1 STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 28, 2025
TO: Justin Hess, City Manager
FROM: Courtney Padgett, Assistant City Manager
Ray Johal, Senior Assistant City Attorney
VIA: Joseph McDougall, City Attorney
Michael Albanese, Chief of Police
SUBJECT: First Step Report to Consider Declaring the City of Burbank a Sanctuary City
RECOMMENDATION
1) Note and file; or,
2) Direct staff as appropriate on desired action pertaining to declaring the City of Burbank a sanctuary city.
BACKGROUND
At the November 19, 2024, City Council meeting, Mayor Perez requested a first step report for Council to consider an urgency ordinance declaring Burbank a sanctuary city.
The Mayor specifically requested Council review actions taken by the City of Los Angeles (Attachment 1) and County of Los Angeles (Attachment 2).
DISCUSSION
The term “sanctuary city” is used to describe cities or jurisdictions that adopt policies or practices designed to protect undocumented immigrants from federal immigration laws by limiting jurisdictional cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The City of Burbank has not acted to officially designate itself as a sanctuary city, however existing state laws currently limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
California Values Act (Senate Bill 54)
The California Values Act (SB 54, Attachment 3), effective January 1, 2018, is state law that restricts local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities ,
2 except in cases involving serious or violent crimes. As a California municipality, Burbank is subject to SB 54, which specifically prohibits local law enforcement from using resources to investigate, question, detain, detect, or arrest individuals for immigration enforcement purposes. This includes:
• Inquiring into an individual’s immigration status.
• Detaining an individual based on a federal immigration authority hold request. • Providing information regarding a person’s custody release date or responding to requests for notification by providing release dates or other information unless that information is available to the public.
• Providing personal information about an individual, including, but not limited to, home address or work address unless that information is available to the public. • Making or intentionally participating in arrests based on civil immigration warrants. • Participating in immigration enforcement activities, such as sweeps or acting as immigration agents.
The State of California Attorney General’s Office is responsible for the oversight of SB 54, including training local agencies, providing guidance, and enforcement. The City’s compliance with existing state laws, including SB 54, does not violate any existing federal laws.
Additional State Laws
In addition to SB 54, California has additional legislation that provides protections for undocumented immigrants:
Assembly Bill 450 – Immigrant Worker Protection Act (2017): Prevents employers from sharing personal information about employees with federal authorities or allowing access to the workplace without first ensuring that authorities have secured the appropriate court documents. The State of California Attorney General’s Office, Labor Commissioner, has the exclusive authority to enforce the provisions of this bill.
Assembly Bill 291 – Wage Theft Prevention Act (2021): Prohibits landlords from using a person’s immigration status or perceived status against them in cases of disputes over rent, living conditions, or other relative matters. A tenant may seek enforcement under this provision through civil court action. The City’s Housing Enforcement division may also be involved in this process.
Burbank Police Department Policy 428 Immigration Violations/Truth Act The Police Department (PD) policy 428 Immigration Violations/Truth Act (Attachment 4) provides guidelines for immigration-related interactions. Key aspects of the policy include:
3 • Prohibiting the use of Department or City resources for federal immigration enforcement, except in cases involving serious crimes.
• Implementing processes for victims and witnesses to feel safe reporting crimes regardless of immigration status.
• Processing U visa (for victims of certain crimes who have suffered mental or physical abuse) and T visa (for victims of human trafficking) requests for crime victims.
• Transparency through annual reporting and mandatory staff training.
PD policy conforms to the requirements as set for th in SB 54. Officers are given the authority to detain individuals for unlawful reentry who are subject to an enhancement due to a previous conviction of an aggravated felony pursuant to federal law. Protocols and procedures are in place that ensure officers do not violate state and federal law in the performance of their duties.
Actions in Other Jurisdictions
Several neighboring jurisdictions have taken action pertaining to local cooperation with immigration enforcement:
• City of L os Angeles (LA) - In November 2024, the LA City Council approved an ordinance officially designating LA as a sanctuary city. The ordinance prohibits city resources, including property or personnel, from being used for immigration enforcement.
• County of LA - In September 2020, the County Board of Supervisors approved a motion permanently banning warrantless transfers of individuals in custody of the LA County Sheriff’s Department to immigration authorities. This policy remains in effect today.
• City of Glendale - In March 2017, the Glendale City Council adopted a resolution affirming a statement by the Chief of Police regarding the detention of individuals based on immigration status. This resolution affirmed that the Glendale Police Department does not have the authority nor the responsibility to incarcerate or detain individuals solely based on immigration status.
• City of Pasadena –
o Adopted a policy in 2017 requiring city employees to maintain confidentiality of residents’ personal information and prohibiting any assistance in federal immigration enforcement unless legally required.
o Passed a resolution in 2017 declaring that the city will not enforce federal immigration laws.
4 o Released a joint statement in 2024 by the City, the school district, and the police department assuring residents that they can continue to use city services “without fear arising from their identity or status.”
Other jurisdictions in California that have taken action to designate themselves as sanctuary cities/counties include Berk eley, Long Beach , Oakland, San Diego, San Francisco, and Santa Ana. Nationally, major cities that have acted include Chicago, Denver, New York City, Seattle, and Washington D.C.
Alternatively, on January 21, 2025, the City Council of the city of Huntington Beach, CA, adopted a resolution declaring the city as a “non-sanctuary city”. Several other cities and counties, including Orange County, Escondido, Newport Beach, and Santa Clarita, have expressed opposition to the state’s sanctuary laws. Many other jurisdictions have not taken action to declare an official position.
Throughout the country, although the meaning and implications are similar, some jurisdictions have used alternate verbiage to the term “sanctuary city’ such as “safe city,” “welcoming city,” “inclusive city,” and “safe haven.”
Considerations
Compliance with Federal, State, and Local Laws
City officials and employees, including public safety employees, are required to take an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States. Current state laws , along with PD policies and practices, align with the United States Constitution and federal immigration laws. However, i mplementing an ordinance or resolution that prohibits employees from following the law may create a conflict in legal obligations. Employees could be required to break the law and their sworn oath to maintain their employment with the City. This scenario could subject employees to potential legal suit as well as criminal prosecution.
In December 2024, America First Legal, a nonprofit organization run by an advisor to President Trump, sent letters (Attachment 5) to sanctuary jurisdictions across the country, many in California, stating that local officials (elected and non-elected) may face personal liability (to include criminal sanctions) for non -cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Letters were distributed to leaders in designated sanctuary jurisdictions, including the California Attorney General, the LA Mayor, the LA Police Department Chief, and the LA County Department Sheriff.
On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order (Attachment 6) directing the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to evaluate and undertake any lawful actions, criminal or civil, deemed warranted by a sanctuary jurisdiction’s practices that interfere with the enforcement of federal law. The issuance of
5 this order was followed by a memorandum from the acting Deputy Attorney for the Department of Justice, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, on January 21, 2025, directing U.S. attorneys to investigate and potentially prosecute local officials who resist, obstruct, and otherwise fail to comply with lawful immigration -related commands or requests (Attachment 7). The executive order and directive set the stage for possible legal action against local officials in sanctuary jurisdictions that limit their coope ration with immigration enforcement officials.
Potential Impact to Federal Funding
The City receives federal funding, which is a critical component in supporting many of its programs, services, and capital improvement projects. Currently, the City is managing over $30 million in active federal funding from sources including the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
This funding is essential to support programs including the Section 8 housing program, the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, and the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), which together account for over $13.5 million in federal funding. Burbank Water and Power (BWP) is the recipient of a $14 million grant to replace aging water lines; at this time only $1.3 million of these funds have been disbursed from the federal government , with the remaining funds pending. Additionally, t he City is managing over $10 million in federal transportation grants and is actively pursuing federal support for major infrastructure projects, including the replacement of the Olive Avenue bridge and rebuild of the downtown BWP substation.
An official designation as a sanctuary city may impact funding received from federal sources. In addition to potential civil and criminal action against local officials, President Trump’s January 20, 2025, executive order also directed the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to evaluate and undertake any lawful actions to ensure that sanctuary jurisdictions do not receive access to federal funds. In 2017, during his prior presidential administration, President Trump issued a similar executive order aimed at withholding funds from cities that chose not to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts. Although a federal judge ruled th e pr ior executive order unconstitutional and blocked it with an injunction, the order caused delays in distributing some federal funding to designated sanctuary jurisdictions. Other legal challenges to the federal government’s ability to withhold funding to sanctuary jurisdictions are ongoing.
The President’s a dministration has sole discretion over grant conditions and criteria across the executive branch. An official designation as a sanctuary city may delay, reduce, prevent, or discontinue federal funding to the City . This impact would be detrimental to various City operations and projects , significantly hindering the ability to provide critical services to members of our community.
6 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This activity has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and as such, is not a “project” subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 14 Cal. Code Regs § 15378.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report , however formal designation as a sanctuary city could potentially impact the City’s eligibility and receipt of federal funding.
CONCLUSION
The City of Burbank is a community that values inclusi vity, diversity, equity, and safety for all. The City recognizes that immigration policies and enforcement profoundly impact the lives of members of our community and understands the importance of compassionate, thoughtful approaches to address complex challenges related to immigration and community trust. These approaches are memorialized in existing state laws designed to safeguard the rights and dignity of all, regardless of immigration status.
State laws explicitly limit the extent to which local law enforcement can cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. The City’s policy aligns with these laws to ensure compliance while fostering trust and inclusivity within the community.
Adopting an ordinance or resolution that contradicts federal law may require employees to violate federal law, creating conflicts in legal obligations and potentially exposing the City and its personnel to serious legal implications . Additionally, such action could jeopardize essential federal funding that supports critical City programs, services, and capital improvement projects, potentially compromising the City’s ability to meet community needs.
Should Council decide to act on this matter, beyond note and file, staff recommends that Council consider the issuance of a policy statement, similar to the action taken regarding the conflict in the Middle East, reaffirming the City and Police Department’s policy and commitment to compliance with existing state law that limits cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. This approach underscores the City’s dedication to protecting the community’s trust while adhering to its legal obligations and minimizes potential legal exposure and risks to crucial funding.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – City of Los Angeles Ordinance
Attachment 2 – County of Los Angeles Motion
Attachment 3 – CA Senate Bill 54
7 Attachment 4 – Police Department Policy 428
Attachment 5 - America First Correspondence
Attachment 6 – President’s Executive Order
Attachment 7 – DOJ Memorandum