200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite
#733
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5162
Fax: (714) 765-5164
www.anaheim.net
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
City of Anaheim
CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
DATE: JULY 15, 2025
FROM: CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF FUNDING FOR ANAHEIM CONTIGO
ATTACHMENT (Y/N): NO ITEM # 18
GOVERNMENT CODE § 84308 APPLIES: NO
REQUESTED ACTION:
That the City Council, by Motion:
1. Consider approving an allocation of up to $250,000 from existing allocated funds for Anaheim Contigo for emergency grants to impacted families and others through the Anaheim Community Foundation; and
2. If approved, authorize the City Manager, or their designee, to make payments to the Anaheim Community Foundation in amounts corresponding to the emergency assistance grant applications that have been verified and approved on a bi-weekly basis.
DISCUSSION:
Mayor Ashleigh Aitken initiated this agenda item to consider allocating up to $250,000 to the Anaheim Contigo fund for emergency assistance grants to help address impacts to neighborhoods, families and businesses across Anaheim.
The Anaheim Contigo fund was launched on June 17, 2025, to support families and others unable to work, go on essential outings and also struggling to afford rent, buy groceries and other household essentials or pay their electric and water utility bills.
The fund is operated by the Anaheim Community
Foundation (ACF), a 501(c)(3)
publicly supported nonprofit. Emergency assistance grants are funded based on applications made through the Human Services staff at Anaheim’s Family Resource Centers: Ponderosa Park and Family Resource Center, Miraloma Park and Family Resource Center, the Downtown Anaheim Family Resource Center and Anaheim’s Mobile Family Resource Centers that visit neighborhoods each week.
Exhibit A
Consideration of Funding for Anaheim Contigo
July 15, 2025
Working through Anaheim’s Family Resource Centers allows the Contigo Fund to take advantage of existing connections with families and ensures grants are going to Anaheim applicants most impacted.
The Anaheim Contigo fund currently has $15,000 in received and committed donations from individuals and organizations. As of July 10, 2025, $3,181.24 in seven emergency assistance grants have been issued to Anaheim residents, made up $2,000 in rent assistance and $1,181.24 in electric and water utility assistance.
Payments are targeted and made directly to landlords, Anaheim Public Utilities and other identified, independent recipients. For groceries and other essential needs, ACF is working with stores and pantries.
Anaheim Community Services has a list of 133 Anaheim residents applying for assistance, with 43 in the process of being assisted and 90 recent applicants waiting to be served.
If approved, funding would allow the program to expand its support by reimbursing costs and providing referrals for mental health services. The city will make payments to the Anaheim Community Foundation in amounts corresponding to the emergency assistance grant applications that have been verified and approved on a bi-weekly basis.
IMPACT ON BUDGET:
Should Council approve this item, funding would come from already allocated budgets across City departments through a temporary reprioritization of spending.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Vanderpool
City Manager
RESOLUTION NO. 6417
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARPINTERIA
APPROVING THE FORMATION OF AN AD COMMITTEE OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY
WHEREAS, in January 2025, the administration of President Donald J. Trump issued several orders and notices directing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ICE agents to increase its enforcement of immigration law. For months, these immigration raids and deportations have occurred across the country; and WHEREAS, the California state legislature has proposed the No Secret Police Act (Senate Bill (SB) 627) and No Vigilantes Act (SB 805). The No Secret Police Act will prohibit law enforcement officers at all levels of government from covering their faces during operations in California and require the wearing of uniforms or badges for clear identificati
of law enforcement and other public safety officials by expanding the definition of impersonation and increasing penalties; and
WHEREAS, has filed a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California challenging the Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem with case number 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP; and WHEREAS, on July 10, 2025, ICE agents conducted an immigration raid at Glass House Farms just outside the border. A protest ensued
where federal agents threw smoke grenades to disperse the crowd. The federal agents present, including ICE agents, detained an unknown number of agricultural workers and protesters; and
WHEREAS, during a special City Council meeting on July 10, 2025, the City Council adopted a proclamation to continue to uphold the California Values Act to ensure that all residents, workers, and visitors, regardless of immigration status, can engage with City services without fear of local enforcement based solely on immigration status; and
WHEREAS, during this same meeting the City Council directed staff to move forward with agendizing formation of an ad hoc committee to advise the City Council on continued response to ICE activity Ad Hoc
WHEREAS, the City Council
an Ad Hoc Committee for the reasons set forth above.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows:
EXHIBIT B
Resolution No. 6417 Page 2 SECTION 1. The recitals above are true and correct. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby creates the Ad Hoc Committee consisting of councilmembers ________________________ and ________________________. SECTION 3. The Ad Hoc Committee shall have the following roles and responsibilities: and provide recommendations to the City on the best path forward. These options include, but are not limited to, better understanding the Santa Barbara County Sherriff ; coordinating community response with local organizations; supporting proposed state and federal legislation regarding ICE activities (i.e., the No Secret Police Act (SB 627) and No Vigilantes Act (SB 805)); of Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem; reviewing authorization of funding as approved by the City Council; and coordinating any responses with Santa Barbara County and other jurisdictions (both locally and statewide) facing similar actions. The Ad Hoc Committee shall not be limited by this list of suggested actions and shall have the latitude to investigate and recommend other options to the City Council for responding to ICE activities. SECTION 4. Unless otherwise amended by action of the City Council, the Ad Hoc Committee shall be terminated upon completion of its responsibilities outlined in Section 3 above or on January 21, 2029, whichever comes first. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on this 28th day of July, 2025, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBER(S): NOES: COUNCILMEMBER(S): ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS(S): ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS(S): __________________________ Mayor, City of Carpinteria ATTEST: ______________________________ Brian C. Barrett, CMC, CPMC City Clerk, City of Carpinteria Resolution No. 6417 Page 3I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carpinteria held on July 28, 2025. ______________________________ Brian C. Barrett, CMC, CPMC City Clerk, City of Carpinteria APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________ Jena Shoaf Acos, on behalf of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP acting as City Attorney of the City of Carpinteria
CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 25-396 Meeting Date: 8/5/2025
TITLE:
RESOLUTIONS AFFIRMING THE CITY’S CORE VALUES AND SUPPORT FOR SENATE BILL 805, NO VIGILANTES ACT
DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
PRESENTED BY: ALMA REYES, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER
JAY BARKMAN, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS MANAGER
CONTACT INFORMATION: SERGIO ESCOBAR, MANAGEMENT ANALYST (714) 754-5156 RECOMMENDATION:
City Council consideration of the following:
1. Adoption of Proposed Resolution No. 2025-XX affirming the City’s Core Values.
2. Adoption of Proposed Resolution No. 2025-XX supporting California Senate Bill 805 (Perez), “No Vigilantes Act.”
3. Approval of the proposed Letter of Support for SB 805, the “No Vigilantes Act.” BACKGROUND:
At the July 15 City Council Meeting, during public comment, speakers made remarks on ongoing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity in the region. They shared the impacts that have resulted locally. Subsequently, Councilmembers Marr and Reynolds, and Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, requested that staff bring to the August 5
th Council Meeting the following items for
discussion:
· Resolution affirming the City’s Core Values in response to the Federal immigration enforcement activity.
· Letter of Support for SB 805
· Direct staff to explore partnerships with community-based organizations (CBOs), including faith-based organizations (FBOs), and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to provide support services to impacted residents.
Additionally, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez requested that the proposed resolution reference State Senator Suzette Martinez Valladeres's letter urging the United States President to focus deportation efforts on criminals, a call on modernization of the immigration process for non-criminal undocumented immigrants and visa policies that will help build a stronger economy, secure the borders, and protect
Exhibit C
File #: 25-396 Meeting Date: 8/5/2025
immigrants and visa policies that will help build a stronger economy, secure the borders, and protect communities. The letter was signed onto by Orange County State Legislators, Assemblywoman Laurie Davies and Assemblywoman Diane Dixon.
Other cities throughout the Southern California region have taken action in response to ICE activity in the area. The cities below have taken formal action by either adopting resolutions denouncing Federal immigration enforcement and/or developing assistance programs, or a combination thereof.
City of Anaheim** City of Huntington Park** City of Los Angeles** City of Santa Ana** City of Montebello** City of Culver City* City of Paramount** City of Downey** City of Pasadena*
*Agencies that have adopted formal action by resolution or executive order. **Agencies that have adopted formal action and developed assistance programs.
ANALYSIS:
Current City Efforts
In response to recent ICE operations in the region and across the Country, the City has affirmed its commitment to its Core Values of inclusivity and compassion for all members of the community it serves, regardless of immigration status. Further, efforts have been made to provide the community with information about resources and support services available to those impacted by Federal immigration enforcement.
Since January, staff have attended several community meetings and maintained an open dialogue with community-based organizations, non-governmental organizations, and community members to better understand the concerns, needs, and impacts on the community.
As part of the City’soutreach and engagement efforts, staff developed and launched the Community Resources webpage on the City’swebsite, a dedicated community webpage with information and resources. The webpage includes the following support service(s) areas:
· Emergency & Crisis Support · School Resources
· Legal Services & Representation · Workplace & Employer Guidance · Know Your Rights & Legal Education · Support Services & Advocacy · Immigration Services · Help With A Federal Agency
More recently, staff prepared Costa Mesa Cares Family Preparedness packets, which are tailored to support residents impacted by the current immigration enforcement operations. The packets contain information and preparedness resources for any emergency, and have been made available to community members and community organizations assisting those in need.
Potential Impact on Tenants
During the July 15 Council Meeting, Councilmembers raised concerns about the unintended consequences of Federal immigration enforcement on tenants. Approximately 60% of the City’s households are renter-occupied. Currently, the City receives eviction-related inquiries by email, phone, and in person and tracks “no fault” evictions, pursuant to the City’s Ordinance. Support services and assistance are voluntary to those who received lawful evictions, and the level of need is
File #: 25-396 Meeting Date: 8/5/2025
services and assistance are voluntary to those who received lawful evictions, and the level of need is on a case-by-case basis. At this time, information on at-fault evictions resulting from current ICE enforcement is unknown. The City does not have a mechanism in place or the capability to track at- fault evictions. Per the City’sTenant Protection Ordinance, staff tracks no-fault evictions through TESSA on a case-by-case basis only. Staff continues to explore and engage in conversations with City partners about potential opportunities to access at-fault eviction data, if available.
Exploring Partnership with Community-Based Organizations & Non-Governmental Organizations City Staff has maintained strong relationships with community-based organizations, non- governmental organizations, faith-based organizations, and community members. Through ongoing dialogue and collaboration, staff has been able to understand the concerns of immigrant communities better and assess the evolving needs of those impacted by federal immigration enforcement activities. These partnerships have proven vital in identifying service gaps, building trust, and informing the City's approach to the community.
In addition to these efforts, staff will continue working with CBOs, NGOs, and FBOs to explore and identify potential partnerships that can provide direct support services, such as legal assistance, rental assistance, case management, and emergency aid to individuals and families affected by immigration enforcement. Once formed, these partnerships will help ensure that those affected by the federal enforcement activity have access to support services and that the City can proactively respond to community needs.
Proposed Resolutions
The first proposed Resolution highlights ICE's recent federal enforcement activity within the City and surrounding areas. It expresses concern over the disruptive nature of these operations and the fear they instill in residents. It highlights reports of ICE agents using aggressive tactics such as unnecessary force, face coverings, plain clothes, unmarked vehicles, and targeting of areas previously deemed inappropriate, particularly in sensitive areas like homes, schools, workplaces, and places of worship. While acknowledging that immigration enforcement is under the sole jurisdiction of the Federal government and that the City and its Police Department do not participate in or assist with such operations, the City Council affirms its responsibility to speak out against actions that undermine public safety and community trust.
Additionally, the Resolution calls on Federal representatives to ensure that ICE agents conduct enforcement with due process, refrain from using concealed identities and force where unwarranted, and focus efforts only on individuals with criminal records. Furthermore, the resolution encourages local nonprofits, community groups, faith-based organizations, and businesses to offer time, resources, and financial support to individuals and families impacted by Federal immigration enforcement activity. The City affirms its commitment to public safety, inclusivity, and civil rights for all residents, and expresses its intent to explore and implement programs and partnerships that support the well-being of those most at risk due to Federal immigration enforcement.
The second proposed resolution focuses exclusively on support for Senate Bill 805 (SB 805), “No Vigilantes Act,” which is discussed in depth below.
File #: 25-396 Meeting Date: 8/5/2025
Council Policy on Legislative Positions
City Council Policy 000-8 authorizes the Mayor to execute legislative position letters on behalf of the City Council when the City’slegislative partners have acted. Those partners are identified in the policy as the National League of Cities, League of California Cities, Association of California Cities - Orange County, or the Orange County Council of Governments. Formal Council approval is required when none of the City’slegislative partners have taken a support or oppose position or when the legislative partners have taken a contradictory position. Currently, Cal Cities has taken a Watch Position on SB 805 (Perez). In accordance with City Council Policy 000-8, a Support Letter has been brought forth for the Council’s consideration.
SB 805 (Perez) Background
Senator Perez amended SB 805 on June 23, 2025, to create the “NoVigilantes Act”and address the use of face coverings and the absence of identifying information by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) when conducting enforcement activities. The bill states that recent immigration enforcement operations by ICE contribute to fear and questions for individuals to “distinguish between authorized personnel and bad actors.”
The bill expands and builds upon existing law, including SB 54 “The California Values Act”, which prohibits California law enforcement agencies from aiding in immigration enforcement. Existing law prohibits impersonating a peace officer and requires local uniformed peace officers to be clearly identified. Lastly, existing law establishes the Bail Fugitive Recovery Act, defining who is authorized to apprehend a bail fugitive.
The Senate Public Safety Committee analysis points out that federal law currently prohibits “conscripting”the states to enforce federal regulatory programs. Federal, state, or local government entities are also prohibited from restricting ICE from obtaining information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual. Lastly, federal law currently requires immigration officers to identify themselves at the time of arrest, and as soon as it is practical and safe to do so.
In discussing SB 805 (Perez) with the Costa Mesa Police Department, it was noted that the bill partly duplicates existing law but is also seeking to have local law enforcement engage with ICE in a manner that may conflict with federal law. Costa Mesa Police Department continues to monitor and respond to calls for service, including reports of a possible kidnappings or impersonations of law enforcement officers, and takes appropriate action within the authority of the law.
SB 805 (Perez) Effects
During the Senate Public Safety Committee hearing on July 14, 2025, the bill author stated that the “lack of transparency fosters confusion, fear, and mistrust in communities across the state.” To address these concerns, SB 805 (Perez) expands the scope of existing crimes dealing with impersonation. Specifically, the bill addresses four areas:
· Expands police impersonation laws to include the use “of any other means” to defraud. · Prohibits a bail agent from using their position for the purposes of immigration enforcement. · Requires all law enforcement agency personnel operating in California to visibly display
File #: 25-396 Meeting Date: 8/5/2025
identification.
· Local police will be allowed to request an “alleged”law enforcement employee to present identification when there is probable cause or reasonable suspicion of a crime, or a legitimate safety concern.
The Senate Public Safety Committee analyzed the bill and raised concerns about the “likelihood of this bill surviving legal scrutiny” if challenged by the federal government. Specifically, the two provisions imposing an obligation on federal law enforcement to follow specific identification requirements and making failure to do so a misdemeanor may be construed as a violation of the Supremacy Clause.
As of July 24, 2025, the bill is supported by Orange County Supervisor Vicente Sarmiento, the cities of Culver, Los Angeles, Lynwood, Monterey Park, Paramount, Pasadena, and Santa Ana. The bill is also supported by various labor unions and community groups.
The California Police Chief Association secured amendments to exclude undercover officers from the identification requirements and remove penalties against local agencies and personnel. Since then, the California Police Chiefs Association has taken a neutral position on SB 805.
Potential Challenges with Implementation of SB 805
Based on the input received from the Costa Mesa Police Department, should SB 805 be enacted into law, it will conflict with federal law, creating expectations by the community that the Costa Mesa Police Department intervene and possibly arrest federal agents. Currently, California peace officers have the authority to arrest individuals who commit state crimes. This includes federal agents, but only in rare cases where the agent is clearly acting outside the scope of lawful federal duties and violating state law. Federal agents are protected under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S.
Constitution when acting within their official capacity.
As such, local law enforcement cannot generally arrest or interfere with a federal agent performing lawful duties, even if those actions are controversial. As discussed above, federal law requires ICE or other immigration enforcement agents to identify themselves as soon as it is practical and safe to do so. However, federal law does not specify “visible identification” requirements to the levels required by the bill. As a result, local police may not apply these standards to federal agents.
Should the City Council desire to take a position on the bill, a Letter of Support for SB 805 has been drafted for review and consideration.
ALTERNATIVES:
The City Council may:
1. Direct changes to be made to the proposed resolutions and/or letter.
2. Choose not to approve the resolutions and/or letter.
3. Adopt a “Support if Amended” position on SB 805 (Perez) to request that portions of the bill in conflict with federal law be removed to protect local law enforcement agencies and their
File #: 25-396 Meeting Date: 8/5/2025
personnel.
FISCAL REVIEW:
There are no fiscal impacts to the City for the approval of the recommended actions.
LEGAL REVIEW:
The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed this agenda report and resolutions and approves them as to form.
CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:
This item supports the following City Council Goal:
· Strengthen the Public’s Safety and Improve the Quality of Life CONCLUSION:
Through its continuous efforts, the City stands firmly by its Core Values of inclusivity and compassion for its diverse community and reaffirms its commitment to ensuring the delivery of essential services and public safety for all residents.
At the direction of City Council, staff has brought forward for the proposed Resolutions and position letter for SB 805, the “No Vigilantes Acts,” for consideration.
Resol
ution No. 2025-xx Page 1 of 5
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-xx
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA AFFIRMING THE CITY’S CORE VALUES
THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY FINDS AND DECLARES AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, elected officials throughout Southern California have expressed concern about recent immigration enforcement actions in their local jurisdictions by the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency ("ICE") and specifically the manner in which these actions have been carried out; and WHEREAS, the activities by ICE in Costa Mesa and nearby jurisdictions have disrupted public safety and prompted fear in the local immigrant communities, amidst reports of enforcement activities at homes, schools, places of work, places of worship, and other public areas; and
WHEREAS, there have been reports in the media and elsewhere of aggressive tactics used by ICE agents, including the use of unwarranted force, breaking windows and doors, face coverings, plain clothes attire, unmarked vehicles, other identity concealment, and arrests and detentions of citizens and permanent residents; and WHEREAS, the immigration enforcement actions and presence of large numbers of ICE agents in the region have caused fear, uncertainty, distress, and disruption among many community members; and
WHEREAS, immigration enforcement actions, particularly those conducted through broad workplace raids, have had unintended consequences in California’s key economic sectors, including agriculture, construction, hospitality, and food service, by instilling fear in the workforce, including among individuals with legal immigration status; and
WHEREAS, employers have reported labor shortages resulting from these enforcement actions, as vital workers leave industries that are already struggling to recruit and retain employees, thereby exacerbating California’s affordability crisis and negatively impacting local economies; and
Attachment 1
Resolution No. 2025-xx Page 2 of 5
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa empathizes with and supports all community members who are feeling fear and uncertainty because of recent enforcement activities; and
WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa is actively working to identify services, programs, and partnerships to help protect, inform, and assist our most vulnerable residents; and
WHEREAS, while the City Council recognizes that the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over the enforcement of immigration law, and that the City may not either assist or interfere with immigration enforcement activities, the City Council wishes to do everything within its authority to ensure that ICE activities are carried out in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, the Costa Mesa Police Department does not participate in or assist with immigration enforcement activities by ICE; and
WHEREAS, based on earlier indications by federal authorities, the expectation by local jurisdictions was that recent enforcement efforts would primarily target criminals and violent offenders and while some of this has occurred, there are also reports of uneven enforcement and detention and arrest of individuals without criminal records and/or those who are lawfully present in the United States; and WHEREAS, the City Council acknowledges the uncertainty, anxiety, and fear expressed by many members of the community in response to the increased ICE activity, and recognizes its responsibility to speak out against practices that undermine the well-being and cohesion of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein.
Resolution No. 2025-xx Page 3 of 5
SECTION 2. City staff is hereby directed to maintain and update the Costa Mesa Cares webpage on the City's website that provides links to immigration resources and services.
SECTION 3. T he City Council reminds the community that the City and its Police Department have no ability to enforce federal immigration law and that federal authorities have repeatedly admonished localities not to take any steps that would result in interference with or obstruction of ICE enforcement operations.
SECT ION 4. The City Council calls upon all nonprofit organizations, community service organizations, faith-based organizations, and business within the City of Costa Mesa to work together to contribute time, resources, and financial support to assist individuals and families impacted by the recent ICE activities.
SECTION 8. T
he City Council affirms Costa Mesa's commitment to public safety and inclusivity for all residents and calls upon all law enforcement agencies operating within the City to respect the civil rights of every individual.
SECTION 5. T he City commits to working collaboratively with community-based organizations and non-governmental organizations to identify opportunities to better support those impacted by ongoing immigration enforcement activity.
SECTION 6. C ity staff is hereby directed to send a copy of this Resolution to all elected members of Congress whose jurisdiction includes any part of the City of Costa Mesa.
SECTION 7. I
f any section, subsection, clause or phrase in this Resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is for any reason held invalid, the validity of the remainder of this Resolution or the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Resolution and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases or the application thereof to any person or circumstance be held invalid.
SECTION 8. T his Resolution shall become effective upon its adoption.
SECTION 9. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution.
Resolution No. 2025-xx Page 4 of 5
PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___day of _____, 2025.
_____________________________
John Stephens, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________ _____________________________ Brenda Green, City Clerk Kimberly Hall Barlow, City Attorney
Resolution No. 2025-xx Page 5 of 5
THIS PAGE IS RESERVED FOR THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss
CITY OF COSTA MESA )
I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 1 9-xx and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the ___day of _____, 2025, by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this ___day of _____, 2025.
___________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk
RES
OLUTION NO. 2025-xx
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA IN SUPPORT OF CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 805 (PEREZ) “NO VIGILANTES ACT” THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY FINDS AND DECLARES AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, immigrant families are facing increased threats of deportation; and immigration policy proposals of the current federal administration have caused a sense of uncertainly and fear among the City of Costa Mesa’s community; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa is comprised of approximately twenty-five (25) percent foreign-born residents; and
WHEREAS, strengthening and improving quality of life is a top priority of the Costa Mesa City Council; and
WHEREAS, community members have expressed fear and doubts as to the validity and accountability of those purporting to be immigration enforcement agents and question their conduct as being lawful and transparent; and WHEREAS, residents have expressed their fears with attending public meetings, community events, recreational facilities, or sending their children to school; and WHEREAS, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has publicly condemned impersonations, and,
WHEREAS, the use of face coverings by ICE and lack of consistent, visible identification creates public confusion and makes it difficult for the public to distinguish between authorized law enforcement personnel and criminals; and WHEREAS, these actions undermine public trust in law enforcement, especially among vulnerable individuals, and pose a threat to public safety; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 805 (Perez) increases transparency and accountability for law enforcement and federal agents operating in California; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 805 (Perez) is known as the No Vigilantes Act and aims to expand police impersonation laws by:
• Requiring federal agents, including Ice agents, to visibly display identification that includes their name or badge number when performing duties;
Attachment 2
• Strengthening laws against impersonating law enforcement or other government personnel, particularly when used to defraud others; • Restricting individuals authorized to apprehend bail fugitives by prohibiting them from using their position for immigration enforcement; and • Mandating that a person authorized to apprehend a bail fugitive must keep a defendant's immigration status confidential.
WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa is in full support of legislative efforts to pass SB 805 and is committed to do everything in its power to effectuate the proposed legal standards and protection to protect our communities and families.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES its support for Senate Bill 805 (Perez), the No Vigilantes Act, which aims to address the use of face coverings and the absence of identifying information by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) when conducting enforcement activities.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___day of _____, 2025.
_____________________________
John Stephens, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________ _____________________________ Brenda Green, City Clerk Kimberly Hall Barlow, City Attorney
THIS PAGE IS RESERVED FOR THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss
CITY OF COSTA MESA )
I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 19-xx and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the ___day of _____, 2025, by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this ___day of _____, 2025.
___________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk
CITY OF COSTA MESA
77 Fair Drive | P.O. Box 1200, Costa Mesa | California 92628- 1200 Phone 714.754.5285 | Fax 714.754.5330 | www.costamesaca.gov From the Office of the City Council
August 5, 2025
T
he Honorable Sasha Renée Pérez
California State Senator
1021 O Street, Room 6720
Sacramento, CA 95814
R
e: Senate Bill 805 (Pérez): Crimes. (Amended – 7/18/2025) City of Costa Mesa – Notice of Support
D
ear Senator Pérez,
O
n behalf of the City of Costa Mesa, I am writing to express our support for Senate Bill 805, the No Vigilantes Act. This important legislation encourages community -conscious public safety by protecting communities against the impersonation of law enforcement officers and other public safety personnel.
A
s detailed in the Senate Public Safety Committee’s analysis of the bill, recent incidents across California and other states include incidents of impersonators engaging in behavior ranging from harassment to serious criminal acts such as kidnapping and sexual assault. These actions sow distrust in public institutions and threaten the safety of our residents, particularly those in vulnerable communities. The bill’s prohibition against impersonation, especially through deceptive means or with intent to defraud, is a critical and necessary step forward.
T
he City of Costa Mesa strongly supports SB 805’s intent to address the alarming rise in law enforcement impersonation, which puts vulnerable populations at heightened risk. City of Costa Mesa residents have expressed their concerns and fears of being subject to false imprisonment when attending public events, parks, or community facilities. This has become evident over the recent months in the declining numbers of attendees at some of our most popular community events. City residents and business have expressed their desire that the focus of immigration enforcement should be on serious and violent criminals and not legitimate workers or employment sites.
W
hile the City acknowledges the bill’s provision requiring on- duty law enforcement officers to display identification, we note that this requirement is already a standard practice under most existing law enforcement agency protocols.
Attachment 3
MAYOR COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL MEMBER MAYOR PRO TEM COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL MEMBER John Stephens Mike Buley Loren Gameros Andrea Marr Manuel Chavez Arlis Reynolds Jeff Pettis District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 SB 805 also wisely places limitations on bail fugitive recovery agents, ensuring they are not misused for immigration enforcement purposes, and protects defendants’ immigration status confidentiality.
The City of Costa Mesa stands firmly by its core values of inclusivity and compassion for its diverse population while ensuring the public’s safety. For these reasons, the City of Costa Mesa is pleased to support SB 805.
Sincerely,
John Stephens
Mayor
City of Costa Mesa
CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 25-436 Meeting Date: 9/2/2025
TITLE:
UPDATE ON OPTIONS FOR LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR RESIDENTS AND POTENTIAL
PARTICIPATION IN LAWSUIT CHALLENGING ROAMING IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
PATROLS
DEPARTMENT: CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
PRESENTED BY: KIMBERLY HALL BARLOW, CITY ATTORNEY
CONTACT INFORMATION: KIMBERLY HALL BARLOW, CITY ATTORNEY 714-754-5399 RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council:
1. Receive and file this update on options to provide legal defense funding to assist residents in connection with federal immigration enforcement and direct staff accordingly.
2. Consider whether and how to participate in Perdomo, et al. v. Noem, et al., United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP.
BACKGROUND:
At the August 5, 2025 City Council Meeting, City Council provided direction to identify options available to the City to provide legal defense funding to provide legal assistance to residents in connection with federal immigration enforcement. Several specific potential partners were identified to which the City could provide funding, including the Public Law Center and Legal Aid. The City Attorney was also asked to identify any limitations on providing funding for such services.
ANALYSIS:
Legal Defense Funding
The City may elect to provide funding for legal assistance to residents who are detained or targeted for immigration enforcement. The only legal restrictions on such expenditures are that the City may not expend federal funds for such assistance, or grant or restricted funds. There are no limitations on the City’s use of its General Fund for this purpose, however, due to the possible General Fund revenue stagnation, it is recommended that funding be allocated from available General Fund reserves.
The City could elect to create its own program for such legal assistance, however, the costs of creating and staffing such an endeavor are likely to be far more than providing funding to existing groups who provide this service. Existing staff does not have the expertise or training to provide the services necessary, and the City Attorney’s Office does not provide immigration related services.
However, many existing programs are available to which the City could provide funding to assist its
Exhibit D
File #: 25-436 Meeting Date: 9/2/2025
However, many existing programs are available to which the City could provide funding to assist its residents with legal issues relating to immigration enforcement.
The Public Law Center provides a wide range of services and resources relating to immigration issues, including:
Deportation Defense (removal defense); Relief under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) (victims of domestic violence by abusers with lawful immigration status); U Visa (victims of serious crimes); T Visa (victims of trafficking); Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (for undocumented minors who have been abused, neglected or abandoned by one or both of their parents); Adjustment of status (application for legal permanent residence); Asylum (for those fleeing persecution in their home countries); Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (for undocumented minors who entered the United States as children and were educated in the U.S.); Naturalization Assistance (for qualified immigrants who wish to become U.S. citizens); Counseling about Immigration Consequences of Criminal Charges; Other Miscellaneous Cases. The Public Law Center has indicated a willingness to discuss contracting with the City.
Community Legal Aid SoCal also provides legal assistance in the following areas:
VAWA Self Petitions; T Visas; U Visas; Naturalization; Special Immigrant Juvenile Status; Adjustment of Status; Cancellation of Removal; Removal Defense; Asylum Applications. However, because Community Legal Aid SoCal receives federal funding, it cannot provide services to undocumented immigrants who do not fall within approved service exceptions. Community Legal Aid SoCal has indicated it is willing to partner with the City to provide services to eligible Costa Mesa residents.
Legal Aid Association of California (LAAC) - This organization provides a wide range of resources relating to immigration issues, including:
Deportation, Removal, and Detention; Permanent Residence/Green Cards; Naturalization/ Citizenship; Family Petitions; Asylum, Refugee, and Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ); Immigrants & Domestic Violence; Citizenship through Military Service; and Interactions with ICE. LAAC does not itself provide legal services, but it supports and refers residents to specific types of legal providers.
See https://www.lawhelpca.org/issues/immigration
The Immigrant Defenders Law Center (ImmDef) provides full-scale services and resources relating to immigration issues, including:
Deportation Defense (representation and education for detained and non-detained children and adults); Children’s Representation (defense services for children applying for humanitarian protections such as asylum, special immigrant juvenile status, and visas for victims of crimes or trafficking); Litigation and Advocacy (cases addressing access to counsel, detention conditions, minors’ rights, and systemic due process violations); Cross-Border Initiative (representation for individuals seeking asylum due to persecution based on race, religion, nationality, social group, or political opinion); Deported Veterans (representation for veterans seeking lawful return to the United States); Post-Conviction Relief (challenges to criminal convictions affecting immigration status or removal proceedings); National Qualified Representative Program (representation for immigrants in ICE detention with serious mental disorders entitled to court-appointed counsel); Client Wellness (case management connecting clients to mental health services, housing, transportation, food,
File #: 25-436 Meeting Date: 9/2/2025
clothing, school enrollment, and post-release planning).
The State of California Department of Social Services has awarded grants to a number of additional Orange County providers for immigration related services, some of which may involve legal assistance. They are: Access California Services; BPSOS Center for Community Advancement, Inc.; Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)Gay & Lesbian Community Services Center of Orange County; Orange County Labor Federation, AFL-CIO; Solidarity- Camino Immigration Services; and World Relief Corporation. If so directed, staff can explore specifics of what these organizations provide and how they might assist Costa Mesa residents.
Perdomo, et al. v. Noem, et al.
This lawsuit was brought by five individual plaintiffs and three membership associations, to challenge the “rovingpatrols”being used to detain individuals for immigration enforcement. The essence of the litigation is that individuals were being detained without reasonable suspicion that the person to be stopped is within the United States in violation of U.S. immigration law, in contravention of the Fourth Amendment. During the course of these “roving patrols” throughout Southern California, multiple citizens and lawful residents have been detained, taken into custody and even arrested.
The federal district court judge issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), finding that the Plaintiffs are “likelyto succeed in showing that the seizures are based upon the four enumerated factors”or a subset of them. Those factors are (1) apparent race or ethnicity; (2) speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent; (3) presence at a particular location; and (4) the type of work one does. The district court then concluded that “sole reliance on the four enumerated factors does not constitute reasonable suspicion” either alone or in any combination. A copy of the TRO is included as Attachment 1. On August 1, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Temporary Restraining Order against federal agents from roving patrols or other efforts to detain individuals solely on the basis of one or more of these factors. A copy of the Ninth Circuit’sruling is included as Attachment 2. The Trump Administration has filed a request for an emergency stay of the TRO with the United States Supreme Court.
Shortly before the TRO was upheld, the district court considered a Motion to Intervene by numerous public entities. The Department of Justice did not oppose the Motion, and the district court granted it on the basis that each of the applicant intervenors has a “significant protectable interest” relating to the action, the disposition of which may, as a practical matter, impair or impede the applicant’sability to protect that interest, and the applicant’sinterest is inadequately represented by the parties to the action. In the case of this particular motion to intervene, the intervenors seek relief that is broader than requested by the original plaintiffs, as well as showing that they face a different kind of impact and harm from the challenged conduct. The intervenors added are: City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, Culver City, West Hollywood, Santa Monica, Pico Rivera, Montebello, Pasadena and Monterey Park (collectively, the “Plaintiffs in Intervention”).
The existing Plaintiffs in Intervention have filed a First Amended Complaint which seeks to add intervenors, the City of Anaheim, the City of Bell Gardens, the City of Beverly Hills, the City of Carpinteria, the City of Huntington Park, the City of Long Beach, the City of Lynwood, the City of Oxnard, the City of Paramount, the City of Pomona, the City of Santa Ana, the City of Santa Barbara, and the City of South Gate. Along with the original intervenors, each City has alleged that the untargeted enforcement is causing harm to the City and its residents, impacting law enforcement activities, crime enforcement and prosecution, use of public resources, reduction in tax revenue, and
File #: 25-436 Meeting Date: 9/2/2025
activities, crime enforcement and prosecution, use of public resources, reduction in tax revenue, and generalized fear in the community.
The existing and proposed Intervenors have filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in opposition to the Administration’semergency stay request and in support of the TRO. A copy of the amicus brief is included as Attachment 3. It seems likely that other amicus opportunities will present themselves throughout the litigation.
Recently, the City of Fullerton City Council voted to provide amicus support in the district court proceedings as it advances to a Preliminary Injunction and trial. Other Orange County cities have expressed interest, as well. Thus, Costa Mesa could partner with other cities to reduce the overall cost of supporting that effort.
ALTERNATIVES:
The City Council may:
1. Direct staff to explore funding agreement(s) with one or more of the identified entities or alternative providers and identify the amount of any such funding.
2. Direct staff to explore creating an in-house legal assistance team, but this alternative is not recommended.
3. Take action to participate in the Perdomo litigation and direct staff as to whether to seek intervention, participate with an amicus brief effort and/or otherwise support restrictions on roaming patrols/detentions of individuals without reasonable suspicion.
4. Receive and file the report.
FISCAL REVIEW:
The fiscal impact of Council’sdirection will depend on whether the City Council directs staff to move forward with implementing a legal defense program or partnership and whether and how it directs participation in the Perdomo litigation. The Fiscal Year 2025-2026 All Funds and General Fund Budget does not include any appropriations for this request.
LEGAL REVIEW:
The City Attorney has prepared this report.
CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:
This item supports the following City Council Goals:
· Strengthen the Public’s Safety and Improve the Quality of Life
File #: 25-436 Meeting Date: 9/2/2025
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends the City Council:
1. Receive and file this update on options to provide legal defense funding to assist to assist residents in connection with federal immigration enforcement and direct staff accordingly.
2. Consider whether and how to participate in Perdomo, et al. v. Noem, et al., United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP.
CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 25-418 Meeting Date: 9/2/2025
TITLE:
UPDATE ON SUPPORT SERVICES AND ASSISTANCE FOR RESIDENTS AND TRACKING OF AT -FAULT EVICTIONS
DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
PRESENTED BY: ALMA REYES, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER
JAY BARKMAN, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS MANAGER
CONTACT INFORMATION: JAY BARKMAN, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS MANAGER (714) 754-5347
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council:
1. Receive and file staff’s update on the donation of $100,000 to two local non-profit organizations, Enough for All Fund ($50,000) and Someone Cares Soup Kitchen ($50,000) to provide assistance to impacted residents.
2. Request direction on tracking at- fault evictions.
BACKGROUND:
At the August 5, 2025 City Council Meeting, City Council provided direction to identify funding in the amount of $100,000 to donate to two local non-profits to provide aid to residents in need of support services. Additionally, the City Council directed staff to explore tracking of at-fault evictions and creation of a City rental registry.
Discussion of the above items included questions regarding the non-profits ability to receive City funds for the purpose of assisting impacted residents. Council Member Marr requested that, in the event that a non-profit is unable to accept the donations, staff return to the Council for additional direction and guidance on how to proceed with the donation of the funds.
In addition, the City Attorney was provided with direction to explore various legal organizations that may be able to assist with administering a Legal Defense Fund.
EXHIBIT E
File #: 25-418 Meeting Date: 9/2/2025
ANALYSIS:
Donation Update
At the August 5, 2025 Council Meeting, the City Council directed staff to identify funding in the amount of $100,000 for a donation to two local non-profit organizations: Enough for All Fund ($50,000) to assist resident with rent, groceries, and other necessities; and Someone Cares Soup Kitchen ($50,000) to provide daily meals and groceries to impacted residents.
Council Members noted that the most urgent needs for impacted residents were primarily financial, particularly assistance with food, utilities, and rent. The donations are intended to address these needs.
At this time, staff have been in contact with the two identified non-profit organizations regarding the City’s proposed donations. The Enough for All Fund Program has confirmed that the $50,000 donation can be accepted and is prepared to receive funding.
Someone Cares Soup Kitchen indicated that acceptance of the City’s$50,000 donation will require discussion and approval by its Board of Directors.
Tenant Protections
On October 8, 2019, the Governor of California signed into law Assembly Bill 1482 (AB1482), otherwise known as the Tenant Protection Act of 2019. This law prohibits owners of residential real property from evicting a tenant without just cause when said tenant has occupied a residential unit for a minimum of 12 consecutive months. The law delineates the established conditions for an At-Fault or No-Fault eviction.
On September 30, 2023, the Governor of California signed into law Senate Bill 567 (SB567), which amends AB1482 to place additional requirements on owners of residential property when issuing no- fault just cause evictions, as well as to prescribe new enforcement mechanisms with respect to the provisions of AB1482 and SB567.
The City of Costa Mesa adopted the Tenant Protection Ordinance (Ordinance) on November 7, 2023, to further state law and support Costa Mesa renters with a few noteworthy enhancements requiring landlords:
· Notify the City within 72 hours after giving notice of a no-fault eviction · Provide one month of Fair Market Rent to assist in relocation to a new unit During the development of the Ordinance, staff explored mechanisms to obtain data related to at- fault evictions. After conducting research and consulting with City partners, staff determined that no mechanism or organization maintains such data. The only available information pertains to unlawful detainers, which are civil matters processed and maintained by the judicial system and not readily accessible. Since the Ordinance was adopted in November 2023, the City has received notification of 21 no-fault evictions.
File #: 25-418 Meeting Date: 9/2/2025
At-Fault Eviction Tracking and Rental Registry
The League of California Cities issued a report in 2024 titled “A Comprehensive Update on the Evolving Landscape of Tenant Protections <https://www.calcities.org/docs/default-source/annual- conference---session-materials/comprehensive-update-on-the-evolving-landscape-of-tenant- protections.pdf>,” discussing how cities in California have a long history of responding to the challenging rental market. The report describes the legislative and judicial history of landlord-tenant laws and anti-displacement policies, including the use of rental registries, and limits to at-fault just cause evictions. Registries are, generally used to monitor compliance in jurisdictions with just cause programs. The jurisdiction-specific data provided by rental registration helps to better inform further policymaking and tailor policies to local needs.”
A rental registry also serves as a communications tool to share data and information on compliance with tenants and landlords. Existing registries collect information either through annual reporting requirements or upon any changes in status to require landlords to provide details on:
· Compliance with rent amount increases pursuant to state law · Rental unit properties (square footage, number of bedrooms) · Fees paid to homeowner’s association for tenants of condominiums · Housing vouchers used by tenants
· Changes in rent amount, or occupancy status
· Evictions or terminations, including copies of relevant notices A common concern with the establishment of a rental registry is whether personal information will become subject to public disclosure. However, to address this concern jurisdictions can include language in their ordinance to declare certain information as received in confidence and exempt from Public Records Act requests.
At-fault evictions occur for many reasons ranging from nonpayment of rent, breaching a material term of a lease, creating a nuisance, to criminal activity. Cities that regulate at-fault evictions must maintain a program that requires significant resources, including technology systems, staffing, and funding. Most programs are designed to focus on assisting tenants and landlords with education to resolve disputes or are focused on housing standards and ensuring compliance with state rental laws. Cities with rental registry programs, may establish a “rentboard”that develops regulations and hear claims or appeals from tenants and landlords. Additionally, cities with established rental registry programs rely on specific software for the tracking of rental units, disputes, compliance, and collection of fees.
As requested, staff conducted preliminary research into the creation of a rental registry, identifying examples of programs used by other cities. Cities with existing rental registries have required landlords to register for a range of reasons, from collecting data on rent amounts, enforcing rent control, tracking evictions, and investigating complaints about housing code violations.
Staff has identified the following cities with an established rental registry program that track evictions.
File #: 25-418 Meeting Date: 9/2/2025
The table below provides information from eight cities with such programs.
City Summary
Berkeley* Rent Stabilization Board maintains a rental registry, tracks eviction data, and inspects units for compliance with housing codes.
Concord Residential Rent Registry Program mandates annual registration of most rental units under its Tenant Protection Program Ordinance.
Property owners must report tenancy details, rent levels, and eviction notices.
Los Angeles* Rent Stabilization Ordinance requires landlords register rental units annually. The City collects eviction data and requires the filing of notices.
San Franciso* Landlords must file an annual Rent Board Fee and report evictions.
City tracks “at fault” vs. “no fault” evictions.
San Jose* Rental registry under Apartment Rent Ordinance to track ownership, unit characteristics, and rents.
Santa Ana* As of 2022 landlords are required to register or claim their rental unit as exempt under the Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Eviction Ordinance.
Santa Monica* Landlords required to register with Rent Control Agency whenever a unit is rented to a new tenant.
Pasadena* Rental registry established under voter-initiated City Charter amendment requires landlords to register units annually, supporting tracking of rent increases, eviction reasons, and unit characteristics. *Charter Cities
The cities listed above require landlords to register their units in connection with enforcing their rent stabilization programs limiting annual increases to rent.
Based on the information collected from other agencies, implementing and maintaining a rental registry program requires significant resources. Program fees are common amongst cities with a rental registry program while some fees may be relatively modest other cities may enact higher fees to offset program administration costs. Fees may range from $29 to $400 per unit, with the most common fees falling in the range of $200 per unit. Further, staff found that establishing such a program requires substantial start-up expenses for the implementation of software technology and annual subscriptions. Costs are estimated at approximately $300,000 for implementation with on- going costs of approximately $85,000 for annual subscriptions. Lastly, to maintain a robust program, these cities have dedicated staff to administer the program and support a large number of rental units. A dedicated team may include up to seven staff members, which is comprised of a program manager, housing specialists, and administrative and clerical support staff. Cities have also reported significant additional impacts on departments such as Code Enforcement due to increased complaints and Finance due to payment processing.
Through this preliminary research, staff understand that a rental registry program is a complex undertaking. In order to fully comprehend the complexities of the program an in-depth analysis is required that looks at both the opportunities and challenges, and necessary resources to implement
File #: 25-418 Meeting Date: 9/2/2025
required that looks at both the opportunities and challenges, and necessary resources to implement this new program.
ALTERNATIVES:
The City Council may:
1. Receive and file the report.
2. Direct staff to further analyze and develop rental registry options and program budget and potential fees.
3. Direct staff to review and propose amendments to the City’s current Tenant Protections Ordinance requiring noticing all (No-Fault and At-fault) evictions and proposal of additional resources necessary to track all evictions.
FISCAL REVIEW:
The City’s$100,000 donation will be funded through the Contingency Fund in the General Fund (Fund 101).
Should the City Council choose to establish a rental registry program, staff would have to identify available funding in the adopted FY 2025-26 budget or propose the necessary funding during the budget development process for FY 2026-27.
LEGAL REVIEW:
The City Attorney has reviewed this report and approved it as to form.
CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:
This item supports the following City Council Goals:
· Strengthen the Public’s Safety and Improve the Quality of Life · Diversify, stabilize, and increase housing to reflect community needs.
CONCLUSION:
City staff have conducted preliminary research on how cities use their rental registries in connection with their rent stabilization programs and eviction tracking. At this time, staff is requesting that the City Council provide further direction prior developing detailed cost estimates or program alternatives.
RESOLUTION NO. 25-37
A RESOL
UTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUDAHY IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 3101 (SHIELD ACT)
WHEREAS, H
.R. 3101, introduced on April 30, 2025 by Congressman Robert Garcia (D-CA-42), directs the Attorney General to establish a grant program to support legal infrastructure and workforce development for immigrants facing deportation WHEREAS, t
he SHIELD Act authorizes $100 million to fund recruitment, retention, training, and capacity -building for community -based organizations, nonprofits, educational institutions, and local governments committed to providing holistic and linguistically competent legal assistance ; and
WHEREAS, a
ccess to counsel in immigration proceedings is fundamentally tied to due process, yet the majority of individuals in removal proceedings currently lack legal representation; and
WHEREAS, supporting H.R. 3101 aligns with Cudahy’s commitment to immigrant inclusion, equitable access to justice, and the legislative priority to strengthen legal protections for vulnerable communities; and
WHEREAS, t
he City of Cudahy seeks to champion federal reform that invests in legal services infrastructure critical to safeguarding residents’ rights and dignity;
BASED UP
ON THE ABOVE RECITALS, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CUDAHY, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTIO
N 1. The City of Cudahy hereby supports H.R. 3101 (SHIELD Act) and urges its swift passage through Congress.
SECTION
2. The City affirms its commitment to advancing policies that enhance access to legal representation, support due process protections, and serve immigrant communities effectively.
SECTIO
N 3. The City Clerk is directed to send copies of this resolution to Congressman Robert Garcia, the California Congressional Delegation, and federal legislative committees overseeing immigration and access to justice issues.
SECTIO
N 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions.
PASSED, APPR
OVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cudahy at its regular meeting on this 15th day of July 2025.
Elizabet
h Alcantar Loza
Mayor
EXHIBIT F
R
esolution No. 25-37
AT
TEST:
R
ichard Iglesias
City Clerk
R
esolution No. 25-37
CE
RTIFICATION
S
TATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS:
CITY OF CUDAHY )
I
, Richard Iglesias, City Clerk of the City of Cudahy, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 25-37 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Cudahy, signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 15th day of July 2025 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
N
OES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
R
ichard Iglesias
City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 25-38
A RESO
LUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUDAHY IN SUPPORT OF SENATE BILL 48 (SAFE ACCESS TO SCHOOLS)
WHEREA
S, California Senate Bill 48 (2025), authored by Senator Lena Gonzalez, strengthens protections for students, families, and school employees from immigration enforcement on school campuses; and
WHEREA
S, SB 48 prohibits Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) and school personnel from permitting access to school property by immigration officers or releasing confidential student or staff information without a judicial warrant; and
WHEREA
S, the U.S. Supreme Court in Plyler v. Doe guaranteed the right of all children— regardless of immigration status—to a free public education; and WHEREA
S, threats of large-scale deportation programs have created a chilling effect on school attendance among immigrant and mixed-status families, directly undermining educational equity and school funding; and
WHEREA
S, the City of Cudahy supports legislation that safeguards immigrant rights and reinforces public trust in education and local government institutions; and WHEREA
S, SB 48 is cosponsored by the California Federation of Teachers and Superintendent Tony Thurmond, and supported by numerous statewide educational, legal, and immigrant rights organizations;
BASED
UPON THE ABOVE RECITALS, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUDAHY, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTI
ON 1. The City of Cudahy formally supports Senate Bill 48 (Safe Access to Schools) and urges its adoption by the California Legislature.
SECTI
ON 2. The City affirms its commitment to protecting students and families from immigration-related fear and intimidation within educational settings.
SECTI
ON 3. The City Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Resolution to our elected state representatives and relevant state legislative committees.
SECTI
ON 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions.
PASSED, A
PPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cudahy at its regular meeting on this 15th day of July 2025.
Eliz
abeth Alcantar Loza
Mayor
EXHIBIT G
Res
olution No. 25-38
ATT
EST:
Ri
chard Iglesias
City Clerk
Resol
ution No. 25-38
CERTIFICATION
STATE O
F CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS:
CITY OF CUDAHY )
I, R
ichard Iglesias, City Clerk of the City of Cudahy, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 25-38 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Cudahy, signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 15th day of July 2025 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Ric
hard Iglesias
City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 25-39
A RESO
LUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUDAHY IN SUPPORT OF CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 805 (NO VIGILANTES ACT)
WHEREA
S, California Senate Bill 805 (2025), introduced by Senator Pérez, would enhance legal protections against impersonation of peace officers and government employees and require visible identification from law enforcement personnel when engaging with the public; and
WHEREA
S, SB 805 would protect Californians from deceptive practices by individuals impersonating law enforcement officers and prohibit vigilante- style enforcement practices that disproportionately affect immigrant and marginalized communities; and WHEREA
S, the bill further strengthens public safety by requiring that personnel acting on behalf of law enforcement agencies display a name or badge number unless involved in undercover work, and by explicitly prohibiting bail recovery agents from engaging in immigration enforcement or disclosing a defendant’s immigration status; and WHEREA
S, these protections are vital in cities like Cudahy, where a majority of residents are immigrants or members of historically underrepresented groups; and WHEREA
S, Senator Lena Gonzalez, who represents the Southeast Los Angeles region including Cudahy, serves as a coauthor of this bill, aligning it closely with the interests and needs of Cudahy residents; and
WHEREA
S, the City of Cudahy supports efforts at the state level to promote integrity, civil rights, and due process protections for all communities; BASED
UPON THE ABOVE RECITALS, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUDAHY, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTI
ON 1. The City of Cudahy hereby supports California Senate Bill 805 (No Vigilantes Act) and urges its swift passage.
SECTI
ON 2. The City affirms its commitment to promoting legislation that protects immigrant communities, ensures transparency in law enforcement, and prevents impersonation- related fraud or intimidation.
SECTI
ON 3. The City Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Resolution to our elected state representatives and relevant state legislative committees.
SECTI
ON 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions.
PASSED, A
PPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cudahy at its regular meeting on this 15th day of July 2025.
EXHIBIT H
Resol
ution No. 25-39
Eli
zabeth Alcantar Loza
Mayor
ATTEST
:
Ric
hard Iglesias
City Clerk
Resol
ution No. 25-39
CERTI
FICATION
STATE O
F CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS:
CITY OF CUDAHY )
I, R
ichard Iglesias, City Clerk of the City of Cudahy, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 25-39 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Cudahy, signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 15th day of July 2025 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Ric
hard Iglesias
City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 25-46
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CUDAHY, CALIFORNIA
ENCOURAGING SMALL BUSINESSES TO UPHOLD
IMMIGRANT RIGHTS AND ADOPT POLICIES TO LIMIT
CIVIL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT ON PRIVATE
PREMISES
WHEREAS, the City of Cudahy (“City”) is home to a predominantly immigrant community, with more than 95% of residents identifying as Latino/a and many belonging to mixed-status households; and
WHEREAS, in 2015 the City established itself a “Sanctuary City,” affirmed in 2017, and committed to defending the rights, dignity, and safety of all residents, regardless of immigration status; and
WHEREAS, federal immigration enforcement actions —including raids, surveillance, and workplace visits —instill fear, reduce community trust, and discourage residents from accessing critical services or participating in civic life; and WHEREAS, private property owners and business owners are not required under federal law to permit access to their premises by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) unless agents present a judicial warrant signed by a judge; and WHEREAS, small businesses play a critical role in building inclusive, welcoming neighborhoods, and can serve as leaders in standing up for immigrant protections through voluntary policies that align with constitutional rights; and WHEREAS, the City has an interest in promoting public safety, economic stability, and social cohesion by ensuring that residents feel safe accessing businesses and services without fear of immigration enforcement .
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF CUDAHY DOES HEREBY DETERMINE, FIND AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are true and correct, constitute a material part of this Resolution, and are incorporated herein in their entirety as part of the findings.
SECTION 2. Affirmation of Rights. The City of Cudahy affirms that all private business owners within the C ity have the constitutional right to deny I mmigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agents access to non-public areas of their premises unless presented with a valid judicial warrant.
SECTION 3. Safe Business Program. City Council encourages the creation and implementation of a “Safe Business Program”, a voluntary initiative recognizing businesses that pledge to:
EXHIBIT I
-2-
12664-0001\
3103166v1.doc
• Deny entry to ICE agenda unless presented with a duly executed judicial war
rant.
• Refrain from voluntarily sharing employee or customer information with immigration authorities.
• Train staff on how to respond to ICE agents’ inquiries or visits. • Display signage affirming their commitment to being a welcoming and safe space for all.
SECT
ION 4. Incentives for Participation. The City Council supports the development of incentives to promote business participation in the program, including but not limited to:
SECTION 5. Education and Outreach. The City shall coordinate with local legal service providers, immigrant rights organizations, and the business community to develop and distribute:
• “Know Your Rights” training materials for business owners and employees. • Sample internal policies and “No ICE Without a Warrant” signage in multiple languages.
• Information sessions and legal clinics as needed.
SECTION 6. City Commitment. The City reaffirms its dedication to defending immigrant rights and commits to exploring additional legal, legislative, and educational tools to prevent unnecessary collaboration with federal immigration enforcement, while continuing to foster a safe and thriving community for all.
SECTION 7. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions.
PASSED, AP
PROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of July 2025.
__________________________
Elizabeth Alcantar Loza
Mayor
ATTES
T:
_________
_________________
Richard Iglesias
City Clerk
-3-
12664-0001\
3103166v1.doc
STATE
OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS:
CITY OF CUDAHY )
I, R
ichard Iglesias, City Clerk of the City of Cudahy, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No.25-46 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Cudahy, signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk at a special meeting of said Council held on the 15th day of July 2025 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN
:
Ric hard Iglesias
City Clerk
EXHIBIT J
Introduced by: -------
ORDINANCE NO. --------
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF [ ] AMENDING ,___ ____ _, OF THE [CITY OF---� MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO REQUIRING ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OPERATING IN THE CITY OF [ ] TO WEAR
CLEARLY VISIBLE IDENTIFICATION AND PROHIBIT FACE COVERINGS
OBSTRUCTING IDENTITY DURING PUBLIC INTERACTION
WHEREAS, the federal government, through the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), has launched broad immigration enforcement efforts, deploying personnel from various federal agencies, including those within the Department of Justice, as part of the Trump Administration's immigration enforcement operations; and WHEREAS, ICE officers have conducted operations while wearing face coverings, including gaiter and ski masks; and
WHEREAS, several news outlets have reported incidents of individuals impersonating ICE officers to harass or detain others, which undermines public trust in law enforcement, especially among vulnerable individuals, and poses a threat to public safety; and WHEREAS, Charges filed against individuals include kidnapping and impersonating a police officer after allegedly detaining a group of Latino men, impersonating an ICE officer on a university campus, and impersonating an ICE officer in connection with the sexual assault of a woman while threatening her with deportation; and
WHEREAS, State and local jurisdictions bear primary responsibility for ensuring the safety and well-being of their communities; and
WHEREAS, in exercising their sovereign duty to promote public safety, State and local governments have adopted local laws and policies reflecting careful judgment of what policies and practices best serve their communities; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has long emphasized that local control over health and safety of residents ensures that matters, concerning the lives, liberties and properties of the people are determined by governments more local and more accountable than distant federal bureaucracy; and
WHEREAS, enshrined in the Constitution and a core part of American democracy respects the police power of the States and local governments; and
WHEREAS, local governments and officials have wide discretion in determining their own policy for the safety, peace and good order of their own people; and 1 ATTACHMENT B
EXHIBIT K
2 WHEREA, theCaliforniaConstitutionprovidesthatcitiespossessthepowerto enforceall local police, sanitaryandordinancesandregulationsnot in conflict with generallaws; and WHEREAS, Statelaw restrictspeaceofficersfrom detaining, for suspectedimmigration violations, victim of or witnessesto hatecrimeswho werenotthemselveschargedwith a state criminaloffense; and
WHEREAS, theCaliforniaLegislaturelimited thecircumstancesunderwhich local law enforcementofficial coulddetainindividualsat therequestof federalimmigrationauthorities; and
WHEREAS, theCaliforniaLegislatureadoptedtheCaliforniaValuesAct generallyprohibiting Stateandlocal law enforcementagenciesfrom usingpublicfundsor personnelto investigate, interrogate, detain, or arrestpersonsfor immigrationenforcementpurposes; and WHEREAS, theCaliforniaImmigrantWorkerProtectionAct, prohibitsemployersor anyone actingon behalfof anemployerfrom giving voluntaryconsentto immigrationenforcement agentsto enteror searchnonpublicareasof theworkplace, or from accessing, reviewingor seizingemployeepersonnelrecordswithouta warrant; and
WHEREAS, transparencyandaccountabilityin law enforcementareessentialto maintaining publictrustandeffectivecommunitypolicing; and
WHEREAS, theability of thepublic to identify law enforcementofficersduringinteractions promotesaccountabilityandstrengthenspolice-communityrelations; and WHEREAS, theCity Councilof [___________] findsthatprohibitinglaw enforcementofficers from wearingmasksor personaldisguiseswhile interactingwith thepublic, with limited exceptions, will enhancetransparencyandaccountability; and WHEREAS, thefederalgovernmenthasconstitutionalauthorityto regulateimmigration; and WHEREAS, theUnitedStatesConstitutioncontainslimits onthefederalgovernmentsexciseof this authority; and
WHEREAS, bountyhuntersarenot authorizedfederalagents; and WHEREAS, ICE is notallowedto enternonpublicplacesabsent, (1) exigentcircumstances, (2) consent, or (3) a judicial warrant (i.e., notanadministrativewarrant); and WHEREAS, ThisOrdinanceis not intendedto obstruct, hinder, or interferewith thelegitimate exerciseof federalimmigrationenforcementauthority, but ratherto enhancetransparency, accountability, andpublic safetywithin theCity's jurisdiction. 3 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF [______________] DOES HEREBYORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section [______]to the [_______] MunicipalCode is herebycreatedasfollows:
SECTION1. Definitions. For thepurposeof this Ordinance, thefollowing definitionsshall apply:
A. " Law enforcementofficer" meansanyofficer of a local, state, or federallaw enforcement agency, or anypersonactingonbehalfof alocal, state, or federallaw enforcement agency, whois authorizedto enforcelawswithin theCity of [______], includingbutnot limited to theICE, UnitedStatesCustomsandBorderProtection (“CBP”), Federal Bureauof Investigation (“FBI”), or anyotherfederalagencywith law enforcement authority.
B. " FaceCovering" meansanyitemwornto concealor obscureanofficer's facial featuresor identity, includingbut not limited to balaclavas, ski masks, facecoverings, scarf, bandana, or othersimilar itemscoverthenoseandmouthof thewearerin a mannerthat obscuresthewearer’s identity.
C. " Interactingwith thepublic" meansanydirectcommunicationor engagementbetweena law enforcementofficer anda memberof thepublic in thecourseof theofficer's official duties, whetherin person, duringtraffic stops, while respondingto callsfor service, or duringcommunitypolicingactivities.
SECTION2. FederalAuthority RecognitionandPreemptionAvoidance.
A. TheCity of [______] acknowledgesandrespectstheauthorityof thefederalgovernment to enforcefederalimmigrationlawswithin theUnitedStates, includingwithin theCity's jurisdiction.
B. Nothingin this Ordinanceshallbeconstruedto prohibit, restrict, or interferewith the properexerciseof federalimmigrationenforcementauthorityin accordancewith federal law.
C. ThisOrdinanceis intendedto operatewithin theCity's legitimatepolicepowersto protect publicsafety, preventfraudandimpersonation, andensuretransparencyin law enforcementoperationswithin its jurisdiction.
SECTION3. Restrictionson PersonalDisguisesfor Law EnforcementOfficers.
A. Prohibition. A law enforcementofficer shallnot wearanymaskor personaldisguise while interactingwith thepublicin theperformanceof their duties, exceptfor:
1. Medicalgrademasks, definedassurgicalmasksor N95respiratorsthatare approvedby theFoodandDrugAdministration (FDA) or theNationalInstitute for OccupationalSafetyandHealth (NIOSH) andaredesignedto preventthe transmissionof airbornediseases; and
2. Masksdesignedto protectagainstexposureto smoke, ash, or otherairborne particulatesduringa stateof emergencyrelatedto wildfires, asdeclaredby the Mayor, City Council, or Governor.
4 SECTION4. SpecialWeaponsandTactics (SWAT) TeamException.
A. It is theintentof the [________] City Councilto ensurethatSpecialWeaponsand Tactics (SWAT) teamofficers, definedaslaw enforcementofficersspeciallytrainedand equippedto respondto high-risk situationsthatrequirespecializedtacticsandequipment beyondthecapabilitiesof regularpatrolofficers, canutilize gearnecessaryto protect theirfacesfrom physicalharmwhile theyperformtheirSWAT responsibilities.
B. TheChief of Policeshalldevelopandimplementregulations, subjectto approvalby the City Council, thatspecifythecircumstancesunderwhich SWAT teamofficersmaywear protectivefacecoveringsduringtacticaloperations, providedthatsuchregulations includerequirementsfor officer identificationthroughothervisible means.
SECTION5. IdentificationRequirements.
A. It is theintentof theCity Councilto requirelaw enforcementofficersto includetheir nameor badgenumberon theiruniforms.
B. All law enforcementofficersoperatingwithin theCity of [______] shallweara clearly visible andprominentlydisplayedbadgeor otherform of official identificationthat includestheofficer's name, agencyaffiliation, andbadgeor identificationnumber.
C. Uponrequest, providetheirfull name, agencyaffiliation, andbadgeor identification numberto anyindividual subjectto animmigrationenforcementaction.
D. Presentofficial credentialsidentifyingthemselvesasfederalofficersauthorizedto conductimmigrationenforcementoperationswheninitiating contactwith anyindividual.
SECTION6. ImpersonationPrevention, Investigation, andReporting.
A. TheCity of [__________] PoliceDepartmentshall:
1. Establisha specializedunit or designateofficersspecificallytrainedto investigate reportedincidentsof individualsimpersonatinglaw enforcementofficers, includingbut notlimited to ICE andFBI agents, within theCity.
2. Developandimplementprotocolsfor respondingto andinvestigatingsuch reports, including:
ii. Proceduresfor gatheringandpreservingevidence;
iii. Methodsfor verifying theauthenticityof purportedfederalcredentials; iv. Coordinationwith federalagenciesto confirm theidentityandauthorityof individualsclaimingto befederalofficers; and
v. Techniquesfor interviewingvictims andwitnessesof impersonationincidents.
B. Conductregulartrainingfor all policepersonnelon recognizingandrespondingto potentialimpersonationincidents.
5 C. Establishanexpeditedresponseprotocolfor reportsof impersonationin progress.
D. Maintaindetailedrecordsof all reportedimpersonationincidents, includingthe natureof theincident, actionstaken, andresolution.
E. Reportanyconfirmedincidentsof impersonationto:
1. Therelevantfederallaw enforcementagency;
2. TheFederalBureauof Investigation;
3. TheUnitedStatesAttorney's Office;
4. TheCaliforniaAttorneyGeneral's Office; and
5. Thepublic, throughappropriatechannels, while protectingvictim privacyandongoinginvestigations.
SECTION7. EnforcementAuthority andMechanisms.
A. The [_________] PoliceDepartmentis herebyauthorizedanddirectedto enforcethe provisionsof this section.
B. Individualsfoundto beimpersonatingFederalLaw EnforcementPersonnelshallbe subjectto:
1. Criminalprosecutionunderapplicablestateandlocal laws, includingbut notlimited to:
i. CaliforniaPenalCodeSection146a (impersonatinga peace officer);
ii. CaliforniaPenalCodeSection538d (unauthorizedwearingof law enforcementuniform);
iii. CaliforniaPenalCodeSection532 (falsepretenses); and iv. Any otherapplicablecriminal statutes.
C. EnhancedpenaltiesasprovidedunderCalifornialaw whenimpersonationis committedin connectionwith othercriminaloffenses.
D. Civil liability for damagescausedto victims of impersonation.
E. Publicnotificationof conviction, consistentwith privacylawsandongoinglaw enforcementoperations.
F. TheCity ManagerandCity Attorneyareauthorizedto takeall necessaryand appropriateactionsto enforcetheprovisionsof this Ordinance, includingbut not limited to:
1. Seekinginjunctiverelief in a courtof competentjurisdiction;
2. Coordinatingwith federalagencyleadershipto addresspatternsof non- compliance;
3. Implementingadministrativemeasuresto ensurecompliancewith verification procedures; and
4. Developingadditionalenforcementmechanismsasnecessaryto fulfill the purposesof this Ordinance.
6 SECTION8. Severability.
If anysection, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portionof this Ordinanceis for anyreason heldto beinvalid or unconstitutionalby thedecisionof anycourtof competentjurisdiction, such decisionshallnot affectthevalidity of theremainingportionsof this Ordinance. TheCity Councilof theCity of [_______] herebydeclaresthatit would havepassedthis Ordinanceand eachsection, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, andportionthereof, irrespectiveof thefact thatanyoneor moresections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portionsmaybe declaredinvalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION9. TheCity Clerk shallcertify theadoptionof this ordinanceandshallcausethesame to bepublishedaccordingto law.
EXHIBIT L
1 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX
A RESOL
UTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON PARK CONDEMNING AGGRESSIVE AND NON-
TRANSPARENT FEDERAL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
TACTICS, REAFFIRMING COMMITMENT TO
CONSTITUTIONAL AND COMMUNITY SAFETY PRINCIPLES,
AND DIRECTING PROACTIVE LOCAL RESPONSE MEASURES
WHEREAS, t
he City of Huntington Park is home to a vibrant immigrant community, including many mixed-status families who contribute to the cultural, economic, and social fabric of the city; and WHEREAS, a
ccording to the 2020 U.S. Census, over 97% of the City’s population identifies as Latino or Hispanic, and a significant portion of households include foreign-born residents and first-generation Americans, making Huntington Park one of the most immigrant-rich communities in California; and
WHEREAS,
recent federal immigration enforcement activity in the region — particularly by agencies such as ICE, HSI, Border Patrol, and other Homeland Security operatives — has increasingly involved the use of unmarked vehicles, masked agents, tactical gear, and personnel without visible identification or federal markings; and
WHEREAS, s
uch tactics have been widely documented in national media and public forums, creating confusion and fear among residents, undermining the ability to verify whether those carrying out enforcement are legitimate federal agents or individuals posing as law enforcement; and WHEREAS, num
erous reports and video evidence show that even U.S. citizens and immigrants with lawful status have been mistakenly detained, questioned, or targeted, exacerbating distrust and public safety risks; and
EXHIBIT M
2 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 WHEREAS, these enforcement methods blur the lines between local and federal law enforcement, especially in the absence of clear agency identification, increasing the likelihood of miscommunication, civil unrest, and community trauma; and
WHEREAS, the City of Huntington Park is committed to the rule of law, civil rights, and the safety and dignity of all its residents, regardless of immigration status; and
WHEREAS, California law, including the California Values Act (SB 54), prohibits the use of local resources to assist with federal civil immigration enforcement but allows municipalities to act within their legal authority to monitor and protect their communities from unaccountable or unauthorized activity; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that non -cooperation must not be confused with inaction, and that HPPD and City staff should proactively work within legal bounds to document, verify, and safeguard against federal overreach;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Park as follows:
1. Condemnation of Enforcement Tactics: The City strongly condemns using unmarked vehicles, masked agents, and unidentifiable personnel in immigration enforcement activities conducted within the City, and views such tactics as harmful to public trust, communi ty safety, and constitutional protections.
2. Demand for Federal Transparency and Standards: The City calls upon the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and its sub-agencies to implement clear, uniform identification standards for all field agents, including marked vehicles, visible agency badges, and advance notice protocols when operating in or near local jurisdictions.
3 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 3. Directive for Local Monitoring and Verification: The City directs the Huntington Park Police Department to monitor any suspected federal enforcement activity in the City and, when legally permissible, confirm the identity and legitimacy of individuals claiming to act as federal agents.
4. Civil Rights Documentation and Reporting: HPPD shall document and report all incidents where suspected federal enforcement activity involves questionable conduct, and refer possible civil rights violations to appropriate legal and oversight authorities.
5. Affirmation of Core Values: The City reaffirms its commitment to due process, equal protection, and the rights of all individuals within its jurisdiction. Huntington Park will continue to uphold its values as a safe, inclusive, and law-abiding community where government transparency and public safety remain paramount.
6. Exploration of Legal Remedies: The City Council directs the City Manager and City Attorney to actively monitor federal enforcement activity within City limits for potential violations of civil liberties and constitutional rights, and to explore legal remedies or interventions available to the City under state and federal law, including but not limited to formal complaints, oversight referrals, and litigation where appropriate.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS ____ DAY OF MAY 2025.
_______________________________
Arturo Flores, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Eduardo Sarmiento, City Clerk
[Signature Continue Next Page]
4 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 AP
PROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
A
ndrew Sarega, Acting City Attorney
STA
TE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CITY OF HUNTINGTON PARK I
, Eduardo Sarmiento, City Clerk of the City of Huntington Park, County of Los Angeles, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2025-__ was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Huntington Park, signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk at the Special City Council Meeting held on the 28th day of February 2025 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to-wit:
AYE
S:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
T
he undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Huntington Park, does hereby attest and certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true, full and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted at a meeting of said City which was duly convened and held on the date stated thereon, and that said document has not been amended, modified, repealed or rescinded since its date of adoption and is in full force and effect as of the date hereof. _____________________________
Dated:
Eduardo Sarmiento, City Clerk
1 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 RESOLUCIÓN N°. 2025-XX
UNA R
ESOLUCIÓN DEL CONCEJO MUNICIPAL DE LA CIUDAD
DE HUNTINGTON PARK QUE CONDENA LAS TÁCTICAS
FEDERALES AGRESIVAS Y NO TRANSPARENTES EN LA
EJECUCION DE LA LEY DE INMIGRACIÓN, ESTA
RESOLUCION REAFIRMA EL COMPROMISO CON LOS
PRINCIPIOS CONSTITUCIONALES Y DE SEGURIDAD
COMUNITARIA, Y DIRIGE MEDIDAS DE RESPUESTA LOCAL
PROACTIVAS
CO
NSIDERANDO QUE, la ciudad de Huntington Park es el hogar de una vibrante comunidad inmigrante, que incluye muchas familias de estatus mixto que contribuyen al tejido cultural, económico y social de la ciudad; y
CO
NSIDERANDO QUE, según el Censo de EE. UU. de 2020, más del 97% de la población de la ciudad se identifica como latina o hispana, y una parte significativa de los hogares incluye residentes nacidos en el extranjero y estadounidenses de primera generación, lo que convierte a Huntington Park en una de las comunidades más ricas en inmigrantes de California; y CO
NSIDERANDO QUE, la reciente actividad federal de la ejecución de la ley de inmigración en la región, particularmente por parte de agencias como ICE, HSI, la Patrulla Fronteriza y otros operativos del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional, ha n involucrado cada vez más el uso de vehículos sin identificación, agentes enmascarados, equipo táctico y personal sin identificación visible o marcas federales; y
CO
NSIDERANDO QUE, tales tácticas han sido ampliamente documentadas en los medios de comunicación nacionales y foros públicos, creando confusión y miedo entre los residentes, minando y debilitando la capacidad de verificar si quienes llevan a cabo la ejecución de la ley son agentes federales legítimos o individuos que se hacen pasar por agentes de la ley; y
2 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 CONSIDERANDO QUE, numerosos informes y evidencia en video muestran que incluso ciudadanos estadounidenses e inmigrantes con estatus legal han sido detenidos, interrogados o atacados por error, exacerbando la desconfianza y los riesgos de seguridad pública; y
CONSIDERANDO QUE, estos métodos de ejecución confunden las líneas entre la ejecución de la ley local y federal, especialmente en ausencia de una identificación clara de la agencia, lo que aumenta la probabilidad de falta de comunicación, disturbios civiles y trauma comunitario; y
CONSIDERANDO QUE, la Ciudad de Huntington Park está comprometida con el estado de derecho, los derechos civiles y la seguridad y dignidad de todos sus residentes, independientemente de su estatus migratorio; y
CONSIDERANDO QUE, la ley de California, incluida la Ley de Valores de California (SB 54), prohíbe el uso de recursos locales para ayudar con la ejecu ción de la ley federal de inmigración civil, pero permite a los municipios actuar dentro de su autoridad legal para monitorear y proteger a sus comunidades de actividades no responsables o no autorizadas; y
CONSIDERANDO QUE, el Concejo Municipal cree que la falta de cooperación no debe confundirse con la inacción, y que el HPPD y el personal de la Ciudad deben trabajar proactivamente dentro de los límites legales para documentar, verificar y salvaguardar contra la extralimitación federal;
AHORA, POR LO TANTO, SE RESUÉLVE por el Concejo Municipal de la Ciudad de Huntington Park de la siguiente manera:
1. Condena de las tácticas de ejecución de la ley: La Ciudad condena enérgicamente el uso de vehículos sin identificación, agentes enmascarados y personal no identificable en las actividades de la ejecución de la ley de inmigración realizadas dentro de la Ciudad, y
3 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 considera que tales tácticas son perjudiciales para la confianza pública, la seguridad de la comunidad y las protecciones constitucionales.
2. Demanda de Transparencia y Normas Federales: La Ciudad hace un llamado al Departamento de Seguridad Nacional de EE. UU. y sus agencias para que implementen estándares de identificación claros y uniformes para todos los agentes de campo, incluidos los vehículos marcados, las insignias visibles de las agencias y los protocolos de notificación anticipada cuando operen en o cerca de jurisdicciones locales.
3. Directriz para el Monitoreo y Verificación Local: La Ciudad ordena al Departamento de Policía de Huntington Park que monitoree cualquier actividad sospechosa de la ejecución de la ley federal en la Ciudad y, cuando esté legalmente permitido, confirme la identidad y legitimidad de las personas que afirman actuar como agentes federales.
4. Documentación e informes de derechos civiles: HPPD documentará e informará todos los incidentes en los que se sospeche que la actividad de ejecu ción de la ley federal involucre una conducta cuestionable, y remitirá las posibles violaciones de derechos civiles a las autoridades legales y de supervisión correspondientes.
5. Afirmación de los Valores Fundamentales: La Ciudad reafirma su compromiso con el Debido Proceso (Due Process), la igualdad de protección y los derechos de todas las personas dentro de su jurisdicción. Huntington Park continuará defendiendo sus valores como una comunidad segura, inclusiva y respetuosa de la ley donde la transparencia gubernamental y la seguridad pública siguen siendo primordiales.
6. Exploración de recursos legales: El Concejo Municipal ordena al Administrador de la Ciudad y al Abogado de la Ciudad que monitoreen activamente la actividad de la ejecución de la ley federal dentro de los límites de la Ciudad para detectar posibles violaciones de las libertades
4 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 civiles y los derechos constitucionales, y que exploren los recursos legales o intervenciones disponibles para la Ciudad bajo las leyes estatales y federales, incluidas, entre otras, quejas formales, referencias de supervisión, y litigios, en su caso.
APROBADO Y ADOPTADO ESTE DÍA 25 DE JUNIO DE 2025.
_______________________________
Arturo Flores, Mayor
ATESTIGUA:
______________________________
Eduardo Sarmiento, Secretario Municipal
APROBADO EN CUANTO A LA FORMA:
____________________________
Andrew Sarega, Abogado Interino de la Ciudad
ESTADO DE CALIFORNIA, CONDADO DE LOS ÁNGELES, CIUDAD DE HUNTINGTON PARK
Yo, Eduardo Sarmiento, Secretario Municipal de la Ciudad de Huntington Park, Condado de Los Ángeles, Estado de California, por medio de la presente certifica que se aprobó la Resolución N° 2025- __ y fue adoptada por el Concejo Municipal de la Ciudad de Huntington Park, firmado por el Alcalde y atestiguado por el Secretario Municipal en la Reunión Extraordinaria del Concejo Municipal celebrada el día 25 de Junio de 2025 y que dicha Resolución fue aprobada por los siguientes votos, a saber:
SÍ:
NO:
ABSTENIDOS:
AUSENTE:
[Firmas continúan en la página siguiente]
5 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 El que firma abajo, Secretario Municipal de la Ciudad de Huntington Park, por la presente da fe y certifica que la Resolución anterior es una copia verdadera, completa y correcta de una resolución en sesión de dicha Ciudad, la cual fue debidamente convocada y celebrada en la fecha señalada y que dicho documento no ha sido enmendado, modificado, derogado o rescindido desde su fecha de adopción y está en pleno vigor y efecto a partir de la fecha del presente.
_____________________________ Fecha:
Eduardo Sarmiento, Secretario Municipal
RESOLUTION NO. __________
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT OF
SENATE BILL 627: LAW ENFORCEMENT: MASKS;
AND SENATE BILL 805: CRIMES
WHEREAS, immigrant families are facing increased threats of deportation; and i mmigration policy proposals of the current federal administration have caused a sense of uncertainly and fear among the City of Lynwood’s community; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lynwood is comprised of approximately forty (40) percent foreign-born residents; and
WHEREAS, addressing concerns about public trust and safety is a top priority of the City of Lynwood; and
WHEREAS, there have been multiple reports of masked individuals in plainclothes and unmarked cars alleging to be law enforcement officers while carrying out aggressive immigration enforcement actions and refusing to provide identification or warrants; and
WHEREAS, these cases undermine public trust in law enforcement, especially among vulnerable individuals, and pose a threat to public safety; and WHEREAS, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has publicly condemned impersonations, the agency’s use of face coverings and lack of consistent, visible identification creates public confusion and makes it difficult for the public to distinguish betw een authorized law enforcement personnel and criminals; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bills (SB) 627 and 805 support an increase in transparency and accountability for law enforcement and federal agents operating in California; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 627, known as the No Secret Police Act, makes it a crime for a law enforcement officer to wear any mask or personal disguise while interacting with the public in the performance of their duties; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 805, introduced by Senator Sasha Renée Pérez, known as the No Vigilantes Act, aims to expand police impersonation laws by:
Requiring federal agents, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, by to visibly display identification that includes their name or badge number when performing duties; 142
EXHIBIT N
2 Strengthening laws against impersonating law enforcement or other government personnel, particularly when used to defraud others; Restricting individuals authorized to apprehend bail fugitives by prohibiting them from using their position for immigrat ion enforcement; and
Mandating that a person authorized to apprehend a bail fugitive must keep a defendant's immigration status confidential.
WHEREAS, the City of Lynwood is in full support of legislative efforts to pass SB 627 and SB 805 and is committe d to do everything in its power to effectuate the proposed legal standards and protection to protect our communities and families.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Council calls on the State Legislature and the Governor to support, pass, and enact SB 627 and SB 805.
Section 2. The City Council of the City of Lynwood directs the City Manager, designee, and/or City staff to take all legally supported measures to further the goals of SB 627 and SB 805 including developing and/or updating City Policies to help effectuate the legal standards and protections outlined in the stated measures.
Section 3. The Mayor is authorized to execute thi s Resolution for and on behalf of the City of Lynwood.
Section 4. This Resolution shall be effective upon final approval.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this _____day of _______, 2025.
_________________________
Rita Soto
Mayor
143
3 ATTEST:
________________________ _________________________ Maria Quinonez Julian Lee, City Manager City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________
Noel Tapia
City Attorney
144
RESOLUTION NO. __________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD,
CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO INITIATE THE FORMATION OF A
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY (JPA) WITH GATEWAY CITIES TO MONITOR
AND LITIGATE UNLAWFUL FEDERAL IMMIGRATION ENFO RCEMENT
ACTIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Lynwood recognizes the importance of protecting the constitutional rights of all individuals residing within its jurisdiction, regardless of immigration status; and
WHEREAS, there is a growing concern over federal imm igration enforcement operations occurring within Southern California, often lacking transparency, judicial oversight, or compliance with the Constitution and applicable state and local laws; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lynwood and its neighboring cities individually lack the financial and legal resources to independently audit and respond to such enforcement actions; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code §6500 et seq. authorizes cities to form Joint Powers Authorities to jointly exercise common powers, inc luding investigations, legal actions, and public reporting; and WHEREAS, the formation of a Joint Powers Authority with Southeast Los Angeles cities will enable cost -sharing, coordinated auditing, collective legal standing, and greater regional impact; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lynwood intends to contribute One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) toward the initial formation and operations of the Joint Powers Authority, with a goal of achieving a minimum $1,000,000 pooled fund through contributions from other member cities; and WHEREAS, this Joint Powers Authority shall be tasked with monitoring federal immigration enforcement activities, conducting legal audits, and initiating litigation where constitutional or statutory violations are identified, with the broader policy objective of encouraging comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council hereby authorizes City staff towards the formation of and participation in a Joint Powers Authority, titled the "Gateway 155
EXHIBIT O
2 Cities Constitutional Integrity JPA", in collaboration with neighboring Gateway cities.
Section 2. The City Manager and City Attorney are hereby directed and authorized to take all necessary steps to assist in the creation of a Joint Powers Agreement and related documents on behalf of the City. The final Joint Powers Agreement will be presented to the City Council at a future meeting for its consideration and approval.
Section 3. The City Council hereby allocates $100,000 from the General Fund or other eligible source for the purpose of supporting the JPA’s initial operations and legal capacity following the formation of the JPA and the execution of the Joint Powers Agreement by all members.
Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and transmit copies to each city invited to participate in the Joint Powers Authority.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this _____day of _______, 2025.
_________________________
Rita Soto
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________ _________________________ Maria Quinonez Julian Lee, City Manager City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________
Noel Tapia
City Attorney
156
RESOLUTION NO. 25-59
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MONTEBELLO APPROVING
HUMANITARIAN SERVICES FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $100,000
FOR FAMILIES IMPACTED BY IMMIGRATION RAIDS
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the City of Montebello (“City”) and its residents have been impacted by raids being conducted by the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”); and
WHEREAS,
at the direction of the federal government, ICE has conducted targeted and broader enforcement in our neighborhoods, City streets, and within our most vulnerable businesses; and
WHEREAS,
these actions have had a significant and detrimental effect on our City and destabilized families, neighborhoods, and our economy; and WHEREAS, these ICE operations impact our community in the short- and long- term leaving families broken often without a source of income; and WHEREAS, the City Council by approving this resolution intends to establish the Montebello Humanitarian Services Program and confirm the appropriation in the amount of $100,000 for Montebello families impacted by immigration raids in Montebello.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEBELLO HEREBY RESOLVES, FINDS, AND DECLARES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: That the City approves the Montebello Humanitarian Services Program in the amount of $100,000 for families impacted by immigration raids in Montebello.
SECTION 2
: That the City intends to utilize the Humanitarian Services Program Funding appropriation to establish a program to help Montebello families that may be financially impacted and unable to work or who are in need of other essential financial assistance to provide for the welfare of their family.
SECTION 3:
That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter into the book of original Resolutions.
EXHIBIT P
RESOLUTION NO. 25-59
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of June, 2025.
_______________________________
Salvador Melendez, Mayor
ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________ ________________________________ Christopher Jimenez, City Clerk Arnold M. Alvarez-Glasman, City Attorney
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS:
CITY OF MONTEBELLO )
I, Christopher Jimenez, City Clerk of the City of Montebello, County of Los Angeles, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 25-59 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Montebello, signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 25 th day of June 2025 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
The undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Montebello, does hereby attest and certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true, full and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted at a meeting of said City which was duly convened and held on the date stated thereon, and that said document has not been amended, modified, repealed or rescinded since its date of adoption and is in full force and effect as of the date hereof.
DATE:
Christopher Jimenez, City Clerk
1 RESOLUTION NO. ________
Introduced by: Council Member Arianna Barrios, District 1 Council Member Ana Gutierrez, District 5
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ORANGE TO PRESERVE THE PUBLIC
TRUST IN LAW ENFORCEMENT INTERACTIONS
WHEREAS, the federal government has constitutional authority to regulate immigration; and
WHEREAS, the United States Constitution contains limits on the federal governments exercise of this authority; and
WHEREAS, this Resolution is not intended to obstruct, hinder, or interfere with the legitimate exercise of federal immigration enforcement authority, but rather to enhance transparency, accountability, and public safety within the City's physical jurisdiction.
WHEREAS, the federal government, through the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), has launched broad immigration enforcement efforts, deploying personnel from various federal agencies, including those within the Department of Justice, as part of the Administration's immigration enforcement operations; and WHEREAS, ICE officers have conducted operations within the City of Orange while wearing face coverings, including gaiter and ski masks; and WHEREAS, transparency and accountability in law enforcement are essential to maintaining public trust and effective community policing; and WHEREAS, the ability of the public to identify law enforcement officers during interactions promotes professionalism, accountability, and strengthens police-community relations; and
WHEREAS, face coverings and lack of visible identification pose significant risk to local law enforcement who must discern between legitimate immigration enforcement actions and the public’s reasonable fear of bounty hunters, who are not authorized federal agents, and vigilantes in our community; and
WHEREAS, several credible news organizations have reported incidents of individuals impersonating ICE or DHS agents to harass or detain others, which undermines public trust in law enforcement, especially among vulnerable populations, and poses a serious threat to public safety; and
WHEREAS, charges filed against individuals apprehended in said incidents include kidnapping and impersonating a law enforcement officer after allegedly detaining a group of
EXHIBIT Q
2 Latino men, impersonating an ICE officer on a university campus, and impersonating an ICE officer in connection with the sexual assault of a woman while threatening her with deportation; and
WHEREAS, State and local jurisdictions bear primary responsibility for ensuring the safety and well-being of their communities; and
WHEREAS, in exercising their sovereign duty to promote public safety, State and local governments have adopted local laws and policies reflecting careful judgment of what policies and practices best serve their communities; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has long emphasized that local control over health and safety of residents ensures that matters, concerning the lives, liberties and properties of the people are best determined by governments more local and more accountable than distant federal bureaucracy; and
WHEREAS, enshrined in the Constitution and a core part of American democracy respects the police power of the States and local governments; and WHEREAS, local governments and officials have wide discretion in determining their own policy for the safety, peace and good order of their own people; and WHEREAS, the California Constitution provides that cities possess the power to enforce all local police, sanitation and ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws; and WHEREAS, the duly elected members of the Orange City Council find that restricting Federal law enforcement officers and agents from wearing masks or disguises while interacting with the public and upholding the public’s right to request, and be shown, proper identification when approached, with limited exceptions, will enhance transparency and accountability; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Orange resolves as follows:
Section 1: That from this date, all Federal law enforcement officers and agents operating within the City of Orange, will be required to wear clearly visible identification.
Section 2: That Federal law enforcement agents will refrain from utilizing disguises or face coverings of any kind while operating in the City of Orange.
Section 3: Such Federal law enforcement agents shall present proper identification upon request.
3 ADOPTED this ___ day of _____ 2025.
Daniel R. Slater, Mayor, City of Orange
ATTEST:
Pamela Coleman, City Clerk, City of Orange
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Wayne W. Winthers
Interim City Attorney, City of Orange
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF ORANGE )
I, PAMELA COLEMAN, City Clerk of the City of Orange, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Orange at a regular meeting thereof held on the ____ day of _____ 2025, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Pamela Coleman, City Clerk, City of Orange
CITY OF SAN DIEGO
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 2025-1
BY THE MAYOR
WHEREAS, the City of San Diego is a proud city of immigrants, and the strength, safety, and success of our community depends on our unwavering commitment to protect the rights, dignity, and wellbeing of all residents, regardless of immigration status; and WHEREAS, targeted and large-scale immigration enforcement operations by federal agencies, particularly those that involve teams of armed federal law enforcement who often sweep through entire blocks in residential neighborhoods, disrupt the daily lives of San Diego families, deter residents from accessing public spaces and services, and heighten tension and anxiety in our schools, businesses, parks, and neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, local organizations and advocates have reported increased incidents of trauma, family separation, and violence in the wake of recent enforcement actions, and have called upon the City to provide clarity, coordination, and leadership in response; and WHEREAS, the San Diego Police Department does not and shall not engage in immigration enforcement, and the City must take proactive steps to reaffirm, clarify, and communicate this policy publicly; and
WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City of San Diego that City personnel, property, and resources shall not be used to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law unless expressly required by state or federal law; and
WHEREAS, the City must ensure its departments are trained and prepared to enforce state and local laws and policies, while also ensuring that local residents have accurate, accessible, and multilingual information about their rights, resources, and available support services; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor of San Diego is empowered under Article XI of the California Constitution and Sections 28, 260, and 265 of the San Diego City Charter to issue directives governing the administrative affairs of the City and to take action necessary to protect life and property;
NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me as Mayor of the City of San Diego, I hereby issue the following Executive Order, effective immediately:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the San Diego Police Department shall:
• Maintain and make publicly available policies that prohibit San Diego Police Department officers from engaging in, supporting, or facilitating immigration enforcement activities, in accordance with the law;
1 EXHIBIT R
CITY OF SAN DIEGO
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 2025-1
BY THE MAYOR
• Ensure that all sworn and civilian staff receive updated training on this policy; • Designate a departmental liaison to the Mayor's Office to report any instance where San Diego Police Department officers respond to an incident involving a federal agency conducting immigration enforcement activity in the City of San Diego; • Lead a comprehensive response team alongside the Mayor's Office, Fire-Rescue Department, Transportation Department, Office of Emergency Services, and other impacted City departments to develop a joint safety plan in response to a disruptive federal enforcement operation at a sensitive site or public facility; • Convene meetings with community leaders, civil rights organizations, and relevant City departments to evaluate City protocols, monitor community impact, and recommend future action;
• Reaffirm the existing state law prohibitions of sharing certain data with federal law enforcement agencies, including data gathered through the Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) system.
I FURTHER DIRECT:
The Communications Department shall:
• In cooperation with community partners, share "Know Your Rights» materials through the City's website, public libraries, community centers, and other digital platforms, translated in Spanish, Tagalog, Vietnamese, Arabic, Chinese, Korean, Laotian, Japanese, and other commonly spoken languages.
The Economic Development Department shall:
• Organize targeted business walks in key small business corridors, with a focus on areas with high concentrations of immigrant owned businesses, to provide information about this Executive Order, share multilingual "Know Your Rights» materials, and connect businesses with the appropriate resources. 2 All City Departments shall:
CITY OF SAN DIEGO
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 2025-1
BY THE MAYOR
• Review and update their internal policies and protocols to ensure compliance with this Executive Order and all relevant state and federal laws, including the California Values Act (SB 54);
• Educate any contractor, vendor, or private entity operating on City property on the City's policies and request cooperation and assistance.
The Mayor's Office shall:
• Convene a roundtable with the executives and police chiefs of neighboring governmental agencies and jurisdictions to coordinate a regional response to immigration enforcement and identify opportunities for shared public safety strategies;
• Connect local philanthropic organizations with community organizations with significant experience in providing legal and community services to immigrant communities;
• Direct Government Affairs staff to monitor and support federal and state legislative efforts to strengthen and clarify identification requirements and restrictions for federal law enforcement officers;
• Submit a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Customs and Border Protection for information about immigration enforcement operations conducted in San Diego, including locations, dates, arrests, and the use of masks or impersonation tactics;
• Support efforts of prosecutors to hold accountable those who impersonate federal officers and other law enforcement officers;
• Express support for continued robust state regulation and enforcement of the licensing and regulatory requirements for Bail Fugitive Recovery Agents. 3 CITY OF SAN DIEGO
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 2025-1
BY THE MAYOR
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand on this 23 rd day of July 2025.
Dated: July 23, 2025
4 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA ANA MAKIN G A CALL TO ACTION
TO ALL OF ITS FEDERAL ELECTED
REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS TO
ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF IMMIGRANTS WHO
RESI
DE AND WORK IN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA,
TO REMOVE ICE, MILITARY AND OTHER FEDERAL
ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL FROM THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA , CALL FOR SUPPORT TO THOSE
IMPACTED BY IMMIGRATION RAIDS AND CITY
ACTIONS AND COMMITMENTS
BE IT RESOL
VED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTIO
N 1. Findings.
A. In recent w
eeks, elected officials throughout the country, and especially in Southern California, have objected to immigration enforcement actions by the federal administration that many describe as unethical, immoral, and potentially illegal.
B. While the C
ity Council of the City of Santa Ana does not have the direct legal authority to force United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (“ICE”) or other federal military or civilian personnel to leave the City, the City Council calls upon all of its federal elected representatives in Congress to advocate on behalf of the people of Santa Ana to such end.
C. The Mayor
and City Councilmembers of the City of Santa Ana have listened:
they heard the community’s concerns through protests, social media and hundreds of public comments regarding ICE’s presence in the City, and desire to unite and collectively demonstrate they are willing, able and prepared to do more to respond to the significant public outcry and assist within their authority and jurisdiction.
D. The Cit
y Council desires to ensure that its members, staff, community members and advocates all be mindful of their various roles and authority to act , and that all be committed to ensuring accurate information is communicated and shared so that the entire community can act quickly to support individuals and families impacted.
E. The imm
igration enforcement actions led by ICE have disrupted public safety and spread fear in the City’s immigrant community, especially when
EXHIBIT S
Resolution No. 2025-_____
there have been reports of legal permanent residents and U.S. citizens bei
ng detained for questioning, and when there have been immigration raids at individual’s homes, schools, places of work, places of worship, places of public accommodation, swap meets, grocery stores, medical facilities, and hotels.
F. T
he aggressive tactics used by federal agents have heightened tensions, are damaging trust in law enforcement , and are eroding the critical relationship between our residents and the Santa Ana Police Department , and when families are too afraid to report crimes or engage with local authorities, the community is less safe.
G. A
s a result of the recent ICE raids, there has been noticeable negative economic and social impacts to the community, as less people are frequenting commercial and retail establishments, such as local restaurants, grocery stores, medical facilities, places of public accommodation, and entertainment venues for fear of being targeted by ICE.
H. T
hese growing fears about ICE raids have only worsened by President Trump federalizing the California National Guard and deploying the United States Marines to the City of Los Angeles, under a June 7, 2025 Presidential Memorandum which authorizes the deployment of active-duty armed forces anywhere in the United States where protests over ICE activity or other federal functions are either occurring or likely to occur.
I. P
resident Trump’s deployment of the California National Guard in downtown Santa Ana caused disruption, anger and protests.
J. W
hile President Trump had promised that federal immigration enforcement would focus on targeting criminals, what we have seen on the ground in Santa Ana are stories of racial profiling, arresting people without criminal records, and uneven enforcement, as employers who hire undocumented labor have not appeared to face any consequences.
K. T
he Trump Administration’s decision to redirect vital federal resources away from combating serious crimes, such as drug trafficking, human trafficking, and acts of terrorism, and place focus on targeting hard-working immigrants for primarily civil immigration violations, is a gross misuse of public safety efforts that does not to make our communities safer, but instead instills fear, division, and instability.
S
ECTION 2. A Call to Action to All Federal Elected Representatives to Advocate for the People of Santa Ana.
Resolution No. 2025-
_____ Page 3
A. The City Council hereby calls upon all of its federal elected representatives in Congress to advocate on behalf of the people of Santa Ana to end ICE’s presence and any military or other federal enforcement personnel presence in Santa Ana assisting ICE’s efforts.
B. T
he City Council calls upon its federal elected representatives to insist that ICE and federal enforcement officers comply with 8 C.F.R. 287.8(c)(iii) to ensure that such officers properly identify themselves as immigration officers who are authorized to execute an arrest and state that the person they are detaining is under arrest.
C. T
he City Council calls upon its federal elected representatives to demand that ICE cease all raids at public places as such activities create fear and disruption in the community.
D. T
he City Council hereby directs staff to send a copy of this Resolution to all elected members of Congress whose jurisdiction covers any part of the City of Santa Ana.
S
ECTION 3. Staff Actions and Sustained Commitment.
A. S
taff has been directed to work on Federal Freedom of Information Request Letters and to empower elected officials and community members to use this resource to gather information.
B. S
taff was directed and will continue to support and coordinate with legal service providers under its existing program to ensure immigration services are provided to the community.
C. S
taff will notify the Mayor and Councilmembers of ICE personnel presence in the City consistent with the legal manner in which elected officials are notified of all other significant law enforcement operations in the City.
D. S
taff has created a Know Your Rights page on the City’s website which provides links to immigration resources and includes questions and answers. Staff will continue to post up-to-date information as it is received.
E. U
pon direction of the Council and identification of sufficient funding , Staff will implement direct support to individuals and families impacted by the ICE immigration raids.
S
ECTION 4. Commitment to Accuracy and Historical Facts: Response to Comments
A. T
he City Council directs staff to ensure that all communications from the City are accurate and reflect up-to-date information.
Resolution No. 2025-_____
B. The City Council declares its continued legal commitment to SB 54 the California Values Act and its Sanctuary City Ordinance.
C. The City Council reminds the community that in 2017 the City terminated all contractual relationships with ICE and the City does not use its jail or public facilities to house ICE immigration detainees.
D. The City Council confirms that the Santa Ana Police Department does not in any way coordinate or support ICE in its federal immigration enforcement efforts.
E. The City Council would, if it had the power, immedi ately ban ICE from the City of Santa Ana and stop raids.
F. The City Council supports Governor Newsom in his efforts to fight the federal government’s use of the California National Guard.
G. The City Council reminds the community that the City and its Police Department do not have any jurisdiction whatsoever over federal immigration enforcement.
H. The City Council reminds the community that the United States Attorney’s Office for the Central District sent the City a letter stating: “The risk of crim inal prosecution for impeding federal investigations is real and my office will not hesitate to prosecute those who impede federal investigations to the full extent permitted by law” and that all individuals should be afforded the right to make personal decisions about risks and the extent to which they are willing to take actions which might subject them to federal criminal prosecution.
SECTION 5. A Call to Action by Community Members and Organizations.
A. The City Council hereby calls upon all nonprofit s, community service organizations, faith-based organizations, businesses and labor unions to work together on a community wide organization or foundation and to contribute time, resources and financial support to assist individuals and families impacted by the ICE immigration raids.
B. The City Council also calls upon every member of the community to contribute time, resources and financial support to existing nonprofits, community service organizations, faith-based organizations, businesses and labor unions so that all can unite in the common goal of assisting individuals and families impacted by the ICE immigration raids.
Resolution No. 2025-_____
SECTION 6. CEQA Determination.
The City Council hereby makes the following findings with respect to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”): This Resolution is not subject to CEQA (“Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.) because it does not qualify as a “project” under CEQA. The State CEQA Guidelines provide that “[a]n activity is not subject to CEQA if … the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378.” (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15060(c).) Here, the Resolution does not qualify as a “project” as defined in State CEQA Guidelines section 15378 for at least two different reasons: First, Section 15378 defines a project as an activity that “has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15378(a).) Here, the Resolution makes a public plea and gives staff direction, which certainly will not result in any direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Accordingly, the Resolution is not a “project” subject to CEQA. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15060(c).)
Second, Section 15378 explicitly excludes from its definition of “project” the following: “organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.” (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15378(b)(5).) The Resolution authorizes and directs staff to engage in administrative activities that will not result in a physical change in the environment, and it therefore is not subject to CEQA. (Ibid.).
In the alternative, the Resolution is exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), which provides that activity is exempt from CEQA where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Here, the Resolution makes a public plea and gives staff direction, which certainly will not result in any physical alterations or activities that could affect the environment and are not expected to have any significant environmental impact.
SECTION 7. Severability. If any provision of this Resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions of this Resolution are declared to be severable.
SECTION 8. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall attest to and certify the vote adopting this Resolution.
Resolution No. 2025-_____
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Counc il o f the City of Santa Ana at a regular meeting held this 1st day of July, 2025.
V alerie Amezcua
Mayor
APPR
OVED AS TO FORM:
Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney
AYES: Councilmember:
NOES: Councilmember: _____
ABSTAIN: Councilmember:
NOT PRESENT: Councilmember:
CE
RTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, J
ennifer Hall, City Clerk, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2025-___ to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on July 1, 2025.
Date:
Jenni fer L. Hall
City Clerk
City of Santa Ana
for the City Attorney
SANTA ANA CITY COUNCIL
Valerie Amezcua
Mayor
[email protected]
Benjamin Vazquez
Mayor Pro Tem, Ward 2
[email protected]
Thai Viet Phan
Ward 1
[email protected]
Jessie Lopez
Ward 3
[email protected]
Phil Bacerra
Ward 4
[email protected]
Johnathan Ryan Hernandez
Ward 5
[email protected]
David Penaloza
Ward 6
[email protected]
MAYOR
Valerie Amezcua
MAYOR PRO TEM
Benjamin Vazquez
COUNCILMEMBERS
Phil Bacerra
Johnathan Ryan Hernandez
Jessie Lopez
David Penaloza
Thai Viet Phan
CITY OF SANTA ANA
CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
20 Civic Center Plaza ● P.O. Box 1988
Santa Ana, California 92702
www.santa-ana.org
CITY MANAGER
Alvaro Nuñez
CITY ATTORNEY
Sonia R. Carvalho
CITY CLERK
Jennifer L. Hall
July 1, 2025
FOIA Officer [Via U.S. Mail and Email:
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement [email protected]] Freedom of Information Act Office
500 12th Street SW, Stop 5009
Washington, DC 20536-5009
RE: FOIA Request Concerning Federal Immigration Enforcement Activity in the City of Santa Ana
Dear FOIA Officer,
This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. §552, et seq., issued pursuant to authorization of the Santa Ana City Council approved on July 1, 2025. The City of Santa Ana (“City”) respectfully requests the following information regarding federal immigration enforcement activity conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) within the City of Santa Ana.
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
The City of Santa Ana seeks any and all records prepared, received, owned, used, transmitted, collected and/or retained by ICE that address, describe, refer, or relate to immigration enforcement, arrest, detention, or removal actions, civil or criminal (collectively, “enforcement actions”), in the City of Santa Ana on or after January 20, 2025, including, but not limited to, any and all records reflecting, for each action:
• All Form I-200s, Form I-250s, Form I-213s, and form I-247s; • The date, time, and location of the enforcement action; • The name(s) of all individual(s) targeted, arrested, detained, or otherwise subject to the enforcement action, including any individual(s) not designated as a target prior to the enforcement action (sometimes referred to by ICE as "collateral" targets); City Council 26 – 3 7/1/2025
EXHIBIT T
SANTA ANA CITY COUNCIL
Valerie Amezcua
Mayor
[email protected]
Benjamin Vazquez
Mayor Pro Tem, Ward 2
[email protected]
Thai Viet Phan
Ward 1
[email protected]
Jessie Lopez
Ward 3
[email protected]
Phil Bacerra
Ward 4
[email protected]
Johnathan Ryan Hernandez
Ward 5
[email protected]
David Penaloza
Ward 6
[email protected]
•The basis for the enforcement action, as reflected in records including but not limited to judicial warrants, administrative warrants, or internal ICE approvals preceding the enforcement action, and the basis for the arrest of any "collateral" targets; •A description of the enforcement action(s), such as by incident report or comparable post-action records;
•The alleged immigration violation(s), and/or criminal conviction(s) or pending criminal charge(s) related to the target(s) of the enforcement action, and any records that indicate whether those violations were known to ICE at the time of arrest; •The detention location(s) and any transfer(s) locations of individual(s) arrested or detained by ICE;
•The administrative proceedings, court proceedings, removal proceedings, or other immigration administrative and/or judicial process for any individuals arrested or detained by ICE, and the status of those processes;
•Current immigration status of the individual(s) arrested (i.e., humanitarian parole, deferred action, special immigrant juvenile, etc.); and •Complaints, investigations, or disciplinary actions related to the enforcement action.
The City of Santa Ana also seeks any and all policies, directives, memoranda, guidance, field manuals, standard operating procedures, checklists, and training modules prepared, modified, issued, or reissued by ICE on or after January 20, 2025, reflecting ICE policy and practice with respect to:
•The use of, or limitations on the use of, race, ethnicity, national origin, or physical appearance in initiating contact with or arresting individuals; •The use of, or limitations on the use of, face masks or other manners of obscuring the identity of ICE officials conducting immigration enforcement actions; •Damage to personal or public property during or in connection with immigration enforcement actions;
•ICE officials' duty, or lack thereof, to identify themselves-verbally, through their clothing, with a badge, or by any other means-before, during, or after an immigration enforcement action.
The City seeks the above records for the period between January 20, 2025, and the date of this request.
The City asks that any records that exist in electronic form be provided in their native electronic format via electronic file transfer protocol (“FTP”), USB flash drive, or equivalent electronic medium. The City ask that any documents stored in Portable Document Format ("PDFs") be provided as individual files in a searchable PDF format.
All requested records that are responsive may be provided with personally identifying details redacted. FOIA exempts information from disclosure if that disclosure would lead to an unwarranted invasion of privacy. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). Determination of this exemption requires a balancing of the public's interest in obtaining the information against any possible invasions of privacy which would result from disclosure. See, e.g., Wood v. FBI, 432 F.3d 78, 87-89 (2d Cir. 2005). The City expects the release of all
City Council
26 –
4 7/1/2025
SANTA ANA CITY COUNCIL
Valerie Amezcua
Mayor
[email protected]
Benjamin Vazquez
Mayor Pro Tem, Ward 2
[email protected]
Thai Viet Phan
Ward 1
[email protected]
Jessie Lopez
Ward 3
[email protected]
Phil Bacerra
Ward 4
[email protected]
Johnathan Ryan Hernandez
Ward 5
[email protected]
David Penaloza
Ward 6
[email protected]
segregable portions of otherwise exempt material. If, under applicable law, any of the information requested is considered exempt, please describe in detail the nature of the information withheld, the specific exemption or privilege upon which the information is withheld, and whether the portions of withheld documents containing non-exempt or non-privileged information have been provided.
Sincerely,
Alvaro Nuñez
City Manager
City Council
26 –
5 7/1/2025
City Manager’s Office
www.santa-ana.org/cm
Item # 28
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Staff Report
July 1, 2025
TOPIC: Financial Assistance for Families Impacted by Federal Immigration Activities
AGENDA TITLE
Consider a Temporary Program of Financial Assistance for Families Impacted by Federal Immigration Enforcement Actions
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Direct the City Manager to establish an Emergency Assistance Program for Families Impacted by Immigration Enforcement funded by up to $1 million of existing FY25-26 budget allocated for City Events.
GOVERNMENT CODE §84308 APPLIES:
No
DISCUSSION
Families residing in the City of Santa Ana have been significantly affected by recent federal immigration enforcement actions. When a primary income-earner is detained, households experience immediate financial hardship, including difficulty paying for essential needs such as rent, food, and utilities.
The City of Santa Ana’s adopted FY25-26 budget includes a $1 million allocation for community events, distributed as follows:
• Fourth of July $115,000
• Chicano Heritage $127,000
• Fiestas Patrias $498,000
• Noche De Altares $20,000 sponsorship contribution
• Tet Festival $80,000
• Santa Ana Fun Run $93,000
• Movie Series $30,000
• Juneteenth $20,000 sponsorship contribution
These events are funded through the City’s General Fund and are considered discretionary expenditures. The City Council has the authority to allocate General Fund dollars toward any initiative that serves a public purpose.
Exhibit U
Financial Assistance for Families Impacted by Federal Immigration Activities July 1, 2025
5 1
2 0
In response to the urgent needs created by recent immigration enforcement actions, Mayor Valerie Amezcua recommends repurposing the City Events budget to establish a temporary assistance program aimed at supporting affected families. This program would provide financial assistance for rent, utilities, food, and legal assistance.
The City Manager may collaborate with foreign consulates to identify Santa Ana residents who have been detained and coordinate outreach efforts to support their families. Local nonprofit organizations, such as the Assistance League and the Delhi Center, can be engaged to facilitate food distribution. Additionally, the City’s existing infrastructure for rental and utility assistance can be utilized to expedite service delivery, while the current contract for immigration legal defense services can be expanded with supplemental funding.
This proposal seeks to prioritize critical support for vulnerable residents during a period of heightened uncertainty and financial distress, reaffirming the City’s commitment to the well-being of all members of the Santa Ana community.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
There is no environmental impact associated with this action.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action, as the existing budget for community City Events would instead be used to provide community assistance for families impacted by federal immigration activities.
Submitted By: Alvaro Nuñez, City Manager
Approved By: Alvaro Nuñez, City Manager
Exhibit V
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-38
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
WHITTIER, CALIFORNIA, REGARDING ENFORCEMENT
OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS IN WHITTIER
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the federal government, through the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other agencies, has launched broad immigration enforcement efforts, as part of the Trump Administration's immigration enforcement operations;
WHEREAS, Federal agents have conducted operations while wearing face coverings, including gaiters and ski masks;
WHEREAS, there have been some reported incidents of individuals impersonating ICE officers in Southern California;
WHEREAS, under California state law, the City of Whittier and the Whittier Police Department are prohibited from assisting Federal agents with regard to immigration enforcement, except in limited circumstances;
WHEREAS, the City of Whittier and the Whittier Police Department have not assisted federal agents concerning immigration enforcement; WHEREAS, Article VI of the United States Constitution establishes the principle of federal supremacy, declares the US Constitution the supreme law of the land, and ensures that federal laws made under the US Constitution take precedence over state and local laws; and
WHEREAS, local governments and officials have wide discretion in determining their own policy for the safety, peace, and good order of their own people so long as such laws do not conflict with federal laws.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHITTIER, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct are a substantial part of this resolution.
SECTION 2. That the City of Whittier City Council:
1) Reaffirms the existing policies and practices of the Whittier Police Department that prohibit engagement in immigration enforcement activities, consistent with State and Federal law.
Resolution No. 2025-38 Page 2 of 2
2) Temporarily subsidize all City fees associated with the processing of passport applications submitted through City services, to support community access to identification services.
3) Approves the appropriation of additional funding, in an amount of _______, to support the Hispanic Outreach Taskforce and/or the Interfaith Food Center to aid families experiencing hardship due to immigration enforcement actions.
4) Directs Staff to make available “Know Your Rights” informational materials in English and Spanish at all City facilities, including libraries, community centers, and City Hall, and post such information on the City website and social media channels.
5) Directs Staff to support local community-based organizations and legal aid groups to assist residents with the preparation and filing of immigration- related paperwork and applications.
6) Directs Staff to engage with local businesses affected by reduced foot traffic or customer activity due to ongoing immigration enforcement operations, and to identify strategies to provide support, including promotion or other assistance.
7) Formally urges the California State Legislature to introduce and adopt legislation making it a felony offense to impersonate a law enforcement officer, including immigration enforcement agents, within the State of California.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption thereof.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of August 2025.
________________________________
JOSEPH A. VINATIERI, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
RIGOBERTO GARCIA JR., City Clerk
(seal)