AGENDA
JOINT MEETING OF THE COTATI CITY COUNCIL AND THE COTATI COMMUNITY-POLICE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
City Council Chamber, City Hall 201 W. Sierra Avenue
Tuesday, March 24, 2026
7:00 PM SPECIAL MEETING
The Cotati City Council welcomes you to its meetings that are generally scheduled for the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of every month. Your interest and participation are encouraged and appreciated.
City Council meeting agendas, minutes and recordings are posted on the City’s Meeting Portal at www.cotaticity.gov. For questions about the agenda or to receive the City Council agenda by e-mail, contact the City Clerk at [email protected] or 707-665-3622.
Cotati City Council Meetings will be conducted in person in the Council Chamber. To guarantee your ability to participate, you must attend the meeting in person. As a courtesy to the public, the City allows citizens the opportunity to view and offer public comments virtually through Zoom Online video conferencing platform. Technical difficulties may occur that make the Zoom platform unavailable. If Zoom is unavailable, the meeting will continue. Participants considering using Zoom should consider attending in person, if they desire to ensure their ability to view the meeting and offer public comments.
Subject to the above disclaimer, Zoom Online video conferencing is available to watch or listen in the following ways:
1. Using the following online livestream meeting portal link: https://www.youtube.com/@cityofcotati7280/streams
2. Cable T.V. Broadcast, local channel 28
Members of the public can participate in the meeting online by clicking the link below:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82430364200?pwd=oenoXHmxhsFMGULpt8etHmBiI4Tf9K.1 If you do not have the ability to join online, but would like to participate in the meeting, you can call into the meeting using your telephone, by dialing one of the following numbers and entering the meeting credentials:
Webinar ID: 824 3036 4200 Passcode: 979007
+1 (669) 900-6833 or +1 (346) 248-7799 or +1 (253) 215-8782 or +1 (301) 715-8592 or +1 (312) 626-6799 or +1 (929) 436-2866 Attendees may join the meeting any time after 5:45pm. Attendees will be muted until they are called upon for Public Comment. To make a public comment, use the “raise hand” icon on your smart device or desktop computer, or dial *9 if you are using just your telephone. Please listen carefully for the Mayor or City Clerk to address you by name (or phone number) and for the audible Zoom notification that you have been unmuted. Once you begin your public comment, your three minutes will begin.
If you would prefer to submit your public comment in writing, please email your comments to [email protected]. If you are commenting on a specific agenda item or items, please state the agenda item number(s) in the subject line of the email. All comments received via email will be provided to the City Council in writing and included as part of the record of the meeting. They will not be read aloud into the record at the meeting.
Notice is hereby given that Council may discuss and/or take action on any or all of the items listed on this agenda, in accordance with the City Council Rules of Conduct.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cotati City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for inspection in the online Meeting Portal at www.cotaticity.gov and in the City Manager’s office located at 201 West Sierra Avenue, Cotati, California, during the City’s posted business hours.
Cotati City Council Agenda March 24, 2026
Accommodations: Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate formats to persons with disabilities as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should contact the City Clerk at (707) 665-3622 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting.
Rules of Decorum: To avoid distraction, the following meeting etiquette shall be enforced. • Silence electronic devices, including cell phones.
• Audience members are advised to keep conversations to a minimum or conduct them outside the building. • Members of the public are prohibited from speaking, yelling, or otherwise making loud noises from the audience that disrupt the orderly proceeding of the meeting.
• Photographs or video recordings using tri-pods or other means that would be distracting are to be taken only from the designated media area. • The Presiding Officer shall request that the audience withhold expressions of support or opposition for speakers in the interest of time and to encourage the full expression of differing views.
Public Comment: Public comment on any one agenda item is limited to no more than three (3) minutes per person, in accordance with the City Council Rules of Conduct.
Waiver Warning: If you challenge decisions/direction of the City Council of the City of Cotati in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Cotati at, or prior to, the public hearing(s).
Announcements:
A. Meeting Orientation for New Attendees/Viewers. In conformance with the Brown Act and the adopted City Council Rules, if the City Council is considering an item in which action will be taken, citizens will be invited to provide comments relevant to the item being discussed.
The meeting agenda also includes a Citizen Business item, which is the designated place on the agenda where citizens have the right to comment on any matter within the City’s subject matter jurisdiction. However, Citizen Business items do not generally receive a response because the Brown Act prohibits the City Council from taking action or considering any item that is not on this agenda, so as to ensure that other members of the community who wish to provide comment are notified in advance through a properly noticed meeting agenda. Nonetheless, in accordance with the Brown Act, the Council may briefly respond, may ask a question for clarification, or may direct an item be placed on a future agenda.
B. Measure S supports police services, a variety of recreation programs for all ages, and the maintenance of our streets, parks, and public buildings. See details on the web at cotaticity.gov.
C. Citizens interested in receiving City of Cotati community alerts via text or email are encouraged to enroll with CivicReady, by signing up on the City’s website, www.cotaticity.gov, under the “How do I” link at the top of the homepage.
D. Have you noticed a street light out, pothole, or issues in a City Park? We want to keep Cotati beautiful and running smoothly, so please let us know what needs to be fixed, by going to the City website under “How do I” and “Report a Service Request.” E. Like always, we love to hear from you, so please feel free to contact the City at 707-792-4600 or [email protected]. If you have a nonemergency issue after normal business hours, you can contact us at 707-792-4611 and of course if you have an emergency, please contact 9-1-1.
Continue to look for updates on the City's website and social media channels available on Facebook, Instagram, and CivicReady.
City Council meetings are conducted according to City Council Policy 2025-03: City Council Rules of Conduct. This policy available for inspection in the online Meeting Portal at www.cotaticity.gov and in the City Manager’s office located at 201 West Sierra Avenue, Cotati, California, during the City’s posted business hours.
Those wishing to address the Council are asked to complete a speaker card and give it to the City Clerk. When you are called, step to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Persons wishing to address the Council are not required to identify themselves or complete a speaker card; (Gov’t. Code § 54953.3); however, this information assists the Mayor by ensuring that all persons wishing to address the Council are recognized and it assists the City Clerk in preparing the City Council meeting minutes.
COUNCILMEMBER PARICIPATION VIA TELECONFERENCE
Councilmember Ben Ford will participate via teleconference at 1121 15th Street Sacramento, California 95814, pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(b). Members of the public may attend and participate at either the Council Chambers or via teleconference from the location referenced above. The agenda shall be posted at both locations
1. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL
Cotati City Council Agenda March 24, 2026
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54954.3(a), members of the public wishing to address the Council may do so at the beginning of the special meeting, and such comments shall be limited to the special meeting topic.
3. REGULAR AGENDA (ACTION)
A. SUMMARY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT POLICIES TO ADDRESS COMMUNITY
SAFETY DURING IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LOCAL POLICIES
It is recommended that the Cotati City Council and Community Police Advisory Committee discuss potential actions or policies, if any, that may best protect the community in the event of federal immigration intervention in Cotati.
4. INFORMATION RECEIVED AFTER THE AGENDA WAS POSTED
5. ADJOURNMENT
Certification of Posting of the Notice: I declare under penalty of perjury that I am employed by the City of Cotati and that I posted this notice on the City’s website, bulletin boards of City Hall, Veterans’ Memorial Building and the SMART Train Depot, on or before March 20, 2026. /s/ Kevin Patterson, City Clerk
Cotati City Council &
Community-Police Advisory
Committee
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: REGULAR AGENDA (ACTION)
To: City Council & Community-Police Advisory Committee
Subject: SUMMARY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT POLICIES TO
ADDRESS COMMUNITY SAFETY DURING IMMIGRATION
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
LOCAL POLICIES
Date: March 24, 2026
Written by: Damien O’Bid, City Manager
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Cotati City Council and Community Police Advisory Committee discuss potential actions or policies, if any, that may best protect the community in the event of federal immigration intervention in Cotati.
Background
At the March 10, 2026 City Council meeting, the City Council requested that staff research what other jurisdictions are doing from a policy perspective to maintain trust and protect community safety before and during immigration enforcement operations and bring back options for discussion at the next (March 24) City Council meeting. This is particularly true when these enforcement operations are broader in scope than just arresting criminals and use inflammatory and aggressive tactics, such as what was seen most recently in Minneapolis. In addition to generally researching policy options, it was requested that staff look at the Denver policy that was mentioned during public comment, review the proposed ordinance provided by citizens during public comment as well as an ordinance from the Sanctuary Coalition of Sonoma County.
Furthermore, the City Council requested that the Community-Police Advisory Committee (Committee) join the City Council in a joint discussion, if a quorum of the Committee members is available.
Immigration Enforcement in Minneapolis
4 of 91
Staff initially reviewed what happened in Minneapolis, where in early 2026 “Operation Metro Surge” put on a display of aggressive and troubling immigration tactics, initiating a national conversation. During and following Operation Metro Surge, the City of Minneapolis and the State of Minnesota have taken legal and local administrative actions to restrict federal immigration enforcement. More specifically, these actions include:
• Local Restrictions and Safety Zones:
o "ICE-Free Zones" Ordinance: Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey codified an executive order banning U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) from using city-owned properties, such as parking lots and garages, for staging operations.
o Prohibiting Information Sharing: Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) maintained policies not to participate in or assist with civil immigration enforcement, even as other agencies in the state operated under 287(g) agreements allowing voluntary “deputization”.
• Legal Action:
o Federal Lawsuit: The City of Minneapolis, along with other cities and the state, sued the federal government. The suit argued that immigration enforcement activities violated the Tenth Amendment, specifically that they commandeered local police resources, caused chaos, and disrupted city functions. • Legislative and Protective Measures:
o Sanctuary Policy Proposals: State lawmakers introduced bills aimed at restricting local law enforcement from cooperating with federal agents, attempting to make Minnesota a "sanctuary state". However, to date, no legislation has been signed into law.
o Protected Locations: Legislative efforts (e.g., HF 3435 for school sites) were introduced by Minnesota to prevent immigration enforcement from operating at "sensitive locations" such as schools, hospitals, and churches. o Driver’s Licenses for All: In 2023, the Minnesota enacted legislation allowing undocumented residents to obtain driver’s licenses.
In researching policy options for City Council consideration, staff included relevant actions taken by the State of California that help establish the context of our statewide laws, as well as various recent actions by cities and counties in California. While not necessarily operating under similar state laws, staff also included the actions by Denver (as requested on March 10) as well as Chicago. The following is a brief summary of actions by mechanism and jurisdiction:
• State of California
o The California Values Act (SB 54), effective since January 1 2018, serves as a baseline by restricting the use of state and local resources for immigration enforcement purposes. Local jurisdictions may only assist federal immigration authorities when authorized by a judicial warrant, or to share information regarding individuals with specific prior convictions (e.g., serious/violent felonies).
o The California TRUTH Act (AB 2792), effective since January 1, 2017, mandates that local jails provide inmates with written consent forms before U.S. 5 of 91
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) interviews, requires notification of release dates given to ICE, and compels annual community forums. o TRUST Act (AB 4), prohibits local law enforcement from detaining individuals on the basis of an ICE hold alone once they are eligible for release, except in certain cases where the individual has been charged with or convicted of specific serious crimes. This ensures that individuals are not held in custody simply due to their immigration status.
o The California Duty to Intercede Law (AB 26), built upon previous regulations (AB 392 and AB 1022), requires that police officers have a duty to intercede.
This law took effect on January 1, 2022 and requires that police officers immediately report and intercede when witnessing other officers using excessive force that is “clearly beyond that which is necessary.” Intercede includes physically stopping the excessive force, recording it if equipped with a camera, and reporting the incident to a superior. Failure to intervene can lead to serious disciplinary action, including the revocation of an officer's certification. o The No Secret Police Act (SB 627), passed in September 2025 and signed by Governor Newsom, bans federal and local officers from wearing masks to hide their identity, with exceptions for medical needs (N95s), safety equipment, or certain undercover work. However, this law is currently on hold, as a federal judge temporarily blocked the law in February 2026, finding that it likely violated the Constitution by selectively targeting federal agents while not applying equally to state law enforcement.
• Resolutions (Outside Sonoma County)
o Alameda County: Adopted a resolution (2026) to establish a policy prohibiting the use of county-owned or controlled property — including parking lots and nonpublic building areas—for federal staging, processing, or operations (Exhibit 1) o City of San Jose: Adopted a resolution (2026) establishing Council Policy 7-15, which prohibits the use of city parking lots, garages, and vacant lots for immigration staging or processing (Exhibit 2).
o City of Santa Clara. In early February 2026, the Santa Clara City Council adopted by Resolution City Council Policy 056 that prohibits the use of Cityowned or controlled parking lots, garages, open spaces, or other facilities as staging areas, processing locations, or operational bases for civil immigration enforcement (Exhibit 3).
• Ordinances (Outside Sonoma County)
o City of Berkeley: Enacted Ordinance No. 7,984-N.S. (2025), codifying its sanctuary policies into Municipal Code Chapter 13.114. It expands protections by prohibiting the disclosure of "protected personal information" and requiring public reporting of ICE requests (Exhibit 4).
o City of Richmond: Passed an ordinance (2025) adding Chapter 2.30 to its Municipal Code. It limits the use of city personnel and facilities for federal immigration enforcement and restricts sharing personal information unless legally mandated (Exhibit 5).
o City and County of San Francisco: Proposed an Ordinance to amend its 6 of 91
Administrative Code (Section 4.19) to explicitly state that civil immigration enforcement is not a "City purpose" for the use of city property and authorizes the City Attorney to bring cause of action against any person or entity that uses City property for unlawful purposes.
o Santa Clara County: In October 2025, the Board of Supervisors directed staff to follow Chicago’s example and draft an ordinance or administrative policy restricting the use of county-owned property for civil immigration enforcement staging areas, processing locations or operations bases, absent lawful court orders.
Additionally, this included posting signage on public properties and making signs available to private property owners and reporting protocols for County staff to report any federal attempts to use County-owned or controlled properties. The status of this protocol is not known to City staff. Like Sonoma County, Santa Clara County is also using it’s social services funding to provide assistance for legal defense fund for undocumented immigrants.
• Executive Orders (Out of State Agencies)
o City of Chicago: Issued two Executive Orders: No. 2025-8 (Exhibit 6) prohibits using city property for immigration staging or processing, while Executive Order No. 2026-1 (Exhibit 7) defines police protocols for documenting federal enforcement and rendering medical aid at scenes.
o City and County of Denver: Issued Executive Order No. 152 (2026), which restricts the use of city property, mandates the use of body-worn cameras to record federal actions, and establishes de-escalation protocols to protect peaceful protesters (Exhibit 8).
Recent Actions by Sonoma County Agencies
Staff are aware of recent activity by the County of Sonoma, City of Petaluma, and City of Santa Rosa. It is believed that Healdsburg joined a lawsuit against the federal government regarding its sanctuary city policies. The following is the current status:
Santa Rosa
In 2017, the City of Santa Rosa declared itself an “Indivisible City” (Exhibit 9) and has more recently also joined a lawsuit against the federal government to challenge the designation of "sanctuary jurisdictions".
In February of this year, Santa Rosa adopted a resolution urging Congress to reform federal agent conduct regarding transparency and identification and is preparing an ordinance to prohibit federal agents from using city properties for staging or processing (Exhibit 10).
Currently, the Santa Rosa is proposing an ordinance following the San Francisco model to limit access to public property, but at the time of this staff report, it is unknown what action the Santa Rosa City Council will take. However, the published agenda for the March 24, 2026 City Council meeting proposes the introduction of an ordinance to prohibit unauthorized use of real or personal property belonging to the City. It further states that, “The use of City property to assist in the enforcement of Federal civil immigration law is not a City purpose.” There is no signage, 7 of 91
noticing, or reporting requirements, but it does authorize the City Attorney to bring injunctive or other civil relief against the federal government. (Exhibit 11) Petaluma
In 2025, the City passed a resolution supporting SB 54 and re-affirming police policies stating that they would not hand over undocumented immigrants to federal authorities unless a serious crime has been committed (Exhibit 12). Petaluma also joined a lawsuit against the federal government to challenge the designation of "sanctuary jurisdictions".
County of Sonoma
In 2025, the County of Sonoma adopted Resolution No. 25-0015 (2025) to affirm its commitment to immigrant civil rights. (Exhibit 13). The County of Sonoma also formed a “Supporting Immigrant Communities Ad Hoc” in August 2025. As of January 27, 2026, the Ad Hoc had met eight times with the following status on initiatives provided to the Board of Supervisors:
• Support for Immigrant Communities County-Hosted Website - This public website was created to provide information to community members about County and other local resources. Information can be found regarding legal and social services, the North Bay Rapid Response network, as well as information about this Ad Hoc, including the Charter and meeting agendas and minutes. The website has also been shared with County staff as a resource they may share with clients or community members and is also linked from the City of Cotati website. <https://sonomacounty.gov/administrative-support-and-fiscalservices/county-executives-office/projects/support-for-immigrant-communities>
• Employee Protocols and Guidance for ICE Interactions - The Ad Hoc updated these protocols to include community feedback received. The protocols were released to staff County-wide in September 2025.
• Employee Training on ICE Protocols - The Ad Hoc directed the implementation of training for County staff on these protocols. The County held two trainings, in December 2025 and January 20226. County staff report that the training recording will be made available to all staff who may have been unable to attend. • Ensuring Public/Private Space Delineations - Ensuring County facilities clearly delineate public lobby and access space and employee-only, private space which is not accessible to the general public. Departments were required to report compliance to the County Executive.
• Regional Coordination and Preparedness - The Ad Hoc and staff are participating in the Belonging the Bay Initiative, a consortium of 12 Bay Area counties that meet monthly to discuss regional preparedness efforts related to a potential large-scale immigration enforcement event. The County hosted the next meeting later early this year. • Developed a Local Immigration Enforcement Response Plan - The Department of Emergency Management has developed a draft Local Immigration Enforcement Impact 8 of 91
CONOP (Concept of Operations) which addresses the County’s response, in partnership with local providers, to a large-scale immigration enforcement event. The Draft is currently being reviewed by impacted external community stakeholders and is not yet available to other agencies or the public.
• Urgency Ordinance Prohibiting Law Enforcement Officers from Concealing Their Identity and Requiring Them to Present Identification and Agency-Identifying Insignia When Conducting Operations in the Unincorporated Areas of Sonoma County - On September 23, 2025, this draft Urgency Ordinance was considered by the Board of Supervisors. Following Board direction, staff initiated the meet and confer process with the applicable County labor unions. The meet and confer process is ongoing. Subsequently, SB 627, also known as the “No Secret Police Act”, was signed into law and became effective on January 1, 2026. This law prohibits local, state and federal law enforcement officers in California from wearing facial coverings that conceal their identify, with some exceptions. It further requires law enforcement agencies to create and publicly post written policies related to fiscal coverings by July 1, 2026. Given the implementation of SB 627, an Urgency Ordinance is no longer needed. In November of 2025, the federal government sued the State of California, claiming that SB 627 application to federal law enforcement agents, including ICE agents, is unconstitutional.
• Potential Policy to Prohibit Immigration Enforcement Activities on CountyControlled Properties - On November 4, 2025, the Ad Hoc recommended, and the full Board approved, direction to staff to consider developing a policy prohibiting the use of County-controlled properties for certain specific enforcement activities. Through partnership with County Counsel and in reviewing current policies and protocols, it was determined that a new policy is not needed. The Board direction through the Resolution passed on January 10, 2025, prohibiting the use of County resources and property for immigration activities, provides this direction, and this has been reaffirmed with all County department heads and directors. <https://sonomacounty.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7087194&GUID=630532E8-1F20-41A1- 9DF5-331527EAB540>
• Consideration of a Non-Collaboration Ordinance proposed by the Sanctuary Coalition of Sonoma County - The Ad Hoc met several times with the Sanctuary Coalition in order to consider the implementation of a Non-Collaboration Ordinance. The Ad Hoc offered to implement a non-codified ordinance within the jurisdiction of the Board of Supervisors, which could not legally be extended to apply to elected department heads, such as the Sheriff or the District Attorney. This Ordinance would not have resulted in new or changed policy, but rather it would have reaffirmed the state laws already in place and applicable to County operations. Given the lack of support from the Sanctuary Coalition on an effort that would exclude the Sheriff, this initiative was not pursued. The Ad Hoc decided to focus future efforts on exploring initiatives for direct community impact.
• Inventory of Local Immigrant Services - The Ad Hoc will be convening a meeting of 9 of 91
local service providers who operate in the immigrant resource space. This facilitated, structured working meeting will be held in February or March. The intention is to inventory current resources and services, identify services gaps and access barriers, and help guide the future focus of the Ad Hoc’s work.
• Funding Local Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). City staff also understand that the County has allocated funds to the North Bay Organizing Project to support the North Bay Rapid Response Network and the Secure Families Collaborative, who coordinates with many other NGOs.
Public Comment from the March 10, 2026 City Council Meeting During public comment, members of a committee of Ner Shalom, the local Cotati Synagogue, provided an example ordinance and urged the City Council to adopt the ordinance or one with similar provisions. The following is a detailed summary of the requirements of the proposed ordinance (Exhibit 14):
• Mandating that city employees protect sensitive personal information (which includes race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and status as a crime victim). City employees may not request or maintain this data unless it is strictly necessary for designated services or authorized in writing and disclosure is prohibited unless required by state or federal statute, a court order, or a valid judicial search warrant. • Prohibiting the use of city funds, property, or personnel for immigration enforcement purposes, including collecting information regarding citizenship or immigration status unless legally required for a city service or litigation. Prohibit cooperation with immigration enforcement operations or requests without a court order, including providing access to non-public city-owned property, such as parking lots, stations, or databases, to immigration authorities. This also would prohibit providing documents in response to an administrative subpoena until it has been vetted by the City Attorney’s Office and the affected individuals are notified.
• Identify city-owned property that could potentially be used as a "staging area" for federal operations and post clear signs stating: “This property... may not be used for immigration enforcement as staging area, processing location, or operation base”. This includes the use of physical barriers, such as locked gates when feasible, to prevent unauthorized access by immigration authorities. The city would also provide free “standardized” signs for private landowners who wish to restrict immigration enforcement on their property • The proposed ordinance also includes several administrative requirements, including developing a plan and training protocols for responding to federal immigration authorities and handling warrants or subpoenas. Designation of a “Immigrant Affairs Liaison” to report federal enforcement activities on city property to the City Council. Within 6 to 12 months of adoption, the City would be required to review their policies for compliance and submit reports to the Council detailing training completion, signage placement, and any requests received from federal authorities for sensitive information. 10 of 91
• Furthermore, if the Police Department becomes aware that immigration authorities are present for enforcement, the Chief must notify the Mayor and City Manager, who must then “notify the community”. Signs are also required to be placed in all city lobbies and waiting rooms affirming that citizenship status is not collected or disclosed. • Finally, the Chief of Police must maintain a policy requiring all sworn personnel to visibly display their name or badge number while performing duties, with limited exceptions for undercover work or exigent danger. The proposed ordinance also states that the City Council is to ensure that the Police Department remains locally controlled and is not subject to federal deputization without city consent.
Staff also attempted to locate the requested ordinance by the Sanctuary Coalition of Sonoma County, but was unable to find the ordinance for this item. As mentioned previously, the County of Sonoma appears to have had some type of draft ordinance, but it was no longer pursued by the Sanctuary Coalition once it became clear that it would not apply to the County Sherriff.
Analysis/Discussion
The most likely scenario is that any significant immigration enforcement would not just target the City of Cotati, but more broadly Sonoma County or the North Bay Region. If broad nontargeted immigration sweeps began, local jurisdictions would coordinate with the County Department of Emergency Management through their Emergency Operations Centers to develop operational area awareness and potentially request additional resources. With any County-wide or broader response, regional consistency in public communication and commonality of actions in response will be important to minimize confusion by the local agencies and the public. The County DEM has recently developed an emergency concept of operations (CONOP) for such a scenario, which focuses on post event assistance and recovery according to County staff.
However, at this time, the draft CONOP is not available.
As stated in the joint letter from the Police Chiefs in Sonoma County, our police departments do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement and are restricted by various state laws, including the Values Act, the Trust Act, and the Truth Act, which prohibits police from assisting or sharing information with federal agencies performing immigration enforcement. This also prohibits police in California from inquiring about the immigration status of anyone they interact with during an arrest. (Exhibit 15)
After reviewing the various actions that other jurisdictions have taken or are contemplating, they generally can be categorized as follows:
• Resolution Urging Action from Congress. Similar to the approach taken by Santa Rosa, a resolution could be developed to urge Congress to require policy actions to restrict certain practices by immigration enforcement officer and improve identification.
This approach does not require significant dedication of City resources, but it does carry some risk of creating adverse impacts to future federal funding. 11 of 91
• Limit Immigration Use of Property. While it is clear that the City can limit access to non-public areas (locked facilities such as the Police Station back parking lot and Public Works Corporation Yard, City offices, etc), the ability to limit access to public spaces is legally debatable. In general, the approach taken by other jurisdictions is to post signage prohibiting immigration enforcement staging, processing or other usage. In some cases, the jurisdictions state that they would also provide signage to private properties.
However, no governmental entity can use private property against the wishes of the property owner without property owner permission, so this does not appear to be an effective measure. On public property, the City would be unable to effectively post or restrict use of streets, so this would be limited postings to discreate areas such as parking lots or parks and parking adjacent to City buildings. However, these areas are accessible to the general public, so it’s unclear how immigration agents could be singularly restricted when other objectional groups cannot be. In any case, the stated recourse is to enable the City Attorney to file a civil lawsuit or seek injunctive relief against the Federal Government. This is likely to be expensive and is not expected to be successful in excluding certain members of the public (in this case federal agents).
Another approach, used by the County of Sonoma is a resolution prohibiting the use of County resources and property for immigration activities, which also directs this is reaffirmed with all County department heads and directors. • Restrict Disclosure of Personal Information. The City does not collect personal information, except the police department (via the Public Safety Consortium record system) and some limited information for water and sewer accounts. However, in both cases, this information can only be released by the City to any third party (including the federal government) though a valid court order or as otherwise required by law. • City Protocols for Response. The Police are prohibited by State law from assisting federal immigration enforcement and also have a duty to intercede if our police witness excessive force being used. In significant immigration actions, our Police may be called to keep the peace, particularly if angry crowds begin to gather. However, Chicago and Denver include additional directives, such as attempt to identify the on-scene supervisor and document the actions, if safe to do so, for the purposes of accountability later though referral to the District Attorney or State Attorney General, if they chose to pursue criminal charges. For our small police department, such a policy would be challenging to implement given the regular demands of other concurrent community calls for service.
However, in an event of any significance, this would be the highest priority call to protect public safety and will include our police, who by policy will be recording the incident via body cameras.
• Reporting and Transparency. Berkeley notes that any requests from immigration be documented and reported at the next City Council as an informational item. For transparency, reporting ICE request or known activity in Cotati could happen after the event. The primary consideration is public safety, so information that would encourage crowds of people to converge on an active immigration operation could create a safety hazard for all involved.
12 of 91
• Restricting Use of Masks/Requiring ID. In California, masking and identification of police is already restricted by Government Code §7288 that mandates a policy to ensure transparency in policing. In Cotati, our existing policy mirrors the “No Secret Police” (SB 627) passed by the State of California, but intended to restrict this practice with federal agents. In Cotati, we do not perform undercover work (such as a gang task force, SWAT, etc.), so the only time our officers wear a mask is for medical reasons, such as wearing an N95 mask when working with someone with a contagious illness. • Deputization of Local Police (287g Agreements). As stated earlier, in California, very few, if any, police departments have these types of voluntary agreements for immigration enforcement, as they generally would conflict with state law. Cotati does not have such an agreement and there no way for the federal government to “deputize” a local police officer involuntarily, nor is it legal in California for the police to assist in or perform civil immigration enforcement.
Given the various potential actions taken by other jurisdictions, the following options appear to be the most feasible for consideration by the City Council:
• Develop a resolution urging Congress to require policy actions to restrict certain practices by immigration enforcement officer and improve identification, similar to the City of Santa Rosa. However, as stated earlier, this carries some risk that Cotati is singled out by federal authorities.
• Develop a resolution re-affirming current practices and State law, similar to the City of Petaluma. This is relatively quick to implement and has the benefit of reassuring the public that we do not cooperate with federal civil immigration authorities, and that we follow best practices in policing.
• Developing an emergency CONOP, similar to County DEM, outlining the operational response to a significant enforcement action that is aligned with and complimentary to the County plan once it is released publicly. However, a policy such as this would take more time and staff resources to develop.
• Similar to the County of Sonoma, adopt a resolution prohibiting the use of City resources and property for immigration activities, with direction that this is reaffirmed with all department heads to ensure that the City Council expectations are clearly conveyed to staff. This is relatively quick to implement and has the benefit of reassuring the public that we do not assist federal civil immigration authorities and ensures that all City departments clearly understand the expectations.
Regardless of the actions taken or policies developed, staff recommend close coordination with other agencies in the County that would likely be experiencing immigration actions concurrently.
This is also recommended for clarity of messaging to the public and sharing of resources.
Financial Considerations
Jurisdictions have expressed significant concern regarding retaliation by the Federal 13 of 91
Government. The current administration has threatened to withhold or condition federal funds for "sanctuary" jurisdictions (e.g., Executive Order 14,159). The general concern is that these policies could put a "bullseye" on their community and draw increased federal focus.
The proposed actions would likely require 80-160 hours of staff time, but are not expected to have a significant direct financial impact. There is a limited risk that a resolution to Congress may result in some type of retaliation by the Federal Government with future funding.
Environmental Issues
This action does not constitute a project as defined by California Environmental Quality Act. 14 of 91
1 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA POLICY PROHIBITING
THE USE OF COUNTY-OWNED OR COUNTY-CONTROLLED PROPERTIES FOR
FEDERAL CIVIL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES INCLUDING
STAGING AREAS, PROCESSING LOCATIONS,
OR OPERATIONS BASES
RESOLUTION NUMBER R-________
WHEREAS, in 2016, the Board of Supervisors declared and affirmed that the County of Alameda is a Welcoming County committed to bringing immigrants and refugees and the broader community together to develop policies, programs, and initiatives that build welcoming communities and provide all residents with the knowledge and tools to thrive and fully participate in their communities; and WHEREAS, the County of Alameda is committed to ensuring the safety, dignity, and human rights of all our residents, regardless of race, religion, immigration status, or national origin; and WHEREAS, civil immigration enforcement activities have historically undermined community trust, spread fear, and created barriers to refugee and immigrant community members accessing essential County services, seeking basic health services, and reporting crime to local law enforcement, contributed to increased absenteeism from work, and disrupted schooling to the detriment of all County residents; and
WHEREAS, throughout the State and Nation there has been an increase of incidents of arrests of both citizens and non-citizens by masked non-uniformed plain-clothed federal agents. Often these agents will not have visible names, officer identification numbers, or other individually identifying information on their person. This practice causes confusion, fear, and panic because community members have no way of knowing whether these agents are exercising legitimate authority or committing a crime thereby spreading distrust in law enforcement and harming public safety for all County residents; and
WHEREAS, the County of Alameda has long recognized that public safety is best achieved through trust and collaboration between residents and local government, not through the militarization or deputization of County resources in service of civil immigration enforcement; and WHEREAS, the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office General Order 1.24 revised on October 1, 2025 describes the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office (ACSO) Zero-Contact policy with immigration officials, except when a criminal warrant has been signed by a judge; and WHEREAS, in recent months, the County has observed across the country the commandeering of county, and city-owned facilities for immigration enforcement, an activity that is solely the responsibility of the 15 of 91
2 federal government; and
WHEREAS, the unauthorized use of County resources, property, or personnel to facilitate civil immigration enforcement actions ignores the intended purposes of such assets and interferes with and undermines the County’s authority over, and its use of, its own limited resources, property, and personnel; and
WHEREAS, in this time of economic difficulties the County seeks to ensure that the County’s resources, property, and personnel are used and expended only in furtherance of the objectives for which they are allocated and not used for the purposes of civil immigration enforcement which would divert County resources from programs beneficial to the County and its residents; and WHEREAS, the use of County resources, property, or personnel to facilitate civil immigration enforcement actions is inconsistent with, and undermines both the spirit and intent of, the County’s Welcoming County policy; and
WHEREAS, such use of County resources further erodes trust between refugee and immigrant communities and local law enforcement, weakening the relationships that are essential to ensuring public safety; and
WHEREAS, consistent with Alameda County’s long-standing commitment to equity, inclusion, public safety, and ensuring access to essential services for all residents regardless of immigration status, numerous jurisdictions across the United States have recently adopted, or are actively considering, ICE-Free Zones or similar policies to preserve trust between immigrant communities and local government and to prevent fear from deterring residents from accessing public services, including California jurisdictions such as Santa Clara County, the City and County of San Francisco, Los Angeles County, San Mateo County, and the City of Berkeley; Illinois jurisdictions including the City of Chicago and Cook County; the City of Boston, Massachusetts; New Jersey jurisdictions including Hoboken, Jersey City, Newark, and Paterson; New York jurisdictions including New York City and Rochester; and the cities of Portland, Oregon; Seattle, Washington; Denver, Colorado; and Albuquerque, New Mexico, reflecting a shared commitment to protecting civil rights, promoting community well-being, and ensuring effective and inclusive local governance.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, does hereby enact the following policy to prohibit the use of countyowned or county-controlled properties, for certain civil immigration enforcement activities.
Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Alameda, State of California, on ________________ by the following called vote:
16 of 91
3 AYES:
NOES:
EXCUSED:
__________________________________
David Haubert
President of the Board of Supervisors
County of Alameda, State of California
ATTEST:
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors,
County of Alameda
By:
_________________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Donna Ziegler, County Counsel
By:
________________________________
Samantha Stonework-Hand
Assistant County Counsel
17 of 91
4 THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA POLICY PROHIBITING THE USE OF COUNTYOWNED OR COUNTY-CONTROLLED PROPERTIES FOR FEDERAL CIVIL
IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES INCLUDING STAGING AREAS,
PROCESSING LOCATIONS, OR OPERATIONS BASES
Section 1. Prohibition on Use of County-owned or County-controlled properties.
No County-owned or County-controlled properties, including parking lots, vacant lots, garages, or nonpublic areas of buildings shall be used for staging areas, processing locations, or operations bases for the purpose of civil immigration enforcement.
Section 2. Definitions
“Staging area” means an area that is used to assemble, mobilize, and deploy vehicles, equipment, or materials, and related personnel, for the purpose of carrying out civil immigration enforcement operations.
“Processing location” means an area that is used for activities such as the identification, intake, processing of documentation, detention, arrest, or temporary holding of individuals for the purpose of carrying out civil immigration enforcement operations. “Operation base” means an area that is used to plan, coordinate, and execute civil immigration enforcement operations.
Section 3. Implementation and Enforcement
The County Administrator or her designee shall identify County-owned or County-controlled properties, including parking lots, vacant lots, garages, or nonpublic areas of buildings that could be used as staging areas, processing locations, or operations bases for the purpose of civil immigration enforcement. The County Administrator or her designee in consultation with the Office of the County Counsel, shall ensure that all County-owned and/or County-controlled parking lots, vacant lots, parking garages, and non-public areas of County-owned and/or County-controlled facilities have clear signage designating that the property is owned and/or controlled by the County and cannot be used for any purpose not expressly authorized by the County.
The County Administrator or her designee shall further ensure that, wherever appropriate, physical barriers such as locked gates are used to limit access to County-owned or County-controlled properties, including parking lots, vacant lots, garages, or nonpublic areas of buildings consistent with this order.
18 of 91
5 The County Administrator or her designee shall develop the procedures necessary to implement this policy and report progress at the following Alameda County Together for All Ad Hoc Committee meeting. These implementing procedures shall provide a clear reporting policy, consistent with the Response Plan for Immigration Enforcement Activity, for any County employee or contracted security guard who becomes aware of the attempted or actual use of a County-owned or Countycontrolled property, including a parking lot, vacant lot, garage, or nonpublic area of a building as a staging area, processing location, or operations base, or any other activity for the purpose of civil immigration enforcement. This reporting policy shall ensure that such incidents are communicated to the County Administrator’s Office, County Counsel, and Public Safety Offices (Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, District Attorney’s Office, Public Defender’s Office, and Probation Department) to help ensure due process and upholding of relevant laws.
Section 4. Identification of Federal Immigration Officers The County calls on federal immigration enforcement officers performing official business in the County to identify themselves as federal immigration enforcement officers and to make clear that they are not officers, agents, or employees of the County, and to comply with all State and Federal legal protections afforded to County residents.
Section 5. Private Property Signage
The County Administrator’s office shall design and print standardized signage that property owners and leaseholders may display to delineate the nonpublic areas of the property in which the property owner or leaseholder wishes to restrict activities related to civil immigration enforcement.
The County will make this signage available free of charge to property owners and leaseholders, including, but not limited to, businesses, medical providers, non-profits, and faith-based institutions, that voluntarily decide to so designate their property consistent with their authority over the property and who voluntarily request such signage from the County. Property owners and leaseholders that post this signage do so at their own discretion and assume any legal risk associated therewith.
County agencies and departments shall make available to the public “know your rights” materials regarding the rights of employees, tenants, and security staff regarding entry by federal agents.
Section 6. Scope.
This policy does not apply to property that is subject to an existing lease or concession agreement to which the County is a party. This policy is not intended to, and shall not be interpreted to, interfere 19 of 91
6 with any such lease or agreement.
Nothing in this policy shall be construed as restricting or interfering with the execution of lawful judicial warrants or the enforcement of criminal law, nor as limiting the rights of any person or entity under state or federal law. Nothing in this policy shall be construed as contrary to or in defiance of any Federal or State Law.
This policy does not prohibit the lawful use of County-owned or County-controlled property for purposes other than a staging area, processing location, operations base, or any other activity for the purpose of civil immigration enforcement, nor does it restrict any person or entity from carrying out functions unrelated to those purposes on such property.
Section 7. Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this policy or its application is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this policy. To this end, the provisions of this policy, and each of them, are severable.
Section 8. Effective Date.
This policy will take effect upon its execution and filing with the Clerk of the Board. 20 of 91
Ordinance No. 7,984-N.S. Page 1 of 7
ORDINANCE NO. 7,984-N.S.
ADDING BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 13.114 TO CODIFY THE CITY’S
LONGSTANDING SANCTUARY POLICY
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:
Section 1: That the Berkeley Municipal Code shall be amended to add Section 13.114 to read as follows:
Chapter 13.114
SANCTUARY CITY ORDINANCE
Sections:
13.114.010 - Findings and Declarations
13.114.020 - Definitions
13.114.030 - Prohibition on Use of City Resources
13.114.040 - Reporting and Transparency
13.114.050 - Exceptions to Prohibitions; Ordinance Not to Conflict with Federal Law.
13.114.060 - Enforcement; No Private Right of Action
13.114.070 - Severability
13.114.080 - Superseding of Prior Resolutions
13.114.090 - Effective Date
13.114.010 City Council Findings and Declarations
A. The City of Berkeley is home to people of diverse racial, ethnic, and national backgrounds, including a large immigrant population.
B. Immigrants are valuable and essential members of the City of Berkeley community.
C. A relationship of trust between the City of Berkeley’s immigrant community and the City of Berkeley, its departments, programs, and personnel is central to the public safety of Berkeley residents.
D. This trust is threatened when state and local agencies are entangled with federal immigration enforcement, with the result that immigrant community members may
01 21 of 91
Ordinance No. 7,984-N.S. Page 2 of 7
fear approaching police when they are victims of or witnesses to crimes, or may fear seeking basic health services or attending school, to the detriment of public safety and the well-being of all Berkeley residents.
E. Entangling state and local agencies with federal immigration enforcement programs diverts already limited resources and blurs the lines of accountability between local, state, and federal governments.
F. Multiple studies have proven that jurisdictions that do not assist in immigration enforcement are safer and economically more prosperous compared to other jurisdictions – including a 2017 report by the Center for American Progress that shows on average there are 35.5 fewer crimes committed per 10,000 people in sanctuary jurisdictions, the average annual income is $4,353 higher, the poverty rate is 2.3% lower, and unemployment is 1.1% lower.
G. The City of Berkeley was the first City in the Nation to declare itself a City of Refuge in 1971 for Vietnam War conscientious objectors (Resolution 44,784-N.S.). In 1986, the City became a City of Refuge for immigrants who sought sanctuary in Berkeley religious institutions (Resolution No. 52,596-N.S.). The City reaffirmed its City of Refuge status in 2007 (Resolution No. 63,711-N.S.), 2015 (Resolution No. 67,325-N.S.), 2016 (Resolution No. 67,598-N.S. & No. 67,763-N.S.), 2017 (Resolution No. 68,131-N.S.), and most recently, 2025 (Resolution No. 71,658- N.S.). Berkeley was also the first City to support the “New Border Vision,” in 2020, to encourage Congress to expand public safety, protect human rights, and welcome people to our communities.
H. The City now wishes to enact an ordinance consistent with Resolution No. 71,658 and its longstanding sanctuary policy and status as a City of Refuge.
13.114.020 Definitions.
For purposes of this Chapter, the following words and phrases are defined as follows:
A. “Citizenship or Immigration Status” means all information regarding citizenship of the United States or any other country, the authority to reside in or otherwise be present in the United States, including visa status, and/or the time or manner of a person’s entry into the United States.
22 of 91
Ordinance No. 7,984-N.S. Page 3 of 7
B. “City” means the City of Berkeley.
C. “City Agency” means every City department, agency, division, commission, council, committee, board, other body, or person established by authority of voter initiative, ordinance, Charter, executive order, or City Council order.
D. “City Personnel” means all persons employed by, appointed by, or serving any City Agency, including through a contract for services.
E. “City Resources” means City funds, facilities, property, equipment, or personnel.
F. “Immigration Authority” means any person or agency engaging in “Immigration Enforcement,” including but not limited to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security or its component agencies, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
G. “Immigration Enforcement” means (1) any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal civil immigration law against natural persons, including but not limited to efforts to require the registration of individuals based on their Citizenship or Immigration Status; or (2) any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal criminal immigration law that penalizes a natural person’s presence in, entry to, reentry to, or employment in, the United States or failure to register based on their Citizenship or Immigration Status.
H. “Protected Personal Information” means any information that identifies, relates to, describes, or is capable of being associated with a particular individual, including but not limited to a person’s name, birthdate, Social Security Number or Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, telephone number, home or work address, driver’s license number, place of birth, or biometric information.
13.114.030 Prohibition on Use of City Resources.
The following restrictions on the use of City Resources shall apply relating to Immigration Enforcement:
A. No City Agency or Personnel shall use any City Resources to assist any Immigration Authority with Immigration Enforcement.
23 of 91
Ordinance No. 7,984-N.S. Page 4 of 7
B. No City Agency or Personnel shall deny access to any City services or benefits to residents based on Citizenship or Immigration Status.
C. The prohibitions set forth in 13.114.030 (A) and (B) shall include but not be limited to:
1. Assisting or cooperating with any Immigration Authority’s investigation, detention, or arrest relating to Immigration Enforcement, including but not limited to any such actions in schools, after-school programs, hospitals, health centers, places of worship, non-profits, or city vendors, whether such actions are public or clandestine;
2. Identifying, investigating, interrogating, arresting, transferring, detaining, or continuing to detain a person for a purpose relating to Immigration Enforcement;
3. Inquiring into, requesting, or collecting information about the Citizenship or Immigration Status, country of origin, nationality, or place of birth of any individual, unless that information is required (i) to provide a City service or (ii) for City employment verification;
4. Disseminating or disclosing Protected Personal Information to Immigration Authorities in connection with Immigration Enforcement without a valid judicial warrant or subpoena issued by a court of competent jurisdiction;
5. Complying with any civil immigration warrant or request to detain, transfer, or notify any federal authority about the release of any individual;
6. Making individuals in City custody available to Immigration Authorities for interviews;
7. Performing any functions of an immigration officer pursuant to Section 1357(g) of Title 8 of the United States Code;
8. Consenting to an Immigration Authority’s search of non-public areas of City property or non-public records, absent a valid judicial warrant or judicial subpoena issued by a court of competent jurisdiction.
a. City Agency or Personnel shall immediately notify their supervisor of any request by an Immigration Authority to access any non-public City property or records.
24 of 91
Ordinance No. 7,984-N.S. Page 5 of 7
D. No City Agency or Personnel shall refer a person asking questions about their own Citizenship or Immigration Status to an Immigration Authority or any other government agency. Instead, the City Agency or Personnel shall refer such individuals to local non-profit immigration law organizations. A list of such organizations shall be compiled and disseminated at City buildings and on the City’s website.
13.114.040 Reporting and Transparency.
A. City Agencies shall document in writing all requests for information or assistance (1) made by a City Agency or Personnel to an Immigration Authority; or (2) received by a City Agency or Personnel from an Immigration Authority, if the City Agency or Personnel responded to the request. The requests that must be documented under this section include, but are not limited to, requests for immigration detainers, transfers, interviews, interrogations, notifications, Protected Personal Information, or the Citizenship or Immigration Status of any individual.
B. The documentation shall include but not be limited to the date, job title of requester or person to whom request was made, agency of requester or to which request was made, nature of the information disclosed or sought, a copy of a warrant, if any, and the response to the request, if any.
C. City Agencies shall maintain these records for two years and make them available to the City Manager or City Attorney upon request.
D. All City Agencies shall report in writing to the City Council any request described in subsection A within ten (10) business days of the request, with instruction to report such request as an Information Item on the next available agenda for a regular meeting of the City Council. The Berkeley Police Department shall include an aggregated annual summary of requests reported to City Council in its regular Annual Report.
E. The Information Item described in subsection D shall include all the information listed in subsection B; however, it shall be redacted as necessary to avoid compromising an active investigation or invading the privacy of any individual, consistent with the California Public Records Act.
25 of 91
Ordinance No. 7,984-N.S. Page 6 of 7
13.114.050 Exceptions to Prohibitions; Ordinance Not to Conflict with Federal Law.
The prohibitions in Section 13.114.030 of this Ordinance shall not apply where the individual to whom such information pertains provides his or her consent (or if such individual is a minor, the consent of that person’s parent or guardian), where the information or disclosure is necessary to provide a City service, or where otherwise required by state or federal law, including but not limited to Section 1373 of Title 8 of the U.S. Code.
13.114.060 Enforcement; No Private Right of Action.
A. In undertaking the adoption and enforcement of Chapter 13.114, the City is assuming an undertaking only to promote the general welfare. This Chapter is not intended to create any new rights for breach of which the City is liable in money damages to any person who claims that such breach proximately caused injury.
This section shall not be construed to limit or proscribe any other existing rights or remedies possessed by such person.
B. This Chapter shall be implemented and overseen through existing administrative policies and procedures applicable to City operations and services.
C. The City Manager may establish rules and regulations governing the implementation of this Chapter, including but not limited to rules governing the reporting of violations of Section 13.114.030.
13.114.070 Severability.
If any part or provision of this Chapter, or the application of this Chapter to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of this Chapter, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected by such a holding and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, the provisions of this Chapter are severable.
26 of 91
Ordinance No. 7,984-N.S. Page 7 of 7
13.114.080 Superseding of Prior Resolutions.
This Chapter shall supersede Resolution Nos. 44,784-N.S., 52,596-N.S., 63,711-N.S., 67,325-N.S., 67,598-N.S., 67,763-N.S., 68,131-N.S., and 71,658-N.S., to the extent there is a conflict between the provisions of these Resolutions and the provisions of this Chapter.
13.114.090 Effective Date.
This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after its adoption.
Section 2. Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Berkeley held on September 9, 2025, this Ordinance was passed to print and ordered published by posting by the following vote:
Ayes: Bartlett, Blackaby, Humbert, Kesarwani, Lunaparra, O’Keefe, Taplin, Tregub, and Ishii.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
27 of 91
28 of 91
DocID #36694v2
ORDINANCE NO. N.S.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
LIMITING THE USE OF CITY RESOURCES FOR FEDERAL IMMIGRATION
ENFORCEMENT
The City Council of the City of Richmond do ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. AUTHORITY. This Ordinance is authorized by the City’s authority under California Constitution, article XI, sections 5 (charter cities) and 7 (police power), and in conformity with California Senate Bill No. 54, codified in California Government Code Sections 7282 – 7284.10.
SECTION 2. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT. Chapter 2.30 of Article II of the Richmond Municipal Code, Administration and City Government, is hereby added to read as follows:
Section 2.30.010 — City Council Findings and Declarations (a) The City of Richmond is home to people of diverse racial, ethnic, and national backgrounds, including a large immigrant population.
(b) Immigrants are valuable and essential members of the City of Richmond community.
(c) A relationship of trust between the City of Richmond’s immigrant community and the City of Richmond, its departments, programs, and personnel is central to the public safety of Richmond residents.
(d) This trust is threatened when state and local agencies are entangled with federal Immigration enforcement, with the result that immigrant community members fear approaching police when they are victims of, and witnesses to, crimes, seeking basic health services, or attending school, to the detriment of public safety and the well-being of all Californians, including Richmond residents. (e) Entangling state and local agencies with federal immigration enforcement programs diverts already limited resources and blurs the lines of accountability between local, state, and federal governments.
(f) There are legal concerns with leveraging the City of Richmond’s resources for federal immigration endeavors, including but not limited to the prospect ofRichmond 29 of 91
DocID #36694v2
residents being detained in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution or targeted on the basis or race or ethnicity in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
(g) This chapter seeks to ensure effective policing, to protect the safety, well-being, and constitutional rights of Richmond residents, and to direct the City’s limited resources to matters of greatest concern.
Section 2.30.020 – Definitions
For purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases are defined as follows:
(a) "Administrative warrant" means a document issued by the federal agency charged with the enforcement of the Federal immigration law that is used as a non-criminal, civil warrant for immigration purposes.
(b) "Eligible for release from custody" means that the individual may be released from custody because one of the following conditions has occurred:
(1) All criminal charges against the individual have been dropped or dismissed. (2) The individual has been acquitted of all criminal charges filed against him or her. (3) The individual has served all the time required for his or her sentence. (4) The individual has posted a bond or has been released on his or her own recognizance.
(5) The individual has been referred to pre-trial diversion services. (6) The individual is otherwise eligible for release under state or local law. (c) "Citizenship or Immigration Status" shall mean all information or classification regarding citizenship of the United States or any other country, place of birth, the authority to reside in or otherwise be present in the United States, including visa status, and the time or manner of a person's entry into the United States.
(d) "Civil immigration detainer" means a non-mandatory request issued by an authorized federal immigration officer under Section 287.7 of Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations, to a local law enforcement official to maintain custody of an individual for a period not to exceed 48 hours and advise the authorized federal 30 of 91
DocID #36694v2
immigration officer prior to the release of that individual. (e) "Convicted" means the state of having been proved guilty in a judicial proceeding, unless the convictions have been expunged or vacated pursuant to applicable law. The date that an individual is Convicted starts from the date of release. (f) "Firearm" means a device, designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled through a barrel, a projectile by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion as defined in Penal Code Section 16520.
(g) "Immigration Agent" means any federal, state, or local officer, employee, or person performing immigration enforcement functionsincluding, but not limited to, agents employed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
(h) "Immigration Enforcement" means any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal civil immigration law against natural persons, and also includes any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal criminal immigration law that penalizes a natural person's presence in, entry, or reentry to, or employment in, the United States. (i) "Law enforcement official" means any City Department or officer or employee of a City Department, authorized to enforce criminal statutes, regulations, or local ordinances; operate jails or maintain custody of individuals in jails; and operate juvenile detention facilities or maintain custody of individuals in juvenile detention facilities. (j) "Notification request" means a non-mandatory request issued by an authorized federal immigration officer to a local law enforcement official asking for notification to the authorized immigration officer of an individual's release from local custody prior to the release of an individual from local custody. Notification requests may also include informal requests for release information by the Federal agency charged with enforcement of the Federal immigration law.
(k) "Personal information" means any confidential, identifying information about an individual, including, but not limited to, home or work contact information, and family or emergency contact information.
Section 2.30.030 – Limitations on the Use of City Resources.
Unless required by federal or state law, no City resources, including, but not limited to, City personnel and City property, shall be utilized to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law or to gather or disseminate information regarding release status of individuals or 31 of 91
DocID #36694v2
any other such personal information as defined in Section 2.030.20, unless such assistance is required by federal or state statute, regulation, or court decision. The limitations set forth in this Section shall include, but shall not be limited to:
(a) Inquiring into or collecting information about an individual’s Citizenship or Immigration Status, unless such information is necessary to provide a City service, including the provision of immigration and naturalization assistance, for election-related purposes or appointment to a City office or commission, or as required for purposes of City employment or the disbursement of City funds.
(b) Assisting or cooperating, in one’s official capacity, with any investigation, detention or arrest procedures, public or clandestine, conducted by the federal agency charged with enforcement of federal immigration law and relating to alleged violations of the civil provisions of the federal immigration law, except as permitted under this Chapter
2.30 and applicable state or federal law.
(c) Assisting or cooperating, in one’s official capacity, with any investigation, surveillance, or gathering of information conducted by foreign governments, except for cooperation related to an alleged violation of City, state, or federal criminal laws. (d) Requesting information about, or disseminating information, in one's official capacity, regarding the release status of any individual, except as permitted under this Chapter 2.30, or conditioning the provision of services or benefits by the City upon immigration status, except as required by federal or state statute or regulation, City public assistance criteria, or applicable court decision.
(e) Providing any Immigration Agent access to any non-public areas of property owned or controlled by the City for the purpose of Immigration Enforcement.
Section 2.30.040 – Limitations on Law Enforcement Officials (a) The City of Richmond’s Police Department, consistent with California Government Code section 7284.6(a), shall not:
(1) Use agency or department moneys or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, including any of the following:
(A) Inquiring into an individual’s immigration status.
(B) Detaining an individual on the basis of a hold request. 32 of 91
DocID #36694v2
(C) Providing information regarding a person’s release date or responding to requests for notification by providing release dates or other information unless that information is available to the public or is in response to a notification request from immigration agents in accordance with California Government Code Section 7282.5.
Responses are never required, but are permitted under this subdivision, provided that they do not violate any local law or policy. (D) Making or intentionally participating in arrests based on civil immigration warrants.
(E) Assisting immigration agents in the activities described in Section 1357(a)(3) of Title 8 of the United States Code.
(F) Performing the functions of an immigration officer, whether pursuant to Section 1357(g) of Title 8 of the United States Code or any other law, regulation, or policy, whether formal or informal.
(2) Place Richmond police officers under the supervision of federal agencies or employ peace officers deputized as special federal officers or special federal deputies for purposes of immigration enforcement. All Richmond police officers remain subject to California law governing conduct of peace officers and the policies adopted by the City of Richmond.
(3) Use immigration agents as interpreters for law enforcement matters relating to individuals in agency or department custody.
(4) Transfer an individual to immigration agents unless authorized by a judicial warrant or judicial probable cause determination, or in accordance with California Government Code Section 7282.5.
(5) Provide office space exclusively dedicated for immigration agents for use within a Police Department facility.
(6) Contract with the federal government for use of Police Department facilities to house individuals as federal detainees, except pursuant to Chapter 17.8 of the California Government Code (commencing with Section 7310). (b) Notwithstanding the limitations in subsection (a), this section is not intended to prevent personnel or officers of the City of Richmond’s Police Department from taking actions consistent with or permitted by federal and state law, including, but not limited to, those actions enumerated within California Government Code Sections 7282.5 and 7284.6(b) 33 of 91
DocID #36694v2
(e), as amended.
Section 2.30.050 – Confidentiality and Protection of City Data.
Except as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1373 or other applicable federal or state law, no City personnel or law enforcement official shall provide access to any City data or information that can be used to determine or trace a person’s Citizenship or Immigration Status to any Immigration Agent. In furtherance of this restriction, as of the effective date of this ordinance, City personnel shall not provide City data or information that can be used to determine or trace a person's Citizenship or Immigration Status to any City contractor unless the contractor first agrees in writing to prohibit the contractor's employees and subcontractors from providing that data or information to any Immigration Agent, to the extent permitted by law. All City employees shall treat information that can be used to distinguish or trace a person's Citizenship or Immigration Status, either on its own or when combined with other information, as confidential information, to the extent permitted by law.
Section 2.30.060 – Judicial Warrants and Presiding Law.
Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit or otherwise restrict the City or City personnel from complying with a valid warrant issued by a federal or state judge, or other order evidencing a judicial determination of probable cause, nor shall this chapter prohibit the City or its personnel from complying with state or federal law.
SECTION 3. CEQA FINDINGS. The City Council finds that adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from CEQA because: (i) it is not a project within the meaning of Public Resources Code, section 21065 because it has no potential to alter the physical environment; (ii) and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), the so-called “common sense” exemption, for this same reason.
SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or its application to other persons and circumstances. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof despite the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional and, to that end, the provisions hereof are hereby declared to be severable. 34 of 91
DocID #36694v2
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect 30 days after its adoption under Chapter 2.30, Administration and City Government, Article II of the City of Richmond’s Municipal Code.
SECTION 6. PUBLICATION. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published once in the East Bay Times, a newspaper of general circulation printed, published, and circulated within the City.
SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after passage and adoption.
*****************************
(This section to be completed by Clerk’s Office)
First introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Richmond held on _____________ and finally passed and adopted at a regular meeting held on ___________ by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
________________________________________
Clerk of the City of Richmond
(SEAL)
Approved:
_______________________________
Mayor
Approved as to form:
____________________________
City Attorney
35 of 91
SAW:RLT:CAG
12/17/25
1 T-50968 / 2267357_2
Council Date: 1-13-26
Item No. 3.7(a)
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
RESOLUTION NO. ______________
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
JOSE APPROVING COUNCIL POLICY 7-15, PROHIBITING
THE USE OF CITY PARKING LOTS, VACANT LOTS, AND
GARAGES FOR CIVIL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
STAGING AREAS, PROCESSING LOCATIONS, OR
OPERATION BASES
WHEREAS, the City of San José (“City”) is home to one of the largest immigrant communities in the nation, which play a central role in the cultural, social, and economic fabric of the City; and
WHEREAS, in recent weeks and months, City has observed across the country the commandeering of city-owned facilities for immigration enforcement, an activity that is solely the responsibility of the federal government; and WHEREAS, the use of City property for the federal government’s immigration enforcement activities ignores the intended purposes of such assets and undermines City’s authority over its own property; and
WHEREAS, City recognizes the need for a policy to identify City-owned or Citycontrolled properties such as parking lots, garages, and open spaces that could be commandeered by the federal government for civil immigration enforcement including staging, processing, or establishing an operational base; and WHEREAS, on October 22, 2025, the Rules and Open Government Committee directed the City Manager to identify City-owned and controlled properties, and to develop a policy to ensure City properties and facilities are only used for City purposes; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to establish a new Council Policy No. 7-15, entitled “Prohibiting the Use of City Parking Lots, Vacant Lots, and Garages for Civil 36 of 91
SAW:RLT:CAG
12/17/25
2 T-50968 / 2267357_2
Council Date: 1-13-26
Item No. 3.7(a)
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Immigration Enforcement Staging Areas, Processing Locations, or Operation Bases”, that includes guidelines, including standardized signage, property access controls where appropriate, and reporting requirements for City employees;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE THAT:
Council Policy 7-15, “Prohibiting the Use of City Parking Lots, Vacant Lots, and Garages for Civil Immigration Enforcement Staging Areas, Processing Locations, or Operation Bases”, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein, which will help preserve community trust and ensure consistent management of City public property, is hereby approved.
ADOPTED this _____ day of ___________, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DISQUALIFIED:
MATT MAHAN
Mayor
ATTEST:
TONI J. TABER, MMC
City Clerk
37 of 91
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
EXHIBIT A
City of San José, California
COUNCIL POLICY
TITLE PROHIBITING THE USE OF CITY
PARKING LOTS, VACANT LOTS,
AND GARAGES FOR CIVIL
IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
STAGING AREAS, PROCESSING
LOCATIONS, OR OPERATION
BASES
PAGE
1 of 5
POLICY NUMBER
7-15
EFFECTIVE DATE REVISED DATE
APPROVED BY COUNCIL ACTION
I. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
The City of San José’s many immigrant communities play a central role in the cultural, social, and economic fabric of the City. San José has a history of commitment to preserving the safety and integrity of all its residents, regardless of national origin or legal status. San Jose recognizes that public safety is best achieved through trust and collaboration between residents and local government.
On February 4, 2025, the City Council adopted RES2025-19 reaffirming its commitment to protecting the rights and safety of immigrant communities. Specifically, the City continues the longstanding San José Police Department’s policy that its officers will not arrest persons merely for their unlawful presence in the United States; that no undocumented immigrants should fear arrest or deportation for coming forward to report a crime as a victim or a witness; and that no undocumented immigrants should fear arrest or deportation by contacting any employee of the City of San José to express concerns or to ask questions. No City employee will voluntarily support immigration enforcement actions that target San José residents solely based on their immigration status.
On October 28, 2025, the City Council approved a motion to prioritize identification of City-owned properties such as parking lots, garages, and open spaces that could be commandeered for civil immigration enforcement activities including staging, processing, or establishing an operational base; and to return with a policy that would restrict such activity. The City Council direction stemmed from events in other parts of the country where publicly owned or controlled facilities have been commandeered for civil immigration enforcement, an activity that is solely the responsibility of the federal government. The unauthorized use of City resources, property, or personnel to facilitate 38 of 91
TITLE PROHIBITING THE USE OF CITY
PARKING LOTS, VACANT LOTS, AND
GARAGES FOR CIVIL IMMIGRATION
ENFORCEMENT STAGING AREAS,
PROCESSING LOCATIONS, OR
OPERATION BASES
PAGE
2 of 3
POLICY NUMBER
7-15
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
civil immigration enforcement actions interferes with the City’s authority over, and its use of, its own resources, property, and personnel.
II. POLICY
A. Prohibition on Use of City Parking Lots, Garages, and Open Spaces No City-owned or City-controlled parking lot, garage, or open space shall be used as a staging area, processing location, or operations base for civil immigration enforcement.
B. Implementation and Enforcement
The Administration shall identify City-owned or City-controlled parking lots, garages, or open spaces that are likely to be used as a staging area, processing location, or operations base for the purpose of civil immigration enforcement. These properties shall have clear signage stating:
This property is owned or controlled by the City of San José.
It may only be used for City purposes, and may not be used for civil immigration enforcement Staging Areas, Processing Locations, or Operations Bases.
The Administration shall ensure that, wherever appropriate, physical barriers such as locked gates are used to limit access to City-owned or City-controlled parking lots, garages, or open space consistent with this policy.
The Administration shall develop procedures necessary to implement the policy. The procedures must provide that any City employee who becomes aware of the attempted or actual use of a City-owned or City-controlled parking lot, garage, or open space as a staging area, processing location, or operation base for civil immigration enforcement shall immediately report to their supervisor, who will communicate with the offices of the City Manager and City Attorney.
C. Private Property Signage
The Administration shall provide electronic copy of standardized signage that private landowners and leaseholders could print and display to delineate the non-public areas of the property in which they wish to restrict activities related to civil immigration enforcement. The signage shall be made available free of charge to private landowners and leaseholders, including but not limited to businesses, medical providers, nonprofit organizations, and faith institutions, who voluntarily decide to designate their property consistent with their authority over the property and who voluntarily request such 39 of 91
TITLE PROHIBITING THE USE OF CITY
PARKING LOTS, VACANT LOTS, AND
GARAGES FOR CIVIL IMMIGRATION
ENFORCEMENT STAGING AREAS,
PROCESSING LOCATIONS, OR
OPERATION BASES
PAGE
3 of 3
POLICY NUMBER
7-15
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
signage from the City. Landowners and leaseholders that post this signage do so at their own discretion and assume all legal risk.
The Administration shall make available to the public know your rights materials regarding the rights of employees, tenants and security staff regarding entry by federal officials consistent with California law and California Attorney General guidance.
D. Scope
This policy does not apply to property that is subject to an existing lease, license, operator agreement, or other contractual restriction to which the City is a party. This policy is not intended to, and shall not be interpreted to, impair or interfere with such existing agreement.
Nothing in this policy shall be construed as restricting or interfering with the execution of lawful judicial warrants or the enforcement of criminal law, nor as limiting the rights of any person or entity under state or federal law.
This policy does not prohibit the lawful use of City-owned and controlled property for purposes other than a staging area, processing location, or operation base for civil immigration enforcement, nor does it restrict any person or entity from carrying out functions unrelated to those purposes on such property.
III. DEFINITIONS
“Staging Area” means an area that is used to assemble, mobilize, and deploy vehicles, equipment, or materials, and related personnel, for the purpose of carrying out civil immigration enforcement operations.
“Processing Location” means an area that is used for activities such as the identification, intake, processing of documentation, detention, arrest, or temporary holding of individuals.
“Operation Base” means an area that is used to plan, coordinate and execute activities.
40 of 91
41 of 91
42 of 91
43 of 91
44 of 91
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 152
TO: All Agencies Under the Mayor
FROM: Michael Johnston, Mayor
DATE: February 26, 2026
SUBJECT: EXECUTIVE ORDER TO PROTECT DENVERITES FROM
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND DANGEROUS FEDERAL OPERATIONS
PURPOSE: Denver is a city built on trust, safety, and the belief that every person deserves dignity and respect. When civil immigration enforcement operations disrupt our neighborhoods, they don’t just target individuals—they spread fear, tear families apart, and erode the trust that holds our community together.
These actions put our residents and law enforcement personnel at risk and undermine the values we stand for as a community. Our responsibility is clear: we will work to protect the people who call Denver home and guard against federal overreach. This means setting firm boundaries on how immigration enforcement operates within Denver, safeguarding public spaces, and ensuring accountability when those boundaries are crossed. This Executive Order is meant to effectuate and reinforce the City and County of Denver’s (the “City”) Constitutional right to protect the public health, welfare, and safety of its community.
1.0 EXECUTIVE ORDER AUTHORITY
1.1 The Mayor.
1.1.1 The Mayor issues this Executive Order pursuant to the Authority granted the Mayor in §2.2.1 of the Charter.
1.1.2 All agencies must comply with the requirements of this Executive Order.
References in this Executive Order to “agencies” or “agency” includes City agencies, offices, departments, and commissions.
2.0 RESTRICTION OF THE USE OF CITY PROPERTY
2.1 All City agencies with authority over physical property shall not allow any City-owned or City-controlled property—including, but not limited to City-owned buildings, parks, parking lots, right-of-ways, and any interior or exterior portion thereof—to be used as a staging area, processing location, or operations base in furtherance of civil immigration enforcement operations, unless the immigration officials have obtained a valid court order, judicial warrant, or as otherwise required by law.
2.2 Prohibited uses of City-owned or City-controlled property include assembling, mobilizing, or deploying personnel, vehicles, equipment, or materials for the purpose of civil immigration enforcement.
2.3 All City agencies with authority over physical property shall, where appropriate and feasible, incorporate physical barriers such as locked gates and doors to limit access to City-owned or controlled parking lots, vacant lots, garages, and non-public portions of City facilities.
2.4 The City’s Chief Operating Officer shall consult with leaders from relevant City agencies to identify City-owned and City-controlled property that is likely to be used for prohibited purposes described in this Section. Signage will be posted at such locations indicating that the property is owned and/or controlled by the City and is restricted to municipally 45 of 91
authorized uses. The signage shall state “This property is owned or controlled by the City of Denver. It may only be used for its intended City purpose and not used for immigration enforcement as a staging area, process location, or operations base.”
2.5 Any City employee who witnesses the attempted or actual use of a City-owned or Citycontrolled property for a prohibited purpose described in this Section shall immediately report this occurrence to the Department of Human Rights and Community Partnerships (“HRCP”).
3.0 SIGNAGE FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY
3.1 Community Planning and Development shall work with the Department of Law (the “City Attorney’s Office”) to make a template of signage available to private property owners and leaseholders who seek to restrict private spaces from being used for civil immigration enforcement purposes. Property owners and leaseholders assume any legal responsibility associated therewith.
4.0 PROTECTING RESIDENTS IN CITY LOCATIONS
4.1 The City’s Marketing and Communications Department shall work with the City Attorney’s Office to reiterate existing guidance for any City employed front-line staff at buildings and properties within City limits, including public schools, libraries, senior centers, community centers, shelters, stadiums, churches, courthouses, and hospitals (collectively, “Protected Spaces”) reaffirming the City's long-held position that these locations are available to provide specific services to the public, and are to be accessed for those purposes only.
4.2 The City shall not allow civil immigration enforcement personnel into non-public spaces or provide information regarding a person’s immigration status without a valid judicial warrant, court order, or as otherwise required by law.
4.3 The City’s Chief Operating Officer shall work with the relevant agencies to identify all City-owned and City-controlled non-public spaces that are likely to be targeted by civil immigration enforcement in order to effectuate the provisions of this Section.
5.0 BAN ON RACIAL PROFILING
5.1 Absent indicia of illegal activity or probable cause, civil immigration enforcement personnel may not stop, detain, question or search individuals based on location, occupation, language, accent, race, or ethnicity.
6.0 TRANSPARENCY IN LAW ENFORCEMENT CONDUCT
6.1 The Denver Police Department (“DPD”), the Denver Sheriff Department (“DSD”), and the Denver Fire Department (collectively, with DPD and DSD the “Safety Agency” or “Safety Agencies”), shall instruct their personnel that the on-scene supervisor(s) at any immigration enforcement site where they are present will attempt to identify, verify, and record, when it’s tactically safe and won’t interfere with immigration law enforcement operations, the on-scene supervisory immigration officer’s name, badge, or identification number.
6.2 All Safety Agency personnel at the scene of an immigration enforcement action shall use their body worn cameras, if applicable, to record the event and shall preserve the video pursuant to their evidence preservation protocols.
46 of 91
6.3 The City’s Technology Services Department shall, consistent with state law, work with the Safety Agencies and the City Attorney’s Office to publicly release video footage of violence or property damage caused by civil immigration enforcement personnel captured by body-worn cameras or other City-controlled cameras, provided that such release does not unduly interfere with an active criminal investigation, or violate the law.
7.0 DE-ESCALATION OF FEDERAL PROVOCATIONS AND PROVISION OF FIRST AID
7.1 In the event of civil immigration enforcement operations, including a surge in ICE agents or other federal law enforcement personnel, the Safety Agencies shall use their established de-escalation protocols to try to protect peaceful protestors and ensure public health, welfare, safety, and the preservation of First Amendment rights.
7.2 Safety Agencies shall use their agency-approved tactics and techniques to try to maintain the peace and de-escalate potential conflicts with members of the public and law enforcement personnel.
7.3 On-scene Safety Agency personnel shall provide clear communication to bystanders explaining they are present only to try and protect public health, welfare, and safety, and not to assist with the immigration enforcement action.
7.4 Safety Agencies shall instruct their personnel that they must protect and aid people in lifethreatening situations, regardless of the law enforcement agency perpetrating the harm.
Safety Agencies shall instruct their personnel to summon emergency medical assistance and immediately render aid to anyone injured at the scene of any immigration enforcement action. First responders shall render aid according to their existing protocols and established standards of care.
7.5 HRCP shall provide public-facing information on strategies for supporting immigrant communities in ways that do not cause unintended consequences and increase safety risks.
8.0 INVESTIGATION OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT BY CIVIL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
PERSONNEL
8.1 The City’s Marketing and Communications Department shall, in partnership with the relevant agencies, provide communications to residents that DPD shall investigate reports of violence, property damage, high-speed chases within City limits, and allegations of criminal conduct by civil immigration enforcement personnel, and appropriately document such incidents. Such investigations shall occur regardless of whether there is a parallel federal investigation; and DPD shall work in collaboration with the City Attorney’s Office, the Denver District Attorney, or the Colorado Attorney General to file criminal charges, as appropriate.
8.2 All Safety Agency personnel who receive information from the public regarding conduct by civil immigration enforcement personnel that constitutes an apparent violation of City, state, or federal law, shall notify their supervisor who will ensure a report is taken and an investigation occurs.
8.3 DPD will lead independent investigations into reported violations of Colorado Revised Statutes Title 24, Article 31, Part 9 and make referrals of felony matters to the Denver District Attorney or Colorado Attorney General, regardless of whether a parallel federal investigation occurs.
47 of 91
8.4 The Safety Agencies shall work with the City’s Marketing and Communications Department, to the extent allowed by law, to publicly share aggregated data regarding reported incidents of suspected unlawful conduct by civil immigration enforcement personnel. The reports shall be made to the City Attorney, Mayor and City Council no less than quarterly.
9.0 DISCLOSURES BY CITY CONTRACTORS
9.1 The City Attorney’s Office shall work with the relevant agencies to prepare an ordinance to present to City Council that requires all bidders on City contracts to disclose in writing any agreement the contractor has with the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), including specificity as to the federal agency within the department, the nature of work, and the terms of compensation. The ordinance shall require bidders to disclose all thirdparty data sharing. These requirements shall be incorporated into all new or amended contracts.
10.0 DATA PROTECTION
10.1 No City agency shall share its databases or technology use agreements with DHS or its immigration enforcement partners without a subpoena, judicial warrant, court order, or except as required by law.
11.0 SCOPE
11.1 Nothing in this Executive Order shall be construed or applied to restrict or interfere with the execution of court orders, judicial warrants, or the enforcement of criminal law, nor as limiting the rights of any person or entity under local, state or federal law. Consistent with local, state and federal law, nothing in this Executive Order shall be interpreted to require or permit obstruction of federal immigration enforcement, or to violate the U.S.
Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, Intergovernmental Immunity, or other applicable federal laws.
48 of 91
EXECUTIVE ORDER 152 IS APPROVED:
Approved:
__________________________________
Michiko (Miko) Ando Brown
Acting City Attorney
________________________________
Michael Johnston
Mayor
__________________________________
Karin McGowen
Executive Director
Department of Public Health and Environment
__________________________________
Adrina Gibson
Executive Director
General Services
__________________________________
Jolon Clark
Executive Director
Department of Parks and Recreation
__________________________________
Amy Ford
Executive Director
Department of Transportation and Infrastructure
__________________________________
Nicole Doheny
Chief Financial Officer
Department of Finance
________________________________
Phillip A Washington
Chief Executive Officer
Denver International Airport
__________________________________
Brad Buchanan
Director
Community Planning and Development
49 of 91
6 ____________________________________
Al Gardner
Executive Director
Public Safety
_____________________________________
Anne-Marie Braga
Executive Director
Denver Human Services
_____________________________________
Perla Gheiler
Executive Director
Agency of Human Rights and Community
Partnerships
50 of 91
51 of 91
52 of 91
53 of 91
54 of 91
55 of 91
RESOLUTION NO. RES -2017- 017
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA TO DECLARE
ITSELF AN INDIVISIBLE CITY AND SAFEGUARD THE CIVIL RIGHTS, SAFETY AND
DIGNITY OF ALL SANTA ROSA RESIDENTS
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Rosa is made up of diverse individuals, both native born and immigrants, whose collective cultures, religions, backgrounds, orientations, abilities and viewpoints join to form a highly pluralistic community that prides itself on being a place that welcomes persons and families of all walks of life; and WHEREAS, since the presidential election, there has been a sense of uncertainty and fear among many communities in Santa Rosa, across our State and across the Nation; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Rosa assures its vulnerable communities that the City supports them, will do all it can to maintain and improve their quality of life, and will not tolerate acts of hate, discrimination, bullying, or harassment; and
WHEREAS, the Santa Rosa City Council wishes to declare that Santa Rosa is a safe place for everyone, including, but not limited to, immigrants from all countries, people of color, people of all religions, gender identity, sexual orientation, people with disabilities and all vulnerable communities; and
WHEREAS, it is the City Council' s desire to ensure that its immigrant residents participate in civic life and daily activities without fear of being arrested or detained by, or reported to the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency based solely on immigration status; and
WHEREAS, many children who are native to the United States or are undocumented immigrants have been separated from their families by the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency solely due to their parents' or their personal immigration status; and WHEREAS, the enforcement of civil immigration laws by local police agencies raises many complex legal, logistical and resource issues for the City, including undermining the trust and cooperation with immigrant communities, increasing the risk of civil liability due to the complexity of civil immigration laws and the lack oftraining and expertise of local police on civil immigration enforcement and detracting from the core mission ofthe Santa Rosa Police Department to create safe communities; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is greatly concerned about public safety in Santa Rosa and the mission of the Santa Rosa Police Department is to protect the safety of the public against crimes committed by persons whoever they may be; and
WHEREAS, most residents in the City, including the vast majority of immigrants, are lawabiding citizens and are, when crimes occur, themselves the victims of crime, and because the City wishes to foster trust and cooperation as between the City, its police department, and its immigrant communities, and wishes to encourage immigrants to report crime and speak to the police without fear of being arrested or detained by, or reported to the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency; and
Reso. No. RES -2017-017
WHEREAS, consistent with the law and with Council policy, the Santa Rosa Police Department already declines to enforce federal civil immigration laws, does not conduct immigration raids, and does not question, detain or arrest individuals on the basis that they might be in this country illegally in violation of Federal civil immigration laws.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Santa Rosa as follows:
SECTION 1. That the Santa Rosa City Council calls upon all City residents and all City Departments and employees to speak out against acts of bullying, discrimination and hate violence and to stand up for those who are targeted for such acts.
SECTION 2. That the Santa Rosa City Council opposes deportations based solely on immigration status which split up families, and calls upon the federal government to promptly legislate a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, and to refrain from deportations of immigrants who have not been convicted of felonies endangering the community, until such time as the U.S. Congress does legislate such a pathway.
SECTION 3. That City employees, including members of the Santa Rosa Police Department, shall not enforce Federal civil immigration laws and shall not use city monies, resources or personnel to investigate, question, detect, detain or apprehend persons solely on the basis of a possible violation of immigration law.
SECTION 4. That the Santa Rosa City Council calls upon the County of Sonoma and all incorporated cities within the County of Sonoma to adopt the foregoing policies, and we welcome opportunities to partner with the Legislature, other jurisdictions, local organizations, and businesses that support and defend these populations.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall attest and certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and it shall become effective immediately upon its approval.
IN COUNCIL DULY PASSED this 7th day of February, 2017.
AYES: ( 7) Mayor Coursey, Vice Mayor Tibbetts, Council Members Combs, Olivares Rogers, Sawyer, Schwedhelm
NOES: ( 0)
ABSTAIN: ( 0)
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
0)
APPROVE
Reso. No. RES -2017- 017
Resolution/Council Policy 056 Page 1 of 2
Rev: 01/30/2026
RESOLUTION NO. 26-9533
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA,
ADOPTING COUNCIL POLICY 056 PROHIBITING USE OF CITY
PROPERTIES FOR CIVIL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
PURPOSES AND RELATED POLICIES TO PROVIDE
RESOURCES FOR CITY PROPERTY OWNERS, BUSINESSES
AND RESIDENTS
WHEREAS, a draft of Council Policy 056, “Prohibiting Use of City Properties for Civil Immigration Enforcement Purposes and Related Policies to Provide Resources for City Property Owners, Businesses and Residents” (“Draft Policy”) was presented to the City Council for their consideration on February 3, 2026;
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Draft Policy, heard public comment, and provided direction to staff regarding any requested modifications; WHEREAS, in their consideration of the Draft Policy the City Council (1) acknowledged the extraordinary contributions made by the City’s many immigrant communities to the cultural, social, and economic fabric of the City; (2) affirmed the City’s desire to renew its commitment to preserve the security and well-being of all its residents and visitors, regardless of national origin or legal status; (3) acknowledged the fact that the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws is, and ought to remain, a federal governmental function, not a local governmental function; (4) affirmed the City’s determination that the use of City property to facilitate immigration enforcement is inconsistent with the City’s role and function and, further, would interfere with the City’s authority over and use of its own property for City purposes; and (5) acknowledged events in other parts of the country and state where state and local agency owned or controlled facilities have been commandeered for civil immigration enforcement without local authorization; and WHEREAS, consistent with these considerations, the purpose of the Draft Policy was stated to be prohibiting the use of City properties for civil immigration enforcement purposes, and providing resources and support for City property owners, businesses and residents with concerns regarding immigration enforcement.
58 of 91
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:
1. Council Policy 056, entitled "Prohibiting Use of City Properties for Civil Immigration Enforcement Purposes and Related Policies to Provide Resources for City Property Owners, Businesses and Residents" ("Policy") attached hereto as Attachment One, is hereby approved and adopted.
2. Staff is directed to take such other actions as are necessary to implement the Policy immediately.
3. Staff shall return to Council with a report presented at a public meeting with (1) a summary of lessons learned from Super Bowl Operations to inform preparation for the upcoming FIFA World Cup, understanding the need for confidentiality on certain security related matters, (2) information regarding data sharing policies, and (3) opportunities for updates or refinements to the approved Policy.
4. Effective date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED
AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A SPECIAL MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 3R□ DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: COUNCILORS:
NOES: COUNCILORS:
ABSENT: COUNCILORS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:
Attachments incorporated by reference:
Chahal, Cox, Gonzalez, Hardy, Jain, and Park, and
Mayor Gillmor
None
None
None
ATTEST: /4 -------------- ~ r NO IMENTEL, MMC
AS ISTANT CITY CLERK
CITY OF SANTA CLARA
1. Council Policy 056 entitled "Prohibiting Use of City Properties for Civil Immigration Enforcement Purposes and Related Policies to Provide Resources for City Property Owners, Businesses and Residents" Resolution/Council Policy 056
Rev: 01/30/2026
59 of 91
City of Santa Clara
Council Policy Manual
Adopted February 3, 2026 Council Policy 056 Page 1 of 4 Resolution No. 26-9533
PROHIBITING USE OF CITY PROPERTIES FOR CIVIL IMMIGRATION
ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES AND
RELATED POLICIES TO PROVIDE RESOURCES FOR CITY PROPERTY
OWNERS, BUSINESSES AND RESIDENTS
PURPOSE In consideration of (1) the extraordinary contributions made by the City’s many immigrant communities to the cultural, social, and economic fabric of the City; (2) the City’s desire to renew its commitment to preserve the security and well-being of all its residents and visitors, regardless of national origin or legal status; (3) the fact that the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws is, and ought to remain, a federal governmental function, not a local governmental function; (4) the City’s determination that the use of City property to facilitate immigration enforcement is inconsistent with the City’s role and function and, further, would interfere with the City’s authority over and use of its own property for City purposes; and (5) events in other parts of the country and state where state and local agency owned or controlled facilities have been commandeered for civil immigration enforcement without local authorization, on February 3, 2026 the City Council took action to approve this City Council Policy 056 (“Policy”) for the purpose of prohibiting the use of City properties for civil immigration enforcement purposes on the terms and conditions set forth herein, and providing resources and support for City property owners, businesses and residents with concerns regarding immigration enforcement.
POLICY A. Prohibition on Use of City Parking Lots, Garages, Open Space or Other Facilities
No City-owned or City-controlled parking lot, garage, open space, or other facility shall be used as a “Staging Area,” “Processing Location,” or “Operations Base” (as defined below) for civil immigration enforcement purposes. For purposes of this Policy:
“Staging Area” means an area that is used to assemble, mobilize, and deploy vehicles, equipment, or materials, and related personnel, for the purpose of carrying out civil immigration enforcement operations.
“Processing Location” means an area that is used for activities such as the identification, intake, processing of documentation, 60 of 91
City of Santa Clara
Council Policy Manual
Adopted February 3, 2026 Council Policy 056 Page 2 of 4 Resolution No. 26-9533
detention, arrest, or temporary holding of individuals in connection with civil immigration enforcement operations.
“Operation Base” means an area that is used to plan, coordinate and execute civil immigration enforcement activities.
B. Implementation and Enforcement
In order to implement this Policy the City Manager shall take all necessary and appropriate steps to:
(1) Identify City-owned or City-controlled parking lots, garages, open spaces, and other City-owned or controlled facility areas that are likely to be used as a Staging Area, Processing Location, or Operations Base for the purpose of civil
immigration enforcement.
(2) Post on such properties clear signage stating substantially the following:
This property is owned or controlled by the City of Santa Clara.
It may only be used for City purposes, or private uses
authorized by the City, and may not be used for civil
immigration enforcement Staging Areas, Processing Locations, or Operations Bases.
(3) Ensure that, wherever necessary and appropriate, physical barriers such as locked gates are used to limit access to Cityowned or City-controlled parking lots, garages, open space, or other City facility identified areas governed by this Policy. (4) Provide training and a procedure for City employees who become aware of the attempted or actual use of a City-owned or Citycontrolled parking lot, garage, open space or other facility areas as a Staging Area, Processing Location, or Operation Base for civil immigration enforcement to immediately report such activity to their supervisor, who will communicate with the offices of the City Manager and City Attorney.
C. Limitations on Scope
1. Existing Agreements. Except as expressly provided in Section D, below, this Policy does not apply to property that is subject to an existing lease, license, operator agreement, or other contractual restriction (“Existing Contract”) to which the City or the Santa Clara Stadium Authority (“Stadium Authority”) is a 61 of 91
City of Santa Clara
Council Policy Manual
Adopted February 3, 2026 Council Policy 056 Page 3 of 4 Resolution No. 26-9533
party. This policy is not intended to, and shall not be interpreted to, impair or interfere with the terms of any such Existing Contract.
2. Criminal Law Enforcement. Nothing in this policy shall be construed as restricting or interfering with the execution of lawful judicial warrants or the enforcement of criminal law by any federal, state or local law enforcement agency.
3. Other Rights Under State or Federal Law. Nothing in this Policy shall be construed as limiting the rights of any person or entity under state or federal law.
4. Other Lawful Uses. This Policy does not prohibit the lawful use of City-owned and controlled property for purposes other than the civil immigration enforcement activities expressly prohibited hereunder, nor does it restrict any person or entity, including, without limitation, federal law enforcement agencies, from carrying out functions unrelated to those purposes on such property.
D. Properties Subject to Existing City or Stadium Authority Agreements and Future Agreements
1. Existing Contracts. City staff assigned to administer and support the Existing Contracts for the operation of the Stadium Authority owned Stadium, and ancillary facilities that support Stadium operations (collectively, “Stadium Facilities”), shall meet and confer with the parties to such contracts in order to develop mutually agreeable mechanisms that, to the extent possible, implement the terms of this Policy at Stadium Facilities. This shall be done in a manner that recognizes and maintains the strong working relationships and close coordination with all federal, state and local law enforcement agencies that is necessary and integral to assuring the security and safety of all Stadium event participants, workers, attendees, businesses, neighborhoods and others engaged in lawful activities at and around the Stadium during major events. For all other City-owned and controlled properties subject to Existing Contracts that may foreseeably be used for the civil immigration enforcement activities prohibited under the terms of this Policy, the City Manager shall provide notice to the parties under contract for such properties of the existence of this Policy and shall request their concurrence with the terms of this Policy.
2. Future Agreements. Wherever possible, and allowed by law, the City Manager shall direct that the use limitations set forth in this 62 of 91
City of Santa Clara
Council Policy Manual
Adopted February 3, 2026 Council Policy 056 Page 4 of 4 Resolution No. 26-9533
Policy be included in all future leases, licenses, operator agreements, or other contractual restrictions relating to City owned or controlled properties.
E. Support for Private Property Owners, Businesses and
Residents
1. Signage. The City shall provide electronic copy of
standardized signage that private landowners and
leaseholders could print and display to delineate the nonpublic areas of the property in which they wish to restrict activities related to civil immigration enforcement. The signage template shall be made available free of charge to private landowners and leaseholders, including but not limited to businesses, medical providers, nonprofit organizations, and faith institutions, who voluntarily decide to designate their property consistent with their authority over the property and who voluntarily request such signage from the City.
Landowners and leaseholders that post this signage do so at their own discretion and assume all legal risk in connection with such posting(s).
2. Know Your Rights Materials. The City shall make available to the public “know your rights” materials regarding federal immigration enforcement activities consistent with California law and California Attorney General guidance.
F. Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Policy or its application is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Policy. To this end, the provisions of this Policy, and each of them, are severable.
63 of 91
Resolution No. 2025-XXX N.C.S. Page 1 of 4
Resolution No. 2025-XXX N.C.S.
of the City of Petaluma, California
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA REAFFIRMING THE CITY’S COMMITMENT TO IMMIGRANTS, INCLUSIVITY, AND COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA LAW, INCLUDING SENATE BILL 54
WHEREAS, all City of Petaluma immigrant residents, whether they are U.S. citizens, permanent residents, undocumented residents, refugees, or residents with any other immigration status, are valued and integral members of our social, cultural, and economic fabric; and WHEREAS, immigrants, documented and undocumented, contribute to the prosperity, vitality, and diversity of Petaluma through their work, volunteerism, and cultural contributions; and WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma values the safety and well-being of all its community members and is committed to fostering an inclusive and welcoming environment where every person is treated with dignity and respect; and
WHEREAS, many immigrants in the City of Petaluma have worked the front lines during the global pandemic and wildfires of recent years and are considered essential workers; and deserve to work with dignity and free from exploitation; and
WHEREAS, many immigrants have created deep ties in the City of Petaluma, which they have cultivated for themselves, their families, and their communities; and WHEREAS, on February 27, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2017-032 N.C.S., titled “Resolution in Support of the Protection of the Human, Constitutional, and Other Rights of Community Members of the City of Petaluma”; and
WHEREAS, on April 5, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2021-040 N.C.S., titled “Resolution in Support of Solidarity with the Asian American Pacific Islander Communities and Denouncing Anti-Asian Racism, Discrimination, Intimidation, Threats and Violence”; and WHEREAS, on October 16, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023-163 N.C.S., titled “Resolution Supporting Human Rights of All Petalumans and Condemning Hate Speech, Racism, and Acts of Extremism”;
64 of 91
Resolution No. 2025-XXX N.C.S. Page 2 of 4
WHEREAS, on January 21, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a memorandum threatening legal action against jurisdictions like Petaluma for allegedly not cooperating with federal immigration enforcement; and
WHEREAS, the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Printz v. United States (1997), protects local jurisdictions, such as the City of Petaluma, from being compelled to enforce federal regulatory programs, including federal immigration laws, under the "anticommandeering" doctrine.
WHEREAS, California Senate Bill 54 (SB 54), enacted in 2017 also known as the California Values Act, prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies from using their resources to assist federal immigration enforcement efforts, except as specifically authorized under federal or state law, to promote trust between immigrant communities and local government; and WHEREAS, the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as upheld by the Ninth Circuit in United States v. California, 921 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 2019), affirms that states, such as California, have the sovereign right to decide whether to participate in federal enforcement efforts, rejecting the Trump administration’s 2018 challenge to SB 54 and reinforcing the constitutional principle of the anti-commandeering doctrine; and
WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma recognizes the importance of aligning its policies with the law while upholding its values of inclusivity, respect, and support for immigrant communities; and WHEREAS, the Petaluma Council wishes to declare that the City of Petaluma is a safe place for everyone, including, but not limited to, immigrants from all countries, people of color, people of all religions, gender identity, sexual orientation, people with disabilities and all vulnerable communities; and
WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma seeks to reaffirm its commitment to being a community that values all community members, regardless of immigration status, and acknowledges that this inclusivity strengthens Petaluma as a whole.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Petaluma as follows:
1. Reaffirms Resolution No. 2017-032 N.C.S.: The provisions of Resolution No. 2017-032 N.C.S., titled “Resolution in Support of the Protection of the Human, Constitutional, and Other Rights of Community Members of the City of Petaluma,” are hereby reaffirmed and fully incorporated into this Resolution. 65 of 91
Resolution No. 2025-XXX N.C.S. Page 2 of 4
66 of 91
Resolution No. 2025-XXX N.C.S. Page 3 of 4
2. Reaffirms Resolution No. 2021-040 N.C.S.: The provisions of Resolution No. 2021-040 N.C.S., titled “Resolution in Support of Solidarity with the Asian American Pacific Islander Communities and Denouncing Anti-Asian Racism, Discrimination, Intimidation, Threats, and Violence,” are hereby reaffirmed and fully incorporated into this Resolution.
3. Reaffirms Resolution No. 2023-163 N.C.S.: The provisions of Resolution No. 2023-163 N.C.S., titled “Resolution Supporting Human Rights of all Petalumans and Condemning Hate Speech, Racism, and Acts of Extremism,” are hereby reaffirmed and fully incorporated into this Resolution.
4. Inclusivity Commitment: The City of Petaluma reaffirms its commitment to ensuring all community members feel safe, included, and respected, regardless of immigration status, and recognizes that immigrants play a vital role in the City’s success and character.
5. Support for SB 54 Compliance: The City affirms its commitment to complying with California Senate Bill 54 and other applicable state laws that ensure local resources are used to promote community trust and safety while protecting immigrant communities.
6. Opposition to Threats Against Local Autonomy: The City condemns any baseless threats or attempts by federal agencies to coerce or intimidate local jurisdictions into acting against their legal obligations and values, including those enshrined in SB 54.
7. Promotion of Community Trust: The City will continue to support policies and practices that strengthen trust and cooperation between local government, law enforcement, and immigrant communities to promote public safety and well-being.
8. Recognition of Immigrant Contributions: The City recognizes and celebrates the many contributions of immigrants to Petaluma, including their work in vital industries, their cultural and civic contributions, and their role in building a stronger and more vibrant community.
9. Commitment to Compliance with Law: The City reaffirms its dedication to upholding both state and federal laws while protecting the rights and dignity of all its community members. The City’s policies will reflect a balanced approach that promotes inclusion and community trust in accordance with legal requirements.
Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City.
REFERENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the Council of the City of Petaluma at a Regular meeting on the 3rd day of February 2025, by the following vote:
Approved as to
form:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
City Attorney
67 of 91
Resolution No. 2025-XXX N.C.S. Page 4 of 4
68 of 91
Resolution No. 2025-XXX N.C.S. Page 4 of 4
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
69 of 91
Ord. No. __________
ORDINANCE NO. __________
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA ADDING CHAPTER 13-40 TO THE SANTA ROSA CITY CODE TO (1) ESTABLISH THAT CIVIL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT IS NOT A CITY PURPOSE; AND (2) PROHIBIT USE
OF CITY PROPERTY THAT WOULD DISRUPT CITY OPERATIONS OR DISCOURAGE
ACCESS TO CITY SERVICES, UNLESS THE USE FURTHERS A CITY PURPOSE OR IS
TRADITIONALLY AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC WITHOUT CITY AUTHORIZATION THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. The City’s mission is: “To provide high-quality public services and cultivate a vibrant, resilient and livable city.” The City values excellence, innovation, teamwork, integrity, inclusiveness, and transparency.
To further its mission and values, the City Council has set the following strategic priorities: (1) fiscal sustainability and budgeting excellence; (2) development and maintenance of City infrastructure; (3) Citywide economic development; (4) fostering a safe, healthy, and inclusive community; and (5) housing for all and homelessness reduction. The City invests in and maintains substantial resources, including real and personal property, to support and administer public programs in furtherance of these strategic priorities and other essential municipal services. City facilities are critical access points relied upon by all residents and visitors, and preserving their safety, accessibility, and operational continuity, is a matter of practical necessity and fiscal responsibility.
Existing City policy and state law prohibit City officials from using City resources to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws, except in narrowly defined circumstances.
In 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 2017-017 declaring Santa Rosa an indivisible city committed to safeguarding the civil rights, safety, and dignity of all Santa Rosa residents, and acknowledging that Santa Rosa is a community of diverse individuals that prides itself on being a place that welcomes persons and families from all cultures, religions, backgrounds, orientations, abilities, and viewpoints.
Enforcement of immigration laws by local police is against City policy as it raises complex legal, logistical, and resource issues for the City, including undermining immigrant communities’ trust in and cooperation with the City and detracting from the Santa Rosa Police Department’s core mission of creating a safe and livable community for all.
To protect public safety, the City strives to foster trust and cooperation between the City, including its police department, and its immigrant communities, by encouraging immigrants to report crime and speak to the police without fear of being arrested or detained by, or reported to, federal immigration authorities. If the City were to assist with the enforcement of federal immigration laws, including permitting the use of City property to assist in that enforcement, it would unquestionably discourage that critical cooperation and involvement. In short, public safety will be undermined if federal officers are using City property to assist with immigration enforcement.
70 of 91
Ord. No. __________
As other jurisdictions have noted, substantial evidence from major cities across the country demonstrates that recent surges in immigration enforcement activity discourage participation in the affairs of those cities, which disrupts municipal operations, creates public health and safety risks, and depresses commercial activity. National surveys conducted by the Urban Institute found that roughly one in six adults in immigrant families avoided public programs or facilities because of immigration-related fears.
Los Angeles County’s main hospital reported that even threats of enforcement activity near the hospital discouraged access and thereby jeopardized community health. In Chicago, federal activity near public school facilities prompted school lockdowns and the suspension of after-school activities, as families reported fear and confusion about the presence of federal agents on or near school campuses.
The Economic Policy Institute recently reported that intensified immigration enforcement increases workplace disruptions, employee turnover, and uncertainty for employers, with adverse spillover effects on local economies that depend on a stable workforce and consumer spending.
In Washington, D.C., officials observed that workers in neighborhoods impacted by increased immigration enforcement stopped reporting to job sites, adversely affecting the hospitality industry, tourism, and construction. These burdens translate into lost productivity for workers and businesses, and fiscal strain for local jurisdictions like Santa Rosa that depend heavily on revenue from sales tax, business license tax, and transient occupancy tax to support municipal functions.
News reports from Chicago’s Little Village and Back of the Yards neighborhoods have documented merchants locking their doors and shortening their hours during enforcement sweeps, leading to losses in sales, local tax receipts, and neighborhood vitality. In Los Angeles County, federal immigration actions destabilized businesses and disrupted county service delivery, leading the Board of Supervisors to declare a Local Emergency and to allocate resources to restore community access and economic stability.
The ordinance is not intended to and does not interfere with or obstruct lawful immigration enforcement. This ordinance does not change existing requirements for permitting or licensing of City property. The purpose of this ordinance is to preserve City resources for programs and services that further the City’s mission and to ensure that the use of City property does not undermine that mission by discouraging residents’ participation in the City’s affairs.
Section 2. Title 13 of the Santa Rosa City Code is amended to add Chater 13-40 to read as follows:
“Chapter 13-40 USE OF CITY PROPERTY.
(a) No person or entity may use City property unless the use advances or promotes public programs or other purposes authorized by the City and the City has authorized the use. 71 of 91
Ord. No. __________
For purposes of this Chapter, City property means real property or personal property belonging to, or subject to the control of, the City or any of its departments, boards, or commissions. (b) No City official, employee, department, board, commission, or other authority shall authorize the use of City property if the use will disrupt City operations or discourage access to City services, unless the use furthers a City purpose. (c) The use of City property to assist in the enforcement of Federal civil immigration law is not a City purpose.
(d) The use of City property shall mean the right to occupy or use the property, to the exclusion of others, and shall include but not be limited to a license, permit to enter, use permit, or other similar instrument. It shall not mean non-exclusive access or use of City property traditionally open and available to the public where that access or use is on the same terms as members of the public and does not disrupt City operations. (e) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to interfere with or inhibit any exercise of the constitutionally protected rights of freedom of speech or assembly or to prevent the use of, or access to, City property as required by law.
(f) The City Attorney is authorized to bring a cause of action for injunctive or other civil relief against any person or entity that violates this Chapter by using City property for an unlawful or unauthorized purpose.”
Section 3. No Conflict with Federal or State Law. Nothing in this ordinance shall be interpreted or applied to create any requirement, power, or duty in conflict with any federal or state law.
Section 4. No Conflict with Existing Property Interest or Agreements. Nothing in this ordinance shall be interpreted or applied to affect or interfere with any property interest or agreement, including but not limited to amendments to those agreements, deeds, easements, leases, licenses, or permits, to occupy or use City real or personal property that is entered into or effective before the effective date of this ordinance.
Section 5. Scope of Ordinance. In enacting this ordinance, the City Council intends to amend only those words, phrases, paragraphs, subsections, sections, articles, numbers, punctuation marks, charts, diagrams, or any other constituent parts of the City Code that are explicitly shown in this ordinance.
Section 6. Undertaking for the General Welfare. In enacting and implementing this ordinance, the City is assuming an undertaking only to promote the general welfare. The City is not assuming, nor is it imposing on its officers and employees, an obligation for breach of which it is liable in money damages to any person who claims that such breach proximately caused injury.
72 of 91
Ord. No. __________
Section 7. Environmental Determination. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378, the recommended action is not a “project” subject to the California Environmental Quality Act because it does not have a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
Additionally, the Council finds that the adoption and implementation of this ordinance are exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act under section 15061(b)3 in that the Council finds there is no possibility that the implantation of this ordinance may have significant effects on the environment.
Section 8. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid and/or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 9. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect on the 31st day following its adoption.
This ordinance was introduced by the Council of the City of Santa Rosa on March 24, 2026.
IN COUNCIL DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of ___________, 2026.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RECUSE:
ATTEST: _________________________ APPROVED: ______________________________ City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________
City Attorney
73 of 91
Reso. No. __________
RESOLUTION NO. ____________
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA URGING THE
UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO ENACT LEGISLATION ADDRESSING THE
TRAINING, CONDUCT, TRANSPARENCY, AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF FEDERAL
IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT AGENTS OPERATING WITHIN LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Rosa is committed to protecting the civil liberties and personal safety of all individuals within its jurisdiction, regardless of immigration status; and WHEREAS, public trust in law enforcement is essential to effective community safety, and that trust depends upon training, transparency, professionalism, accountability, and clear identification of law enforcement officers; and
WHEREAS recent immigration enforcement efforts by federal law enforcement agents have eroded public trust in law enforcement officers which can lead to victims of violent crimes being fearful and reluctant to seek help and report crimes to our local police organizations, and this erosion of trust increases victimization of some of the most vulnerable members of our community; and
WHEREAS, federal immigration enforcement actions conducted without clear identification of officers, adequate training, transparency, or accountability undermine public confidence, create fear in communities, and may impede cooperation with local law enforcement agencies; and
WHEREAS, local law enforcement agencies in California are subject to rigorous training standards, oversight, use-of-force policies, accountability mechanisms, and transparency requirements, including those established by the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST); and
WHEREAS, incidents involving significant injuries, and in some cases, in-custody deaths, or officer-involved shootings require independent and transparent investigations to maintain public trust and ensure accountability; and
WHEREAS, the use of body worn cameras by law enforcement has been demonstrated to improve accountability, protect both officers and the public, and provide objective documentation of encounters; and
WHEREAS, anonymous or masked enforcement actions and the use of misleading identifiers such as the word “Police” on uniforms by federal immigration agents may cause confusion, misrepresentation of authority, and heightened community fear; and WHEREAS, California Senate Bill 627 reflects a strong public policy interest in prohibiting law enforcement officers from concealing their identities while performing official duties; and
74 of 91
Reso. No. __________
WHEREAS, coordination and notification between federal and local law enforcement agencies is essential to ensure officer safety, prevent operational conflicts, and adherence to local laws, ordinances and local authority; and
WHEREAS, constitutional accountability under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 is a foundational civil rights safeguard that allows individuals to seek civil redress for violations of their federal constitutional rights by government actors acting under color of law; and WHEREAS, immigration enforcement actions focused on broad, warrantless sweeps or “snatch and grab” operations raise significant constitutional and civil liberties concerns; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Rosa urges reforms focused on the professionalism, conduct, training, and accountability of lawful federal immigration enforcement operations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Santa Rosa respectfully urges the United States Congress to enact legislation that includes, at a minimum, the following requirements for federal immigration enforcement agencies and agents:
1. Clear and Accurate Identification – Require federal immigration enforcement agents to remove the word “Police” from uniforms and insignia, and to instead clearly and consistently identity themselves using accurate agency identifiers such as “ICE” or “ERO.”
2. Independent Investigations – Authorize and allow local or state law enforcement agencies to conduct independent investigations into all in-custody injuries or deaths and all shooting incidents involving federal immigration enforcement agents operating within their jurisdiction.
3. Prohibition on Face Coverings – Prohibit federal immigration enforcement agents from wearing face masks or other coverings that conceal their identity while performing official duties, consistent with the principles and standards set forth in California Senate Bill 627.
4. Body-Worn Cameras – Require federal immigration enforcement agents to be equipped with, be trained in, and properly use body-worn cameras during all street level interactions, consistent with standards applicable to local law enforcement agencies, to ensure transparency and accountability.
5. Minimum Training Standards – Require federal immigration enforcement agents to complete, at a minimum, training equivalent to a basic POST certified law enforcement academy, including instruction in use of force, deescalation techniques, implicit bias, and cultural competency and sensitivity training, consistent with standards imposed on local law enforcement agencies.
6. Civil Rights Accountability – Amend federal law to explicitly hold federal immigration enforcement agents accountable under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, allowing individuals to bring civil actions in federal court for violations of federal constitutional rights committed by federal agents acting under color of law.
7. Local Notification – Require federal immigration enforcement agencies to notify local law enforcement agencies in advance of any planned immigration enforcement 75 of 91
Reso. No. __________
activity within the jurisdiction, to operate under the same legal standards applicable to local law enforcement when conducting such enforcement.
8. Lawful Warrant Based Enforcement – Require federal immigration enforcement agents to conduct only warrant based actions associated with specific federal criminal violations, and prohibit broad, warrantless immigration sweep operations.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Santa Rosa calls upon other local governments to join in advocating for these reforms to promote transparency, accountability, and public trust in all law enforcement activities.
IN COUNCIL DULY PASSED this _____ day of _________________, 2026.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RECUSE:
ATTEST: _________________________ APPROVED: ______________________________ City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________
City Attorney
76 of 91
County of Sonoma
State of California
Date: January 10, 2025
Item Number: 2
Resolution Number:25-0015
☐ 4/5 Vote Required
Resolution Of The Board Of Supervisors Of The County Of Sonoma, State Of California,
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO UPHOLD THE CIVIL RIGHTS , DIGNITY, HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OUR IMMIGRANT POPULATION
AND ALL SONOMA COUNTY RESIDENTS
WHEREAS, Sonoma County is home to persons of diverse racial, ethnic, and national backgrounds, including a large immigrant population as noted in the Portrait of Sonoma County; and
WHEREAS, all County immigrant residents, whether they are U.S. citizens, permanent residents, undocumented residents, refugees, or residents with any other immigration status, are valued and integral members of our social, cultural, and economic fabric; and WHEREAS, the national rhetoric regarding immigration during and since the 2024 National Presidential Election has resulted in concerns and uncertainty among many, including but not limited to immigrants, vulnerable residents, and families in our community, across our State, and across our nation; and
WHEREAS, the County endeavors to safeguard public health and safety, which relies on trust and cooperation between all residents and local law enforcement; and to strengthen communities and foster trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement, the County has enacted various laws and policies; and
WHEREAS, in 2017 the Board of Supervisors adopted the Resolution Affirming the County’s Commitment To Diversity And To Safeguarding The Civil Rights, Safety And Dignity Of All Our Residents; and
77 of 91
Resolution #25-0015
Date: January 10, 2025
WHEREAS, in 2017, The Board authorized the extension of the Unaccompanied Child Deportation Defense Program (commenced September 23, 2014); approved the Sonoma County Immigration Initiative proposal; adopted the Resolution to Protect and Support Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program (DACA); and authorized the County Counsel to execute a Funding Agreement and serve on an Advisory Committee with the Community Foundation Sonoma County to create the Sonoma County Secure Families Fund; and WHEREAS, the Board has approved funding to support a rapid response network, approved funding for removal defense services through the Public Defender’s Office and funded local non-profit legal service organizations to assist in representing Sonoma County residents in removal defense since 2018; and
WHEREAS, the statewide TRUST Act (AB 4) California Trust Act limits the circumstances under which local law enforcement can detain individuals on behalf of federal immigration authorities; and
WHEREAS, the statewide TRUTH Act (AB 2792) California Truth Act ensures transparency and oversight regarding local law enforcement’s communication with federal immigration authorities; and
WHEREAS, the statewide VALUES Act (SB 54) California Values Act limits the circumstances under which local law enforcement may use funds or personnel to support immigration enforcement. It also prevents police and sheriff’s deputies from asking about an individual’s immigration status, from sharing a person’s personal information with immigration authorities, unless otherwise required or permitted by law, or from arresting anyone only for having a deportation removal order or for most other immigration violations; and WHEREAS, the California Education Code (link) prohibits schools from adopting policies or practices and discriminate against or hinder access to school services based on immigration status, and restricts schools from collecting or sharing information about immigration status; and
WHEREAS, these laws have been enacted statewide as a deliberate declaration that California recognizes and values the contributions of immigrants in our communities. And while we acknowledge the federal government’s extensive legislation related to immigration regulation and enforcement, through these Acts we decline to participate in federal efforts to enforce such federal laws in our communities; and
78 of 91
Resolution #25-0015
Date: January 10, 2025
WHEREAS, in a letter to the community in November 2024, the Sonoma County Law Enforcement Chiefs Association reaffirmed local police and sheriff’s commitment to the abovementioned state laws, and acknowledged that “participating in federal immigration enforcement undermines the trust and cooperation necessary for effecting policing” in our community; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors wants all residents of Sonoma County to know that interacting with local government, whether to access benefits, report a crime, file a legal document or any of the countless other ways a resident and government come together, should not put any resident at risk, regardless of immigration status. To that end, the Board directs all department staff, to the extent possible under law, to closely protect the personal information of clients, whether that information is collected at birth, marriage, or death, through the application of benefits for health, housing, or human services, through the county’s Ag Pass program, or other situations in which sensitive information is stored; and WHEREAS, in the interest of fostering inclusion for all residents of Sonoma County and our entire nation, the Board urges Congress to promptly legislate a pathway to Citizenship for undocumented immigrants, and to refrain from talk or action leading to mass or indiscriminate removals.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma does determine and declare as follows:
Unless required by state or federal law all County of Sonoma (“County”) departments, agencies, commissions, officers, agents, representatives, and employees are prohibited from using County resources, property, personnel, time, labor, or funds to:
(A) Investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons only for immigration enforcement purposes, (as defined in California Government Code § 7284.4(i)); or (B) Communicate with ICE regarding an individual’s immigration status (as defined in California Government Code § 7284.4(i)), except as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1373 or other federal law.
Be it further resolved, that the County has created a centralized webpage of information, including but not limited to the existing legislative measures in place applicable in Sonoma County protecting individuals against the cooperation between state and local government officials and ICE, resources for immigrant communities including legal resources, the Secure Families Collaborative, and the Public Defender’s office. 79 of 91 Resolution #25-0015
Date: January 10, 2025
Be it further resolved, that County staff shall develop protocols and procedures to make training for staff on how to address ICE agents regarding the sharing of information and the prohibitions of it.
Be it further resolved, that the Board directs county staff to place disclosures regarding the use of program participants’ personal information in office lobbies and County-sponsored community facing webpages.
Be it further resolved, that the County department leadership will provide for trainings as relevant and necessary to county staff regarding existing legislative measures, TraumaInformed Care, Adverse Childhood Experiences, Cultural Proficiency, Unconscious Bias, Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging, and the values of a multicultural society.
Be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors reaffirms its commitment to safeguarding the civil rights of all our residents to the fullest extent provided by the law.
Supervisors:
Hermosillo: Aye Rabbitt: Absent Coursey: Aye Gore: Aye Hopkins: Aye Ayes: 4 Noes: 0 Absent: 1 Abstain: 0
So Ordered.
80 of 91
Sonoma County Law Enforcement
Chiefs Association
Chief John Cregan Chief Brandon Cutting Sheriff Eddie Engram Chief Gregory Piccinini President Vice-President Secretary Treasurer
As law enforcement leaders in Sonoma County, we want to provide clarity and assurance regarding our role and actions in relation to immigration and deportation operations. We understand that immigration enforcement is a sensitive issue for many members of our community, and it is important to us that we communicate our commitment to ensuring the safety and well-being of all community members, regardless of their immigration status.
We want to make it explicitly clear that local law enforcement agencies in Sonoma County do not participate in federal immigration enforcement operations. This includes, but is not limited to, activities such as inquiring about a person’s immigration status, detaining individuals based on federal immigration detainers, assisting in immigration enforcement investigations, or sharing information with federal agencies related to an individual’s immigration status.
Our policies are in full alignment with California state laws that are designed to protect the rights of all residents, including those who are undocumented. Below are some of the key laws that guide our practices and ensure that local law enforcement agencies do not engage in federal immigration enforcement:
1. California Values Act (SB 54) prohibits state and local law enforcement from detaining individuals based solely on federal immigration detainers or transferring them to Immigration and Custom Enforcement (I.C.E.) custody without a valid federal or state warrant. This law also prevents us from asking individuals about their immigration status and restricts the use of agency resources for immigration enforcement purposes including interrogation, investigation, detention, detection, or arrest for immigration-related matters.
2. TRUTH Act (AB 2792) provides additional transparency by requiring that local law enforcement inform individuals in custody of their rights before I.C.E. agents interview them. Specifically, we are required to provide a written consent form to individuals before any interview by I.C.E. agents.
Furthermore, the TRUTH Act mandates a community forum once a year if the local agency has provided I.C.E. agents access to individuals in their custody.
3. TRUST Act (AB 4) prohibits local law enforcement from detaining individuals on the basis of an I.C.E. hold alone once they are eligible for release, except in certain cases where the individual has been charged with or convicted of specific serious crimes. This ensures that individuals are not held in custody simply due to their immigration status.
Our commitment to these laws reflects our dedication to fostering trust between local law enforcement and the diverse communities we serve. It is our responsibility to protect and serve everyone in Sonoma County, regardless of their immigration status. By upholding these legal standards, we ensure that all individuals can engage with law enforcement without fear of immigration-related consequences, and that everyone, regardless of background, can feel safe in their communities.
81 of 91
Sonoma County Law Enforcement
Chiefs Association
Chief John Cregan Chief Brandon Cutting Sheriff Eddie Engram Chief Gregory Piccinini President Vice-President Secretary Treasurer
We want to emphasize that Sonoma County law enforcement agencies are focused on public safety and crime prevention. Our mission is to protect the community as a whole, and we believe that participating in federal immigration enforcement undermines the trust and cooperation necessary for effective policing. We urge all community members to continue working with us in building safe, inclusive neighborhoods where everyone can thrive.
Thank you for your continued support and understanding. We are honored to serve and protect all community members of Sonoma County.
Chief John Cregan Sheriff Eddie Engram District Attorney Carla Rodriguez Santa Rosa Police Department Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office Chief Chris Parker Chief Chris Simmons Chief Gregory Piccinini Cloverdale Police Department Cotati Police Department Windsor Police Department Chief Matthew Jenkins Chief Brian Miller Chief Tim Mattos Healdsburg Police Department Petaluma Police Department Rohnert Park Dept. of Public Safety Chief Robert Brownlee Chief Vanessa Fuchs Chief Nader Oweis Santa Rosa Junior College Police Sonoma County Probation Sonoma State University Police Chief Ronald Nelson Chief Brandon Cutting
Sebastopol Police Department Sonoma Police Department
82 of 91
PUBLIC COMMENT
83 of 91
84 of 91
85 of 91
86 of 91
87 of 91
88 of 91
89 of 91
90 of 91
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: INFORMATION RECEIVED AFTER THE AGENDA WAS POSTED To: City Council & Community-Police Advisory Committee
Subject: INFORMATION RECEIVED AFTER THE AGENDA WAS POSTED Date: March 24, 2026
Written by: Kevin Patterson, City Clerk
Recommendation
Information or written comments pertaining to this meeting, and which was received after the agenda was posted, is attached below.
Pursuant to City Council Policy 2025-03: City Council Rules section IV A., written Communications, interested persons or their authorized representative may address the Council by written communication on any matters concerning the City’s business, or any matters over which the Council has control.
1. To be considered for inclusion in the agenda packet, such written communication shall be delivered to the City Clerk no later than 11:00 a.m. of the Wednesday the week preceding the regular Council meeting for which such written communication is intended.
2. If received after the above date and time, but no later than noon the day before the meeting, written communications received by the City Clerk shall be posted on the website by the end of that day and notification provided to the electronic Agenda mailing list by the end of the day. All written communications received by the City Clerk by 5 pm on the City Council meeting day shall be made available to the City Council and public at the City Council meeting.
City Council Policy 2025-03 is available at the online meeting portal at www.cotaticity.gov or by request from the City Clerk at 707-665-3622 or [email protected]. 91 of 91