Board of Supervisors — 2026-04-21

All right, everybody. Welcome back. I will call the order. The April 21st, 2026 Special Meeting of the Santa Barbara County Supervisors. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

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 meeting are regarding methods of public participation and instructions on how to provide public comment on items listed on today's agenda, which is 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 805-568-2240. Again, that number is 805-568-2240. And 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 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 from Supervisor Capps and Supervisor Lee's office. And then once we go to public comment, I will close public comment as we start the first speaker. Right now, we're approaching about 30 public speakers, so I'm going to ask that public speakers try to keep their public comments to two 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 three minutes, we're going to try to keep it to two minutes. We've already gone a little long today, and we appreciate all of you waiting for this item, but if you could keep your public comment to two minutes, we can get through everybody.

and deliberate on this item before too long. So with that, Madam Clerk, can you please read departmental item number one to the record.

Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number one is from Supervisor Lee and Supervisor Capps. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding prohibition of unauthorized use of county-owned property such as immigration enforcement, safeguard the 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. Let's turn over to our presenters today. We've got Mr. Henson from the Second District. Chris.

Good afternoon, Supervisors. Chris Henson here with Supervisor Capp's office, and I'm joined by my colleague, Eleanor 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 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 in 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 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 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 vote-by-mail 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 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 poll 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 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 follows suit. For example, numerous jurisdictions have passed five-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 Capps 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 crafting the ordinance that is very much on sound legal footing. I want to thank the members of the community, many of them who brought forward these ideas 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.

You know, I want 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 guiding principle of our work as it applies here. This proposal is grounded in a simple premise. The county has jurisdiction over its own operations and responsibilities. This is not about politics or partisanship. It is about standing up for our community, our county community.

Forty percent 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 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 U.S. Senate, and that commitment is core to who I am, but that work is distinct from what I am leading and addressing today. 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 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. Thank you, Supervisor Capps. So I want to start off by saying I want to say thank you to the community who's been very supportive on this. 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 U.S. citizen papers every single day because they are terrified. They're terrified the 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 for people who are experiencing this. There's a lot of people who just don't care. I support law and order, but the activity that we are seeing across our country, our county, is not law and order. It's chaos. It's 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. Because people are scared. People, 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 county building permits, that's traumatic enough. We don't need to add fear to people's 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 follow our lead on this.

And finally, I want to say thank you to my colleague, Laura Capps. Working so hard on this issue and being a champion for the immigrant communities. Thank you. All

right. Thank you, Supervisor Lee. Questions from the board before we go to public comment? Supervisor Lavagnino.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So just on the legal side of it, I mean, I support all three of these, I think, in some fashion. Just the one thing that I've tried to do for a long time up here is to not give people a false sense of security and Thank you all for joining us. If we pass something like this, we lift expectations. That person that's coming to the county, I just want to make sure that, because 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? I don't think our Sheriff's Department is going to go arrest ICE. 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 Lavagnino, members of the board. It really depends on the facts. So I know that's not always a satisfying answer. 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 go and check to see whether it's authorized or not.

Well, if I may jump in because one thing that really prompted me to start working on this was the incident that happened at Santa Barbara City College, which is in my district. We obviously don't have jurisdiction over that, but they did stage in the parking lot and it was terrifying. It was right around 545 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 not allowed. At least there would be clear guidance that that is a violation. Again, does that answer your question? I know they would still be violating. We have seen that ICE has trampled through all of the laws and trampled the Constitution.

Can we stop that? 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 it is already the line. This is literally just making that line known. I mean, that's why it's so legally sound is because it's just making that line known.

One other question. So did you, when you guys drew this up, was county property also considered to be part of the jail part of the county property or how does that work?

That's where, Christa, do you want to answer this? That's been a lot of questions from the advocates as well.

Supervisor Lavagnino 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. With warrants and lawful.

Okay. Those are my questions. All right. Thank you.

I guess I have a couple questions. The first one, 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 of, Chair Nelson. All right. Thank you. And 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 we don't have to go through the planning process in the City of Santa Barbara.

So, and that's usually true of state and federal government on county property, right? 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 do it on our own regulations. If the federal government owned property in the county, would they have the ability to do what they wanted to with that property?

Under the current

existing law? 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. So on federally owned land, it really depends on how they're using it and how they hold the land.

So there are, in many circumstances, for instance on Vandenberg Air Force Base where it's being used for military purposes and it's held in a certain way, we don't regulate. But if they have a different activity on federal land, I can't remember all the categories right now, but there are some circumstances where the use is, although it's on federal land, would be regulated by the county.

Okay, so how about over at the Lompoc federal penitentiary? That's where the ICE office had been for many years until it moved to Santa Maria. How would this apply to that?

Mr. Chair, members of the board, I'm not exactly sure how that land is held, but my assumption would be that 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 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 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 trying to figure out if they're actually even subject to our permitting rules. And I know in the state government municipalities don't necessarily have that same concern. I'm just wondering how this impacts other governments.

Mr. Chair and members of the board, there are circumstances where if the federal government leased property in the county jurisdiction where we would have permitting jurisdiction, but not in every circumstance. So it does depend on how they have a property interest and then what use they're using.

Okay, and then going back to the question that Supervisor Lavagnino had about jail property, because I think one of the most common sites on county property is having ICE 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 ICE has to wait and see who comes out and you know knowing who has court dates they can kind of figure that out pretty easily and so at what time can they I mean does this they have to have a warrant to be lawful or can they just be out there waiting for people to potentially be released and how does this ordinance impact that?

Mr. Chair and members of the board, I mean the example that was used is the City College where the federal government was taking over the property and there are existing restrictions on being able to do that of county land and public property and so that's distinguishable for someone just entering the property. I mean the public is allowed to enter our property so it really depends. They don't necessarily have to have a warrant but it be whether they're having authorized activity.

I guess that's the distinction is the authorizer is 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. 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.

Way to go there. Mr. Chair, generally speaking, yes, but it depends on whether the federal government has occupied the field. And so there are still, there's still ability for the states and local governments to regulate.

Okay. And then the next one on the election side. 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 the property, I mean, is it just in their formal act as ICE this would apply or if they go to vote, right? So a federal agent goes to vote at a voting place. The distinction is I'm trying to figure out what those distinctions are there.

So if I can answer this. Yeah, obviously it's not, it would be in their uniform with their gun and this is a federal agent. And I, you know, I didn't realize until we did the research that federal agents aren't allowed at polling places. So I think it's just the purpose of this Know Your Rights Thank you all for joining us. Banning a detention center, it's directing planning and development to explore what options would be.

Because, and it is true we've seen in other jurisdictions around the country where these just spring up rather quickly as the graph indicated. Department of Homeland Security's budget has increased 75% in the last two years. So they have a massive budget and they don't ask permission. They don't say, hey, local government, can we do this here? 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. But I'm happy to answer more of your questions. No,

thank you. Those answer my questions. Again, I think it becomes as we're hearing very facts specific and Again, that's a little bit of my concern here, but 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. That's unless, Mr. Henson, do you have some additional feedback before we go to public comment? Mr. Henson, do you have some additional feedback before we go to public comment? Mr. Henson, do you have some additional feedback before we go to public comment? Mr. Henson,

do you

have some additional feedback

before we go to public comment? Mr. Henson, do you have some additional feedback before we go to public comment? Mr. Henson, do you have some additional feedback before we go to public comment? Mr. Henson, do you have some additional feedback before we go to public comment? Mr. Henson, do you have some additional feedback before we go to public comment? Mr. Henson, do you have some additional feedback before we go to public comment? Mr.

Henson,

do

you

have some additional feedback before we go to

Okay, and I also know that the Sheriff would like to comment on this item. Mr. Brown, or Sheriff Brown.

Yes, thank you, Chair. I just wanted to weigh in on a couple of things here that have been said, and I think we're on a little bit dangerous ground when All of this is going to depend on, it depends 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 I-247, which is an administrative warrant, which is issued by the agency itself. And they can issue, they can also seek and obtain judicial warrants that are signed by a federal magistrate.

A federal magistrate's warrant is valid essentially anywhere and enforceable anywhere. The state of California has passed SB 54, 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 Thank you very much. I'm going to go ahead and get started.

to go there when they know that someone is going to be released and make an arrest. I think there has to be a real thorough legal analysis done before we get to feel that we as a county can pass an ordinance that is going to disallow ICE to do what they are federally authorized to do 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 lobby of the jail, 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 their arrest in an area that is 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 pursuit. And that puts everybody in danger, many, many people in the community, as well as The federal agents and the people that they are pursuing themselves are in danger. So I think it's important. 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 been able to say and have ICE follow a request that they not come on to the jail property.

I think the jail is probably a special class by itself, but I also have concerns about the supremacy clause, and we have to be very careful about not being accused of interfering with ICE's Given authorization to arrest somebody, that could be seen and perhaps potentially even filed as a criminal charge of obstruction of justice by the federal government. So I think it really needs a deeper dive than it may have had at this point on the legal look as to if this is even possible to do.

Mr. Chair. Yes, thank you, Sheriff Brown. Supervisor Lavagnino.

So, County Council, is this an ordinance or how would you classify it?

Supervisor Lavagnino, no, it is not an ordinance. This is a county policy that you're considering.

Okay, so yeah, I think, I mean, I think the sheriff has a point that if we try to create a law that would, that's not what this is. So, 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 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 Lavagnino. All right. Thank you, Sheriff Brown. I think this time we'll now go to public comment.

Chair Nelson and members of the board, we have 20 separate requests to speak from the public on this item. Going to begin here in Santa Maria, then we will go to Santa Barbara, then we will go to those members that have registered on Zoom. And if you are a member who have registered in advance on Zoom, we do have your name organized as they have come in, so no need to use the raise hand feature, but I do appreciate it.

We will now go to Ana Garcia to be followed by Alex Unidos 805. And Ana may have transitioned home to Zoom. So, is there an Anna Garcia here? All righty, we will go to Alex Unidos 805 to be followed by Natalia Perez. Alex?

Good afternoon Board of Supervisors. My name is Alex and I'm the field manager with Unidos 805. We mobilize our communities to vote, organize, and strengthen political engagement across the Central Coast. We thank Supervisor Capps 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, Unidos 805, CAWS, 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 poll worker training on voter ID requirements and conditional same-day voter registration procedures. Also increasing accessibility to polling and drop box locations within precincts with historic 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 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 Natalia Perez to be followed by Willie Lubka. Natalia?

Good afternoon, Chair and Board of Supervisors. My name is Natalia Perez and I am a resident of Santa Maria in the Santa Barbara County. 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 Capps 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 civic process.

I, a Latina U.S. 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. Designated 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, Natalia.

That is your time.

Thank you.

We will now go to Willie Lubke to be followed by Carson Link. Willie.

Good afternoon, Supervisors. My name is Willie Lupka, and I serve as Executive Director of Buen Vecino, a community-based nonprofit founded in 2016. Our name, Buen Vecino, 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.

ICE 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 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 it's 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 people.

Thank you, Willie. That is your time.

Please vote 5-0. Thank you.

We will now go to Carson Link to be followed by Maria Salguera. Carson?

Supervisors, Chair, on behalf of California Senate President Pro Tem Monique Lamone, 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 SB 54, 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 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 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 Salguera to be followed by Ian Page in Santa Barbara. Maria?

Hi everyone. My name is Maria Salguero. 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.

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 that I was sort of passively sitting there with the child just waiting for a signature after being there for over three hours, they began to act like they do with violence. And I say this because I'm still shaken up by this and I'm angry. It's sort of like those moments where you're like, I should have said this, I should have said that.

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 and I actually, I was afraid, like quite frankly I was afraid and I couldn't make eye contact and he said, 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 Page, then we will go to Zoom to begin with Susan Washing. Ian?

Good afternoon, Chair Nelson and the Board. I am Ian Page, a community organizer and part of Indivisible Santa Barbara. I support the policies as set forth by Supervisors Capp 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 ICE'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 Washington to be followed by Karen Rice. Susan. Susan, we have unmuted you on our end. If you can please unmute on your end to provide your comments. Susan, if you can please unmute on your end to provide your comments. All righty. We will now go to Karen Rice to be followed by Juan Carlos Diaz. Karen? Hello. Can you all hear me?