Board of Supervisors — 2020-09-29

Yeah.

I'll call to order the September 29th, 2020 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Ms. Hartman? Here. Mr. Adam?

Here.

Mr Lavinino?

Here!

Mr. Williams? Here Chair Hart?

The next item is department item number one. Would the clerk please read that item into the record?

Chair Hart and members of the board, Departmental Item Number One is from Supervisor Hart and Supervisor Lavinino. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an urgency ordinance to temporarily prohibit commercial evictions, and there is a four-fifths vote required on this item.

And as way of introduction I just wanted to explain that last Thursday as part COVID response internal coordination calls. I learned that Governor Newsom enacted Executive Order N8020, that extended the county's authority to temporarily prohibit commercial evictions And as everyone knows, restaurants and retail businesses have significantly declined. And the loss of income and wages caused by the effects of COVID-19 will affect commercial tenants' ability to pay rent when due, leaving commercial tenants vulnerable to eviction and loss of their businesses—something we want to avoid.

Since our current urgency ordinance prohibiting commercial evictions is about to expire, Supervisor Lavinino and I asked County Council to assist in drafting a new urgency ordinance and scheduling a special meeting for today. Our focus was to provide commercial tenants with protections parallel to what AB 3088 provides to residential tenants, and with that brief introduction, I'll turn it over to County Council to present this urgency ordinance.

Ms. VanMol, Mr. Gazzani?

Chair and supervisors, with us today is Chief Assistant Rachel VanMolen. I'd like to thank her for moving quickly on this item that's of potential importance to the community.

Thank you for that introduction. Mr Chair and members of the Board, Chair Hart and Supervisor Lavanino requested that County Council provide a brief overview of the proposed Urgency Ordinance. This urgency ordinance would temporarily prohibit and suspend commercial evictions arising from loss of income or substantial medical expenses related to COVID. Executive Order N-2820 suspended the preemption of the county's ability to prohibit residential and commercial evictions.

With that suspension, the county adopted an urgency ordinance that temporarily prohibits residential and commercial evictions, but that urgency ordinance is set to expire tomorrow, September 30th. On September 23rd, the governor signed executive order N8020 which extended the previous order authorizing the county to temporarily prohibit commercial evictions through March 31st 2021.

Chair Hart and Supervisor Lavagnino requested that this proposed urgency ordinance for commercial tenants be consistent with the recently enacted protections for residential tenants, the Tenant Relief Act AB3088. Consistent with AB 3088, this urgency ordinance will be effective through January 31st 2021. And for commercial tenants unable to pay rent between September 1st and January 31st, the tenant cannot be evicted so long as the tenant provides written notice to the owner, demonstrates the failure to pay rent is due to COVID, and honored before January 31 pays 25% of each rental payment due for that time period.

This ordinance does not relieve the tenant's obligation to pay rent or restrict a landlord's ability to recover rent due in the future. And with that, that brings us to the recommended actions. That the board adopt the urgency ordinance, read the title and waive further reading of the ordinance and determine the adoption of the ordinance is exempt from CEQA.

Thank you Ms. Van Molen. Are there questions for staff?

Supervisor Williams. Just the basic what do they have to demonstrate. They have to be the same 25% that residents have to, but more. So that was my other question, but I got that answered by reading. But just what's the kind of documentation that they have to produce and what level of income loss?

Supervisor Williams, there is not a specific income loss required. But they are required to demonstrate by objectively verifiable means a substantial loss of income and there's examples such as job loss, layoff, reduction in the number of compensable hours worked, store restaurant office or business closure. So the ordinance actually has a list of items that would qualify for that.

There's also the option of providing the declaration of COVID-19 related financial distress, which is requirements from the California Code of Civil Procedure and it's directly consistent with AB 3088. Got it.

Any other questions or comments? Supervisor Lavagnino did you have anything you wanted to add? I

think it's mostly been covered. Thing I'd add is, you know just felt to me that. I don't know about you guys but I've felt through this whole endemic that as a local official my hands have been tied on a number of very important issues and I think this gives us one tool in the toolbox that we be able to use provide much needed relief some of our local business owners. And I know it's not a perfect situation I don't think there is one, but I can't think of anything more important than local business to kind of get our economy back moving. Give people a four month window to get their feedback up under them and continue to move forward. So thank you for bringing this.

Thank you Supervisor Lavendino. Do we have any public comment? Yes, Supervisor Adam.

Well I'm just going to say a couple things. One is that, I don't think there's any need for this because if you're a landlord and you have a tenant with a contract who's under obligation to pay in any event, I don't know who you would think was coming in behind that's going to be able to pay If you evict that person so I think landlords are already under a tremendous Probably a tremendous preference to keep the tenant that they have because if they kick that guy out The certainty of getting a new one, especially this going to pay the same amount is pretty low. So I don't really think we need to be doing this and maybe just a little premature to do this before public comment but I might support it If it expires upon implementation of Prop 15, if Prop 15 were to be passed.

But I don't think I'll be supporting it otherwise.

Thank you Supervisor Adams. Supervisor Williams or Supervisor Hartman?

Thank you. I just wanted to follow up on the procedure for either a private landlord or a business landlord renting to a business, they get this documentation but there's a disagreement and while this is a lifeline for many people there are some... There are some who are abusing it, and the courts haven't been open. And there are people sort of in untenable situations. So I just want to be really clear about what the process is if there is a dispute.

Mr. Chair, Supervisor Hartman, the ordinance doesn't really address what happens if there is a private dispute but essentially if a tenant provides this objectively verifiable documentation then they are protected so even if a landlord tries to collect they'd be protected. If the owner believes that it's not adequate documentation then this Prohibition does not apply to them.

There's no recourse.

OK, do we have any public comment on this item?

Chair Hart members of the board, we have one request to speak on this item and we are going to Jim Nell on the phone.

Good morning. My name is Jim Connell and I am the owner of FEMA Corporation. We have in our portfolio approximately...

We lost you for a second, Jim.

I'm sorry about that. In any event, I'm the owner of SEMA Corporation. We have lots of retail holdings, commercial holdings and apartments in Santa Barbara and Santa Barbara County. We have about 250 retail commercial tenants. I'm surprised to hear everyone's concerned about their survival of businesses and business owners. I think it's ironic that you have that much concern for business owners, but you don't do anything about opening businesses. This onerous process being developed by the state and backed by the county is causing commercial tenants to have problems.

You totally ignore the situation that most residential tenants are on month-to-month leases. are on long-term leases and they have expiration dates. I have several circumstances where I have tenants with leases expiring, with tenants to move in that I've already paid leasing commissions and I've already obligated signed contracts to reposition the space upon vacancy of some of these tenants.

Now you are interfering with these contracts and causing me to not only one being in violation of my own agreement because I can't deliver the space on time. But in addition, I will probably lose the tenant that I have secured to take a space. These are some of the unintended consequences of poor law and that's what this is poor law you are taking landlords rights away from them there is not an emergency ordinance that needs to be put in to protect Retail tenants from onerous landlords. There aren't a lot of tenants out there that want to even open up business that could only occupy or only have 10% capacity in their stores.

It's crazy to think that you have to put something this drastic in place, that jeopardizes the landlord's ability to conduct his business under normal circumstances. You're interfering with that And exposing yourself to a lawsuit. As a builder and somebody who develops property, you are making it virtually impossible for me to want to build anything in the city and county of Santa Barbara because I don't have the support and I don' have the backing and I don't have the faith in the city and county government that are going to make it viable for me to continue to operate like this.

It's uncertainty that you've created And the uncertainty that you created has economic consequences. And you are seeing these now and there will only escalate. This is bad law, stay out of the business. You are jeopardizing not only new tenants that want to move in but you're jeopardizing the landlords that you've been beating up since this epidemic has started. Stop it please. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Connell

And that was our only speaker on this item.

Supervisor Adam?

That was our only speaker? Yes. Yeah, okay. You do well to listen to him. That's how it actually works and we do a fair amount of ignoring how it actually works and that's... It's a bad time to be ignoring how it actually works

Supervisor Williams. Well, I just wanted to ask a question because of Mr. Connell's statement. Would landlords be obligated to extend the terms of a lease to a tenant whose lease is expired during this period? Part of his comments were because a number of retail tenants have long-term leases, some which expire during this period. Is he obligated to continue to rent to them even when their lease has expired and he may be obligated by contract to rent to another tenant that wants to move in?

Supervisor Williams, the ordinance is not set up to automatically extend a terminated lease. So it's under the existing terms of the lease as it exists.

So it does not interfere with current lease arrangements meaning someone's lease expires they still have to leave at the end of the lease?

Yes that's correct

And you know, the one of the questions and I was just trying to read through the text of the. Of the of the ordinance too. One of the provisions in the for residential tenants is is loss closure of a business right? And obviously that's relevant in this case so Any length of closure of the business would qualify them for these protections? Am I getting that right or wrong?

Meaning if they just closed for a week, back in April. Would they still be qualified for these protections?

Supervisor Williams. So the way that it's set up is that the tenant has to demonstrate through documentation, a substantial loss in income.

Okay?

So it can be due to a closure but they need to show that the substantial loss and income is related to COVID and that's related to their inability to pay rent.

Got it. So even if they had a closure even if it was an extended closure but their books say they're chugging along well that would not qualify them

That's correct right they need to that can be an example, but they need the substantial lesson income related to covid.

Well that makes me feel a little better I mean I've had concerns similar You know I think that but I also pair that with there's no question that something is needed. Businesses are folding and the ones that are left or in a real tenuous space. So you know I don't You know I don't. And the. This is the implementation of a prop 15. For any properties is. Does not begin until 2022 and this ordinance doesn't go until 2022.

And for commercial centers consisting of 50% or more small businesses, it's If if Mister Adams concern is the double whammy. That's not going to actually happen so. I would just say that. I do know of cases where where tenants have have abused this commercial tenants It's important I think to try to limit that. But I also don't think that we can proceed without giving small business a chance to make it and I appreciate supervisor Hart and Lavanino for bringing this forward and will be supporting it.

Thank you Supervisor Williams Yeah, I think it's important to recognize that we're not looking backwards on the economic impact of the pandemic. You know, we're in it and going forward through it. And so the businesses that have been able to survive very tenuously to this point may be in very difficult circumstances in the very near future. Having this protection is to give them every opportunity they can to survive and keep people employed. And continue to keep the economy going as best as possible, at least for this near term, to get us into January with this measure. It's not a perfect solution, as Supervisor Lavinino said. A perfect solution would be something at the federal level that treats borrowers and lenders with some sort of holiday Everyone to take a breath and be able to get through this moment.

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem likely in this political environment So we're left here at the local level with the actual real-world Consequences of those kind of decisions and having to do the best we can To provide a path for people to stay in business And I think this is a an incremental small but important step to do that Are there other comments from board members? Mr. Chair? Yes, Supervisor Lavinino

and I just For the public's information. So this only covers the unincorporated area, correct? This is not inside city limits.

That is correct. Each of the individual cities would need to take advantage of the governor's executive order and pass their own version of this ordinance for it to be effective in the cities.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Supervisor Adam? Well look the root cause of this, you know you may want to put a band-aid on but the root cause of this is our failure to open and Hospitalizations as we're going to see in our next item, and we won't see it because our chart won't go back that far. It only goes back two weeks but we should get a chart if public health is listening maybe we can get a chart of hospitalizations and deaths from March 1st to present What we've got and even the deaths are suspect because there's a difference between the people that are dying with COVID and the people that are dying from COVID.

And, you know, the record keeping is kind of weird on that but You know, nationwide I know that we're almost back to a point where our excess deaths that could be attributed reasonably to COVID are just above where we were in March before this whole thing started. March 1st before this whole thing started so I don't believe that there's adequate evidence to support continuation of the shutdown policy.

So if you're concerned about businesses, open it up and a number of states are doing that and obviously we're not going to do that but That's the problem. Questions for council? Does the ordinance, even though our speaker's nightmare scenario of a person trying to extend a lease where it's actually expiring, Have you ever seen anybody engage in vexatious litigation where they try and take advantage of a situation like this?

You know, sue somebody or and a related question is short of discovery. How does the landlord get the documentation from the tenant that proves whether or not they're qualifying?

Chair and supervisors, I'm going to ask Chief Assistant Van Mullum to address the second part which is the mechanics. And I'll address the first part. Last Tuesday we provided a summary of AB 3088 and included with that the procedures and frequently asked questions that the local legal aid foundation had put together which was a helpful job aide And I think that this is all in that same context. Ultimately, there will be a comeuppance either for the tenant or the landlord when the courts including the small claims court are open again for business at this level right now the focus is on criminal cases.

So I don't think that there's a free ride and if somebody is not being truthful in this process they will ultimately be in front of someone in a black robe and have to explain that. So that's one of the checks on this. In answer to Supervisor Adams' question, yes we have seen frivolous or vexatious litigation in other contexts. This is one with some pretty prescribed rules and ultimately there'll be a judge at the end of the process so that's part one of the question.

Mr. Chair and Supervisor Adam, to address your question on how does the owner receive the documentation? The ordinance requires that the tenant provide both written notice to the owner as well as the documentation. And if the tenant provides a documentation of the declaration, that's actually set by statute of what they need to include in that declaration.

Supervisor Hartman. Excuse me, Supervisor Adams.

Yeah let me just follow up on that I have to say that most lawsuits settle as we know from our own experience and you know to have it get to the end is I think Thank you. that may not have been making it in the first place, that end up just being an empty hole and the landlord can chase them around but they'll never get anything out of it. And it just increases, California's already a litigious society And it's already very difficult to do business here.

And this is just more bad policy coming from the same places.

Supervisor Hartman?

Well, I'm really torn on this because justice delayed is justice denied and people can be in dire straits and not have access to a process that will resolve disputes. That's right for abuse. So that's very concerning to me, but on a balance of the equities I'll go along with it. But I think legal aid, the process that they have to keep people in homes is very helpful.

And the landlord is holding the bag. So I really feel that Supervisor Adam has a point, that this isn't well drafted. But again, a balance of the equities and if things are unfair where should it be unfair? I don't know, this is a very painful decision. All

right, are there any other comments?

I have one more, you know. And it kind of goes back to the public speaker and some other things that have been mentioned here. You know, I take exception to the idea that somehow we created COVID or that somehow we have shut down this community and harmed business. That is not a decision of the Board of Supervisors. The easy thing to do which is not always the right thing to do. The easy thing would have been Put our head in the sand, say go ahead. We're going to you know I could have got a million pats on the back by giving the finger to the governor and saying business do whatever you want to do. Let's just roll the dice and see what happens.

That is not good public policy or give public health public policy. Rolling the dice with people's health. Is always bad policy? So not to mention the fact that there's also a huge financial picture to this, that we haven't really talked about. That we are partners with the State of California. You know? One half to two thirds of our budget comes from the state for all the services that we provide folks.

And you know it's not fiscally prudent. I don't think it's I just think that's a bad characterization to say that we've gone out and because of our policies, we killed local businesses. Just total mischaracterization and like I said, I take exception to that. And I think this is something that has the ability Of course, people are going to take advantage of everything. Every rule that there is, every law that there is, there's going to be lawsuits. There's a lot. If we didn't do anything, there'd still be lawsuits. Anytime you have a landlord and a tenant, you're going to have eviction issues. I've had them on a residential side. They're messy. They're hard.

And the best thing that can be done is both sides come together and work something out. And I think this at least provides a framework Some ground rules to allow that to happen. So it's not perfect, this is not a perfect world we've noticed that I hope over the last eight or nine months. Yes, I wish we could have opened sooner. I think the statistics have shown that we would have been okay a few months back but for me hospitalizations and ICU numbers are the driver. But I'm not the one making that call. I'm not the public health official.

A doctor and I'm not going to play. So. I hope we can pass this thing.

Thank

you, Supervisor

Leveneau supervisor Adam.

Okay, well I wish my colleague wouldn't take it so personally because that wasn't necessarily directed at the county. I realize that this policy is promulgated from the state and that's where I have the biggest problem and Responses to this are limited to, you know degrees. But and you have not traditionally been directly responsible for people's health. This is a first where we've sort of taken it upon ourselves to prevent anybody from contracting an illness.

And the question then becomes where does it stop? If you're gonna take responsibility for this particular disease, then why don't we tell everybody that, why don't we ban pork fat and let's take responsibility for people's heart disease or any other disease. So I think you're on a You're sliding down the razor blade into the bucket of alcohol here by continuing to do this.

Thank you, Supervisor Adams. Supervisor Williams?

Well I just, in defense of Supervisor Labanina and Supervisor Hart, this is largely the same ordinance we all voted for before. And also to fairness to the issues that have been raised by Mr. Connell, and I'm sure have been raised by other property owners over the last six months. I would hope that the authors of this measure today would also be open if other folks brought forth amendments and we would look at it fairly and see if they make sense to the ordinance.

How I would proceed that we handle it because you know obviously these 4th of this votes are kind of like, you know. Romantic suicide pacts. We're all kinda in it together and we don't want to make that something that creates unintended consequences so I think we should invite to the public That if there are changes desired that we would entertain those changes.

And I'm certain that the board would look at those very carefully and be open to any modifications that made sense. The governor's executive order authorized local governments to extend this protection through the end of March and Supervisor Lavinino and I thought it was more fair to limit that to the same term as the residential tenant protections that the legislature enacted in AB 3088, and have it end at the end of January.

The governor's executive order did not include a requirement that 25% of the rent be paid and we added This is intended to be a prudent incremental extension of the existing rental protections for commercial tenants that this board previously voted for and have served A few months of the pandemic and continuing that while we are in this very tenuous place, potentially opening businesses with the risk that we might have to close them in the future depending on the state of the virus than community.

It's a very difficult time and having this additional protection for businesses that are right on the edge trying to survive trying to get through this as best they can and keep people employed and keep our economy going. Is I think really worthwhile effort today. Are there other questions or comments? Is there a motion? Supervisor Williams, I will move your measure.

Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded. Any discussion to the motion? Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll?

Thank

you. Next item on our agenda is department item number 2 with the clerk please read that item into the record

Mister chair if I could before we switch to item 2 there's been a lot of discussion by the board My goal was to bring you options. I'd asked Chief Assistant Van Molen to do that and I believe she did a solid job bringing something that you could act on within the changing legal environment that we receive from the state. This is a rapidly evolving area, it's complicated and I think it was very good work by Ms. Van Mollen.

Thank You Mr. Casani for making that comment and thank you Miss Van Mollen for your excellent work on this effort. Madam Clerk would you please read item number two into the record?

Chair Hart and members of the board departmental item number 2 is from the county executive office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a coronavirus disease 2019 COVID-19 update.

Dr. Dober and also welcome

good morning chair members of the board Our briefing topics this morning include SBC COVID-19 data, the blueprint for a safer economy. Giving your board a heads up on the equity metric update on school waivers and Miss Anderson will be giving an update on the rise. Santa Barbara County COVID-19 by the numbers, we have 9,133 cumulative case count with 8,850 cumulative recovered cases. However, we still have 170 active cases. This means that these cases can continue the infection, can continue to spread.

We have 21 currently hospitalized and a total of 113 deaths. And our death rate is calculated to be 1.2%. This is the seven day rolling sum of new cases by area, so for this period displayed on this graph from September 7th September 21st, this is the first time that during this rating period we see a unanimous decrease in all of our trends in all of our areas.

This graph describes the COVID-19 hospitalization. Over the past two weeks, we are continuing to see hospitalizations decreasing and by 30% in this case with med search rates decreasing by 19%, and ICU rates decreasing by 50% during this time period of September 14th through September 28th. Mr.

Chair?

Supervisor Adam?

Dr. Dilberinoso, could we get an extended version of this chart to be included in these updates from now on? Showing the, okay since March.

Thank you. Yes Supervisor Adam through the Chair I heard that earlier comment and made a note and will be including that information in future presentations A blueprint for a safer economy. So as you recall, this is the California tiered framework with widespread as Tier 1, substantial spread as Tier 2, red moderate as Tier 3 and minimal as Tier 4. So I'd like to pause here and just remind your board that the new cases per 100,000 for the red tier means for Santa Barbara County a 18-31 new cases per 100,000. And for the moderate tier that would be four new cases 4-17 and for the minimal tier that would be less than four cases for Santa Barbara County.

So I shared this slide with you in anticipation that at noon, our governor will disclose this information officially. So this is based on our tracking of local data and the state database It is not official again until noon at the governor's press conference. We anticipate that our new COVID-19 positive case cases per day per 100,000 to be 4.8 and adjusted case tier.

For the tier assignment is at 4.5 and the adjusted case rate for tier assignment is based on the fact that our county performed more tests than the state median of 216. So during this period we had an average of 243.9 tests, and so we were adjusted by a 0.49 factor So it is 4.9, that is our adjusted case rate and positivity rate is at a 3.2. This is a graph that shows historically from cumulative case rate from February on to current date And we started out with 8.3 as our adjusted case rate, went up to 9.1 last week was 6.7 and we anticipate officially that the adjusted case rate is going to be at 4.5.

And this is another graph that shows in close-up, if you will, the last four weeks of our numbers. This is our testing positivity since March 7th and again we started out at 5.93 for rating periods ago down to 4.8 To 4.3 and anticipated to be announced at 3.2. And this is a close up of the last four weeks of the numbers that I just shared. So what does this mean? When we are officially announced that we are in the red tier, there will be gradual reopening of indoor operations. At 10% capacity, gyms and fitness centers can open their indoor operations. At 25 capacity, museums, zoos and aquariums as well as places of worship with a max of 100 people. Movie theaters max of 100 people and restaurants again at 25% capacity or max 100 people at 50% for indoor operations all retail shopping centers malls destination centers swap meets.

Now allowed indoors announced last week, nail salons and personal care services. Still not allowed indoors is bars, breweries and distilleries and family entertainment centers. And again this is a gradual reopening of indoor operations in the red. Our next steps, we are awaiting the official confirmation of Santa Barbara County designated as in being in the red tier at the noon press conference. We are working on our health officer order 2020-12.9 for the phase reopening.

And it will be released later on this afternoon for effective date 8 AM on Wednesday morning. And it was our hope to have it effective this afternoon, however late last night we did receive additional guidance for playgrounds being allowed to open and we felt that that was really important for us to include in our new health officer order. Halloween guidance to be released on Friday.

With the fall and winter holidays around the corner, we are worried that new cases will be rising due to gatherings and celebrations. So we are working on guidance for Halloween so that our community can celebrate in a safe manner. What we have been saying And we'll continue to say is that Halloween cannot be celebrated in the same manner as previous years, because we are in the middle of a pandemic. We've made huge strides and we'd like to maintain the gains. So Friday, we will be issuing the guidance on how to have a safer Halloween set of activities Adherence to safe practices will be critical to maintaining our progress.

We are encouraging everyone to be diligent with wearing face coverings, physical distancing, hand hygiene, limit gatherings and avoiding crowds. We're acknowledging that this has been a long and arduous process for so many in our community. We've noted schools have remained closed except those who have waivers From 4K through 6, businesses have had to close and then reopen and only to be closed again. So it's been a difficult six months for every person in our community as we continue to carry the weight of this pandemic, as we've continued to embrace new behaviors.

Our goal is to ensure that our community gets to a safe and healthy place to resume activities as part of our new way of living. We all need to be diligent in adhering these safe practices so that we can decrease the disease transmission in our community. I'd like to give you a brief update on equity metrics This is in draft form. I believe that the state will also be announcing equity metrics later today at the press conference.

The goal for the equity metrics is to ensure that test positive rates in every county reflects the most disadvantaged neighborhoods, that they are not significantly Lacking behind overall County test positivity rate. So again, it will be announced today at noon and it will be effective on October 6th what this means is that to move to a less To move to less restrictive tiers, at one we will continue to be evaluated on the overall county case rate. The overall county testing positivity rate and in addition, the lowest quartile test positivity rate must meet specified threshold for the last restrictive tier and more details will be released later today by Sacramento.

I'd like to give you an update on approved school waivers. Up to date, we have 21 schools that have received waivers for K through 6 in-person learning. We have sent forth four school waivers to CDPH for their concurrence, and that is Blockman Union School District, La Prisma Conception, Carpentaria Unified Elementary School, Manzanita Public Charter School.

School waivers pending additional information. We are awaiting additional information from Santa Ynez Valley Charter School and Los Olivos Elementary School. We do have three new schools that have submitted waivers. Ballard Elementary School, Children's Montessori School of Lompoc and Santa Barbara Middle School. And that concludes the public health portion of this presentation.

Thank you Dr. Duranessa. Are there questions for Dr. Duranessa before we get to Ms. Anderson?

Supervisor Williams? You mentioned a phased reopening does that mean Is that a reference just to the inherent phasing of the tiers or will we be holding back for a week on certain businesses? I know that's a tough call to make. And I guess my other question is, was that discussed by the team because I

want to

understand

that. Based upon your recommendation our team did discuss it and We landed on the state's thinking of being, of allowing sectors to open. And the red tier as I showed in this graph that has inherently built into it a phased reopening unlike reopening in the summer where all sectors were open at full capacity. We are following the state's guidance in opening at 10% for some, 25% for some, 50% for some.

Supervisor Williams to the chair, Ms. Anderson will actually go through by sector this is by percentage and so by sector to show you what Will be open once we officially go into the red Which we expect this afternoon and then what's next for orange? And so you'll see how the phases work in her presentation

Any other questions for staff This Anderson thank you

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. This is to provide you an update, you and the public in regard to Rice Business Recovery and what's been going on since last week. We've had several state changes starting with September 22nd. We have nail salons and physician ordered electrolysis allowed indoors in addition to it being the first week for the county of Santa Barbara to be assigned tier two red.

Now bringing it to today, we are potentially in the second week of tier 2 red or will be told that we're going to be holding at tier 1 purple. The last public health order that was issued related to businesses was 12.8 issued to include the nail salon Allowed to be indoors and then as the public health director indicated If we move to tier two later today, they will be issuing another health order. That'll be effective tomorrow at 8 a.m So we wanted to give an idea to the public and your board of what the tier structure looks like by sector. This is actually the matrix provided by the state on their website, and it's broken down based on their major sectors that they have guidance issued for.

It's just starting with critical infrastructure and limited services and hair salons. These are all open with modifications under the substantial tier 2 category All retail and shopping centers that are currently at 25% capacity will move to 50% capacity Nail salons are continue to be open indoors with modifications and Now personal care services includes the tattoo parlors, body waxing and massage services will be allowed to open indoors with modifications. Museums, zoos and aquariums are open indoors at 25% capacity.

Places of worship and movie theaters are also at 25% max capacity or a hundred people, whichever is fewer. Hotels and lodging continue to be open however they now can open their fitness centers at 10%. This correlates with the gyms and fitness centers that can also open at a max of ten percent. Restaurants are now open or could be opened indoors at max 25% capacity or 100 people And wineries continue to hold outdoor only, unless they're serving food as a meal with the beverage.

Bars, breweries and distilleries are also closed unless they are operating as a restaurant in which they follow those guidelines. Family entertainment centers are outdoor only with modifications. Card rooms and satellite wagering is the same. Offices continue to be remote, and professional sports continue to be open without live audiences. This also provides, as CEO Miyasato indicated, the orange tier or moderate Tier 3 That is available. This was an attachment to the board letter, so it is not only on the state website It is on the rise website and Certainly our agenda item as well As indicated this is all available in the state's website blueprint for a safer economy The public or businesses can enter the county and their type of business, and it'll provide them the current status.