh authorization to arrest somebody that could be seen and and perhaps potentially even filed as a criminal charge. charge of obstruction of justice by the federal government. So, I think it it really needs a deeper dive than it it may have had at this point on the the um the legal look as to if this is even possible to do.

Mr. Chair. Yes. Thank you, Sheriff Brown. Supervisor Lavino. So, County Council, is this an ordinance or how would you classify it? Supervisor Lavano, um no, it is not an ordinance. this is a county policy that they're considering. Okay. So, yeah, I think I mean I think the sheriff has a point that if we tried to create a law that would that's not what this is. So, um understand and I think the point which he made which I was concerned about was the question was answered about if we're at the jail if they do have a warrant or they're there justifiably so to do what um they've been charged with doing then we don't have an issue. It doesn't fall into this. So appreciate that. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Supervisor Lavanino. All right. Thank you, Sheriff Brown. I think this time we'll now go to public comment.

Chair Nessen and members of the board. We have 27 requests to speak from the public on this item. We are going to uh begin here in Santa Maria. Then we will go to Santa Barbara. Then we will go to those members um that have registered on Zoom. And if you are a member who have registered in advance on Zoom, we do have your name um organized as they have come in. So you no need to use the raised hand feature, but I do appreciate it. Um we will now go to Anna Garcia to be followed by Alex Unitos 805. And Anna may have transitioned home to Zoom. So is there an Anna Garcia here? All righty. We will go to Alex Unitos 805 to uh to be followed by Natalyia Perez. Alex. Um good afternoon board supervisors. My name is Alex and I'm the field manager with Unilos 805. We mobilize our communities to vote, organize, and strengthen political engagement across the Central Coast. We thank Supervisor Caps and Supervisor Lee for addressing election protection, immigration enforcement on county owned property, and the concern of growing detention centers. I'm here today in support of the recommendation and urge you to consider additional provisions to protect elections in Santa Barbara County. One requiring the consultation with local civic engagement organizations to coordinate voter education efforts prior to get out the vote periods of each election. Consider the following organizations. Widos 805 cause Future Leaders of America, Santa Barbara League of Women Voters, North Santa Barbara County League of Women Voters, Indivisible Groups in Santa Barbara County, and their college affiliated groups. collaborating with these organizations to increase the number of poll workers, strengthen pole worker training on voter ID requirements and conditional same day voter registration procedures. Also, increasing accessibility to polling and dropbox locations within

precincts with historic lower lower voter turnout. And lastly, implementing a process to document and track instances of election interference. I urge the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors to approve the recommend recommendation and consider additional provisions. Thank you for your time. Thank you. And we're going to go ahead and close public comment at this time.

We will now go to Natalyia Perez to be followed by Willie Lupka. Natalyia. Good afternoon, chair and board of supervisors. My name is Natalyia Perez and I am a resident of Santa Maria in the Santa Barbara County. I am the civic coordinator. I am the civic engagement coordinator with Future Leaders of America. Our organization works to empower young people to become active informed participants in our democracy through nonpartisan voter engagement efforts. We care deeply about the policies before you today because when communities are safe and respected, civic participation grows stronger and young people are more likely to engage, vote, and lead. I am here in support of Supervisor Caps and Supervisor Lee's proposed policy and ask that rest of the supervisors do the same. Free and fair elections are the foundation of our political system and safeguarding voter confidence must be the top priority. When individuals fear intimidation, whether at the ballot box or in their daily lives, they are less likely to participate in civ civic process. I, a Latina US veteran, have found myself feeling fearful at times. We have seen how immigration enforcement tactics can discourage illegible voters, particularly in the immigrant and mixed status communities. That kind of chilling effect weakens our democracy and silences voices that deserve to be heard. Santa Barbara County is strongest when all residents feel safe, included, and able to engage fully in civic life. Yet, aggressive federal immigration actions

have repeatedly caused harm to families, disrupted essential industries like agriculture and caregiving, and created unnecessary fear in our neighborhoods. We have a responsibility at the local level to mitigate these impacts wherever possible by setting clear limits on how county property can be used. This policy helps ensure that public spaces remain welcoming and accessible. Designating immigration enforcement as a special event rather than routine activity is a practical step that protects residents while preserving the intent to use of county facilities. Thank you, Natalyia. That is your time. Thank you.

We will now go to Willie Lubka to be followed by Carson Link. Willie. Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Willie Lupka and I serve as executive director of Buenvino, a community-based nonprofit founded in 2016. Our name Wenvvesino means good neighbor. Our vision is to cultivate a society where all people live as good neighbors, where human rights are guaranteed and a sense of belonging is shared by all. We are here in strong support of this item. ISIS is not a good neighbor because of what they do and how they do it. What they do is separating families, injuring businesses, causing fear and terror. And how they do it is by using consistently excessive force, brutality, and constantly demonstrating that they have a complete lack of accountability. These are their standard practices. Federal agents roving in our neighborhoods on a daily basis, deliberately imposing brute force more than more than needed on people and on property, demonstrating impunity, carrying out racial profiling and needless violence. These activities should not be supported by taxpayer funded facilities. So the ban on it or the rule that is not allowed is needed. It's a sad thing that these rules are needed that this policy has to be proposed. But that is our condition. As far as voting, we live in a time where there's a constant attack on voting rights and it's under the cloud of violence that was spread by what happened on January 6, 2021.

violence. So when we talk about people coming and guarding the polls, it's scary. Violence was allowed and the current president treated the people who did it as perfectly fine fine people. Thank you, Willie. That is your time. Please vote 50. Thank you. We will now go to Carson Link to be followed by Maria Sgua. Carson

supervisors chair uh on behalf of California Senate President Prom Monnique Leone I speak in support of this ordinance as an important response to actions that have created fear and instability in our communities. California has established a strong framework through laws like the California Values Act SB54 which recognizes that public safety depends on trust not fear. This ordinance reinforces that principle at the local level. When our community is afraid to go to school, seek health care, report crimes, or participate in civic life, we are all harmed. Unfortunately, this hap this is happening across our communities and this state. Local governments have the responsibility to determine how their public resources are used. This action also seeks to protect the integrity of of our democratic processes. No one should feel intimidated or discouraged from participating in civic life, from voting because of enforcement activity in public spaces. This ordinance is in harmony with our work in the Senate and legislature. At this time when many are asking what we can do, this ordinance provides a concrete answer. We can act within our authority to protect residents and uphold the law in order to build and preserve trust. I urge the adoption of this ordinance as an important step to protect members of our community and to also align with the commitment California has made to public safety and individual dignity for all who call this state home. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Link. We will now go to Maria Sgua to be followed by Ian Paige in Santa Barbara. Maria.

Hi everyone. My name is Maria Salero. I'm senior attorney at the Immigrant Legal Defense Center. Yesterday, I represented a child here locally at the ICE facility. It is the youngest client I've ever had in almost a decade of practicing immigration law. I was there because she entered this country unaccompanied. Her parents were already here in this country and after her grandparents died in her home country, she had to flee. She had to come here. She was placed in removal proceedings, but her parents are not because they never had contact with immigration officials. When we arrived to the ICE facility, it was just me and her. And we were there for a signature. We were there to comply for an ICE check-in. When we arrived, they asked where the parents were. I said they weren't here. And I let them know that I was counsel. Uh they threatened to call CPS. They questioned the child and said if I was threatening her, if I was abusing her. And ultimately when they realized, you know, that I was sort of passively sitting there with the child just waiting for a signature after being there for over 3 hours, um, they began to act like they do with violence. And I say this because it's I'm I'm still shaken up by this and I'm angry. You know, it's sort of like those moments that you're like, I should have said this, I should have said that. Um, but the officer came out and he said, "So, you don't want to bring dad?" He's like, "You don't think we can go hunt him down at his work, at his home?" He's like, "And this is going to be on you." He's like, "Because you don't want to bring him here willingly." And when I didn't engage um and I actually I I was afraid, like quite frankly, I was afraid and I couldn't make eye contact. And he said, "Um, look at me when I'm talking to you." And I had the child next to me, my client next to me. And I realized in that moment, it's not about the law. It's not about compliance. It's about violence. So, if there's anything that you can do to stop this, I encourage you

to do so. Thank you.

We will now go to Santa Barbara with Ian Paige. Then we will go to Zoom to begin with Susan Washing. Ian, good afternoon, Chair Nelson and the board. I am Ian Paige, a community organizer and part of Indivisible Santa Barbara. I support the policies as set forth by supervisors Cap and Lee based on the following. I think that ICE operates under a clouded color of authority. I believe that the use by ICE of our public, county-owned, and operated property to perpetrate fear should not be permissible. Use of our public property is not needed by ICE. they can prepare their operations at their own facilities. Using our community resources should be unacceptable. I think that it is a correct policy that we establish a line that ICE can be made aware of and that as a community like the people of Minneapolis, we also reject IC's impermissible and too violent use. ICE has billions of dollars in funding and they want to spend millions of it building concentration camp style prisons. Our country has gone down that dark path before. We know the shame of Manzanar and its similar prisons in our nation. We should not willingly descend into actions in our county and our country that deny all of us are created equal and are under our constitution and laws entitled to due process. We should do what we can to explore the laws that can help us prevent the building of these prisons here and everywhere. We also need to withstand the oncoming threatened assault on our elections. We need to do everything possible to give our elected officials the information that they need to make our polling

places secure and to train our poll workers on how to behave if intimidation tactics are perpetrated by ICE. I think that these three things as put forth by our supervisors are all worthy of your support. So I say on behalf of all of those who came before us like my grandparents and probably yours seeking a better life for themselves in this country that we should do what we can to help them achieve that. Thank you.

Thank you. We will now go to Zoom with Susan Washing to be followed by Karen Rice. Susan, Susan, we have unmuted you on our end. If you can please unmute on urine to provide your comments. Susan, if you can please unmute on urine to provide your comments. All righty. We will now go to Karen Rice to be followed by Juan Carlos Diaz. Karen. Hello. Uh, can you all hear me? Yes, we can. Please proceed.

Hi. My name is Dr. Karen Rice and I am strongly strongly in favor of these policies. Thank you for drafting them. I want to use some of my time to ask you to engage your moral imaginations. In what I believe to be the inevitable eventuality that an ICE agent shoots one of your constituents, one of your neighbors, how will you find out? Will it be via call? Will a text? Will it be your chief of staff or a family member? Will a news agency call you? Is that how you'll find out? And when you find out, what will be the first questions that go through your mind? I'm going to give you 10 seconds to think about that. What will go through your mind when they shoot one of us? If I'm not wrong, one of your first questions is likely to be, "Was it on county property? Where did this happen? Did the people that I supervise, the people whose boss I am, do enough to stop it?" You will be calibrating your sense of guilt. And you will be calibrating it in reference to among other things what you do today. Support these very straightforward, very defensible steps to protect our community. Not only are we talking about ICE accessing our county property, but just last week, ICE stopped some of your citizens, your constituents from accessing the lobby of the jail. They stopped us from entering that public property and exercising our First Amendment rights. And then when we talked to one of Sheriff Brown's deputies

that he told us the deputy told us that if ICE did it again blocked us from county property in exercising our first amendment rights the deputies would not stop them. So this isn't just about time public policy.

Thank you Karen. That is your time. We will now go to Juan Carlos Diaz to be followed by Jacquellyn Carlson. one and Juan, we have unmuted you on our end. If you can please unmute on your end to provide your comments. All righty. We will now go to Jacqueline Carlson to be followed by Hillary Lynch. Jacqueline.

Members of the board of supervisors, my name is Jacqueline Carlson and I am speaking on behalf of the Restorative Justice Education Center at Casa Dear Rasa. I urge you to support this policy, not only because it also allows you to in the future resolve and collecting data to potentially create some remedies into this county in class action litigations that will potentially come in in changes of federal government policies and holding people accountable. but because it's your responsibility to the people of this community to continue to provide safety and security on buildings and spaces that belong to the county. We all know that the county has served out hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars in lawsuits. It is your responsibility to provide safety in the spaces and whether or not it is by force of an incident that happens through ICE and customs enforcement. At the end of the day, when situations continue to occur that provide health and safety situations on your campuses, you have the legal mandate to provide safety. and when you don't, you look at class action litigation. So, I urge you to continue to pass policies, but I also request that you consider all of the families that are currently being hurt in those spaces when customs enforcement gets involved to the point of enter entering into hospitals for treatment. if we do not provide attention to the fact that our families and our community are being forced into medical treatment because of the way that they are injured on properties that belong to the county. We

will turn a blind eye and by turning a blind eye, our county will seek the kinds of situations in which they will be forced into civil action litigation. We don't need that in our county. Thank you. We will now go to Hillary Lick to be followed by Chelsea Lancaster. Hillary,

imagine if federal policies succeeded in our county. The city of Santa Barbara is no longer synonymous with beaches, historic landmarks, and culture, but feels more and more like Minneapolis has in recent months. It's a place where armed federal agents stand on asphalt that has been painted in homage to Mist and Zapotech peoples and where they kidnap the descendants of those very people. It's a town where denters are routinely silenced and the jails overflow. Communities unaffected by ICE activity thus far may have trouble envisioning all this. However, the fact is that 1,879 neighbors have already been seized by ICE in the 805 area code. The majority without warrant, just opportunistically snatched. This summer, SP residents will expect groups to perform folklorico dances during fiesta, and they will be dismayed if the vakeros from Santes don't participate in the infamous eldest file historico. But is it reasonable to expect the Latino community to come out when ICE agents are enjoying the support of the county? What is decided today has huge repercussions for tomorrow economically and on all levels. Without strong leadership, the county will continue to lose its flavor, its richness, and essence little by little and then abruptly. We already lost the 2025 Milpass holiday parade. What's next? the countywide Viva Larte series, the kite festival at SBCC, the low rider and summer solstice parades, public events through the libraries and at the sunken gardens, the prestigious Santa Barbara International Film Festival. Our community is worth protecting, and that means holding the line when ICE tries to take over county areas. You've got to hold the line and keep them out. Please act today or risk losing everything that is worth celebrating about Santa Barbara County tomorrow.

We will now go to Chelsea Lancaster to be followed by Thomas Becker. Chelsea, hello board of supervisors, community members. I just want to uplift the comments um in support that have been made today. As somebody who is often responding to ICE at the jail in Santa Barbara City, um I do have to say it's really disheartening, although completely unsurprising, to hear Bill Brown try to feain ignorance at the cooperation and collusion that is clearly happening between the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Department and ICE. Um I would love for the Board of Supervisors to take this a little bit further actually and think about some type of investigation. um looking at the newspress article that just came out and I believe that Bill Brown and the sheriff's department is in violation um of SB54 and what we are seeing right now is uh an increase in violence, an increase in menacing behavior by ICE agents, um taunting us, taunting community members, um making veiled threats um in reference to our safety. Um, so really want to uplift this and ask the supervisors to take it further if possible. I also just want to amplify um the story that Maria told um this is just I I don't even have words anymore um for the violence that we're up against. So I also would really love for the county to think about enforcability. Um clearly the call is coming from inside the house when it comes to the sheriff's department. So, what are we going to do to actually ensure the safety um of our people of of our county facilities of people who are trying to vote? Um, thank you so much.

We will now go to Thomas Becker to be followed by Katie Sanders. Thomas,

hi. Thank you. Uh, this is all so much puffery. You're not going to do anything. The federal government in the supremacy clause is supreme. Federal law supreme. Federal law and federal uh department of homeland security ICE. They have a perfect right to enforce immigration law. And if they want to use your uh your uh parks or your parking lot to um uh stage, well, they can do it because they're their actions are legal and there's nothing you're going to do about it. What are you going to do? What are you going to do? Are you going to send sheriffs out there to confront ICE agents with lethal force? No, you're not going to do that. Um, the federal government can do whatever they want as far as our property. If they wanted to converted the lump poke federal prison into a detention center, they could do it. And there's nothing you could do to stop it. And there's one more thing. When you think about federal law enforcement, think about Marilyn Ferris. Remember her? You probably have forgotten about her. raped and then beaten to death with a hammer in her home in Santa Maria by an illegal alien who had just been released from county jail by the very people that are talking now who thought that that illegal alien had a right to a better life in this country. You are all just a bunch of Thank you for your time.

That's enough, Mr. Becker. We will now go to Katie Sanders to be followed by Anna Garcia. Katie. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Please proceed. Okay. Um, hello. I Pardon. If you can please mute any of the devices in your background so we don't get the feedback, that would be greatly appreciated. Okay. Is that better?

Uh, I believe that is. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Um, I'd just like to say that I from my experience, the sheriff and the Santa Barbara Police Department are collaborating and protecting ICE, not community members. And what we need right now is for you to protect us with these ordinances. I know they're not laws, but we've got to start somewhere exercising our local authority. Right now, the entire sheriff's facility, the VA parking lot, alternative sentencing, the lobby of the jail, the probation, social services lots, they're all being used by ICE. Those are county facilities. They have ICE cars that are blocking us from accessing these places. They do not follow the law. I spoke with the sheriff the other day and he told me that all ICE are considered law enforcement and they are allowed to block public spaces in the course of their duties and the sheriffs will do nothing to impede them or forbid them to block public as access. ICE is allowed to break the law with impunity on county property, on city property, anywhere they want to be. There's no accountability. They're speeding. They don't have license plates on their car. They beat people up. They bear spray people. They drive recklessly. They do whatever they want. The other week, they crashed their vehicle right in front of the sheriff's office and their oil from their vehicle leaked right into the water. The police chief of Santa Barbara also says they can't do anything about ice. Basically, ice can do whatever it wants. So, why shouldn't we keep them off of the county property? this is the way to protect at least some of Santa Barbara. I heard Bill Brown saying or implying that it's basically safer for ICE to arrest or conduct their activities on county property. So, they're not doing it in the streets. But

I have news for him. They are doing it in anywhere they want. They will do what they want and his department will do nothing to stop them. So, right, another commenter said, "If someone's killed, ICE is going to be able to murder someone. We're going to do nothing just like Minneapolis." The other thing about that is your time. All right. Thank you.

We will now go to Anna Garcia to be followed by Sher Cheryl Troski. Anna, hello. I am here to speak in strong support of this policy. I want to begin by appre appreciating the board for taking this necessary step toward asserting our local autonomy. By standing up against f federal tyranny and overreach and the creation of a surveillance state that seeks to criminalize our residents into submission, you are showing that Santa Barbara County will not be intimidated. The people of this county are behind you regardless of what Mr. Thomas said. I wonder if people are as concerned about the white man shooting epidemic that's taking over our country. I also want to address the lies that Sheriff Bill Brown spoke to. To be clear, ICE is not authorized to conduct traffic stops or search vehicles or homes based solely on a simple administrative warrant. We must demand that they follow the laws and the rights that are enumerated in the Constitution. Families picking up their loved ones from the jail should not be forced to live in fear while simply trying to support their family members. Flush brown down. Recall the sheriff. Now, that's for us constituents listening. Regarding the recommendations before you today, how will the use and preservation policy be enforced on the ground? We need to know who will ensure that unauthorized purposes are stopped and what that oversight looks like. We also need to uh require judicial warrants, not administrative warrants. These are people who are being released from the jail, which means that they also deserve due process. Any leeway that we give these tyrants will eventually come back to impact all of us. None of us are safe unless all of us are safe. Finally, we have seen unidentified agents preventing

public access to the jail lobby and appearing to collaborate with probation and contractors that intercept individuals dealing with their um ankle monitors. So, I urge that the May 5th uh reports explicitly address these pro protocols for all county administered sites with special emphasis on the jail because that's where the biggest violations are happening. Thank you. We will now go to Cheryl Trosky to be followed by Michael Lynch. Cheryl. Good afternoon. Thank you, Chair Nelson and supervisors. This is not an immigrant issue as characterized because any immigrant citizen is welcomed and permitted to vote. Joe Holland, County Assessor Clerk Recorder, who was in charge of elections, assured the board during the budget workshop hearings last week that this notion that there's voter intimidation, poll watcher, and voter uh suppression uh and uh assault on our elections is not a credible claim. It's not a credible issue. The idea that ICE will be at polling places to apprehend abiding citizens is ridiculous. Federal agents aren't permitted at polling places. Uh this ordinance is not grounded in reality. It's very much about politics and shameful fear-mongering supported by lots of misinformation. I oppose this ordinance. Please support our law enforcement and uphold the existing laws. Vote no on this ordinance. Thank you. We will now go to Michael Lynch to be followed by Gloria Sto. Michael,

thank you for bringing this up. I support the ordinances being that's being presented. Um I fully support it personally for all the reasons that have been discussed. I would like to address why anybody would oppose it. There is, as far as I can see, no reason for immigration enforcement to be done at a polling place um or or any of the other county places we're talking about. So, they don't need to be acting as immigration enforcement. If they're brought in as theoretically as some sort of police sort of deterrent, we don't need it. We have our county personnel that provide plenty of protection. We don't need help. And that's the only reason I can think of that anybody would say, "Oh, yes, they should be there." So, thank you for putting this up and we definitely do not need ICE on our property. We have we have a great system. Oh, and also I have worked at elections in almost every election in the last at least 20 years and we have not had a single issue that we could not in some way handle. So we certainly don't need any assistance. Thank you.

We will now go to Gloria Sodto to be followed by Lee Heler. Gloria.

Good afternoon, chair and members of the board. My name is Gloria Sto and I'm a resident of Santa Barbara County and a representative of Future Leaders of America as its executive director. Our organization works closely with immigrant youth and youth from immigrant families. We lead nonpartisan civic engagement efforts that help young people understand their rights, participate in our democracy and build stronger, more connected communities. I'm here today in strong support of the ordinance that has been introduced by supervisors Caps and Lee. This is not a partisan matter. This is about the kind of country and county we choose to be and the responsibility we hold to every person who lives, works, works, and raises a family in our county. In recent weeks and months, um, our community has experienced significant strains due to aggressive federal immigration enforcements. Families are living in fear. Parents are hesitant to send their children to school. Workers are avoiding public spaces and people are delaying or foregoing medical care. This level of anxiety is just not sustainable and it should not be tolerated. Um, I support all three components of the ordinance. um and strongly um urge you all to to vote in favor and again thank you so much supervisors caps and leaf for bringing this forward. It's it's important that we ensure that all residents feel safe included and more importantly able um to fully participate in in our democracy and civic life. Thank you so much.

We will now go to Lee Heler. Then we will return to Susan Washington and Juan Carlos Diaz who uh formerly had some audio issues. Lee Heler,

Chair Nelson and members of the board. I'll be brief because so many of the people who have spoken today have covered the points I would want to make. I do want to thank supervisors Caps and Lee for bringing this forward. I appreciate Supervisor Levanino's comments. The reality is that the county has the right to prohibit immigration activity that is unauthorized on its property. And that's the distinction that's being lost by some of these public commenters. You cannot prevent federal ima immigration agents from enacting their duties under federal law as long as it is authorized. And that is the difference, by the way, between the judicial warrant and the administrative warrant. Something that Sheriff Brown seemed to want to make fuzzy. If you have a judicial warrant, you're going to have to step out of the way. We understand that. But there's a whole gray area where ICE pretends to operate under color of law and they are not. And this is your chance to set boundaries around that on county property, including at polling places. So, I strongly support this and again, thank you so much.

We will now return to Susan Washing to be followed by Juan Carlos Diaz and we will go to our final speaker, Ethan Bertran. Susan Washing. And Susan, we have unmuted you on our end. If you can please unmute on your end to provide your comments. Right. Looks like Susan is not there. We will now go to uh Juan Carlos Diaz to be followed by Ethan Bertrren. Juan Juan, we have unmuted you on our end. If you can please unmute on your end. All righty. We will now go to our final speaker, Ethan Bertrand. Ethan.

Hi. Good afternoon, me Mr. Chair and members of the board. Ethan Bertrand here for Assembly Member Hart's office. Appreciate Supervisor Caps and Supervisor Lee for bringing this forward along with all members of the board for consideration. Assembly Member Hart stands with our immigrant community and appreciates everything that the county can do to make sure that our immigrant neighbors feel safe. um especially in regard to accessing public services and voting. Thank you very much. And that concludes public comment on this item.

I have a couple questions. Right. So I hear this uh and I guess I'm a little fuzzy on it. It's the administrative warrants versus judicial warrants. And that might be a determining factor on ICE engagement in a community. And I guess does that matter for our purposes of this ordinance? I think that was something that some of the public commenters thought that that mattered whether it was a judicial warrant versus administrative warrant. Is it still all authorized activity whether it's an administrative warrant or a judicial warrant? I I I don't know who can answer that question, whether it's council or staff.

Mr. Chair, I do have notes on the distinction between the two, but I have to look that up. But I will um just repeat that it isn't an ordinance. It is actually a policy. So, it's a little bit different. Um I'm not sure that what type of warrant really matters for this purpose because it really depends on what kind of warrant they have and what they're trying to use it for. So,

and that's what's really hard here too, right? So, and and I guess this is one of the things I'm really concerned about in our community is that um we have people out there that are becoming constitutional scholars on both sides on what is lawful and what's not. You know, we have um people slashing, you know, law enforcement's tires, attacking officers who are arresting people lawfully, and it's because they think that, you know, that they have some vigilante obligation to enforce law that's not being enforced somewhere else. And so, um, with this, I'm I'm I'm concerned if that this adds another layer, um, for people in our community that believes that they're going to be now telling ICE, you can't be at a county property and sheriff's office isn't going to enforce it. So, you know, does that give somebody, you know, they feel like the right to um, you know, put their hands on law enforcement at that point? I mean, these are the things that we're seeing happen in our community right now. And I and I'm I'm really curious on whether this helps that or hurts that. Actually, I think it potentially adds fuel to that fire. And that's one of my concerns um with this ordinance is that so much is unclear. We don't know what's authorized. We don't know what's unauthorized. We don't know. Um it's it's very fact specific. Um we don't know who's going to enforce or there is any enforcement. And so again, these are things that I'm really concerned about and the uncertainty that I see here on on this. So, I mean, that's partly asking a question, also making a statement, but that's uh um something I don't know if you guys can help me with that, but that's where I'm I'm at. I mean, if I may, please,

if I may, I mean, certainly we don't uh condone violence, but certainly the majority of the violence has been directed from ICE and uh and the sides the authorization,

not actually both sides, uh the the authorization has been zero uh uh in these cases that we've highlighted. Um, so you can get you can parse whether it's a particular kind of warrant. Um, but what's been concerning is that there's been no heads up to our on public spaces to any entity of any kind uh with any kind of lawful uh justification. So um we can get into the nitty-gritty. Um but I don't think this will add uh fuel to the fire. I think the fire is already there.

Thank you, sir. Reser Caps Sol. I do believe that it gives people hope. Even right now, they feel helpless and by doing this gives them a chance to be heard and feel like we are trying to do something. At the very least, we are trying and that's important to a lot of people. All right. Super 11. Are we on deliberation? Questions? I think so, but I Okay. Yeah, I'm done with my questions.

Yeah, I just appreciate everybody showing up and talking about this again. And when I first saw it, honestly, I was like, "Oh, shoot. I The one thing I hate is lifting people's expectations." But, you know, I get the spirit in which it's given, and that is to give people hope. And when the person was asking, we'll sit there for 10 seconds and you know what's going through your mind if you heard that. It was not whether or not it would be on county property. That's insignificant to me. It was what could I have done about it, right? And I don't know what I it's so murky of what you can and can't do. But moving these items is not really controversial to me. I mean that the idea of voting when you have an administration um that is saying I mean came right out and said, "Hey, I want to nationalize elections and there's probably 15 places where we need to have our party run the elections." that's not something you normally hear coming out of the White House. And then we had the speaker follow that up and just a total um either lack of understanding of how California elections work or just a lot of the regurgitating a lot of the um conspiracy theories that I've had to deal with for a long time. When people talk about California elections, they don't everybody that's associated with elections, if you're on the ballot and that you understand how all this works and and you get it and you understand that my I think one of my favorite memes of all time and I can't remember who the two candidates were, but it was election for governor in the state of California and I had a Republican and he had like 213,000 votes and then I had the Dem and had like 180,000 votes But CNN and everybody had called it for the Dem, you know, and all these people were like, "How could this happen?" You know, how can you call that? Well, yeah, there's going to be six million votes cast. Okay, this was 200,000. He had a vote. We counted Modesto first, you know, or Bakersfield. So,

I don't know how much of it is just uh I I think that that that is and I'm really looking forward to hearing from uh elections on what their plan is because we've got to have a plan. And um as Supervisor Lee said, you know, I'm a law and order guy, too. And but what I've seen from ICE over the last year, it's just unconscionable. I never thought in this country, honestly, that I would witness somebody get executed in broad daylight on a street that is a ICU nurse in the Department of Veterans Affairs because he's out speaking his mind and doing what this how this country was founded is letting your point be heard. So, uh, and then the scariest part of that is it just kind of got forgotten, right? Like it's over and we just move on to the next the next thing. So, the weirdest part of this is, you know, when Mr. Becker said, "Have you forgotten Marilyn Ferris?" Absolutely, I have not. And I support removing violent criminals. And that's what's so baffling about this whole thing is I think 90% of Americans are okay with taking people that are violently committing crimes in this country and removing them. And if you would have done that, I think people would be okay with that. That's the moving in the in the right direction. But snagging people off the street, separating families, just doing this so halfaphazardly and doesn't seem to be any focus is just baffling to me. There's the the the strategy or lack thereof is just boggles of mind. Now, what's going to happen when folks expect us to show up and rouse um ICE off of jail property, you know, that's when we're going to have to say um that's when the supremacy clause comes in or this they they have a

warrant or they're allowed to be here. It's going to be difficult. Um but I think it goes back to that 10 seconds. So, what do we do? I don't want to be sitting here explaining to my grandkids that I, you know, I was splitting the hair of what I thought was legal or not legal or, you know, you got to do something. And so, uh, I'll totally support this. Supervisor Urban.

Yes. Um, excuse me. I I very much excuse me very much appreciate uh supervisors Caps and Lee bringing this forward and and giving the community an opportunity to weigh in. Um it it may be largely symbolic, at least part of it, but symbols are important. symbols say we're trying and we're doing what we can and we're standing with the people who feel threatened by what's happening and and so I want to be on that side of the issue. Uh and I I do think uh the federal threat to our elections seizing ballots in Georgia uh a candidate seizing ballots here in California. Uh this is unprecedented and uh it sometimes strikes me that the administration is projecting onto others its own policies and behaviors and uh election integrity when it's uh when we found problems it was actually Republicans and we see an administration that is uh just way beyond the pale. So, I I support whatever we can do. And and in terms of these concentration camps, I mean, they're they're way overbuilding what would go just for uh housing um immigrants, and I wonder who they're coming for next. So, I think it's really important that we do draw a line, and I'm I'm happy to stand with you.

All right. Thank you, Sylvester Hartman. Um just so you you guys all know I'm happy to support item B coming back for the election side. Absolutely. Um I'm 100% there. I think the more information the better and let's get clarity there. I think that's a really important thing. Um I do have concerns about A and C. I could get into my all my philosophies on what's going on at the national side and you know some of you guys would be surprised by some things and I'm maybe not surprised by others but I don't think that's actually productive for this conversation and moving things forward. Um I won't be able to support A and C but if we can break that up into two different motions I'll be happy to fully support um the elections piece here today.

Well, I'd be I'd be fine to do that if that I really appreciate the way this conversation is going as always. And um I also just uh I'm glad we're going to have the conversation about with the elections division because we've spent a lot of time on ICE and uh deportations uh not as much as uh families have spent worrying about it. Absolutely. But we haven't on elections and I know supervisor Lev, you know, I thought of you a lot when we were working on this because of just the elections conversations that have happened over the last couple years uh with election deniers, etc., etc. And and yet um we have the power of communication in our offices and we need to use it. There is a crisis going on. when we started these meetings over the last several months and we heard these anecdotes that Eleanor Po pulled out, you know, a volunteer at a senior center says that they all vote by mail and they're not planning on it right now. I mean, that's a crisis of democracy and we h we have we have to help our elections division. We heard from Joe Holland that they don't that that communicating with voters is not a priority. It's not at what they do. They they run the internal mechanism. Thank goodness they do it well. But we need to really step up efforts to improve voter confidence quickly because of all of the fear not just of ICE, just of of ballots being seized with a sheriff in Riverside of just all of this confusion. When you we all know this because we spend a lot of time thinking about it, but when there's confusion, people freeze and they don't vote. And that's what we're up against. And so when we started digging into this, the thought was, well, let's just let's just help them out. Let's just add the power that we our offices can bring to this. We did you know that our uh county has a program that if you are an employee, you

can volunteer to be a poll worker the day of the election and you actually get a stipen. Um only a handful of employees participate. So, what if departments actually send out an email about that? That doesn't happen now. Uh, our county council's office sends out an email and and her office is probably the only department that does. So, what if we just get more awareness so that people feel assured that our elections are safe because our county runs these elections and we have a lot to be proud of. We have a tremendous amount to be proud of. So, I just um I'm I'm hopeful that the elections division will come back. Uh it's a request. They are an independent um division. So, it's a request. We've had a meeting with them and and made that request already. But that I I just want us to to think about this. And I don't think we just stop there. We have an election in June and we have an election in November. But I think we have a lot to do not just within the immigrant community. This is far beyond that to restore to strengthen voter confidence that our county runs these elections and they'll be safe. We'll do everything in our power to do that. So again, just really appreciate the way that this conversation is going and Supervisor Nelson, if you'd like to break up the item, I'm happy to do that to uh earn your support on this. And if I could just jump in on that elections piece specifically, you know, that's not something that's that's both sides that are concerned about elections. And that's something so I I having, you know, confidence in is something that we we need to do for everybody around because I mean what yeah, what you're hearing now has been we I've been hearing that from many of the people on the right for quite some time about their concern and whether their their ballot mattered because of the potential fraud. So, I think we're all in the business of getting rid of the fraud, getting rid of the intimidation, and making sure that we have the most fairest elections possible. So, I'm I'm 100% there.

Uh, let's see. How would we Can we Can we do a motion on B and take a vote on on B first and then you guys can have the vote on A and C. Is that is that is that okay? Sure. You You guys want to make the motion? Uh, yeah. Let's uh yeah, I'll make the motion on our recommendation of item B, which pertains to county elections. Okay, I'll second. All right. Um, any further discussion on that one? All in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Motion passes unanimously. And now a motion on A and C. If you would,

I will propose the motion on items A, which relates to county uh preserving access to county property, as well as item C, which asks the planning division to come back with tools related to the potential banning of detention centers in unincorporated areas. Um, and as well, that's not a project on a sequ. Yes, I'll second that. Okay, so we got a motion for caps and a second by Lee. Um, we can still do a voice vote on this even with a disscent. So, all in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed? Nay. Uh, motion passes four to one with Nelson dissenting. Great.

All right. So, that concludes this item. Um, we still need to make a public com general public comment available. So, thank you everybody that has stuck around all day and those that are watching on on video for sticking with us. Um, that does conclude this item and we will now go to general public comment. Madam clerk, do we have any general public comment on for this special meeting? Chair Nelson and members of the board, we do have one request to speak from the public on general public comment today and that is Angelina Damonte on Zoom. Angelina.

Hello. Good afternoon, Chair Nelson and Board of Supervisors. I'd like to thank I'd like to thank some of the staff of Santa Barbara County who showed up to work and continuously shows up to work and does a great job. while taking their job seriously, thus providing excellent customer service. As some employees do a great job and often get overlooked, I would like to thank and recognize especially Hube Guzman with adult protective services. Hu really made a big impact and a a big difference on a disabled dependent elers's life recently. In fact, Hu never never gave up on the elder while working with him. Hu provided hope to an individual who slipped through the cracks. who they helped actually save the life of the elder in addition to provide hope for the elder with um well many other departments within the county bailed the elder while he slipped through the cracks. I'd like to thank the board of supervisors for and allowing an audit to take place. However, it appears that there needs to be a much deeper dive into the county and the department for the budget instead of just looking towards the sheriff's department who is understaffed and overworked. I think we need to take a closer look at other departments and see where we can cut and pair public and private. It seems to be and appears there are uh wasted funds and mismanagement within some of the departments and staff money that being misused and some of the positions causing some fraud, waste and cover up which is a misuse of taxpayers resources with with potentially both state and federal funds. I asked the CEO of Santa Barbara County, Miss Monomsado, and the supervisors to look closely at the law and of the civil code section or excuse me, the California Penal Code section 424, the misappropriation of public funds law is covered under that section. I also would ask that the CEO

and the supervisors take a close look at government code section 8547.2. It appears that it might be potentially violated by some employees. It appears that a truly f a truly thorough federal independent audit needs to be invoked to better assist the CEO and the board of supervisors for the sake of transparency in order to properly identify fraud, waste, and abuse of positions and or covering up crimes for the benefit of others. as it would appear that a high-risk federal audit is appropriate for the for that the CEO and our supervisors which I would hope that they would reach out to our congressman Salude Carbajal and ask that he help facilitate a truly independent audit to and perhaps seek assistance from Congress from the federal government to step in and assist with the truly independent audit for the county of Santa Barbara, its departments and CEO. It would help to eliminate potential tax uh tax waste of funds as well as help reorganize and restructure the county and the departments to have a better run and more efficiently county uh operating system. Taxpayers of Santa Barbara County deserve the transparency and accountability as I am aware that it appears there be to be some fraud and misuse. It seems like we would definitely want to encourage our elected officials and our CEO who all got payraises recently and voted themselves payraises to take a independent look and if they can't do it because of conflicts of interest to reach out uh and have someone come in and do an independent audit because the audits clearly don't seem to be working. It it seems that the sheriff's department is being isolated and picked on more recently and it seems like there are other departments that needs to have a closer look. I mean, there's there's definitely a lot of issues. I can talk about Arlene Diaz with the public administrator's office. She has cost the county a tremendous amount of money for failing to do her

job, failing to administer an estate, accepting the responsibility to be a fiduciary of an estate where the teddent was suing the county of Santa Barbara. There's a lot of things that get overlooked and I think that it's really important for the supervisors and the CEO to slow down, pause and look at the departments. Everyone has heard complaints from the community over time and I don't think that they anything's been addressed. The 70,000 of the audit that came or 70 million that came from the audit, it appears it's going back to some of the departments. It it also seems that there could be a lot of public pairing with private which would also help stimulate the economy and put money back into our communities and provide jobs and will lighten the burden on some of the county. So, I urge the county to work together and try to reach out to Salute Carbajal to get um to facilitate an audit. Thank you for your time and have a wonderful day.

Thank you, Mr. Dammani. And that concludes general public comment for today's special meeting. All right, then we officially adjourn today's special meeting and regular meeting and we will see you all again in Santa Barbara on May 5th.