Board of Supervisors — 2021-11-09

Naming County Assets

• Supervisor Nelson proposed a one-year waiting period after a person's passing before naming assets.
• Supervisor Williams raised concerns about the policy potentially taking a stance in cultural debates.
• Supervisor Nelson withdrew the request for an "unnaming" policy to avoid controversy.
• The board approved the item as is.

Amendment to Chapter 50 (Commercial Cannabis Licensing)

• Public speakers requested a deadline extension to December 2022 to allow time for permit completion.
• Supervisor Lavagnino noted he was reviewing timelines with Planning and Development before deciding on extensions.
• Staff clarified that the June 30, 2022, cap date applies to both inland and Carpinteria areas.
• The board approved the item with the understanding that it retains discretion to adjust dates in the future.

Resolution in Memory of Mrs. Agatha Shorter-Lewis

• The board read a resolution acknowledging the passing of Mrs. Agatha Shorter-Lewis, a former deputy probation officer.
• Family members and colleagues shared memories of her contributions to the community and the NAACP.
• The resolution was adopted into the record.

Small Community Drought Relief Program Grant Funds

• The board declared an emergency situation to add the item to the agenda under Government Code section 54956.5.
• The item concerns accepting grant funds for a temporary water intertie for the Rolling Hills community.
• Staff explained the intertie is an interim remedy while a long-term solution is determined.
• The board approved the resolution to accept the grant funds.

Contractor on Payroll Agreement with Audra Dillard RN

• Staff requested authorization to contract with a retired nurse for infection prevention services at the psychiatric health facility.
• The board was asked to waive the normal six-month waiting period for rehiring a former employee as a contractor.
• Staff noted that Dillard possesses specific regulatory qualifications that are difficult to find in the current job market.
• The board approved the agreement.

Criminal Justice Improvement Efforts and Main Jail Rehabilitation Project

• Staff presented a data dashboard and updates on discovery processes, alternative sentencing, and diversion programs.
• Four options were presented for the Main Jail Rehabilitation Project, with staff recommending Option 2.
• Option 2 involves $24.9 million in rehabilitation costs plus an assessment of long-term housing needs.
• The board approved Option 2 by a 4-1 vote.

Safety Element Update / Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment (CCVA)

• Staff presented findings identifying that approximately 75% of assessed assets are highly or severely vulnerable to climate hazards.
• The board directed staff to revise language characterizing agriculture as "resistant to change" to foster partnership.
• Supervisor Lavagnino expressed disappointment that agriculture was previously singled out in the draft.
• The board accepted the staff recommendation with directions to resolve outstanding issues with the agricultural community.

COVID-19 Update

• Public Health staff reported a 17% decrease in new cases and noted that unvaccinated individuals have a 5.5 times higher case rate.
• Staff discussed criteria for lifting the indoor masking order, including case rates and hospitalization stability.
• The board discussed the discrepancy between local and CDC tier classifications and the impact of testing volume.
• The board received and filed the presentation.

911 Outage

• The CEO announced an active 911 outage affecting the county, cities, and the Sheriff’s department.
• The issue is attributed to phone companies, with an unknown timeline for repair.
• The public was directed to use the alternative emergency number 805-683-2724.
• Fire and sheriff departments may issue Wireless Emergency Alerts to disseminate the alternative number.

Meeting Start and Roll Call

• The November 9, 2021, meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors was called to order. Roll call confirmed all supervisors were present, and the board pledged allegiance to the flag.

Approval of Minutes

• The board considered the approval of the minutes from the November 2, 2021, meeting. A motion was made and seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

Announcements

• The Clerk of the Board provided announcements regarding:
• An ex-agenda item added due to an emergency situation under Government Code section 54956.5, concerning a resolution to accept small community drought relief program grant funds for the 4th District.
• Live Spanish interpretation and broadcast availability via Cox and Comcast cable.
• Updated methods for public participation, including in-person attendance requirements (mask usage per county health officer order) and virtual participation via Zoom.

CEO’s Report

• The County Executive Officer reported no items for the morning session.

Approval of Administrative Agenda

• The board considered the approval of the administrative agenda. Supervisor Nelson requested to pull Administrative Item A6 (Naming County Assets) and Administrative Item A7 (Amendment to Chapter 50 of the County Code regarding commercial cannabis licensing) for separate discussion. A motion was made to approve the balance of the administrative agenda, excluding Items A6 and A7. The motion passed unanimously.

Administrative Item A6: Naming County Assets

• Discussion: Supervisor Nelson moved to approve the item, supporting the policy and suggesting staff consider a waiting period of up to one year after a person’s passing before naming assets. Staff offered to amend the policy to include an "unnaming" policy if desired. Supervisor Williams expressed concern that establishing a policy might be interpreted as taking a stance in cultural debates and noted that future boards cannot be bound by current policies. Supervisor Hartman questioned the necessity of an unnaming policy at this time, citing potential speculative issues. Supervisor Nelson withdrew the request for an unnaming policy, stating a desire to avoid controversy. Supervisor Lavagnino moved to approve the item as is.
• Decision: The motion to approve the item was seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

Administrative Item A7: Amendment to Chapter 50 (Commercial Cannabis Licensing)

• Public Comment: Two speakers addressed the board regarding the impact of the licensing cap on existing operations. One speaker represented a cannabis operation with 150 employees, arguing that the project was submitted before the cap was implemented and requesting a sunset date of December 2022 instead of June 2022 to allow time to complete the planning process. Another speaker, a third-generation flower grower who transitioned to cannabis, cited economic necessity and the loss of the flower business, urging the board to extend the deadline to allow the permit process to be completed.
• Discussion: Supervisor Lavagnino stated he was meeting with Planning and Development to review timelines and other pending applications before deciding on extending the date. Supervisor Williams moved to approve the cap, clarifying the 120-day notice period for non-conforming operators. Staff clarified that the June 30, 2022, date applied to both inland and Carpinteria areas, with the Carpinteria cap expected to be reached in the first quarter of 2022. Supervisor Williams raised concerns about the timing of the notice period relative to when the cap is reached in different areas. Supervisor Hartman suggested the item deserved a full context conversation. Supervisor Lavagnino moved to approve the item today, with the understanding that the board retains discretion to adjust dates in the future and that staff would provide further input.
• Decision: The motion was seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

General Public Comment on Administrative Items

• A request was received from Briggs Waco to speak on all administrative items. The board was unable to connect with Mr. Waco at that time.

Administrative Item A16: Resolution in Memory of Mrs. Agatha Shorter-Lewis

• Discussion: The board read a resolution into the record acknowledging the passing of Mrs. Agatha Shorter-Lewis, a former deputy probation officer and community leader. Supervisor Lavagnino, the sponsor, expressed gratitude for the opportunity to honor her. Family members and colleagues spoke via Zoom, sharing memories and highlighting her contributions to the community, including her role as the first Black female deputy probation officer in the county and her involvement with the NAACP.
• Decision: The resolution was adopted.

Ex-Agenda Item: Small Community Drought Relief Program Grant Funds

• Emergency Motion: The Clerk read the emergency language required by Government Code. Supervisor Hartman moved to declare an emergency situation and add the item to the agenda. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Williams. The motion passed unanimously.
• Discussion: The item concerned a resolution to accept grant funds for a temporary water intertie for the Rolling Hills community, which experienced a well failure. Supervisor Hartman asked about the long-term solution. Staff explained that the intertie is an interim remedy while a long-term solution is determined, with the possibility of making it permanent in the future through a more lengthy process involving LAFCO.
• Decision: A motion was made to approve the item. The motion passed unanimously.

General Public Comment

• Maria Kessner Briggs: Spoke regarding citizen's arrest laws and Open Meeting Act violations, urging the board to improve conduct and educate themselves.
• Dr. Amy Smith: Spoke regarding oversight of the County Public Health Office, expressing concerns about the promotion of vaccines and the need for scientific fraud investigations.
• Joshua Medrano: Represented the Tri-Counties Building and Construction Trades Council, discussing pre-apprenticeship programs and encouraging the board to support Community Workforce Agreements to keep jobs local.
• Amy Blair: Spoke regarding the health of Governor Gavin Newsom following his vaccine booster.

Announcement

• Supervisor Hartman announced that NOAA is seeking public comment on the designation of a new national marine sanctuary off the central coast, with a comment period ending January 10.

Departmental Item 1: Contractor on Payroll Agreement with Audra Dillard RN

• Discussion: Staff requested authorization to contract with Audra Dillard, a retired nurse, to provide infection prevention and control services to the psychiatric health facility (PUFF) for up to 10 hours a week through the end of the fiscal year. Staff explained that Dillard met specific regulatory qualifications that are difficult to find in the current job market, and her retirement created a gap that poses health and audit risks. The board was asked to waive the normal six-month waiting period for rehiring a former employee as a contractor.
• Decision: A motion was made to approve the agreement. The motion passed unanimously.

Departmental Item 2: Status Report on Criminal Justice Improvement Efforts and Main Jail Rehabilitation Project

Criminal Justice Data Dashboard and Process Improvements

• Presentation: Staff presented a static data dashboard reflecting October data, including trend lines for population, bookings, releases, and jail days. The dashboard includes a glossary of terms and demographic breakdowns (age, race, gender, crime categories). Staff noted that while the data is currently static, future iterations aim for real-time snapshots.
• Discovery Process: Judge Ellsworth reported on efforts to document current and ideal discovery processes in collaboration with the Sheriff’s Office, District Attorney’s Office, and Public Defender’s Office. The work involved 10 formal facilitated sessions and ad hoc working groups. The goal is to ensure the process is lawful, transparent, accurate, and efficient. Demonstrations with technology vendors (Nice, OneBox) were conducted, and outreach to Orange County for best practices is ongoing. Recommendations are expected in 2022.
• Alternative Sentencing and Probation: In response to a question from Supervisor Hartman, Judge Ellsworth clarified that the Sheriff’s Office retains the authority to determine eligibility for Alternative Sentencing programs. However, supervision and early intervention services would be handed over to the Probation Department. Chief Probation Officer Tanya Heitman noted that pre-trial supervision numbers have increased steadily, predating the pandemic, and are expected to continue rising as the zero-bail order is modified, requiring continued resource planning.
• Diversion Programs:
• District Attorney: Chief Deputy District Attorney John Sabernock detailed the upcoming Neighborhood Restorative Justice Program in Goleta, targeting misdemeanor offenses, with a launch targeted for Q1 2022. He also noted collaboration with the Center for Court Innovation on a felony diversion program, pending federal funding approval.
• Sheriff’s Office: Sheriff Brown reported on the Co-Response Program for mental health crisis calls. In 2020, over 3,000 crisis calls were received; over 1,600 were handled by co-response teams, resulting in only 11 arrests. He also cited the Isla Vista Restorative Justice Program, Teen Court, and the Alternative to Custody program (electronic monitoring), which currently houses approximately 10% of the jail population.
• Transparency and Data Integration: Supervisor Hartman inquired about the prioritization of data points and the distinction between multidisciplinary teams and holistic defense. Staff explained that the data order is chronological. Judge Ellsworth described multidisciplinary teams as an augmentation of holistic defense, focusing on immediate intake and discharge resources. Chief Heitman stated that the current dashboard is an interim solution built in-house using Power BI. The DA’s office is working to integrate their data, and future phases may involve more sophisticated analysis engines. Heitman noted that no other California county currently links data across so many departments in this manner.
• Sobering Centers: Supervisor Williams asked if all jurisdictions providing booking have sobering centers to prevent unnecessary bookings. Staff indicated that not all do, but the county aims to analyze the entire system from pre-arrest through release to identify effective interventions. Supervisor Williams requested that future updates include data on the impact of sobering centers on booking rates.
• Decision: No motion was taken or vote recorded in this section.

Main Jail Rehabilitation Project

• Background and Costs: Jeff Rappel, Assistant CEO, presented the background for the Main Jail Rehabilitation Project. The Main Jail has a rated capacity of 852 beds and an operating cost of approximately $49 million annually. The Northern Branch Jail, expected to be operational in Q1 2022, has a rated capacity of 346 beds and an operating cost of roughly $20 million. The Northern Branch Jail was funded primarily by an AB 900 grant ($80 million) with the balance from the General Fund ($40 million).
• Need for Rehabilitation: The Main Jail population has decreased from pre-pandemic levels (900–950) to a current census of 644. The rehabilitation is driven by the need to correct building deficiencies (electrical, mechanical, ADA compliance) and address deferred maintenance, independent of population levels. The estimated cost is $24.2 million, to be funded through a Certificate of Participation (COP) if approved.
• Options Presented:
• 1. Option 1: Proceed with the rehabilitation project as outlined, focusing on critical components and ADA improvements for areas that will continue to be used. Estimated cost: $24.2 million. Timeline: 3.5–4 years. 2. Option 2 (Recommended): Similar to Option 1, but adds an assessment of long-term inmate housing and programming space needs, including direct supervision models and potential additional beds at Northern Branch Jail. This assessment would consider the results of the ongoing jail population study. Estimated cost: $24.9 million (including ~$700,000 for the assessment). 3. Option 3: Reduced rehabilitation of the Main Jail and construction of a STAR facility at Northern Branch Jail. Estimated construction cost: $67.1 million. No funding currently identified. Timeline: 3 years for rehab, 4–6 years for new facility. 4. Option 4: Reduced rehabilitation of the Main Jail, demolition of certain areas, and construction of a new housing unit at the Main Jail. Estimated cost: Up to $60.3 million. No funding currently identified.
• Staffing and Operational Costs: Supervisor Lavagnino questioned why operational costs per bed are similar between the two facilities. Staff explained that Main Jail costs may be dampened by reduced population. Supervisor Williams raised concerns that the options undercount actual expenses, citing an average maintenance cost of $6.08 per square foot and utilities of ~$705,000 annually, totaling ~$1.6 million annually. He argued that the Main Jail is a "money pit" and that the $24 million estimate does not account for increasing maintenance costs or unknown staffing/overtime costs associated with the current facility design compared to direct supervision models. Chief Wazlowski noted that traditional housing is more staff-intensive than direct supervision, but opening a full-service facility incurs administrative costs. He stated that overtime is a structural staffing deficiency that will continue until additional resources are provided.
• Facility Design and Visitation: Supervisor Hartman asked how inmates are assigned between facilities. Staff explained that assignment depends on classification, rated beds, program availability (e.g., reunification at Northern Branch, JBCT at Main Jail), and family location. Both facilities will be full-service with booking, medical, and mental health services. Supervisor Hartman asked about bars and visitation. Staff confirmed that the Northern Branch Jail has no bars and is designed primarily for video visitation, though it includes family reunification rooms. The Main Jail has traditional bars and in-person visitation rooms, with plans to implement tablet-based video visitation for both facilities.
• Recommendation: Staff recommended Option 2 as the least expensive alternative to address immediate deficiencies while allowing for a robust assessment of future needs before committing to larger capital projects.
• Public Comment:
• Barbara Murray: Spoke as a parent of an individual with mental illness, highlighting the breakdown in the system between jail, state hospital, and community housing. She requested data on the number of mentally ill individuals currently incarcerated and expressed concern about the lack of housing and psychiatric care post-release.
• Bill Mochler (Santa Barbara Defenders): Opposed setting the rated capacity of the Main Jail back to its original level, arguing it furthers an outdated model of criminal justice. He cited racial disparities in incarceration (Hispanic individuals 3x more likely, African American individuals 5x more likely to be incarcerated than white individuals). He disputed the claim that the Murray v. DRC stipulated judgment requires restoring original capacity and that BSCC funds obligated the county to maintain 1,000 system-wide beds. He urged the board to pause spending on architectural design until the population projection study is complete.
• Lynn Gibbs (NAMI Santa Barbara County): Supported Option 2 but emphasized the need to divert persons with mental illness to community-based treatment. She noted that 56–60% of inmates have been behavioral health clients, but only 5% were being served at the time of arrest. She advocated for a forensic component of Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) and cited a Los Angeles County pilot that reduced reincarceration by 78%. She highlighted the crisis of "jail boarding" for individuals incompetent to stand trial (IST) and the need for faster diversion to treatment.
• Pam Flint-Tambo (League of Women Voters): Supported Option 2, citing its allowance for design innovations such as open floor plans, better access to exercise, and direct supervision. She emphasized the importance of intake assessments to reduce jail population by incarcerating only those who need to be held.
• Suzanne Warden (Families Act): Expressed confusion over the options and agreed with Supervisor Williams that analysis of needs should precede spending. She stated that people with mental health conditions need treatment outside of jail settings and that the county needs to increase funding for community-based treatment options.
• Gail Oshorenko: (Comment not fully captured in transcript excerpt, speaker identified as final speaker).
• Additional Public Comment: A representative speaking in a personal capacity suggested focusing on the latter half of Option 2, specifically conducting a jail population assessment to determine the actual number of beds needed before committing to significant rehabilitation costs. They recommended holding off on major spending to ensure the new North Branch Jail is utilized effectively and to avoid long-term costs associated with rehabilitating a facility that may not meet future needs. The CLU Criminal Justice Work Group and the League of Women Voters expressed support for CEO Mona Miyasato’s Option 2. They thanked the board for directing the county to hire an expert jail population projection analyst. They emphasized the importance of community input, the assessment of alternative housing models (such as pre-release supportive housing) to reduce costs, and the need for a humane jail structure with direct supervision rather than remote monitoring.
• Board Discussion:
• Supervisor Hart: Supported Option 2 as an incremental step. Cited a 2019 report by Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice indicating that only 14% of victims feel supported by the current system and that 8 out of 10 victims prefer mental health alternatives to jail. Noted that the average daily jail population dropped from 905 in 2020 to approximately 611–635 in late 2021, largely due to zero-bail regulations. Referenced state laws (SB 73, AB 1228, SB 317) and local initiatives (Probation Department pretrial supervision, Credo 47 Center, co-response program) that aim to reduce incarceration. Argued that maintaining a low jail population reduces recidivism, saves taxpayer money (citing incarceration costs of $42,000–$60,000 per prisoner annually), and aligns with state trends.
• Supervisor Lavagnino: Expressed support for the board’s direction and the diversion of low-level offenders. Acknowledged the community’s long-standing advocacy for these changes and stated a desire to see the current strategies succeed while balancing public safety.
• Supervisor Hartmann: Asked for clarification on the jail population study methodology. Staff explained that the consultant will use county data to project baseline needs and model the impact of specific interventions (e.g., reducing probation revocations) on bed requirements. Staff confirmed the consultant will work closely with the Sheriff, Probation, and other justice partners. Supervisor Hartmann stated she was supportive of Option 2 based on this explanation.
• Supervisor Williams: Expressed concern that Option 2 continues a path toward maintaining capacity for 1,000 inmates, which they viewed as unnecessary and a poor investment. Argued that the main jail is a "money pit" and that retiring wings of the main jail to reduce rated beds while increasing direct supervision wings would be more cost-effective. Highlighted potential overtime costs associated with current housing configurations versus direct supervision units.
• Staff Response to Supervisor Williams: Staff explained that the design firm will be challenged to explore possibilities within the current linear design of the main jail. They noted that the design process will run in parallel with the jail projection study, allowing the board to review projection results before finalizing the design.
• Supervisor Hartmann (Follow-up): Asked if rehabilitating the main jail (electrical, HVAC, roof) would result in a positive return on investment. Staff responded that the project aims to address deficiencies driving high maintenance costs, expecting a reduction in cost per square foot, though they could not guarantee a specific payback period. Staff emphasized that investments will be targeted only at areas projected to remain needed in the future.
• Supervisor Williams (Follow-up): Compared the main jail’s maintenance cost ($6.08 per square foot) to other county facilities, arguing that the high cost supports the logic of replacement over rehabilitation. Reiterated the preference for renegotiating with the Private Risk Company (PRC) to allow for fewer rated beds but more direct supervision beds.
• Chair Nelson: Expressed caution regarding the balance between diversion and public safety, specifically concerning "tweeners" (individuals who may reoffend). Asked if data exists to track recidivism among those diverted from jail. Staff indicated that while data on recidivism can be sought from Probation and the Sheriff, adding new data elements to the current process might be complex, suggesting it be discussed for a future meeting.
• Supervisor Williams (Final Comment): Expressed concern about rising violent crime in Santa Maria and Lompoc and the need for tools to address these behaviors, while maintaining support for Option 2.
• Motion and Vote:
• A motion was made to approve Option 2.
• Vote Outcome: The motion passed 4-1. Supervisor Williams dissented.

Departmental Item No. 3 – Safety Element Update / Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment (CCVA)

• Presentation:
• Staff and consultants from PlaceWorks presented the findings of the Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment (CCVA), the first phase of the safety element update required by Senate Bill 379.
• The CCVA is an informational document, not a policy adoption. It identifies climate-related hazards (extreme heat, inland flooding, debris flow, severe weather, wildfire) and assesses the vulnerability of frontline populations, infrastructure, economic drivers, ecosystems, and key services.
• Key Findings:
• 106 of 138 assessed assets/populations (approx. 75%) are highly or severely vulnerable to at least one hazard.
• Top contributing hazards to critical vulnerabilities are wildfire, landslide/debris flow, and inland flooding.
• A 36% increase in burn area is projected by 2100.
• Frontline populations (e.g., seniors, unhoused, outdoor workers) have low adaptive capacity, particularly regarding extreme heat.
• Transportation infrastructure (roads, bridges) is highly vulnerable to flooding, impacting evacuation and emergency services.
• Report Revisions: Staff noted changes made in response to public comments, specifically regarding the characterization of industries. The draft had previously identified agriculture and oil and gas as having "resistance to change" as a non-climate stressor. Staff proposed revising this to acknowledge that hesitancy to change business practices is common across many industries, rather than singling out specific sectors.
• Next Steps: The next phase involves developing adaptation strategies and updating the safety element goals/policies. A draft adaptation plan is anticipated for winter 2022–2023.
• Board Discussion:
• Supervisor Lavagnino: Questioned the change regarding "resistance to change." Staff clarified that the revision was intended to apply the concept of hesitancy to all industries rather than just agriculture and oil and gas, as it is a common business challenge. Supervisor Lavagnino expressed disappointment that agriculture was previously singled out, noting the sector’s history of technological adaptation, and preferred the removal of the "resistance" characterization entirely.
• Director Plowman (Staff): Agreed to strike the specific language regarding resistance to change for agriculture, acknowledging that the intent was to foster partnership rather than an adversarial relationship.
• Chair Nelson: Supported the removal of language that singles out specific industries, emphasizing the need for engagement and shared understanding. Noted concerns about the local relevance of certain data points (e.g., pesticide use vs. exposure) and the need for better industry engagement to ensure the document is accurate and useful for future policy.
• Supervisor Hart: Encouraged the dialogue and stakeholder engagement process.
• Supervisor Williams: Highlighted the importance of agriculture in carbon fixing and the need for engagement in prevention strategies. Noted that while sea level rise is a concern, extreme heat, fire weather, and inland flooding are more significant local impacts.
• Public Comment:
• Claire Wyman (Grower Shipper Association): Stated that the draft CCVA is not an accurate foundation and must be revised. Specifically objected to the characterization of agriculture as "resistant to change" and the confusion between "pesticide use" and "pesticide exposure." Urged the board to direct staff to revise the document, engage stakeholders as partners, and recognize the county’s own contributions to vulnerability.
• Motion and Vote:
• Supervisor Hart moved to accept the staff recommendation with the direction that staff work with the agricultural community to resolve outstanding issues (such as the language regarding resistance to change) to ensure the foundational document reflects consensus.
• Supervisor Williams seconded the motion.
• Vote Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Departmental Item No. 4 – COVID-19 Update

• Presentation:
• Public Health staff presented data regarding the current status of COVID-19 in Santa Barbara County as of November 8. Key statistics included:
• Case Trends: 45 new cases reported, a 17% decrease from the two-week average of 54. Active cases stood at 336. One death was reported (individual aged 70+, no underlying conditions). Total county cases: 44,596; total deaths: 527. Current case rate: 9 per 100,000; testing positivity: 2.9%.
• Vaccination Impact: The case rate among unvaccinated individuals was 18.3 per 100,000, which is 5.5 times higher than the rate for fully vaccinated individuals. Between October 14 and October 28, the countywide case rate decreased by 5%, while the rate among unvaccinated individuals increased by 6% and the rate among vaccinated individuals decreased by 31%.
• Hospitalization: 60.2% of hospital beds were in use (363 of 603), with 35 occupied by COVID-19 patients. 63.2% of staffed adult ICU beds were in use (48 of 76), with 8 occupied by COVID-19 patients. From May to October, 81% of hospitalizations were among unvaccinated individuals; in October alone, 73% of hospitalizations were among unvaccinated individuals.
• Vaccination Rates: Approximately 72% of the eligible population (ages 12+) is fully vaccinated. With the addition of the 5–11 age group to the eligible population calculation, this percentage is projected to decrease to approximately 64.8%. Total county population fully vaccinated: 60.7%.
• Outbreaks: 28 active outbreaks are being managed (2 in businesses, 21 in schools, 5 in congregate living facilities).
• Staff discussed the criteria for lifting the indoor masking Health Officer Order, currently set at a case rate of less than 6 per 100,000 for two weeks. Staff noted that other jurisdictions (Bay Area counties, Ventura, San Luis Obispo, Los Angeles) are using different criteria, often involving a case rate of less than 7 per 100,000 for three weeks, testing positivity rates, hospitalization stability, and vaccination thresholds (e.g., 80% of eligible population). Staff indicated they are in conversations with neighboring counties (Ventura and San Luis Obispo) to consider a regional approach and are reviewing the use of CDC tier guidelines versus the retired California tier system. Staff emphasized that even if the local order is lifted, state mandates (Cal OSHA) and state Health Officer orders will still require masking in schools, workplaces, and for unvaccinated individuals in indoor settings.
• Board Questions:
• Supervisor Lavagnino inquired about data sources for CDC statistics, booster eligibility criteria (currently for those over 18 with high-exposure jobs or age 65+), and the timeline for transitioning from pandemic to endemic status. He also asked about the rollout of new antiviral treatments.
• Supervisor Hartman asked for clarification on what constitutes a "low and stable" hospitalization rate and how the department is considering vaccination rate criteria (80% or 8 weeks post-EUA for 5–11 year olds) in light of other counties' standards.
• Chair Nelson discussed the discrepancy between local and CDC tier classifications, noting that Santa Barbara’s high testing volume affects adjusted case rates. He asked if the county is considering mirroring the CDC/Bay Area criteria (case rate <7 for 3 weeks) and noted that state mandates remain in effect regardless of local orders.
• Supervisor Williams questioned whether the stricter criteria in other jurisdictions (including vaccination requirements) were more stringent and suggested that vaccination requirements provide a clear path for the public to help lift mandates.
• HR/Testing Procedures:
• Chair Nelson asked HR regarding employee testing procedures for unvaccinated staff.
• HR Representative (Dr. Amy Smith/Yvonne Torres) explained that religious exemptions require a declination form and a written statement reviewed by county counsel; no requests have been rejected to date. Regarding demographic data collection (age, race, sexual orientation) required for state reporting to CDPH, HR stated this is mandated by the California Code of Regulations for data aggregation and trend analysis. The Chair expressed concern about privacy, but HR clarified that some questions (such as sexual orientation) can be bypassed, while others (name, date of birth, gender) are mandatory. HR stated the data is protected by HIPAA.
• Public Comment:
• Fifteen members of the public spoke regarding the mask mandate and public health policies.
• Speakers opposing the mandate cited concerns about social interaction, child development, and the efficacy of masks. Some requested the removal of the mandate, questioned the science behind masking, and raised concerns about vaccine side effects, ingredients, and corporate profits. One speaker mentioned legal actions and "citizen's arrests."
• Speakers supporting the mandate cited the protection of vulnerable populations (farmworkers, immunocompromised, children), the scientific evidence supporting mask efficacy in reducing transmission and death rates, and the importance of following public health professional guidance. They emphasized the role of data-driven decision-making and the need to protect healthcare workers and the community.
• Medical Professionals (including a Medical Director and an Infectious Disease Physician) provided testimony supporting the mandate, citing peer-reviewed studies showing significant reductions in case rates and death rates following mask mandates, and noting the continued risk of transmission and severe illness (including MIS-C in children) despite vaccination.
• Discussion on Natural Immunity:
• Supervisor Lavagnino raised a question regarding the comparative protection levels of natural immunity versus vaccination, specifically for individuals who have had both. Dr. Reynoso responded that studies indicate natural infection provides immunity, but antibody levels appear lower than those from vaccination, with ongoing research into duration. Supervisor Lavagnino requested that staff investigate methods to track and report on the combined protection of vaccinated and naturally immune populations in future reports. The Chair suggested examining data on individuals who contracted COVID-19 twice versus those with breakthrough infections after vaccination.
• Discussion on Vaccination Rates and Case Rates:
• Supervisor Williams addressed questions regarding vaccination rates in Carpinteria, noting that one zip code has achieved full vaccination for those over 12, while the larger zip code is approaching 80%. Supervisor Williams cited data indicating a case rate of 3.3 for vaccinated individuals compared to 18.3 for unvaccinated individuals, emphasizing vaccination as a primary strategy for reducing cases.
• Motion to Receive and File:
• A motion was made to receive and file the presentation. The motion was seconded by Dr. Amy Smith. The motion passed unanimously.

Announcement of 911 Outage

• CEO Miyasato announced an active 911 outage affecting Santa Barbara County, including cities and the Sheriff’s department, which is preventing calls from reaching public safety dispatch centers. The issue is attributed to phone companies, and the timeline for repair is unknown. The alternative emergency number provided is 805-683-2724. The public was directed to readysbc.org for alerts, and it was noted that fire and sheriff departments may issue Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) to disseminate the alternative number.

Adjournment

• The Chair adjourned the meeting and announced the next meeting is scheduled for November 16 in Santa Barbara.