910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org
Council Chambers
Mayor Knoblock
Mayor Pro Tem Enmeier
Councilmember Cabral
Councilmember Loeffler
Councilmember Wu
4:30 p.m. - Closed Session
5:30 p.m. - Business Meeting
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
Tuesday, February 4, 2025
City Council
Regular Meeting Agenda
Information concerning City Council Meeting protocols and procedures is contained at the end of this agenda.
RULES FOR ADDRESSING COUNCIL
• Members of the public may address the City Council on matters within the jurisdiction of the City of San Clemente.
• If you wish to address Council, please complete one of the blue speaker cards located at the entrance to the Council Chambers and turn it in to the City Clerk or Deputy City Clerk. • Persons wishing to address Council concerning an agendized item will be invited to address Council during the time that Council is considering that particular agenda item.
Persons wishing to address Council concerning a non-agendized issue will be invited to address Council during the “Oral Communications” portion of the meeting. • When invited by the Mayor, please step to the podium, and if you wish, state your name and the City in which you reside, and make your presentation. Please limit your presentation to three minutes.
MISSION STATEMENT
The City of San Clemente, in partnership with the community we serve, will foster a tradition dedicated to:
Maintaining a safe, healthy atmosphere in which to live, work and play; Guiding development to ensure responsible growth while preserving and enhancing our village character, unique environment and natural amenities; Providing for the City’s long-term stability through promotion of economic vitality and diversity…
Resulting in a balanced community committed to protecting what is valued today while meeting tomorrow’s needs.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) is the state law that requires the City to evaluate and document the potential environmental consequences of discretionary decision. (See, California Public Resources Code Sections 21000-21189.3; and the “CEQA Guidelines” at California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387). For each item that requires a CEQA determination by the City Council, there is a reference to that determination on this agenda, and more information regarding the CEQA analysis is included in the documents that accompany this agenda. To the extent that City staff determines that particular items are not subject to CEQA, there will be no indication of a CEQA action on this agenda.
1 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda February 4, 2025
DISCLOSURE OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
Pursuant to Government Code § 84308, City Council Members are disqualified and not able to participate in any agenda item involving contracts (other than competitively bid, labor, or personal employment contracts), franchises, discretionary land use permits and other entitlements if the City Council Member received more than $250 in campaign contributions from the applicant or contractor, an agent of the applicant or contractor, or any financially interested participant who actively supports or opposes the City’s decision on the agenda item since January 1, 2023. Members of the City Council who have received, and applicants, contractors or their agents who have made, campaign contributions totaling more than $250 to a City Council Member since January 1, 2023, are required to disclose that fact for the official record of the subject proceedings. Disclosures must include the amount of the campaign contribution and identify the recipient City Council Member and may be made either in writing to the City Clerk before the agenda item or by verbal disclosure during consideration.
CLOSED SESSION (4:30 P.M.)
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) Number of Cases: 1
Case Name: City of San Clemente v. Alfie Shahid, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2024-01381591-CU-MC-CJC.
B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - INITIATION OF LITIGATION Whether to initiate litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(4) Number of Cases: 1
Case Name: City of Huntington Beach, et al. v. The State of California, et al.
United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No.:
8:25-cv-00026
(Agendized by Mayor Knoblock, with the support of Councilmember Loeffler and Councilmember Cabral at the January 14, 2025 Adjourned Regular meeting.) BUSINESS MEETING (5:30 P.M.)
CALL TO ORDER
INVOCATION – Assistant Pastor Steve Pascoe, Calvary Chapel San Clemente
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
1. Special Presentations
A. Friends of the San Clemente Beaches, Parks and Recreation Foundation Presentation of Pump Track Donation
Presentation by the Friends of San Clemente Beaches, Parks and Recreation Foundation of a donation of $100,000 for the pump track at Richard T. Steed Memorial Park.
2 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda February 4, 2025
B. Presentation of Commendations for Lifesaving Rescue at T-Street Beach on December 25, 2024
Presentation of Commendations in recognition of heroic lifesaving efforts performed at T-Street Beach on December 25, 2024.
2. Council Member Reports
3. Oral Communications (Part 1)
Members of the audience who wish to address Council on matters that are within the jurisdiction of the City of San Clemente, but not separately listed on the agenda, may do so during the Oral Communications portion of the meeting. Speakers may address Council once during either Oral Communications Part 1 or Part 2. A total time limitation of 30 minutes is allocated for Oral Communications Part 1, with each speaker being allotted 3 minutes in which to give his or her presentation. Speaker order is determined by the order in which speaker cards are provided to the City Clerk or Deputy City Clerk at the meeting. Speakers that cannot be accommodated during Oral Communications Part 1 will be invited to address Council during Oral Communications Part 2, which appears on this agenda as Item No. 12. When invited by the Mayor, please step to the podium, and if you wish, state your name and the City in which you reside, and make your presentation. Under the Ralph M. Brown Act, the City Council cannot act on items raised during public comment but may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed, request clarification or refer the item to staff.
4. Motion waiving reading in full of all Resolutions and Ordinances
5. Consideration of agendizing items requiring immediate action Per Government Code section 54954.2(b) and 54956.5. Any items agendized will be considered under New Business, unless otherwise determined by a majority vote of the City Council.
6. Closed Session Report - City Attorney
7. Staff Communications
3 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda February 4, 2025
8. Public Hearings
The Public Hearing process includes a staff presentation, a presentation by the applicant not to exceed ten (10) minutes, and public testimony (not to exceed three minutes per speaker). Following closure of the Public Hearing, the City Council will respond to questions raised during the hearing, discuss the issues, and act upon the matter by motion.
8A. BILLING FOR 2024 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM
Public Hearing to consider all objections or protests, if any, to the costs of the abatement of weeds, rubbish, refuse and dirt upon streets, sidewalks, parkways and private property within the City of San Clemente and to the assignment of these costs to the properties on which the abatement was completed.
Staff Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. 25-13, which will:
1. Waive the City’s notification costs for the compliant property owners.
2. Approve the Weed Abatement Report.
3. Authorize the Weed Abatement Contract Administrator to bill the amounts indicated in the report to the appropriate property owners. 8B. APPEAL HEARING - DETERMINATION OF AN APPEAL OF A DENIAL OF AN EXTENSION OF A SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT FOR THE 2025 CHRIST
LUTHERAN CHURCH NORTH BEACH CHURCH SERVICES
Public Hearing to consider an appeal of the denial of a Special Event Permit application submitted by Christ Lutheran Church for weekly church services to be held on North Beach. Per San Clemente Municipal Code §
12.34.100, the applicant has the right to appeal a decision or conditions of an application. The City Council will review the reason for denial and the subsequent appeal, consider public input, and take appropriate action.
Staff Recommendation
Conduct the appeal hearing, review the denial and appeal request and make a determination on the special event permit application to either:
1. Deny the appeal on the grounds that the application for 52 days of special event use exceeds the 30-day maximum under San Clemente Municipal Code Chapter 12.34.
OR
4 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda February 4, 2025
2. Grant the appeal and determine that an exception to San Clemente Municipal Code Chapter 12.34 is warranted based on specific findings that are made in the record and give staff specific directions to issue the special event permit on specified terms and conditions that are stated in the record.
9. Unfinished Business
None.
10. New Business
10A. CONSIDERATION OF INITIATING LITIGATION AGAINST THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, THE GOVERNOR AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHALLENGING SB 54, WAIVING CONFLICTS WITH THE PLAINTIFFS,
APPROPRIATING FUNDS AND HIRING LITIGATION COUNSEL
(Agendized by Mayor Knoblock, with the support of Councilmember Loeffler and Councilmember Cabral at the January 14, 2025 Adjourned Regular meeting.) Staff Recommendation
Provide specific direction on the following:
1. Whether to initiate litigation on behalf of the City and the City Council against the State of California, Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Robert Bonta to challenge SB 54 by authorizing and directing the City Manager and the City Attorney to execute necessary documents and take such actions as are necessary and proper to join the City of Huntington Beach, the Huntington Beach City Council, the Huntington Beach Police Department and the Huntington Beach Police Chief as co-plaintiffs in the complaint (Attachment 2) filed in United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No.: 8:25-cv-00026 on the condition that an agreement can be reached to contain costs to the appropriated funding amount.
2. Whether to authorize the City Manager to waive any conflicts with the plaintiffs in that case.
3. Whether to and in what amount to make an appropriation from the General Fund to fund the litigation.
4. Whether to authorize the City Manager to hire litigation counsel.
5 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda February 4, 2025
10B. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE INCREASE OF UNLICENSED
WATERCRAFT (AKA PANGAS) COMING ASHORE IN SAN CLEMENTE
Staff Recommendation
Place the contact information for the Customs and Border Patrol on the City’s website for residents to contact if they discover a panga on or approaching the beach in San Clemente.
11. Consent Calendar
All items listed on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion without discussion unless Council or Staff requests removal of an item for separate discussion and action.
A. City Council Minutes
Staff Recommendation:
(1) APPROVE THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 14, 2025.
(2) APPROVE THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES OF JANUARY 14, 2025.
B. Commission/Committee Minutes
Staff Recommendation:
Receive and file the following:
(1) COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
OF SEPTEMBER 19, 2024.
(2) INVESTMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 4, 2024.
(3) HUMAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 12, 2024.
(4) PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR STUDY SESSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 20, 2024.
(5) COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
OF NOVEMBER 21, 2024.
(6) PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF
NOVEMBER 26, 2024.
(7) PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF
DECEMBER 17, 2024.
(8) PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR STUDY SESSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 18, 2024.
6 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda February 4, 2025
(9) PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF
DECEMBER 18, 2024.
C. Warrant Register
(1) APPROVE WIRE TRANSFER NOS.
3174 THROUGH 3181 AND WARRANT NOS.
601860 THROUGH 601937, PAID ON
1-10-25, IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,580,124.89
(2) APPROVE WARRANT NOS.
601938 THROUGH 602123, PAID ON
1-17-25, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,548,477.76
(3) APPROVE WIRE TRANSFER NOS.
3182 THROUGH 3185 AND WARRANT NOS.
602124 THROUGH 602238, PAID ON
1-24-25, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,863,689.49
(4) APPROVE WARRANT NOS.
602239 THROUGH 602362, PAID ON
1-31-25, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,578,015.63
TOTAL WARRANT REGISTER $8,570,307.77
Payroll Register
APPROVE WARRANT NO. 965 AND
AUTOMATIC DEPOSIT ADVISES 100041
THROUGH 100314, FOR THE PERIOD
12-23-24 THROUGH 1-5-25, PAID
ON 1-10-25, IN THE AMOUNT OF $511,365.70
APPROVE WARRANT NOS. 966 THROUGH 967
AND AUTOMATIC DEPOSIT ADVISES 100315
THROUGH 100629, FOR THE PERIOD
1-6-25 THROUGH 1-19-25, PAID
ON 1-24-25, IN THE AMOUNT OF $515,970.29
TOTAL PAYROLL REGISTER $1,027,335.99
7 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda February 4, 2025
11D. NOTICES OF COMPLETION FOR THE SAN GORGONIO PARK
PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT AND STEED MEMORIAL
PARK PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
Staff Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. 25-14, which will:
1. Accept the Steed Memorial Park Playground Equipment Replacement, CIP No. 12107, and San Gorgonio Park Playground Equipment Replacement, CIP No. 11148, from the contractor, Kompan California, Inc.
2. Authorize the Public Works Director/City Engineer to execute and record the Notice of Completion for the Steed Memorial Park Playground Equipment Replacement and San Gorgonio Park Playground Equipment Replacement.
3. Authorize the City Clerk to release the payment bond 35 days from the recordation of the Notice of Completion upon verification with the Engineering Division that no liens have been levied against the contractor, Kompan California, Inc.
4. Authorize the City Clerk to release the performance bond for this project upon receipt of a warranty bond in a form acceptable to the Public Works Director/City Engineer in the amount of 25% of the total construction cost. 11E. CONTRACT AWARD - TAX AND FEE CONSULTING SERVICES AND A
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO OBTAIN SALES
TAX INFORMATION
Staff Recommendation
Adopt Resolution Nos. 25-15 and 25-16, which will:
..recommendation
1. Approve, and authorize the City Manager to execute, Contract No. C25- 07, by and between the City of San Clemente and HdL Coren & Cone, providing for Property Tax Services, in an amount not to exceed $105,000, excluding the annual CPI escalator and contingent fees, for a contract term of five-years and authorize the City Manager to approve two additional one-year extension options.
2. Approve, and authorize the City Manager to execute, Contract No. C25- 08, by and between the City of San Clemente and Hinderliter, de Llamas and Associates, providing for Sales and Use Tax, Transient Occupancy Tax Services, Business License and Transient Occupancy Tax Software Services in an amount not to exceed $521,535, excluding annual CPI escalator and contingent fees, for a contract term of five-years and authorize the City Manager to approve two additional one-year extension
8 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda February 4, 2025
options.
3. Approve a 19% project contingency.
4. Authorize City staff and Hinderliter, de Llamas & Associates to have access to sales or use tax records and documents pursuant to California Revenue & Taxation Code Section 7056(b).
12. Oral Communications (Part 2)
Members of the audience who wish to address Council on matters that are within the jurisdiction of the City of San Clemente, but not separately listed on the agenda, may do so during the Oral Communications portion of the meeting. When invited by the Mayor, please step to the podium, and if you wish, state your name and the City in which you reside, and make your presentation, not to exceed three minutes. Under the Ralph M. Brown Act, the City Council cannot act on items raised during public comment but may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed, request clarification or refer the item to staff.
13. Future Agenda Items
14. Reports
A. Commissions and Committees
B. Council Subcommittee Updates
C. City Attorney
D. City Manager
15. Adjournment
Adjourn to an Adjourned Regular Meeting scheduled to take place on February 13, 2025 for the purpose of conducting a City Council retreat. The City Council retreat will begin at 2:00 p.m. The meeting will take place in the Fireside Room at the Community Center, located at 100 N. Calle Seville, San Clemente.
Please note the next Regular Council Meeting is scheduled to take place on February 18, 2025.
9 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda February 4, 2025
CITY COUNCIL MEETING PROCEDURES
PRESENTATION OF WRITTEN MATERIALS TO COUNCIL
In order to ensure that Councilmembers have adequate time to consider written materials concerning agenda items, it is strongly recommended that such materials be submitted to the City Clerk by noon the date preceding the Council meeting.
MEETINGS RECORDED AND TELEVISED
City Council meetings are broadcast live and are replayed periodically on Cox Communications Local Access Channel 854. Meetings are also available for live-stream or post meeting viewing from the City’s website.
Meetings are also recorded via audio CD and/or DVD and retained as a City record in accordance with the City’s records retention schedule.
USE OF ELECTRONIC VISUAL AIDS BY PUBLIC AT MEETINGS
To allow staff adequate time to confirm software compatibility, individuals wishing to utilize electronic visual aids to supplement their oral presentations at the meeting, must submit the electronic files to the City Clerk by no later than 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Only compatible electronic formats will be permitted to be used on City audio/visual computer equipment. Staff makes no guarantee that such material will be compatible, but will use its best efforts to accommodate the request.
LENGTH OF MEETINGS
At 11:00 p.m., the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items can be considered and acted upon at this meeting and will continue all other agenda items to a future meeting.
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with a disability who require a disability-related modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, may request such modification or accommodation from the City Clerk at (949) 361-8200. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to the meeting.
COMMUNICATION DEVICES
To minimize meeting distractions and sound system interference, please be sure all personal communication devices are turned off or on silent mode.
MEETING SCHEDULE
Regular Council Meetings are held on the first and third Tuesdays of each month in the Council Chambers, located at 910 Calle Negocio, 2nd floor, San Clemente. Closed Session are considered at 5:00 p.m. and the Business Meeting begins at 6:00 p.m. Additional meetings of the City Council may be called as needed.
AGENDAS, ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND SUPPLEMENTAL WRITTEN MATERIALS Agendas and Administrative Reports are available for review and/or copying at the City Clerk’s Department as soon as agendas are posted, by accessing the City’s website at www.san-clemente.org. An “Inspection Copy” of agenda materials is also located at the entrance to the Council Chambers during meetings for public review. All written material distributed to a majority of the Council after the original agenda packet was distributed is available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Department, located at 910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, during normal business hours.
The City Clerk’s Department offers an agenda packet subscription service free of charge. If you wish to receive email copies of City Council agendas, which include hyperlinks to staff reports and other back-up material, register at http://san-clemente.org/enotification.
10 910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org
AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 1
Meeting Date: February 4, 2025 Agenda Item: 8A.
Submitted By: Community Development
Prepared By: Adam Atamian, Community Development Director Subject:
..titl e
BILLING FOR 2024 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM ..body
Fiscal Impact:
The total cost for the 2024 Weed Abatement Program was $161,994.35. The program is funded under budget account number 001-452-4370-000-0000. The majority of the program cost is passed on to the non-compliant property owners or to City departments who have purview over parcels serviced by the program. Upon City Council approval of the proposed Resolution (Attachment 1), staff will pursue reimbursement of expenses associated with weed abatement of private properties.
Summary:
The San Clemente City Council establishes an annual Weed Abatement Program which is administered by the Code Compliance Division to lessen the fire hazard of weeds and debris on vacant lots and unoccupied structured parcels in San Clemente. The 2024 Weed Abatement process was completed and the Code Compliance Division requests authorization to bill those property owners who did not clear their own properties after having been served notice to do so.
Background:
On April 16, 2024, the City Council held a Public Hearing and passed Resolution 24-47 authorizing the City’s Weed Abatement Contractor to clear all vacant lots and unoccupied, developed properties within the City that were out in compliance with the weed abatement standards. In accordance with Section 39575 of the California Government Code, the noticing and posting of the charges has been successfully carried out by the City. In accordance with Section 39574 of the Government Code, the 2024 Weed Abatement Report is hereby submitted as Attachment 2.
Discussion:
The California Government Code outlines the process for the Weed Abatement unoccupied Program. Part of the process includes a public hearing to allow citizens to express any concerns pertaining to the weed abatement process and consequent billing. In the event that the property owner does not pay the bill presented, the Accounting Division will return to the City Council during July 2025 for authorization to attach the bill amount as a special assessment (lien) against the property.
The past practice of the City Council has been to waive the City’s notification costs for the property owners that have complied with weed abatement notifications. 11 Meeting Date: February 4, 2025 Agenda Item: 8A.
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 2
Council Options:
Adopt Resolution No. 25-13, which would 1) waive the City’s notification costs for the compliant property owners, 2) approve the Weed Abatement Report (Attachments 2), and 3) authorize the Weed Abatement Contract Administrator to bill the amounts indicated in the report to the appropriate property owners.
Modify and adopt Resolution No. 25-13 with changes to the provisions to waive the City’s notification costs for compliant property owners or authorize the Weed Abatement Contract Administrator to bill the amounts indicated in the report to the appropriate property owners. Continue the item with direction to provide additional information.
Environmental Analysis:
The recommended actions are not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Recommended Actions:
Staff Recommendation
STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT the City Council adopt Resolution No. 25-13, which will:
1. Waive the City’s notification costs for the compliant property owners;
2. Approve the Weed Abatement Report; and
3. Authorize the Weed Abatement Contract Administrator to bill the amounts indicated in the report to the appropriate property owners.
..recommendation
..end
Attachment:
1. Resolution No. 25-13
2. Weed Abatement Administrative Charges Report
3. Weed Abatement Expenditure Cost Report
4. List of non-compliant properties
Notification:
Non-compliant property owners
Ed Stewart & Associates
Public Hearing Notice published in the San Clemente Times on January 23, 2025 12 Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. 25-13
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE 2024
WEED ABATEMENT REPORT, AUTHORIZING THE
BILLING FOR THE 2024 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM,
AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO PURSUE
REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES
WHEREAS, the City of San Clemente annually establishes a Weed Abatement Program managed by the Code Compliance Division to reduce fire hazards associated with weeds and debris on vacant lots and unoccupied structured parcels; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved Resolution 24-47 on April 16, 2024, authorizing the City’s Weed Abatement Contractor to clear all non-compliant properties within the City; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 39574 and 39575 of the California Government Code, the City has successfully completed the noticing and posting of charges and the 2023 Weed Abatement Report has been duly prepared and submitted; and
WHEREAS, the total expenditure for the 2024 Weed Abatement Program was $161,994.35, funded under the budget account number 001-452-4370-000-0000, with the intent to recover the majority of these costs from non-compliant property owners or City departments responsible for serviced parcels.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of San Clemente does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and incorporated herein.
Section 2. That the 2024 Weed Abatement Report, submitted as Attachment 2 of the agenda report entitled, “Billing for 2024 Weed Abatement Program,” dated February 6, 2024 is hereby approved.
Section 3. That City staff is hereby authorization and directed to bill non-compliant property owners for the 2024 Weed Abatement Program expenses as detailed in the 2024 Weed Abatement Report.
Section 4. That the City Manager, or their designee, is authorized and directed to pursue the reimbursement of expenses associated with the weed abatement of private properties, in accordance with the procedures outlined in the California Government Code and consistent with the practices of the City.
Section 5. That the City Council hereby waives the City’s notification costs for 13 Resolution No. 25-13 Page 2
property owners who comply with the weed abatement notifications, in recognition of their efforts to adhere to City regulations and to promote compliance among all property owners, which is in the best interests of the City and the public.
Section 6. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to take such other and further actions as may be necessary and proper to accomplish the purposes of this resolution.
Section 8. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of ____________________, 2025.
ATTEST:
___________________________ __________________________
City Clerk of the City of Mayor of the City of San
San Clemente, California Clemente, California
14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) §
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE )
I, LAURA CAMPAGNOLO, City Clerk of the City of San Clemente, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 25-13 was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Clemente held on the _______ day of _______________________, 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Clemente, California, this _____ day of _________________, ________. __________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of
San Clemente, California
Approved as to form:
___________________________
Elizabeth A. Mitchell, City Attorney
15 Attachment 2
WEED ABATEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES REPORT FOR 2024
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURES
Contract Weed Abatement Administration
charge per non‐complaint parcel and inspections $ 200.00 Notifications mailed to: 541 property owners
31 $ 6,200.00
City Staff w/Benefit Costs Total
Hours
Total Rate
w/benefits
Code Compliance Manager 20 1883.42 $1,883.42
Finance FAS: $63.89 UB: $ 45.83 CM: $201.04 AR:
$45.83
11.2 699.83 $699.83
City Clerk 1.5 91.28 $91.28
Total Administrative Expenditures for Weed Abatement 2024 $8,874.53 Charges Waived for Compliant Lots 510 ($2,521.28)
Total Charges for Non‐Compliant Lots $6,353.25
Total Number of Private Lots Cleared 31 31
Administrative Cost per Non‐Compliant Lot: $ 204.94
16 Attachment 3
WEED ABATEMENT EXPENDITURE COST BREAKDOWN REPORT FOR 2024
WEED ABATEMENT EXPENDITURES
Cost to Abate/Cut fees charged to Non‐Compliant Properties Without
$200 Administrative Fee
31 $ 17,142.90
Costs to Clean City Reservoirs Sites (Costs are
forwarded to Water Division for return of costs to
the General Fund)
6 $ 13,236.20
Cost to Clean City‐Owned Lots/Parcels 61 $ 110,262.00
Program Administrative Cost $ 15,000.00
Total $ 155,641.10
Administrative Charges $ 8,874.53
Waiver fee for Compliant Lots ($ 2,521.28)
Contract Services for Weed Abatement $ 155,641.10
Total Expenditures for Weed Abatement Program 2024 $ 161,994.35 17 Attachment 4
18 19
20 21
910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org
AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 1
Meeting Date: February 4, 2025 Agenda Item: 8B.
Submitted By: Beaches, Parks and Recreation
Prepared By: Samantha Wylie, Beaches, Parks & Recreation Director; Alexandra Gallardo, Recreation Supervisor
Subject:
..titl e
APPEAL HEARING – DETERMINATION OF AN APPEAL OF A DENIAL OF AN EXTENSION OF A SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT FOR THE 2025 CHRIST LUTHERAN CHURCH NORTH BEACH CHURCH SERV ..bodyICES
Fiscal Impact:
The maximum cost of the permit for 52 Sunday activities is $3,900, broken down below. The total fee collected varies based on inclement weather or circumstantial cancellations. $240 Application Fee
$30 site fee for the first date of beach use and $10 per day of beach use after the initial use $60 Sound Amplification per day
Summary:
The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council with an overview of the appeal filed by Christ Lutheran Church following the denial of their Special Event Permit application for extended weekly beach church services at North Beach (Attachment 1) for 52 days. The denial was based on the applicant’s request to extend the permit beyond the 30 days per year allowed under San Clemente Municipal Code (SCMC) Chapter 12.34, which governs the use of public spaces for special events (Attachment 2). Per SCMC Chapter 12.34, the use of public spaces for special events is subject to specific limitations, including a maximum of 30 days per year for recurring events. (See Section 12.34.020.) This limitation is intended to balance equitable access to public spaces, preserve the natural environment, and minimize disruption to other public uses.
The applicant has requested an extension to 52 days for its use under a Special Event Permit, exceeding the number of days allowed by the Municipal Code. The City Council should hear the applicant’s appeal of Staff’s denial of an extension of their Special Event Permit beyond the 30- day maximum under the Municipal Code and decide whether to uphold the denial of the Special Event Permit or grant an exception to allow this activity to continue as proposed.
Background:
Since 2008, records indicate that the Beaches, Parks & Recreation Department (“BPR”) has issued a Special Event Permit (“SEP”), pursuant to SCMC Chapter 12.34 Special Event Permits, to Christ Lutheran Church (the “applicant”) to conduct a weekly church service on the beachfront at North Beach. Historically, the activity has been permitted from 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. on the south side of the North Beach concession/public safety building, with the church service operating from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m.
22 Meeting Date: February 4, 2025 Agenda Item: 8B.
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 2
In 2021, the SCMC Special Event Permits Chapter was modified through the adoption of Ordinance No. 1717 (Attachment 2). While substantial changes were made throughout the chapter, one significant change relevant here was the definition of a “special event”. Under SCMC
12.34.020(A), a “special event” means: “Any organized activity, or persons participating in an organized activity having a common purpose on City property for a duration of less than 30 calendar days and involving at any given time during such period 50 or more persons, or involving 20 or more persons in a small City park.”
On October 9, 2024, the applicant submitted a Special Event Permit application to host weekly church services on Sundays at North Beach (the “activity”) for the 2025 calendar year. The application requests approval to hold this activity on Sundays, from 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., for the entirety of the calendar year, totaling 52 days annually.
After reviewing the application, it was determined that this permit request does not meet the requirements of a Special Event as specified in SCMC Chapter 12.34 due to the number of days requested exceeding the 30-day maximum.
On November 31, 2024, a denial letter was sent to the applicant explaining the reason for the denial and providing alternative options to consider to continue hosting the weekly activity (Attachment 3).
The denial of the permit application is consistent with the regulations outlined in Chapter 12.34, which aim to ensure that public spaces remain accessible to a diverse range of users and activities. Allowing one organization exclusive use of a public space for more than 30 days annually could set a precedent that undermines these goals.
The applicant has filed an appeal, requesting that the City Council grant an exception to allow the weekly church services to continue as proposed (Attachment 4). The applicant argues that the activity provides a valuable community benefit and promotes positive use of the beach area.
Council Options:
Uphold the Denial of the Special Event Permit:
o Enforce the Municipal Code and limit the church’s use of North Beach to a maximum of 30 days annually.
o Encourage the applicant to work with City staff on a different venue for their recurring gatherings (like a community center or park space) or revise their schedule and reapply for a permit in compliance with the Code.
o This would be a denial of the applicant’s appeal.
Grant an Exception:
o Allow the church to continue hosting weekly services as proposed, exceeding the 30-day limit.
o Provide clear justification and findings supporting this exception to ensure that it does not create an unfavorable precedent or lead to future claims of disparate treatment. o This would be a grant of the applicant’s appeal.
23 Meeting Date: February 4, 2025 Agenda Item: 8B.
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 3
Find an Alternative Compromise:
o Authorize a modified exception, such as allowing the event to occur weekly from March 1 to October 31 (approximately 32 days).
Continue the item and request that the applicant or staff provide more information.
Environmental Review/Analysis:
Not a “project” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 (14 CCR § 15378). The action has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
Recommended Actions:
..recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the appeal hearing, review the denial and appeal request and make a determination on the special event permit application to either:
1. Deny the appeal on the grounds that the application for 52 days of special event use exceeds the 30-day maximum under SCMC Chapter 12.34;
OR
2. Grant the appeal and determine that an exception to SCMC Chapter 12.34 is warranted based on specific findings that are made in the record and give staff specific directions to issue the special event permit on specified terms and conditions that are stated in the record. ..end
Attachments:
1. Special Event Permit Application
2. San Clemente Municipal Code Chapter 12.34
3. SEP Application Denial Letter
4. Appeal Letter
Notification:
Christ Lutheran Church
300-foot Notice
Publication in the OC Register on January 26, 2025
24
Denied
Printed: 01/24/2025
9773295
81c907f0-8686-11ef-b405-391b490d82d4
Inactive
2025 Christ Lutheran Church at the Beach
01/01/2025 - 12/31/2025
8:00 am - 9:00 am
Setup: 7:30 am
Takedown Complete: 9:30 am
01/01/2025 - 12/31/2025
Pre-Review Denied
Final-Review Not Reviewed
Dear Kathy Hartl and Juli Patten,
We are writing regarding your recent
application for a special event permit for the
2025 North Beach Church activity. After a
thorough review, we regret to inform you that
the application has been denied, as the
proposed activity does not meet the guidelines
for a special event permit as outlined in the
San Clemente Municipal Code § 12.34.030.
Respectfully, Alexandra Gallardo
10/09/2024
There are no fees
!
There are no payments
$WWDFKPHQW
25 (Empty fields are not included)
Christ Lutheran Church
Non-Profit
95-2398540
!"#
$
$
%
&
'(
Kathy
&
)(
Hartl
(949) 496-2621
*
((
35522 Camino Capistrano
&
San Clemente
CA
+
92672
,
&
-( ((
) ( .
Yes
-( ((
) (
BL-0308442
-
((.
No
(
(
,
/( /
0(1
, .
No
501(c)(3).pdf
26
Juli Patten
808-590-8262
Other
Lutheran Church Service
Yes
!
""
Less than 250 feet of beach
"#
$
"
No, the beach area will remain open to public use
%
&"
'
Yes
No
("
50
')
6
Christ Lutheran Church
*
North Beach on the beach
+
("
,
No
,
No
-"
No
,
"
'
No
27
No
Yes
No
!
No
No
"#
$%
No
&
' ()*
)
No
+
No
&
,
$
No
,
--
,
No
.
No
+
,
,
No
No
No
(
,
No
/
(
,
,-
--)
)
!0
'
)
-
0
In San Clemente North Beach lot
*!
28 N/A
No
We park a box truck in a space in the North Beach parking lot and load out using a hand truck.
Yes
!
"#
#
$
approximately 6'x3'
Christ Lutheran Church at the Beach
All Are Welcome
%
&
!
Top of the ramp leading down to North Beach bathrooms
'((&
!
)
Bungee cords
*
No
&+
,
No
No
*&
# #!& +)
No
-+&
!
&+
%
.
(&-
&/
& 0#.
&
.&
+
& &
+#
&
&"
/(
&
"
.&
+
&
,
1
(
&
+
&
Beach Church Timing of Events.pdf
beach church set up image.pdf
Certificate of Liability Insurance City of San Clemente.pdf 29
General Announcements, Speech, Music
8:00 am
9:00 am
7:45 am
Tom Fahey
Tom Fahey
Professional Sound System
!
"#
$
%&"#''
#(
)*+
#
55 ,$
)
)
#
#
%
-./0./+.+
/, 1
#
#
2
)
$
#
3
#
4"
#
#
/
I certify the information contained in the foregoing application is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief; that I have read, understand, and agree to abide by the rules and regulations governing the proposed Special Event under the City of San Clemente Municipal Code; and that I understand this application is made subject to the rules and regulations established by the City Council and/or the City Manager or his/her designee. I agree to comply with all other requirements of the City, County, State, Federal Government, and any other applicable entity which may pertain to the use of the Event venue and the conduct of the Event. I further certify that I am authorized to commit the Applicant, and I agree to be financially responsible for any costs and fees that may be incurred by or on behalf of the Applicant to the City of San Clemente.
I agree, on behalf of myself as an individual and the above-listed organization, to indemnify, defend, and hold free and harmless the City of San Clemente and all of their respective agents, officers, and employees (collectively hereinafter referred to as the "City") from and against any and all loss or liability for claims or judgments against the City, including attorney’s fees and costs, that may occur or arise as a result of the planning, preparation, or operation of the Special Event. However, neither I nor the Organization shall be obligated to defend, indemnify and hold free and harmless the City from any claim that may arise as a result of the City's sole gross negligence or willful misconduct. Furthermore, on behalf of myself and the Organization, I agree to waive any and all claims, costs, liabilities, expenses, or judgments against the City, including attorney fees and court costs, which may accrue to myself or the Organization as a result of the planning, preparation, or operation of the Special Event. Furthermore, I agree, on behalf of myself as an individual and on behalf of the Organization, as a condition of holding the Special Event within the City of San Clemente, to pay to the City the costs of any damage, injury, or loss of any public property which directly or proximately results from the occurrence of the Special Event. The payment for all such 30 damage, injury, or loss shall be submitted to the City within ten (10) days of receiving an invoice from the City listing the costs of such damage, injury, or loss to public property. I understand that this obligation is both an obligation of the Organization sponsoring the event as well as a personal obligation which I freely accept. I certify under penalty of perjury that I have the authority to bind the Organization sponsoring this Special Event to pay any and all such costs associated with the damage, injury, or loss of public property which directly or proximately results from the occurrence of the special event.
I CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE ABOVE WAIVER AND RELEASE.
Kathy Hartl - 10/09/2024 2:36 pm
31
Dear Kathy Hartl and Juli Patten,
We are writing regarding your recent application for a special event permit for the 2025 North Beach Church activity. After a thorough review, we regret to inform you that the application has been denied, as the proposed activity does not meet the guidelines for a special event permit as outlined in the San Clemente Municipal Code § 12.34.030.
Please see the attached letter for more information.
Respectfully, Alexandra Gallardo
CLC North Beach Church Letter.pdf
32 speaker speaker
Chairs
Altar table, Pastor and Musicians
Chairs
North Beach Public Swing set
North Beach Public Bathroom
33 Sunday Church Service is held weekly on the beach at North Beach.
Set up includes 120 chairs, 2-3 tables, and a sound system. 7:30 am – arrive with beach truck and start set up
7:50 am – sound check
8:00 am – hour long service
9:00 am - end of service, begin take down
9:30 am – Be packed up and ready to go.
34 Chapter 12.34 - SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS
Sections:
12.34.010 - Intent and purpose.
The intent of this chapter is to provide a framework for permitting special events. The use of City property, including parks, public rights-of-way, streets and sidewalks, or other City-owned or controlled property, by large groups causes wear and tear on turf, park equipment, and facilities, and requires City staff time to provide support services, such as traffic control. These events can also limit the public's access to and enjoyment of public property, especially those properties designed to provide a wide range of creative, safe and enjoyable recreational opportunities for persons of all ages, abilities, and financial status.
Such uses can also subject neighboring residents and businesses to noise and traffic. Therefore, the purpose of this chapter is to ensure that special events are conducted so as not to violate any other ordinance or regulation of the City, or, unreasonably restrict the larger public's use and enjoyment of public places, cause detrimental effects to surrounding properties and the community at large. It is the intent of the City to protect the rights of the people to engage in expressive activities in the City's public places, as well as to regulate the time, place and manner of these activities in a reasonable and minimally restrictive fashion.
The provisions of this chapter do not supplant or alter the business license requirements of Title 5 of this code, the temporary use permit requirements of Title 17 of this code, the special activity permit or temporary outdoor use requirements of Sections 17.16.155 and 17.28.295 of this code, or the City's facility rental requirements.
(Ord. No. 1717, § 3, 10-19-2021)
12.34.020 - Definitions.
"Air-medical operations permit" means a permit issued by the fire chief or his or her designee, allowing the landing and takeoff of EMS air rescue or air ambulance helicopters for the purposes of special event stand-by services.
"Applicant" means the person, corporation, association, partnership or other legal entity submitting the application for a permit.
"Chief of Police Services" means the City's Chief of Police Services, or his or her designee. In all instances where this term appears in this chapter, "Chief of Police Services" includes his or her designee, except where the context clearly requires a different meaning.
"City" means the City of San Clemente.
Attachment 2
35 "City property" means property owned or controlled by the City, including, but not limited to, parks, City beaches, parking facilities, and public rights-of-way (including streets and sidewalks). "City Manager" means the City Manager of the City or his or her designee, except where the context clearly requires a different meaning.
"Departmental service charges" means the actual costs which a department of the City incurs in connection with activities for which a permit is required under this chapter, including, but not limited to, costs associated with fire safety, traffic and/or pedestrian control, water safety, the closure of streets or intersections, additional police protective services, the diverting of traffic, the salaries of City personnel involved in administration or coordination of City services for the event, the cost to the City to provide support personnel, equipment, materials and supplies and related City costs, such as fringe benefits or employee overtime, or other support activities typically provided by City staff for special events, such as event-vehicle escorts, posting notice of pending closures at the site of events, initial event set-up inspections, and providing permit-compliance patrols during the event. "Departmental service charges" excludes the cost of law enforcement to protect participants and observers in special events. "Event organizer" means any person who conducts, manages, promotes, organizes, aids, or solicits attendance at a special event.
"Expressive activity" means conduct protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution or Chapter 1, Section 2 of the California Constitution, which conduct is the principal purpose of the event.
Expressive Activity includes, but is not limited to, public oratory and the distribution of literature. "Fire Chief" means the Orange County Fire Authority Fire Chief, or his or her designee, assigned to the City of San Clemente, except where the context clearly requires a different meaning. "Indigent natural person" means a person eligible for relief and support in the County of Orange as an indigent person under California, Welfare and Institutions Code Section 17000 et seq., or as the/those section(s) is/are amended from time to time.
"Limited service charitable feeding operation" means an operation for food service to a consumer solely for providing charity that is conducted by a nonprofit charitable organization operating with a registration from the Orange County Health Officer, and whose food service is limited to the functions specified by State law.
"Medical operations permit" means a permit issued pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code, which gives the City the right to require and evaluate, modify, approve or reject the medical operations plan of any applicant wishing to conduct a special event within the City. "Parade" means a parade, procession, march, demonstration, motorcade, promenade or pageant consisting of persons, animals or vehicles, or any combination thereof, traveling in unison and having a common purpose, design, destination or goal, which is conducted in, on, upon, or along any public street, 36 A.
B.
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. C.
sidewalk or other property owned or controlled by the City, or any portion thereof, which does not comply with normal and usual traffic regulations or control, or which may impede, obstruct, impair or interfere with the free use of such public street, sidewalk or other public property of the City. "Permit" means a permit issued pursuant to this chapter for special events. "Person" means any natural person, firm, association, joint venture, joint-stock company, partnership, organization, club, company, corporation, business trust or manager, lessee, agent, servant, officer or employee, or any of them, except where the context clearly requires a different meaning. "Sidewalk" means the portion of a street, other than the roadway, set apart by curbs, barriers, markings, or other delineation for pedestrian travel.
"Small City park" means one of the following City parks: Canyon View Park, Vista del Sol Park, Leslie Park, Park Semper Fi, and Parque Del Mar.
"Special event" means:
Any organized activity, or persons participating in an organized activity having a common purpose on City property for a duration of less than 30 calendar days and involving at any given time during such period 50 or more persons, or involving 20 or more persons in a small City park;
Any use of City property which is inconsistent with the permanent or ordinary use to which the property is dedicated or ordinarily used, and results in adverse impacts to public property, or the public's free use of public property because:
The activity is inconsistent with the occupancy levels for the subject property; The activity involves the use of signs (as defined in Section 17.84.030 of this code), whether attached to public buildings, structures, ground, or landscaping, or, with the exception of activities meeting the definition of "Expressive Activity" (as defined in this chapter), handheld signs;
The activity includes the placement of temporary structures or devices attached to public property in any manner, or includes the use of temporary structures or devices of combined total area of more than 64 square feet;
The activity is likely to result in noise with a sustained volume of more than 65 dB (A) for more than one hour or 80 dB (A) for any duration of time; The intensity of the activity is likely to result in permanent or temporary damage to public buildings, structures, or landscaping, including, but not limited to, litter, turf damage, or any unsanitary conditions; or
37 D.
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. 6.
7. 8.
9. 10.
Any organized activity, regardless of the number of persons involved, where goods or services are offered, with or without cost, to members of the public, whether directly associated with the event organizers or participants or not; or
Any event, regardless of the number of persons involved, requiring full or partial closure of, or impedes access to, any portion of the right-of-way, which occurs on a public street, sidewalk, alley, or other public right-of-way, and/or any event occurring on any public property or public right-of-way which is likely to obstruct, delay or interfere with the normal flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic, including access to path-of-travel or accessible facilities required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), access to public transit, public parking, public parks, public institutions, including Police and Fire stations and schools, public and private medical offices and hospitals, business access, or coastal or beach access or use.
The following list of examples is illustrative, but not determinative, of activities that may constitute "special events":
Motorized vehicle races or contests.
Non-motorized vehicle races or contests.
Carnivals, circuses, fairs, festivals, non-domesticated animal acts or exhibitions, and similar activities.
Any event with mechanical amusement rides.
Promotional or fundraising activities.
Parades.
Outdoor shows, movies, concerts and exhibitions.
Outdoor craft fairs, soapbox derbies, or other similar events.
Beach cleanups.
Surf competitions.
"Special event permit" means a permit issued for a special event pursuant to this chapter. "Spontaneous special event" means a special event involving expressive activity, which is precipitated by news, circumstances or events coming into public knowledge fewer than 30 calendar days before the proposed spontaneous special event.
"Street" means a way or place, of whatever nature, publicly maintained and open to use by the public for purposes of vehicular travel. Streets include highways and alleys. "Venue" means the specific property, area or site on which a special event occurs or for which a special event permit has been issued.
38 A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
A.
1. "Working day" means a day of the week on which City Hall is open to the public and conducts business.
Saturdays, Sundays, weekdays on which City Hall is not open to the public, and City and federal holidays are not working days within the meaning of this chapter.
(Ord. No. 1717, § 3, 10-19-2021)
12.34.030 - Permit required.
.....It shall be unlawful for any person to conduct, operate, maintain, organize, promote, advertise, or sell or furnish tickets to any special event not expressly exempt under SCMC Section 12.34.040 without a special event permit. A copy of a valid special event permit is required to be posted in a conspicuous place on any structure within which the special event will be managed to the extent such place or structure exists, and in any and all cases, the person(s) responsible for on-site supervision or conduct of the special event shall have a copy or copies of the permit on their person at all times during the conduct of the special event and shall present such permit to staff of any City department upon request.
.....The City Manager, is authorized to issue permits pursuant to the procedures established in this chapter.
.....Issuance of a permit pursuant to this chapter does not obligate or require the City to provide City services, equipment or personnel in support of an event, although the City Manager may provide such services, equipment or personnel if such are reasonably available and the event organizer makes provisions to reimburse the City for the cost as required under this code or fee resolution of the City Council.
.....No permit issued under the provisions of this chapter shall be transferable or movable to another venue or another applicant, nor shall any permit allow any special event to occur at any time or date other than those specified on the issued permit. .....Persons who desire to conduct, operate, maintain, organize, advertise, or sell or furnish tickets to more than one special event in a 12-month period may submit a single application for an annual permit covering all special events specified in the application. The application shall include the information required by SCMC Section 12.34.070 for each special event. (Ord. No. 1717, § 3, 10-19-2021)
12.34.040 - Exceptions to the special event permit requirement.
A special event permit is not required for:
.....Any event conducted pursuant to the following:
A special activity permit issued by the Community Development Department as provided in Sections 17.16.155 and 17.28.295 of this code;
39 2.
3. 4.
5. B.
C.
D.
E.
A.
B.
C.
A temporary use permit issued by the Community Development Department as provided in Sections 17.16.155 and 17.28.295 of this code;
A sidewalk vending permit issued by the Finance Department as provided in Chapter 5.50 of this code; or
A street vending permit issued by the Finance Department as provided in Chapter 5.52 of this code.
A filming permit issued by the Beaches, Parks & Recreation Department as provide in Chapter
5.44 of this code.
.....Any organized activity within the scope of a conditional use permit or other land use approval given or required for that use.
.....Any expressive activity on a City street, sidewalk, or park, on condition that within 48 hours of such activity, or within such time is practicable for expressive activity that would otherwise constitute a spontaneous special event, any individual(s) or organization(s) leading or participating in such activity provides the City Manager with the information listed in subsections
12.34.070(A)(1),(3), (4), (5), (6), (13), and (21).
.....Funeral processions by a licensed mortuary or funeral home. .....Activities conducted by a government agency acting within the scope of its authority. (Ord. No. 1717, § 3, 10-19-2021)
12.34.050 - Application for permit.
.....An application for a permit required by this chapter shall be filed with the City Manager on a form furnished by, or acceptable to, the City Manager, and signed by the applicant under penalty of perjury. If the application is filed by an organization, the application shall be prepared, signed under penalty of perjury, and filed by an officer of such organization, who is not less than 18 years of age. An indigent natural person may only apply on their own behalf and not on behalf of another person, corporation, association, partnership or other legal entity if utilizing an application fee waiver issued pursuant to Section 12.34.080. .....A completed application shall be filed not less than 60 calendar days prior to the beginning of the proposed special event, unless the event is a spontaneous special event. Further, if the City Manager finds that the application review is duplicative of the City's prior review of a substantially similar permit application or the size and scale of the special event suggest that review of the application will require less than one hour's staff time and the event will require minimal City oversight, the City Manager, in his or her discretion, may waive the 60-day filing requirement, subject to subsection (D) below.
40 D.
1. (a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
2. .....An application will be deemed complete unless, within ten working days, the applicant is given written notice that the application is incomplete and told what information is missing, either in person or by a letter addressed to the applicant and deposited in the U.S. mail. Notwithstanding the City Manager's acceptance of a completed application, no special event date or venue shall be considered confirmed and no special event shall be allowed to commence until a special event permit is issued pursuant to SCMC Section
12.34.080.
.....No application filed for a special event proposed to take place fewer than 30 calendar days from the filing of the application will be accepted unless such special event is a spontaneous special event, subject to the following requirements:
An event organizer must give written notice to the City Manager at least 48 hours in advance of any proposed spontaneous special event. Such written notice must contain all of the following information:
The name, address and telephone number of the person or persons seeking to conduct the spontaneous special event, which person or persons shall be considered the applicant for purposes of this subsection.
The name, address and telephone number of the headquarters of the organization, if any, and of the organizer or responsible head of such organization by whom or on whose behalf the spontaneous special event is proposed to be conducted.
The name, address and telephone number of the person who will chair the spontaneous special event and who will be responsible for the conduct of the participants.
Information about the nature of the event, and a statement describing how it meets the definition of a "spontaneous special event" as defined in this chapter.
The location and date of the spontaneous special event, including the assembly area, disbanding area, and the route to be traveled, if applicable.
An estimate of the approximate number of persons the applicant anticipates will be participating in the spontaneous special event and an estimate of the approximate number of persons who will be observing the spontaneous special event.
The times at which the spontaneous special event will officially begin and conclude.
The type of security or other arrangements that will be provided to assure that participants are properly directed.
The written notice shall be accompanied by a declaration under penalty of perjury demonstrating that the failure to submit a timely application was not within the applicant's control because the precipitating news, circumstances or events did not exist, or could not have been known to the applicant in time to file a timely application under this chapter.
41 3.
4. A.
B.
A.
1. The City Manager may impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on the spontaneous special event.
The City Manager may deny permission to conduct a spontaneous special event if he or she makes a written finding requiring denial pursuant to SCMC Section 12.34.080 within 24 hours of receipt of the application. If the City Manager makes a finding pursuant to SCMC Section
12.34.080, he or she shall immediately provide notice of the denial, including the reason or reasons for the denial, by telephone and in writing, to the applicant. In lieu of denial, the City Manager may propose to the applicant an alternative time, route, venue or manner of conducting the spontaneous special event which would be acceptable to the City and would obviate any finding made pursuant to SCMC 12.34.080. The City Manager's determination concerning a permit for a spontaneous special event shall be final and conclusive in the matter, and subject to appeal under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 or 1094.8.
The applicant will be charged for the actual costs incurred for any increases in the cost of services attributable to the shortened review period. Such costs may include, but are not limited to, any staff overtime.
(Ord. No. 1717, § 3, 10-19-2021)
12.34.060 - Permit application fee.
.....All applications shall be submitted with payment of a nonrefundable application fee established by resolution of the City Council, as may be amended from time to time, unless said special event is funded in full or in part by the City, or said fee is waived by the City Manager pursuant to subsection (B) below. Any application submitted without said application fee shall be deemed incomplete.
.....Any indigent person who cannot apply for a permit because of an inability to pay the required application fee due to such indigence shall not be required to pay said application fee set forth in subsection (A) of this section. Application for indigent status shall be made at the time of submission of the permit application and shall be accompanied by such relevant information and documentation which may, in the opinion of the City Manager, be reasonably necessary to verify such status.
(Ord. No. 1717, § 3, 10-19-2021)
12.34.070 - Application contents.
.....The application for all special events shall contain the following information:
42 2.
3. 4.
5. 6.
7. 8.
9. 10.
11. 12.
13. 14.
15. The name, address, email address, and telephone number of the applicant, the event organizer and an alternative person who may be contacted if the event organizer is unavailable.
If partially located on private property, signed approval from the property owner acknowledging and consenting to conduct of the special event thereon.
If the applicant is an organization, the name, address, email address, and telephone number of the organization and the authorized head of the organization shall be provided. The person designated as the applicant by an organization shall provide written authorization from the organization verifying such designation.
The name, address, email address, and telephone number of the person who will be present and in charge on the day(s) of the special event.
A description of the nature or purpose of the special event for which the permit is requested and an estimate of the maximum number of persons who will be attending the special event and who will be observing the special event.
Date(s) and estimated starting and ending time(s) of the special event.
Location of the special event, including its boundaries, assembly point(s), disbanding point(s), the street or other public property, and the specific area or areas that will be utilized in connection with the proposed special event, or, if on private property, the business name, street address and telephone number at which the special event will be conducted.
The type and estimated number of vehicles, animals or structures that will be used at the special event.
The provision and/or operation of first aid or emergency aid stations at the special event.
The provision and/or operation of sanitary facilities, including handicap accessible sanitary facilities.
Whether any food or beverages, including alcoholic beverages, will be sold or distributed at the special event.
Where applicable, proof that the applicant or any associated operators, including those of identified vendors, exhibitors, subcontractors, consultants, or other partners involved with any aspect of the special event which require a business license from the City in order to provide such serves are duly licensed by the City.
Anticipated parking needed and parking plan for the special event.
A proposed plan for seating for the special event, if applicable, and the maximum legal occupancy of the proposed premises, if applicable.
A security plan, including the provision and use of traffic control devices, including traffic signs and signals, cones and barricades, for control of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. This plan shall also include the type of security or other arrangements that will be provided: (a) to 43 16.
17. 18.
19. 20.
21. 22.
23. B.
ensure that participants are properly directed; and (b) to ensure the prevention of unlawful conduct by participants and attendees.
Whether sound amplification equipment will be used and a completion of the City's form for control of noise, including, but not limited to, the noise generated by amplification equipment, motors and other equipment that may affect nearby premises, with special attention to prevention of noise nuisance to nearby residences, if any, subject to the noise standards set forth in Chapter 8.48 and Section 17.24.055.
A detailed floor plan and site plan of the special event venue, showing, as applicable, the building interior and exterior grounds, including parking spaces, a free speech zone (if warranted by the size and scale of the special event), amusement ride location, seating arrangements, dance floor area, bar location, fire exits, and the dimensions of each portion within the layout of the special event.
A trash and litter collection and off-site disposal plan.
The manner of providing notice of the permit conditions to permit participants and those businesses or residents who may be directly affected by the conduct of the special event.
For special events involving the sale or distribution of food, proof of issuance of all valid registration and/or permits if required by the Orange County Environmental Health Division, including, but not limited to permits required for temporary food facilities, food booths, or limited service charitable feeding operations distributing potentially hazardous food which may require thawing, cooking, cooling, and reheating/hot holding.
Such other information pertaining to public health and safety that the applicant may wish to include.
The application form shall inform the applicant of his or her right to appeal the denial, or modification, of the special event application by the City Manager.
If a proposed special event requires full or partial street closures, the application shall detail, in addition to the above information, which streets are to be fully or partially closed, for how long, and whether the plan includes a free speech zone. Any such special event shall be subject to Section 12.34.130.
Medical Operations Permit. .....A medical operations permit shall be required for any special event where, in the opinion of the Fire Chief, it is essential for public safety in a place of assembly or any other place where people congregate, due to the number of persons participating in the special event or the projected impact to the emergency medical services system within the City. Where required, the applicant shall submit for approval to the Fire Chief a medical operations plan in accordance with the criteria established by the Orange County Fire Authority. This plan may require the permit applicant to employ one or more medically qualified persons, including medically trained fire department personnel, as required and approved, to be on duty at the 44 1.
2. 3.
4. (a)
(b)
(c)
C.
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. 6.
7. 8.
special event venue. Such individuals shall be subject to the Fire Chiefs orders, at all times when so employed and shall be in uniform and remain on duty during times that such venues are open to the public, or when such special event is being conducted. Before the special event, such fire authority personnel shall inspect the required medical equipment to see that it is in the proper place and in good working order, and shall keep a diligent watch for medical emergencies during the time such special event venue is open to the public or such special event is being conducted. Special events that may require a special medical operations permit include, but are not limited to:
Any event in which specialized emergency medical services are provided above the level of advanced first aid, such as Emergency Medical Technician-1, paramedics, nurses, physician assistants, and/or physicians.
Any event, by the rules of the event, which requires the need to have contract emergency ambulance service providers or personnel on site in order to conduct such event, e.g., bicycle races or similar high-risk injury activities.
Any event utilizing standby air rescue or air ambulance services.
Any event the Fire Chief deems may adversely impact the City's ability to timely and adequately provide emergency medical services based upon:
The location of the event;
Projected event participation; or
Any other applicable criteria.
Air-Medical Operations Permit Required. .....An air-medical operations permit shall be required for all special events utilizing standby air rescue or air ambulance services. The Fire Chief shall direct the landings and takeoffs of all EMS air rescue or air ambulance operations within the City.
Standby public safety personnel may be required during landing or takeoff operations for safety and security reasons. An air-medical operations plan, if required, shall be submitted, subject to the approval of the Fire Chief to include the following information:
Name and contact information of the air rescue or air ambulance provider.
Contact person and information for air operations.
Type and size of aircraft.
Patient transport capability.
Level of medical staffing.
Frequency or list of frequencies available for ground-to-air contact.
Landing zone site and alternate landing zone site.
Security for landing zone site.
(Ord. No. 1717, § 3, 10-19-2021)
45 A.
B.
C.
D.
1. 2.
3. 12.34.080 - Action by City Manager upon application. .....Upon receipt of a completed application, the City Manager shall refer the application to such appropriate City departments, as he or she deems necessary from the nature of the application, for review, evaluation, investigation and recommendations by the departments regarding approval or disapproval of the application and the estimated number of hours of service that will be incurred by each department in connection with the permit. The City Manager may refer the application to any outside agencies or organizations for consultation if, in the determination of the City Manager, those agencies or organizations may be affected by the proposed special event to obtain relevant comments or concerns about the application, or to determine if additional permitting from such agencies or organizations is required. .....In determining whether to approve an application, no consideration may be given to the message of the event, the content of speech, the identity or associational relationships of the applicant, or to any assumptions or predictions as to the level or nature of emotion which may be aroused in the public by the content of speech or message conveyed by the event. .....Within 15 working days of receipt of the City's determination that an application for a special event permit is complete, the City's review and investigation shall be completed, and the City Manager shall issue a permit, unless denial of the permit is mandated under SCMC Section
12.34.090. The City Manager shall notify the applicant of his or her action pursuant to SCMC Section 12.34.100.
.....The City Manager shall impose conditions on any permit issued pursuant to this chapter to coordinate multiple uses of public property, assure preservation of public property and public places, prevent dangerous, unlawful or impermissible uses, protect the safety of persons and property, and to control vehicular and pedestrian traffic in and around the venue. The City Manager shall impose conditions on the special event permit to prevent negative impacts to surrounding persons and properties and to ensure compliance with provisions of the municipal code. The conditions shall be reasonable time, place and manner restrictions only and shall not be imposed in a manner that will unreasonably restrict expressive activity. Conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following:
The establishment of an alternate assembly or disbanding area for a parade, or similar event, within the pre-designated event routes established by the City Council pursuant to SCMC Section 12.34.130;
The accommodation of the special event's pedestrian and vehicular traffic, including restricting the special event to City sidewalks, portions of a City street, or other public rightsof-way; Conditions designed to avoid or lessen interference with public safety functions and/or emergency service access;
46 4.
5. 6.
7. 8.
9. 10.
11. 12.
13. 14.
15. E.
A.
1. The event shall comply with all applicable accessibility requirements, including, but not limited to, parking, walkways, ingress, egress, restrooms, ramps, seeing and hearing devices, etc.; The number and type of vehicles, animals, or structures to be displayed or used in the special event;
The inspection and approval by City personnel of stages, booths, floats, structures, vehicles or equipment to be used or operated in the special event to ensure that such structures or vehicles are safely constructed and can be safely operated, and conform to the requirements of all applicable codes;
The provision and use of traffic cones or barricades in a manner and number established by standard conditions adopted by resolution of the City Council;.
The provision or operation of first aid stations or sanitary facilities, including handicap accessible sanitary facilities, in a manner and number established by standard conditions adopted by resolution of the City Council;
The provision of a waste management plan, and the cleanup and restoration of the special event venue, as established by standard conditions adopted by resolution of the City Council; Restrictions consistent with Chapters 8.48 on the use of sound amplification equipment, and restrictions on the amount of noise generated by motors and other equipment used in the course of the special event;
The obtaining of all applicable permits and licenses, including, but not limited to, building and electrical permits, Orange County Fire Authority approval, Orange County Healthcare Agency, Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control, etc.;
The manner of providing notice of the permit conditions to permit participants and those businesses or residents who may be directly affected by the conduct of the special event; The provision or use of emergency services;
The obtaining of any and all business licenses or other necessary permits required by this code for the sale of food, beverages, or other goods or services at the event; and The manner by which alcohol sales and service, if any, shall be conducted at the event. .....A copy of a valid special event permit shall be maintained at the special event venue and shall be presented to City staff upon request.
(Ord. No. 1717, § 3, 10-19-2021)
12.34.090 - Permit denial.
.....The City Manager shall deny an application for a permit or revoke any permit if the City Manager finds any of the following:
The application contains materially false or intentionally misleading information; 47 2.
3. 4.
5. 6.
7. 8.
9. 10.
11. 12.
13. B.
The event or activity is proposed to be located, or is located, in or upon a premises, building or structure, which is hazardous to the health or safety of the employees or patrons of the premises, business, activity, or event, or the general public, under the standards established by the Uniform Building or Fire Codes, or other applicable codes; The event or activity is proposed to be located, or is located, in or upon a premises, building or structure, which lacks adequate on-site parking for participants attending the proposed event or activity under the applicable standards set forth in this code; The event or activity is in conflict with other applicable provisions of any federal, state and/or local laws;
The event or activity is scheduled to occur at a location and time in conflict with another event or activity scheduled for the same day or weekend, where such conflict would adversely impact the City's ability to provide adequate City services in support of other scheduled events or scheduled government functions;
The event will substantially interrupt public transportation, or other vehicular and pedestrian traffic, in the area of its location;
The event will require the diversion of public safety or other City employees from their normal duties, so as to unreasonably reduce adequate levels of service or municipal functions to any other portion of the City;
The concentration of persons, animals or vehicles will unreasonably interfere with the movement of police, fire and other public safety or emergency vehicles on the streets; The event or activity: (a) will have a substantial adverse impact on the health and safety of the general public, and/or residents and businesses within a 500-foot radius of the event; and/or (b) will violate the City's noise standards as set forth in Chapter 8.48 and Section 17.24.055; The event or activity will take place in an area of the City, or on any public right-of-way scheduled for maintenance, construction or repair prior to the submission of the application for the event and either (a) the conduct of the event would interfere with such maintenance, construction or repair; or (b) the maintenance, construction or repair would represent a threat to the health or safety of the participants in the event; The ability of persons to enter and exit residential or business properties impacted by the event will be unreasonably impaired considering factors such as the duration, size and scope of the event;
The proposed use, event or activity will have a significant adverse environmental impact; The applicant has violated condition(s) of a previous permit issued pursuant to this chapter for the same or similar event within the prior 36 months; provided, that the City notified the applicant in writing of any such violation within 60 days of the violation. 48 .....When the grounds for denial of an application are based on any of the circumstances specified in subsection (A) of this section, and those circumstances can be corrected by altering the date, time, duration, route, location or other detail of the special event, the City Manager shall, instead of denying the application, conditionally approve the application upon the applicant's acceptance of conditions for permit issuance. The conditions imposed shall provide only or such modification of the special event as are necessary to alleviate the circumstances set forth in subsection (A) of this section. (Ord. No. 1717, § 3, 10-19-2021)
12.34.100 - Notice to applicant of action on application—Appeals to City Council.
Upon acting to approve or deny an application for a special event, the City Manager shall provide notice to the applicant of the City Manager's decision on the application by telephone and by written notice via U.S. mail or certified mail or facsimile, if the applicant provides a fax number, together with a list of conditions imposed if the application has been granted or, if the application has been denied, the specific factual reason for the denial pursuant to SCMC Section 12.34.090. The notice shall inform the applicant of his or her right to appeal the decision or any conditions imposed if the application has been granted, and shall state the last date on which such an appeal may be filed, which shall be the third working day after the date on which the notice was delivered personally or via facsimile to the applicant. The City Council shall hear the applicant's appeal no later than 14 working days following its filing at a regular meeting, if scheduled, or a special meeting, if necessary. The applicant, by written request, may waive the time limits for the hearing on appeal to the City Council, but may not waive the time within which an appeal may be filed. The notice of the City Manager's decision on a permit for a spontaneous special event or the City Council's final decision on an appeal of a special event permit shall inform the applicant of his or her right to file a petition for writ of mandate pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 or 1094.8. (Ord. No. 1717, § 3, 10-19-2021)
12.34.110 - City Council action upon appeal.
After a hearing and consideration of the report and decision of the City Manager on a special event or permit application, and any written materials submitted by the applicant or other affected person(s), the City Council shall either overturn the denial and grant the permit, grant the permit with conditions, or sustain the denial of the permit upon determining that issuance would result in any one of the circumstances set forth in SCMC Section 12.34.090. The decision by the City Council shall be based on written findings, and shall be final and conclusive on the matter, and subject to appeal under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 or 1094.8.
(Ord. No. 1717, § 3, 10-19-2021)
12.34.120 - Fees and Departmental service charges.
49 A.
B.
C.
D.
A.
B.
A.
.....In addition to the nonrefundable permit application fee, the City Council may by resolution prescribe a fee or fees for special events to recoup all or part of the departmental services charges incurred in connection with the special event. If City property is destroyed or damaged by reason of the applicant's use, event or activity, the applicant shall reimburse the City for the actual replacement or repair cost of the destroyed or damaged property. .....Fees for recoverable departmental service charges will be established by resolution of the City Council.
.....Any person seeking a fee waiver shall, in conjunction with filing their special event permit application, file a completed fee waiver application.
.....Any indigent natural person who cannot apply for a permit because of an inability to pay the required special event fee due to such indigence shall not be required to pay the departmental service charges set forth in this section. Application for indigent status shall be made at the time of submission of the permit application and shall be accompanied by such relevant information and documentation as may, in the opinion of the City Manager, be reasonably necessary to verify such status.
(Ord. No. 1717, § 3, 10-19-2021)
12.34.130 - Event routes.
.....The City Council may, by separate resolution, establish pre-designated event routes within the City for those events requiring either full or partial street closures. .....Any event requiring full or partial street closures shall not be conducted on streets classified by the City as arterial streets between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday, excluding holidays.
(Ord. No. 1717, § 3, 10-19-2021)
12.34.140 - Insurance and indemnity requirements.
.....For all special events subject to the requirements of this chapter, the City Manager shall require as a condition of the issuance of a permit that the applicant obtain, furnish proof of, and maintain, a policy of insurance issued by an insurance company authorized to do business in the state of California. The insurance policy shall be endorsed to name the city of San Clemente and its elected and appointed boards, officers, agents, and employees as an additional insured, and shall provide that any other insurance maintained by the City of San Clemente shall be in excess of, and not contributing to, the insurance coverage provided to the City of San Clemente under 50 B.
C.
A.
1. 2.
the applicant's policy. The minimum limits of liability in no case shall be lower than $1,000,000, and may vary based on the level of risk associated with the requested activity and the extent of public space used for the event, as determined by the City's Joint Powers Insurance Authority.
Special events involving vehicles shall also provide vehicle insurance. .....The applicant shall also be required to sign an indemnity agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney and the City's Joint Powers Insurance Authority, which shall expressly provide that the applicant agrees to defend, protect, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, employees, volunteers and agents free and harmless from and against any and all claims, damages, expenses, loss or liability of any kind or nature whatsoever arising out of, or resulting from, the alleged acts or omissions of applicant, its officers, agents or employees, in connection with the permitted event or activity; and the permit shall expressly provide that the applicant shall, at applicant's own cost, risk and expense, defend any and all claims of legal action that may be commenced or filed against the City, its officers, employees, volunteers and agents, and that the applicant shall pay any settlement entered into and shall satisfy any judgment that may be rendered against the city, its officers, employees, volunteers and agents as a result of the alleged acts or omissions of applicant or applicant's officers, agents or employees in connection with the uses, events or activities under the permit. If an applicant provides proof that the insurance obligations, pursuant to subsection (A) of this section, provide contractual liability coverage for any obligations contemplated by the indemnity provisions herein, the city agrees not to enforce the indemnity agreement against the applicant.
.....Any indigent natural person who cannot apply for a permit because of an inability to pay for the required insurance due to such indigence shall not be required to provide the insurance obligations set forth in subsection (A) of this section or to sign an indemnity agreement required by subsection (B) of this section. Application for indigent status shall be made at the time of submission of the permit application and shall be accompanied by such relevant information and documentation as may, in the opinion of the City Manager, be reasonably necessary to verify such status.
(Ord. No. 1717, § 3, 10-19-2021)
12.34.150 - Revocation or suspension of permit.
.....A permit issued under this chapter shall be revoked or suspended by the City Manager, or his or her designee, or Chief of Police Services, or his or her designee, if he or she finds that one or more of the following conditions exists and have not been corrected by the applicant after reasonable notice of the condition's existence has been given:
The permit is being used to conduct an activity different from that for which it was issued; That one or more of the conditions listed in SCMC 12.34.090 exists; 51 3.
4. 5.
B.
C.
D.
That the activity is being conducted in a manner which violates one or more of the conditions imposed upon the issuance of the permit pursuant to SCMC 12.34.080(D) or fails to conform to the plans and procedures described in the application; The applicant violates or attempts to violate any federal, state or local laws and regulations; The special event is being conducted in a fraudulent or unlawful manner, or in a manner which endangers the public health or safety.
.....Such revocation or suspension shall become effective immediately upon order of the City Manager, or his or her designee, or of the Chief of Police Services, or his or her designee, and shall remain in effect until the applicant has corrected the violation or the permit has expired on its own terms.
.....In the event a permit is revoked or suspended pursuant to the provisions of this section, another permit shall not be granted to the applicant within 12 months after the date of such revocation or suspension.
.....The determination of the City Manager, or his or her designee, or Chief of Police Services, or his or her designee, to revoke or suspend a permit shall be based upon written findings, and, if the revocation or suspension occurs prior to the date(s) of the special event shall be subject to appeal to the city council as set forth in SCMC Section 12.34.100. The City Council's determination shall be final and conclusive in the matter, and subject to appeal under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 or 1094.8.
(Ord. No. 1717, § 3, 10-19-2021)
12.34.160 - Interference prohibited.
It is unlawful for any person to obstruct, impede or interfere with any authorized person, vehicle or animal participating in a special event for which a permit has been issued. (Ord. No. 1717, § 3, 10-19-2021)
12.34.170 - Refunds.
If a permittee is unable to hold or conduct a use, event or activity because of inclement weather or due to some other cause not within the permittee's control, and the permittee submits a written request for the refund of such fees to the City Manager's office within ten days after the date that the use, event or activity was to have been held or conducted, the City Manager may authorize the refund of the fees or a pro rata portion thereof, except for actual costs incurred by the City at the time of cancellation and the nonrefundable application fees, which have been paid by the permittee to the City in connection with a permit issued under this chapter.
52 (Ord. No. 1717, § 3, 10-19-2021)
12.34.180 - Rules and regulations.
The City Manager is authorized to promulgate additional policies, rules and regulations that are consistent with and that further the provisions set forth within this chapter and the provisions of law that pertain to the conduct and operation of a special event. (Ord. No. 1717, § 3, 10-19-2021)
12.34.190 - Unlawful to use City name without authorization.
It is unlawful for any event organizer to use in the title of the event the words "The City of San Clemente" or "City of San Clemente", or facsimile of the seal or logo of the City of San Clemente without the City's written authorization.
(Ord. No. 1717, § 3, 10-19-2021)
53 City Hall 910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, CA 92673
www.san-clemente.org
November 13, 2024
35522 Camino Capistrano,
San Clemente, CA, 92672
Dear Kathy Hartl and Juli Patten,
We are writing regarding your recent application for a special event permit for the 2025 North Beach Church activity. After a thorough review, we regret to inform you that the application has been denied, as the proposed activity does not meet the guidelines for a special event permit as outlined in the San Clemente Municipal Code § 12.34.030.
We recognize and appreciate that Christ Lutheran Church has held services at North Beach for many years. However, recent updates to the special event code have redefined the scope of permitted activities, and your regular church gatherings are now classified as a recurring rental rather than a special event (occurring less than 30 calendar days). Additionally, the city’s policy does not permit beach space rentals on a frequent or ongoing basis for activities.
If Christ Lutheran Church is interested in continuing to host an outdoor church service, we encourage you to consider alternative locations within the city, such as one of our community centers or park spaces, which may be more suitable for regular gatherings.
Please feel free to reach out to our department for guidance on available venues or with any questions regarding this process. We are committed to helping you find an appropriate space to continue serving your congregation.
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
Sincerely,
Alexandra Gallardo
Recreation Supervisor
City of San Clemente
CC: Samantha Wylie, Beaches, Parks & Recreation Director
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
BEACHES, PARKS & RECREATION
Alexandra Gallardo
Recreation Supervisor
(949) 361-6138
[email protected] THE SPANISH VILLAGE BY THE SEA Attachment 3
54 55
910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org
AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 1
Meeting Date: February 4, 2025 Agenda Item: 10A.
Submitted By: City Manager
Prepared By: Andy Hall, City Manager
Subject:
..titl e
CONSIDERATION OF INITIATING LITIGATION AGAINST THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THE GOVERNOR AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CHALLENGING SB 54, WAIVING CONFLICTS WITH ..body THE PLAINTIFFS, APPROPRIATING FUNDS AND HIRING LITIGATION COUNSEL Fiscal Impact:
Litigation costs are unpredictable and often largely outside of the control of any one party and can be dependent on a number of factors. In this instance, early conversations with the initial litigant, City of Huntington Beach, indicate that cost containment is critical and there has been exploration of strategies to keep costs at a minimum. Given those circumstances, it is estimated that litigation costs for the City of San Clemente could be less than $100,000. Funding for the litigation would need to be allocated from the General Fund.
Summary:
At the January 14, 2025 City Council meeting, Mayor Knoblock, with the support of Councilmembers Cabral and Loeffler, agendized a discussion, with report, of whether to initiate litigation to challenge SB 54. Specifically, the City Council will need to consider whether to join the City of Huntington Beach, the Huntington Beach City Council, the Huntington Beach Police Department and the Huntington Beach Police Chief (collectively, “Huntington Beach”) as coplaintiff(s) in a case that Huntington Beach filed on January 7, 2025 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No.: 8:25-cv-00026, entitled City of Huntington Beach, et al. v. The State of California, et al. (the “2025 federal case”).
Following City Council discussion, staff is seeking direction on whether the City Council wants join a lawsuit against the State of California, Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Robert Bonta (collectively, the “State”) to challenge SB 54. If the City Council wants to initiate litigation, the City Council would also want to authorize waiving any conflicts with Huntington Beach, make an appropriation to fund the litigation and authorize hiring litigation counsel. If the City Council does not want to initiate litigation, no action is necessary, although the City Council may choose to indicate their opposition by Resolution.
Background:
In October 2017, the Governor signed into law SB 54, codified as Government Code sections 7284, et. seq. and referred to as the California Values Act (“CVA”), which became effective January 1, 2018.
In 2018, Huntington Beach filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a complaint in the Superior Court of the Orange County for declaratory relief against the then Attorney General to “invalidate 56 Meeting Date: February 4, 2025 Agenda Item: 10A.
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 2
the unconstitutional mandates of the [CVA] that impermissibly strip the City’s constitutionally protected Charter authority with respect to local ‘municipal affairs.’” Huntington Beach’s 2018 petition and complaint had three causes of action: (1) writ of mandate, (2) declaratory relief, and (3) injunctive relief. Each cause of action alleged the CVA unconstitutionally violated Huntington Beach’s authority as a charter city to conduct municipal affairs guaranteed under article XI, section 5 of the California Constitution by mandating how it operates its police force. As relief, the City prayed for issuance of “[a] Writ of Mandamus that commands and compels [the Attorney General] to … not enforce the [CVA] against the City and comply with Article XI, § 5 of the California Constitution.” The City also prayed for a declaration that the CVA is unconstitutional and preempted by article XI, section 5 of the California Constitution.
Huntington Beach initially won at the trial court level, but lost on appeal. On January 10, 2020, the Court of Appeal of the State of California for the Fourth Appellate District held that Government Code section 7284.6 (one part of the CVA) “is constitutional as applied to charter cities because it addresses matters of statewide concern—including public safety and health, effective policing, and protection of constitutional rights—is reasonably related to resolution of those statewide concerns, and is narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessary interference in local government.” Because the Court concluded that “section 7284.6 does not unconstitutionally infringe a charter city’s rights under Section 5(b) to constitute, regulate, and govern a city police force or to compensate city employees”, it did “not address the Attorney General’s argument based on the doctrine of state preemption of local regulation.” City of Huntington Beach v. Xavier Becerra, etc. (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 243.
On January 7, 2025, Huntington Beach filed a new case in federal district court against the State challenging the CVA. Huntington Beach’s 2025 complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief alleges seven claims for violations of the supremacy clause, the naturalization clause, federal immigration laws, California Penal Code sections 31 and 32 and article XX, section 3 of the California Constitution. (See Attachment 2.)
On January 22, 2025, the parties in the 2025 federal case stipulated to extend the time for the California defendants to answer the complaint to March 6, 2025.
Discussion:
In Huntington Beach’s 2018 case, the Court of Appeal summarized that the CVA (Government Code section 7284.6) prohibits state and local law enforcement from:
(1) inquiring into a person’s immigration status;
(2) detaining a person on the basis of a “hold” request from immigration authorities; (3) providing information regarding a person’s release date or responding to requests for notification by providing release dates unless that information is available to the public;
(4) providing personal information, such as address and employment status, to immigration authorities, unless that information is available to the public; (5) making or intentionally participating in arrests based on civil immigration warrants; (6) assisting immigration authorities in warrantless searches near the United States border;
(7) performing the functions of an immigration agent;
57 Meeting Date: February 4, 2025 Agenda Item: 10A.
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 3
(8) placing local law enforcement officers under the supervision of a federal agency for purposes of immigration enforcement;
(9) using immigration officers as interpreters for law enforcement matters under the jurisdiction of state or local law enforcement agencies; (10) transferring a person to immigration authorities unless authorized by a judicial warrant or judicial probable cause determination;
(11) providing office space exclusively dedicated for immigration agents within a county or city law enforcement facility; and
(12) contracting with the federal government for use of California law enforcement facilities to house persons as federal detainees for purposes of civil immigration custody.
City of Huntington Beach v. Xavier Becerra, etc. (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 243.
The Court of Appeal also summarized what the CVA (SB 54) does not prohibit:
The CVA makes clear that California law enforcement agencies are not prohibited from engaging in certain activities with federal authorities. California law enforcement agencies are not prohibited from investigating, enforcing, detaining upon reasonable suspicion of, or arresting a person for a violation of section 1326(a) of title 8 of the United States Code (reentry of removed aliens). (§ 7284.6, subd. (b)(1).) California law enforcement agencies are not prohibited from responding to a request from immigration authorities for information about a specific person’s criminal history if otherwise permitted by state law. (Id., subd. (b)(2).) California law enforcement agencies may conduct enforcement or investigative duties associated with a joint law enforcement task force so long as the primary purpose of the task force is not immigration enforcement and the enforcement or investigative duties are primarily related to a violation of law unrelated to immigration enforcement. (Id., subd. (b)(3).) The CVA states that it “does not prohibit or restrict any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, federal immigration authorities, information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of [any] individual, or from requesting from federal immigration authorities immigration status information, lawful or unlawful, of any individual, or maintaining or exchanging that information with any other federal, state, or local government entity, pursuant to [federal immigration laws].” (§ 7284.6, subd. (e).)
Ibid.
There are differences between the City of Huntington Beach and the City of San Clemente as it relates to the CVA (SB 54). First, Huntington Beach is a charter city, while San Clemente is a general law city. Second, Huntington Beach has its own police department, while San Clemente does not. Therefore, the outcome of the litigation may impact the communities in different ways.
For instance, even if a lawsuit is successful, enforcement of the law in San Clemente will be highly dependent on the policies of the Orange County Sheriff’s Department who provides police services to the City. If Orange County decides to remain consistent with the policies established in SB 54, there could be a lack of enforcement in San Clemente. 58 Meeting Date: February 4, 2025 Agenda Item: 10A.
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 4
Council Options:
Provide staff direction on whether to join Huntington Beach’s 2025 federal case challenging SB 54 and relatedly whether to waive any conflicts with the plaintiffs in that case, appropriate $100,000 from the General Fund for litigation related expenses, and authorize the hiring of litigation counsel.
Receive and file the report.
Continue the item with direction for staff to provide additional information or an alternative action.
Environmental Review/Analysis:
Not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378 (14 CCR 15378).
Recommended Actions:
..recommendation
City staff recommends that the City Council give specific direction on the following:
1. Whether to initiate litigation on behalf of the City and the City Council against the State of California, Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Robert Bonta to challenge SB 54 by authorizing and directing the City Manager and the City Attorney to execute necessary documents and take such actions as are necessary and proper to join the City of Huntington Beach, the Huntington Beach City Council, the Huntington Beach Police Department and the Huntington Beach Police Chief as co-plaintiffs in the complaint (Attachment 2) filed in United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No.: 8:25-cv-00026 on the condition that an agreement can be reached to contain costs to the appropriated funding amount;
2. Whether to authorize the City Manager to waive any conflicts with the plaintiffs in that case;
3. Whether to and in what amount to make an appropriation from the General Fund to fund the litigation; and
4. Whether to authorize the City Manager to hire litigation counsel. ..recommendation
..end
Attachment:
1. SB 54
2. Huntington Beach Complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No.: 8:25-cv-00026
Notification:
None.
59
!
"
#$%&'
(
#
&#)
*+,-./0,-.12 34567489::;<=>? @ABCDEFGHI JKLMNNOLPQKRSQMNTOKUVWXWLKRVWXWYZO[\LKRNOLRR]^L_NQ`aVYWZbMOPPQKMTKcdTN^SQMNTOK VWXefNOgThTUTOKVO[iTNjQaO[\N^QkOhQ`KPQKN]ORQ\LKRNO`Q_QLjSQMNTOKaalmnO[N^QoQLjN^LKR SL[QNp]ORQ\`QjLNTKcNOjLdQK[O`MQPQKNY qrsstuvwxyz{uvwt|ut}~uywt-,-./ wxw~twtzuw }~uywt-,-./
ww|w|ut~ww| ¡t|¢x £¤¡|¢ stuvxw¡w|wtw¡tw¡u|uyw
wvwswt¡u|ttw¡wxutvu
u|u¡sw~wx ~u|tu
wx¡¥y¡|~wstuv¡u|¡z|uyw~¦w|uw§|wxw¡wttw¡|¢¢w|~z¡
|uzw sstustw¢w|~zuw§|wxw¡v|¢~t¢wuxwsutu|wt¡ ¨¡y
u¥
xtwsw
u¡wstuv¡u|¡ £¤¡|¢
stuvxw¡w|wvwt||xvx¥
u¡v~uut|w¡¡uw~twutuuwt¡w ~|¢vwwvxw|~w|w~tw|vw¡¢u|¡|u~t¢wxut~u|v~wxu~u|¢|z~tw¥|xwt ¡w sw~wu~wtz|uxw|w|xvx¥
w¤~
¥¡vw
zut|z~¥
ut¡¥¡sw~wx¢tu| vu
u|uttwsutut¥t|w|xvx¥
uvwtuwxwt
¢tu|¥utw¡ ¨¡y
u¥
xu|¢uwt|¢¡|x¡¥y©w~uw¤~wsu|¡stuy¡w|x u~
w|ut~ww|¢w|~w¡ |~
¥x|¢¡~uu
su
~w|x¡w~¥tzxwstw|¡tu¥¡|¢u|wzutswt¡u||w u|vw¡¢w|wttu¢w xw|xww~utttw¡swt¡u|¡ut¢tu|w|ut~ww|s¥tsu¡w¡¡¡sw~wx|xu¥ x¡¥y©w~u w¤~wsu|¡stu¡~tywuwt~vw¡ut~u|x¥~|~u||w~u|¢tu|w|ut~ww|yz w|ut~ww| ¢w|~w¡¨wy
u¥
xss
zu¡wstuv¡u|¡uw~t~¥¡|~w¡|~
w|ut~ww|u~
¡ x¡~twu|u~uuswtw¢tu|¥utw¡¨wy
u¥
xtwª¥twyz}~uywt.,-.1wrut|wz {w|wt
|~u|¡¥
u|wsstustw¡«wu
xwt¡us¥y
¡uxw
su
~w¡
|¢¡¡¡|~w ¢tu|w|ut~ww|uw¥
w¡w¤w|su¡¡y
wut¥¡wyzs¥y
~¡~uu
¡s¥y
~
yttw¡w
~
w¡ uswtwxyzw¡wutsu
~
¡¥yxv¡u|uw¡w|x~u¥tu¥¡w¡u|¢uwt¡¨wy
u¥
x twª¥twu|¢uwt¡
s¥y
~¡~uu
¡w
~
w¡uswtwxyzw¡wutsu
~
¡¥yxv¡u|uw ¡w|x~u¥tu¥¡w¡us
ww|wuxw
su
~zut|wª¥v
w|su
~z¨wy
u¥
x¡wu|¢ uwt¡
uwtut¢|¦u|¡|xw|w¡stuvxw¡wtv~w¡tw wxusz¡~
utw|
w
|x w
|w¡¡wx¥~u|ut~~w¡¡u©¥¡~w|~
¥x|¢w§|vwt¡zu¬
ut|tww|~u¥t¢wxuxusw uxw
su
~z¨wy
u¥
xtwª¥tw
w|ut~ww|¢w|~z~uu¡w¡ust~sw|©u| w|ut~ww|¡«ut~w¡xw|wx¡¥ytwsut||¥
zswt||¢u¡«ut~wuswtu|¡uw
®¯° ±²³³´µ¶·¸¹º»²·µ ¼½¾¿À®Á¿½Ã½Ä ÅÆǾ¿È½É¿®ÂÊ ËÉÌ°ÁÍ°Ê®ÆÁÈ°Ê ÎÏÐÆÇÊÈÁ¿ÑÉ¿®ÂÊ ÎÏÒ½Ó®Á¿É°ÊAttachment 1 60
!
"
#
$ % &
'
''
'
'
'
''
' (
'
)
*
(
(
(
+ , %'
)
-
'' ( '
(
'
.'
'
(
/
'
'
0
' )
)
'
,
(
#'
(
)
,
(
(
1 2 "
2
3 )
2 .
4
'2
567 8798:7 9; 567 <5=57 9; >=:?;9@A?= B9 7A=>5 =< ;9::9C<D EFGHIJK LM ,
N O
( )
2
PQRQS 3
' (
' '2
TU V)
(
W ( '
(
TU
,
XXN
4 )
TU V-'
W (
'
2
T
U ' ' (
(
T U (
'
'
TYU (
(
TZU (
T[U (
'
TU V\
W V
W V
W ( '
( ,
N OY \
+ , %'
)
-
+ , )
/
4
'
TU V.
W
'
'
]
'
"
(
"
'
]
"
(
(
"
(
TU V.
'W
(
T
U V,
W
(
TU
,
! N
4 )
)
(
TU
,
! N
4 )
T'U V1
W
(
TU
,
XXN[
4 )
)
(
61
!
"
#$
$
#%
&'(')*)+,
#$
#
-#,$$.#
#
.
,
#//
#
,/
#
-
/,#-#$
#0
+-#1
$$.,
!2+
/-
#
-#.#-
-#.#-1
/-#.#-2
/
!2
#
#
,.#
$%
13
#
#
114
/
#
/
3
-
$-#
$-#
53
,-
#
$$
#
##$
-
#$$
#
#
#/
#
,1
#
#/
,.
%
++
/-/
$
/
11/ 6/ 26/ 211/ 212/ 21/ 22/ 22/
2/ 2 / 25/ 2/266/261
77#
/-/
$
/
2 / 251/ 255/ 252/ 25/ 25/ 254/
5/52/2611/261
8
#/-/
$
/
1//154/126/2 /61/1121!
9:
/:
:-
/
##$.#.#/-/
$
/
/ / / / / / ./ / / ;/ / 4/ !!/ !!/5111/5115/ 5112/51116/51111/2
<
#.#$/-/
$
/
6/ 1/ 1/ 5/ 5 /
5/ 52/ !
=7
#.#
/#
#
//#
/
#.#
/
#$ >>$/-/
$
/
11/ 1/24/25/26/2/2!/24/65/1!/56/5 /6
"9#
.
#
##
./
#
?@ #
;
/-/
$
/
4/4/41/151/12!16
A7# #
/-/
$
/
//!/2/!/!/4 /45/15/15!/1
B<-/-/
$
/
16/164/116/256/256/25 /255/252/
25/25
C8,
-
#
,-
/##$/:-
/
#,-
$#
/
-/
$
/
11 /11/11/ 2/ 25/ 2/21/215/21/21!/ 22/1121!/1121!1/1 6 1/1 6 /1 6 /1 6 5/1 6 2/1 6 /1 6 5/1 6 / 1!2/1!6/1!
/
166
/
D
,
,-
/
#9
E-
F
+
616#
$$.,
1666
G+
.
-
//#
/$
#/
##H.
#
I0$,-#
#
/-/
$
/
42
@".J#
/-/
$
/
1! /1! /1! !
+$-/
2
/
#
-#
/
1!
/
/
$$
-
62
!
"#$"%" "%
"%
"
&
$"
&
#
"
&
%
'
(
)'
*
+
,
%&
%& &&
%& &&!
'
(
-.
/
"#"
"&
0!
0! "
&0
'
(
1(
"#!
"#! %
"#! "&
'
(
2-
&0
'
(
3
"%
"% "
"%
$
&
&
!
&
"""
"0
'
(
45
0!#
'
(
6
'
(
7
/
!
! %
'
(
#!
! 0! 0
0
'
(
8
*
*
9
"
&
"
'
(
()
,
!
!"
"
!
!
"
#!
##
#%
'
(
:;
&$
&%
&%
'
(
5
&&&"
2
(
-
(
,
)
-
'
0
"&"
< =
#1
(
""&"
1
:
>
?
< (
5
*
!<
*
*
=
&"
'
(
<
*
/
""%
$
!!$
'
(
/
#$
'
(
*
*
(
"
$
#
!
@ABCDC(
"$
*
$
#
:
$-
"
E
(
F
GHIJKLMNOPQRPGSSTUVWXYSZ[YX\]^^Y_VWXYSZI`X\SVYXYUa bcdef-
/*
(
2
63
!"#
$ "
#
$
%
!
$
! $ $
"
&
!
$$
$
!
&
&
&
'
&
&
$
!
(
"
)
$
!
! &
&
"
* $
$
$
&
$
$
+#
,
*
&
!
)-.
&
"* * /0
"
$ & ")"1"2
"
345634562
7869666:;
*!
",
*
& "2"1" <"345634562
3=>9435:?
"
@$
@"1"
"3459357+"*$$"7>>>:?
" 5
"345A6>7+"734=:?
(
0
" '
!1"0"345834582
585874A:B/
"*//!'7
"345868A+"7978"
$
'
$
&$
!& (
&
$ $
&
%
"
$
$
& <$
&
!
!
!!
!$
$
"
+$$
$ &
C
!D
!&
$
! $
"C
!D
1 $
E
"
C
D
!
&
@
"
C
!D
! &
&
&
$! &$
$
"
CF
!D
*
53A4 F * ! &
*
53445344"5 F * ! &
"
CF -
&DC
-
&DC
-
&DC
!D
$
*
63=7"F&
&
-
-
!,
*
)
,
*
G .
!
"
C
D
!
& &
!
&
!
& &
!
$
/
$
%
$
& !& !&
$!
& ,
*
"
CH
' D
!
&
&$
!
"
CH
$
D
! ;
;
$
<
/
'
!
"
CH
D
$
! ;
;
/
64
!"
!
!
"
#$%&'('
)
*"
)
+,-
.
/0
-
.
-
-
!
12324
5
-
0
!
*1637
.
89
:+
!
*7417 ;3 "
!
<
!
*741
;3
"!
2
=
+
7"
>;
=
!
12324
4
?
@
?
*13
!
17*A
B
)
*,
!
*72@ ;3 "!
!
*72@2 ;3 "!
;
>
25
-
.
65
!
"
"
#
$
!
"
%&'(
(
)
*
"
!
(+
"
,
"
-.
//0/
/1//0/
/1-
'
-
2&&
1
/'
-
13
$
,
4-5$
/%
&
%&'
/6
!
"
7
8
$3
"
"
#
$
"
)
7
&$
7
8
$3
(
(
$
*
4
$
1
9&10
:
:
(6
!
"
,
!
"
,
$3
+
/&0/2
!
"
"
:
$3
;
$3
,
$3
;6<
=
,
:
/ %
/9((
'
-
66
! !"
#
$
%&
'%()'*%
+
%
,
%
%
%
%-
./
0
%
#
.
1
2%
-
3+
%
%
%
#
%
%
%
4
"
#
.1
2%
-
3+
5
%
-
./
0
%
%
%
6
%
%
%
7
%
8
%
%
#
$
%&
'%()'*%
+
%
%
%
,
%
#
+
#
9
#
:
;
/
'':<)9'-
:"
(%
-
=
%
%
+
+
!>?!"
-
1
@
'A
7
/
A
0
A0
%
,
%
%
"
0
%/
%
%"
%B
%
C
(7
A0%
%
4
%
4
4
"
-
1
@
'1
D
%
D
6
%
%
%
%
4
%
4
%
4
%
(
6
5
%
%
%
%
4
%
4
%
4
%
!>
!"
A
%
EFGHIH/
'':JK
L
/
EFGHMHA
/
N
%
9O
/
'O;))-
<"
(
$
67 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
MICHAEL E. GATES, City Attorney (SBN 258446)
Office of the City Attorney
2000 Main Street, P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
(714) 536-5555
Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a California Charter City, and Municipal Corporation, HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL,
HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT, and the
HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE CHIEF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CITY OF HUNTINGTON
BEACH, a California Charter
City, HUNTINGTON BEACH
CITY COUNCIL, HUNTINGTON
BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT,
and the HUNTINGTON BEACH
POLICE CHIEF, in his official
capacity as Chief of Police,
Plaintiffs,
v.
The STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
GAVIN NEWSOM, in his official
capacity as Governor of the State
of California; ROBERT BONTA in
his official capacity as Attorney
General of the State of California;
and
DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants.
CASE NO.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1. VIOLATION OF THE SUPREMECY
CLAUSE – ARTICLE VI, CLAUSE 2
OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
2. VIOLATION OF THE
NATURALIZATION CLAUSE –
ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 4
OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
3. VIOLATION OF U.S. FEDERAL
IMMIGRATION LAWS – 8 U.S.C. §,
1324
4. VIOLATION OF U.S. FEDERAL
IMMIGRATION LAWS – 8 U.S.C. §
1373
5. VIOLATION OF U.S. FEDERAL
IMMIGRATION LAWS – 18 U.S.C. §§
4, 371, 372
6. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA
PENAL CODE §§ 31, 32
7. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION – ARTICLE XX,
SECTION 3
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 1 of 55 Page ID #:1 Attachment 2 68 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
COMPLAINT
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a California Charter City, and Municipal Corporation, the HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL, the HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT, and the
HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE CHIEF, in his official capacity as Chief of Police are all collectively hereinafter referred to together as the “City” or together as “Plaintiffs.”
The City brings this lawsuit seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (“Complaint”) against the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, GAVIN NEWSOM, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of California; ROBERT BONTA in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California; and DOES 1-50, inclusive (together as “Defendants”), for various violations of law and actual and threatened State enforcement actions against the City in violation of ARTICLE VI, CLAUSE 2 OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 4 OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, U.S.
Federal Immigration Laws under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324, 1325, & 1373, under 18 U.S.C. §§ 4, 371, and 372, and causing the City further thereby to violate California Penal Code §§ 31, 32, for Aiding and Abetting and Accessory After the Fact in the Commission of Federal crimes, and violations of City Officials’ Oath of Office pursuant to ARTICLE XX, SECTION 3 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION.
By this Complaint, the City seeks Judicial Declaration
invalidating, and an Injunction Order enjoining, California’s “Sanctuary State Law,” which includes, among other operative provisions, California Government Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, and 7284.6, against the City, its Police Department, and all City Officials.
The City avers the following upon personal knowledge, information, Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 2 of 55 Page ID #:2 69 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
and belief, and based upon the investigation of counsel as to all other facts alleged in this Complaint.
INTRODUCTION
As a matter of law, the State’s “Sanctuary State Law” is unconstitutional and violates other Federal laws; as a matter of enforcement policy, it is a clear and present danger to the health, safety and welfare of the City of Huntington Beach. According to the California Department of Justice, violent crime has risen in California by nearly 20% since 2018 (3.3% in 2023, and 15.1% from 2018 to 2023)1, and aggravated assaults, motor vehicle theft, robbery, and arson throughout the State have increased since 2018.
The Nation has seen violent crime committed by illegal immigrants including MS-132 and Tren de Aragua gang members including widely reported rapes, murders, assaults, and other crimes.3 In addition, the reported violent crimes by illegal immigrants includes hostile take-overs by force of apartment buildings and other American establishments seen in Aurora, Colorado4 and El Paso, Texas.5 According to the U.S. 1 https://data-openjustice.doj.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024- 07/Crime%20In%20CA%202023f.pdf
2 https://judiciary.house.gov/media/in-the-news/house-judiciary-report-faults-bidenadmin-release-alleged-ms-13-member-now 3 https://kfoxtv.com/news/instagram/report-tren-de-aragua-member-arrested-for-sextrafficking-migrant-at-gateway-hotel-la-barbie-el-paso-texas-gang-estefaniaprimera-border-patrol-dps-border-migrants; and https://www.foxnews.com/us/colorado-video-shows-tren-de-aragua-gang-beatingapartment-complex-worker-extortion-bid-company-says 4 https://kdvr.com/news/local/ice-16-detained-in-aurora-are-suspected-tren-dearagua-associates 5 https://kvia.com/news/border/2024/09/10/inside-a-downtown-el-paso-hotel-that-isreportedly-housing-tren-de-aragua-gang-members/ Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 3 of 55 Page ID #:3 70 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
Department of Homeland Security, California leads the nation with the highest illegal immigrant population of any other state – with 2,600,000 in 2022. See Bryan Baker and Robert Warren, Office of Homeland Security Statistics, Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2018–January 2022 (April 2024).6 Data shows that the flow of mass illegal immigration creates human trafficking, including increasing a market in the United States for human trafficking – with “[t]he number of persons prosecuted for human trafficking more than doubled from 2012 to 2022.7 In a recent report, the U.S. Congress noted that nearly 60,000 victims of human trafficking are trafficked into the U.S. annually.8
Human trafficking, which also results in sex trafficking, hurts women and children the most9 and over 320,000 immigrant children have gone missing in the United States. According to the Federal Government, those lost children are now completely unaccounted for and / / /
/ / /
6 https://ohss.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-06/2024_0418_ohss_estimates-of-theunauthorized-immigrant-population-residing-in-the-united-states-january2018%25E2%2580%2593january-2022.pdf 7 https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/human-trafficking-data-collection-activities2024#:~:text=The%20number%20of%20persons%20prosecuted,to%201%2C118% 20persons%20in%202022; and https://kfoxtv.com/news/instagram/report-tren-dearagua-member-arrested-for-sex-trafficking-migrant-at-gateway-hotel-la-barbie-elpaso-texas-gang-estefania-primera-border-patrol-dps-border-migrants 8 https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116344/documents/HHRG-118- JU08-20230913-SD003.pdf
9 https://nypost.com/2021/04/17/how-bidens-border-policy-will-increase-child-sextrafficking-to-us Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 4 of 55 Page ID #:4 71 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
unable to be protected.10 Lest it be forgotten, entering the United States illegally in the first place is a Federal crime. 8 U.S.C.§ 1325.
Protecting the City’s 200,000 residents from crime and lawlessness is of the greatest import to, and of the highest order for, Huntington Beach’s City leaders and its Police Department. Huntington Beach is the 23rd largest of 482 cities in the State of California.
The State’s relatively new “Sanctuary State Law” directly conflicts with U.S. Federal immigration laws, including but not limited to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324 and 1373, and 18 U.S.C. §§ 4, 371, and 372.
California’s Sanctuary State Law not only limits the ability of City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, to engage in fullest of effective law enforcement practices, but it directs City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, to violate U.S. Federal immigration laws, including and among others, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324 and 1373, and 18 U.S.C. §§ 4, 371, and 372. In fact, the conflict of laws created by the State presents an untenable “Hobson’s Choice” for the City of Huntington Beach, e.g., comply with the State’s new Sanctuary State Law and violate U.S. Federal immigration laws, or comply with the Federal immigration laws, and violate the Sanctuary State Law. This conflict must be reconciled by this Court.
At the passage of California’s Sanctuary State Law in 2017, NPR reported that the law “bans state and local agencies… from enforcing ‘holds’ on people in custody. It blocks the deputization of police as immigration agents and bars state and local law enforcement agencies from inquiring into an individual’s immigration status… It also prohibits new or expanded contracts with Federal agencies to use 10https://nypost.com/2024/08/21/us-news/biden-harris-admin-loses-track-of-320000- migrant-children
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 5 of 55 Page ID #:5 72 6
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
California law enforcement facilities as detention centers, although it does not force the termination of existing contracts. . . .”11 POLITICO reported that this new law limits “local law enforcement officials’ ability to cooperate with Federal immigration authorities. . . .”12 Huntington Beach is a City in the County of Orange. As will be presented in greater detail, infra, Sheriff Don Barnes reported that the Orange County Sheriff’s Department (hereinafter “OCSD”) is prohibited by State law to notify Immigration Control and Enforcement of the release of inmates with ICE detainers. In 2018, 1,106 inmates in Orange County who had ICE detainers but did not meet eligibility for notifying ICE were released into the community. 173 out of the 1,106 inmates were rearrested “in Orange County for committing 58 different types of crimes, including attempted murder, assault and battery, child molestation, and robbery.” In 2023, there were 547 inmates who had ICE detainers released from Orange County Jail. About 81 of those inmates eligible for notification and transfer to ICE’s custody were not transferred but were released into the community. A total of 40 individuals were rearrested for committing new crimes in Orange County. Being prevented from coordinating with Federal agencies by the Sanctuary State Law prevents effective law enforcement, puts the community at risk, and as the data shows, leads to more crimes.
In addition to commanding the City to violate U.S. Federal immigration laws, the State’s Sanctuary State Law forces City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, to violate California Penal 11https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/05/555920658/californiagovernor-signs-sanctuary-state-bill 12 https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/05/california-sanctuary-city-jerry-brownsigns-243503 Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 6 of 55 Page ID #:6 73 7
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
Code §§ 31 and 32 for “aiding and abetting” and “accessory after the fact” in harboring, concealing, or protecting the perpetrator who committed a Federal crime. Moreover, the Sanctuary State Law forces City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, to harbor, conceal, or “shield from detection” known unauthorized aliens in their custody. The Sanctuary State Law commands City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, to turn a blind eye to alien smuggling, which in many cases, the individuals who were smuggled into the country would become victims of human trafficking.
The State cannot force the City to violate U.S. Federal immigration laws that both the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal and the United States Supreme Court have held preempted under the Supremacy Clause.
To put a fine point, as a Charter City, Huntington Beach’s Police Department does not belong to the State. Rather, the Huntington Beach Police Department belongs to the City – and as such, the Police Department should be free from State interference and control. The City and its Police Department should be, therefore, entirely at liberty to employ every lawful means to combat crime and promote public safety for the City’s 200,000 residents.
While the Federal Government cannot commandeer State and/or local resources to effectuate its operations or achieve its goals, local agencies, like Huntington Beach, should be at liberty to voluntarily cooperate with the Federal Government in its operations in order to combat local crime and promote local public safety.13 As it is now, 13 See Cal. ex. Rel. Becerra v. Sessions, 284 F. Supp.3d 1015, 1035 (Cal. N.D. 2018) (“No cited authority holds that the scope of state sovereignty includes the power to forbid state or local employees from voluntarily complying with a federal program.”).
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 7 of 55 Page ID #:7 74 8
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
California’s Sanctuary State Law prevents such voluntary cooperation thereby preventing the City from employing every lawful means available to combat crime in Huntington Beach and forces City officials to violate U.S. Federal immigration laws. That the State can stand as a barrier in between the City and the Federal Government not only shocks the conscience, but it is also unconstitutional.
The “Supremacy Clause” of the U.S. Constitution demands that the California Sanctuary State Law yield to the Federal Government and not act as a barrier for the enforcement of U.S. Federal immigration laws.
By enacting its Sanctuary State Law, the State of California exceeded its authority and is unconstitutionally interfering with U.S. Federal immigration laws and the City’s Charter Home Rule authority.
With no other remedy available at law, the City seeks Judicial Declaration invalidating, and an Injunction Order enjoining, the State’s enforcement of operative portions of California’s “Sanctuary State Law,” which includes, among others, California Government Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, and 7284.6, against the City Plaintiffs.
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH is and at all
relevant times was a Municipal Corporation and Charter City14 organized by the people of the City and existing under a freeholder’s charter and exercising “Home Rule” powers over its Municipal Affairs, including without limitation local law enforcement as authorized by Article XI, Section 5 of the California Constitution.
2. Plaintiff HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL (“City
Council” or “Council Members”) is and at all relevant times the elected 14 Online: Charter, City of Huntington Beach: https://library.qcode.us/lib/ huntington_ beach_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/charter-preamble Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 8 of 55 Page ID #:8 75 9
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
body of seven members, elected by the People of the City pursuant to the Charter of the City of Huntington Beach. See Section 300, City Charter15.
3. Plaintiff HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
(“HBPD”) is and at all relevant times the official local municipal law enforcement department of the City of Huntington Beach, organized as a Charter City pursuant to, and authorized as provided in Article XI, including §§ 3 and 5, of the California Constitution.
4. Plaintiff HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE CHIEF (“HBPD
Chief”) is the City Council duly appointed Chief of the Huntington Beach Police Department.
5. Defendant STATE OF CALIFORNIA is the State of
California.
6. Defendant GAVIN NEWSOM (“Governor”) is and at all
relevant times was the Governor of the State of California. He is being sued in his official capacity.
7. Defendant ROBERT BONTA (“Attorney General”) is and at all relevant times was the Attorney General of the State of California.
He is being sued in his official capacity.
POTENTIAL PARTIES
8. The City is ignorant of the true names and capacities of those Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore sue those Defendants by such fictitious names. City will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of these fictitiously named Defendants when the same have been ascertained.
15 https://ecode360.com/43806864#43806864
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 9 of 55 Page ID #:9 76 10
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
9. There are several individuals and/or entities whose true names and capacities are currently not known to the City. Evidence may come forth that others are legally responsible and liable to the City to the extent of the liability of the named Defendants. The City will seek leave of the Court to amend this Complaint to reflect the names and capacities should they become known. The City reserves the right to amend this claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 with leave of the Court to add potential additional defendants and additional allegations and claims.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
10. This case presents Federal questions arising under the Constitution of the United States and seeks relief for the deprivation of Federal rights under color of state law. This Court accordingly has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343.
11. This Court has authority to award Plaintiffs declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2202, and Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
12. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this District.
ALLEGATIONS
A. Charter City Authority
13. The City of Huntington Beach is a Municipal Corporation formed by the people of the City of Huntington Beach as a “Charter City” pursuant to California Constitution Article XI §§ 3 and 5.
14. To compare, “general law” cities are “political subdivisions” of the State and law generally holds that such cities must follow the dictates of the State to execute functions of the State. Accordingly, Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 10 of 55 Page ID #:10 77 11
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
“political subdivision” is defined to mean “a geographic area of representation . . . including, but not limited to, a city, a school district, a community college district, or other district organized pursuant to state law.” Cal. Elect. Code § 14051(a).
15. Charter Cities on the other hand, being formed by the people of their city under the California Constitution (and not State law), are not political subdivisions of the State. To that end, both the California Constitution and case law hold that Charter Cities possess independent authority over Municipal Affairs – so “independent” as to be free from State Legislative interference and control. See Cal. Const. art.
XI, § 5(a) (which expressly states, “City charters adopted pursuant to this Constitution shall supersede any existing charter, and with respect to municipal affairs shall supersede all laws inconsistent therewith.” (emphasis added)).
16. As the Court of Appeal recently stated, Charter Cities, like Huntington Beach, “are distinct individual entities and are not connected political subdivisions of the state.” Haytasingh v. City of San Diego, 66 Cal.App.5th 429, 459 (2021). The Court of Appeal explained that “‘It is the free consent of the persons composing them that brings into existence municipal corporations, and they are used for the promotion of their own local and private advantage and convenience… Cities, therefore, are distinct individual entities, and are not connected political subdivisions of the state. As a matter of fact, municipalities, and particularly charter cities, are in a sense independent political organizations and do not pretend to exercise any functions of the state. They exist in the main for the purposes of local government.’” Id., (emphasis added) (quoting Otis v. City of Los Angeles, 52 Cal.App.2d 605, 611-12 (1942)).
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 11 of 55 Page ID #:11 78 12
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
17. In 2020, the State Court of Appeal recognized that Charter Cities, far from being creatures of the State, enjoy constitutionally recognized autonomy (Cal. Const. art. XI) and municipal authority over certain areas of governance that is “supreme and beyond the reach of legislative enactment.” City of Redondo Beach v. Padilla, 46 Cal.App.5th. 902, 910 (2020) (relying on Cal. Const. art. XI).
18. After the California Constitution of 1879 was adopted, the Supreme Court of California declared it was “manifestly the intent” of the drafters “to emancipate municipal governments from the authority and control formerly exercised over them by the Legislature.” Johnson v.
Bradley, 4 Cal.4th 389, 395 (1992) (quoting People v. Hoge, 55 Cal. 612, 618 (1880)).
19. Article XI, section 5 of the California Constitution provides in full:
(a) It shall be competent in any city charter to provide that the city governed thereunder may make and
enforce all ordinances and regulations in respect to
municipal affairs, subject only to restrictions and
limitations provided in their several charters and in
respect to other matters they shall be subject to general laws. City charters adopted pursuant to this
Constitution shall supersede any existing charter, and
with respect to municipal affairs shall supersede all
laws inconsistent therewith.
(b) It shall be competent in all city charters to provide, in addition to those provisions allowable by this
Constitution, and by the laws of the State for: (1) the constitution, regulation, and government of the
city police force (2) subgovernment in all or part of a city (3) conduct of city elections and (4) plenary
authority is hereby granted, subject only to the
restrictions of this article, to provide therein or by
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 12 of 55 Page ID #:12 79 13
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
amendment thereto, the manner in which, the method
by which, the times at which, and the terms for which
the several municipal officers and employees whose
compensation is paid by the city shall be elected or
appointed, and for their removal, and for their
compensation, and for the number of deputies, clerks
and other employees that each shall have, and for the
compensation, method of appointment, qualifications,
tenure of office and removal of such deputies, clerks and other employees.
Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5 (emphasis added).
20. The California Supreme Court has explained that § 5(a) of Article XI of the California Constitution provides that a Charter City shall not be governed by State law in respect to “Municipal Affairs.” Rather, “so far as ‘Municipal Affairs’ are concerned,” Charter Cities’ laws are “supreme and beyond the reach of [State] legislative enactment.” California Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. v. City of Los Angeles 35 Cal.3d 1, 12 (1991).
21. One of the “core” categories of Municipal Affairs that is specifically described in Article XI, § 5(b) is “the constitution, regulation and government of the city police department.” Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b)(1).
22. The “Home Rule” provision of the California Constitution authorizes a Charter City to exercise plenary authority over Municipal Affairs, free from any constraint imposed by the general law and subject only to constitutional limitations. See Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(a); Ex Parte Braun, 141 Cal. 204, 209 (1903); Bishop v. City of San Jose, 1 Cal. 3d 56, 61 (1969); Comm. of Seven Thousand v. Super. Ct. (City of Irvine), 45 Cal.3d 491 (1988).
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 13 of 55 Page ID #:13 80 14
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
23. As a Charter City, the City of Huntington Beach has supreme authority over its city police force. Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b).
24. As a Charter City particularly, the City’s Police Department does not belong to the State, rather, it belongs to the City – and as such, is free from State interference and control. The City’s Police Department engages in local arrests and investigations as Municipal Affairs.
25. The independence and Home Rule authority the Constitution provides to Huntington Beach means that the City and its Police Department are, among many other things, at liberty to conduct effective law enforcement practices, including fighting violent crime by all means available, and “free” to comply with Federal laws in addition to its local laws; “free” from State interference.
26. The City of Huntington Beach has a duty to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its residents. Part of that duty is to ensure that the police officers have the ability to investigate crimes before it occurs, and arrest and detain individuals who committed those crimes, including incidents involving unauthorized aliens. Part of that duty necessarily involves coordinating with other agencies, whether County, State, or Federal for full enforcement of the laws.
27. Article XX, § 3 of the California Constitution provides the Oath of Office that certain City officials, including elected officials and police officers, are required to take in order to be fully vested with authority for the office they are to assume. Cal. Const. art. XX, § 3.
28. The Constitutionally required Oath of Office states “I, ___________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 14 of 55 Page ID #:14 81 15
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
Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.”
29. The Sanctuary State Law forces the City’s officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, to violate U.S. Federal immigration laws, in violation of the California Constitution’s Oath of Office.
B. The Sanctuary State Law
30. In 2017, the State of California enacted the “Sanctuary State Law,” presented then as the “California Values Act of 2017.” The Legislative Bill at the time was commonly known as “Senate Bill 54” or “California’s Sanctuary State Law” (hereinafter “Sanctuary State Law”).
31. The Sanctuary State Law is unconstitutional. See U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2; U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4; 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324, 1325, 1373; 18 U.S.C. §§ 4, 371, 372; see also, Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5; Cal. Const. art.
XX, § 3.
32. The Sanctuary State Law violates the City’s right to fully control its own Police Department and fully and effectively engage in law enforcement. Moreover, neither the State, nor its laws, may prevent the City of Huntington Beach from honoring, following, and/or complying with State and all Federal laws, including Federal laws on immigration, which is the supreme law of the land on immigration.
33. The Sanctuary State Law violates the City’s right to fully control its own Police Department and fully and effectively engage in law enforcement. Specifically, California Government Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, and 7285.2 prohibit local law enforcement officers to cooperate with the Federal Government in criminal immigration investigation.
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 15 of 55 Page ID #:15 82 16
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
34. The Sanctuary State Law bars local jurisdiction from complying with 8 U.S.C. § 1324 or participate in a joint task force that may involve immigration enforcement. See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7282.4 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
35. California Government Code §§ 7282.4 and 7282.5 restrict cooperation between local law enforcement agencies and the Federal Government.
36. The Sanctuary State Law allows for smugglers to transport individuals into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324 for financial gain.
37. The Sanctuary State Law places aliens at risk of harm or being trafficked because California Law Enforcement Agencies cannot engage in the enforcement of 8 U.S.C. § 1324.
38. The Sanctuary State Law prohibits local law enforcement agencies from asking employers about a person’s immigration status under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(3). See Cal. Gov. Code § 7284.6(a)(1)(A).
39. In recent years, Defendant Governor Gavin Newsom has taken a series of substantial steps to incentivize the inflow of illegal immigration into California, and to protect and harbor illegal immigrants, with the implementing of policies and laws to hire illegal immigrants in jobs in State government.16
40. Defendant Governor Gavin Newsom also has a new program to give illegal immigrants taxpayer funded downpayments of $150,000 to buy homes.17 Defendant Newsom is doing more than simply turning a 16https://reformcalifornia.org/news/reform-california-slams-bill-to-hire-illegalimmigrants-in-ca-state-government 17https://www.hoover.org/research/californias-one-party-state-and-housingsubsidies-undocumented-migrants Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 16 of 55 Page ID #:16 83 17
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
blind eye, he is aggressively pursuing policies with taxpayer funds to incentivize illegal immigrants to relocate to his Sanctuary State.
41. In 2024, Defendant Governor Gavin Newsom launched a program for California to spend $2.3 million of taxpayer money to support the relocating and settling of illegal immigrants in rural areas of the State.18 Defendant Newsom is aggressively pursuing policies to commit taxpayer funds to protecting illegal immigrants.
42. In August of 2024, Defendant Governor Gavin Newsom
launched another program to offer illegal immigrants home mortgage aid to buy homes.19 Defendant Newsom is doing more than simply sitting on the sidelines, he is aggressively pursuing policies with taxpayer funds to incentivize illegal immigrants to relocate to his Sanctuary State.
43. Most recently, Defendant Governor Gavin Newsom
established a $25 million taxpayer funded legal defense fund for illegal immigrants to fight the Federal government’s announced crackdown on illegal immigration, which seeks to combat the violent crimes committed against U.S. citizens.20
44. In response to the November 5th election of Donald J. Trump as President of the United States, and with his nomination of Tom Homan as “Border Czar,” Defendant Governor Gavin Newsom convened 18https://business.ca.gov/supporting-californias-rural-communities-2-3-million-ingrants-to-further-expand-immigrant-integration-in-rural-regions 19https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-08-29/california-lawmakersapprove-home-mortgage-aid-to-undocumented-immigrants 20https://www.nationalreview.com/news/california-governor-newsom-requests-25- million-from-legislature-for-anti-trump-litigation-fund Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 17 of 55 Page ID #:17 84 18
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
the State Legislature in a Special Session to develop an “Immigrant Support Plan” designed to counter “Trump deportations.”21
45. It was widely reported that “Gavin Newsom’s administration is drafting a potential plan to help undocumented immigrants who may be threatened by incoming President Donald Trump’s mass deportation threats.” Id.
46. According to POLITICO, a draft of Defendant Gavin
Newsom’s plan entitled “Immigrant Support Network Concept” proposes the “creation of an Immigrant Support Network comprised of regional ‘hubs’ to connect at-risk individuals, their families, and communities with community systems — such as legal services, schools, labor unions, local governments, etc.” Id. (emphasis added). Clearly, Defendant Gavin Newsom plans to further commandeer local governments to act in violation of U.S. Federal immigration laws in the near future.
47. In addition, on December 17, 2024, Defendant Attorney General Robert Bonta issued a Press Release advising illegal immigrants the ways in which his office, and the State, were going to assist in shielding illegal immigrants – “threats of mass detention, arrests, and deportation”22 – from detection and detention by the Federal Government. In that Press Release, Robert Bonta directly advised that “You have the right to apply for and secure housing without sharing your immigration status,” and “You have the right to an attorney.”
48. In that same Press Release, Defendant Robert Bonta stated, “State and local law enforcement cannot ask for your immigration 21https://www.politico.com/news/2024/12/24/newsom-california-immigrants-trump00195984 22https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-reminds-californiaimmigrants-their-rights-and Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 18 of 55 Page ID #:18 85 19
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
status” and “State and local law enforcement cannot share your personal information” and “State and local law enforcement cannot assist ICE with immigration enforcement.” Not only is what appears in the statement a violation of U.S. Federal immigration law, but his statement also indicates a systematic program by the State to shield illegal immigrants in response to “the President-elect making clear his intent to move forward an inhumane and destructive immigration agenda once he takes office.” Defendant Robert Bonta’s statements make clear that his systematic program to protect illegal immigrants conflicts with the U.S.
Federal immigration laws and Federal Government operations.
C. Federal Authorities
1. U.S. Immigration Laws
49. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution provides Congress with the “power… To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization… throughout the United States.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4.
50. In addition to conferring Congress with power to determine when foreign nationals may obtain U.S. citizenship, the Naturalization Clause is sometimes viewed as contributing to Congress’s power over immigration, including its power to set rules for when aliens may enter or remain in the United States.
51. In Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), the Supreme Court declared that the Federal Government’s “broad, undoubted power” over immigration was partially based “on the national government’s constitutional power to ‘establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,’ and its inherent power as sovereign to control and conduct relations with foreign nations.” Id. at 394–95 (quoting U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4).
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 19 of 55 Page ID #:19 86 20
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
52. In Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580 (1952), the Supreme Court observed that “[t]he power of Congress to exclude, admit, or deport aliens flows from sovereignty itself and from the power ‘To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.’” Id. at 599 (quoting U.S.
Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4); see also INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 940 (1983) (“The plenary authority of Congress over aliens under Art. I, § 8, cl. 4 is not open to question”); Toll v. Moreno, 458 U.S. 1, 10 (1982) (“Federal authority to regulate the status of aliens derives from various sources, including the Federal Government’s power ‘[to] establish [a] uniform Rule of Naturalization’…”) (quoting U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4); Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 79–80 (1976) (“In the exercise of its broad power over naturalization and immigration, Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.”).
53. Apart from the Naturalization Clause, the Supreme Court has cited Congress’s foreign commerce power as a basis for its immigration power. See Toll, 458 U.S. at 10 (observing that Congress’s immigration power also derives from “its power ‘[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,’ and its broad authority over foreign affairs”) (citing U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3); United States ex rel. Turner v.
Williams, 194 U.S. 279, 290 (1904) (recognizing that an immigration statute was based in part “on the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, which includes the entrance of ships, the importation of goods, and the bringing of persons into the ports of the United States”); Edye v. Robertson, 112 U.S. 580, 600 (1884) (“It is enough to say that, Congress having the power to pass a law regulating immigration as a part of the commerce of this country with foreign nations, we see nothing in the statute by which it has here exercised that power forbidden by any other part of the Constitution.”).
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 20 of 55 Page ID #:20 87 21
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
54. In 1986, Congress enacted the Immigration and
Naturalization Act (hereinafter “INA”). 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101-1537. Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324, was enacted to combat human smugglers who commit the crime by “bringing people into the United States, or unlawfully transporting and harboring people already in the United States, in deliberate evasion of immigration law.”23
55. In part, 8 U.S.C. § 1324 makes it a Federal crime for any person to “knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien” 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(i).
56. Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324 also makes it a Federal crime for any person to “knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation” 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii).
57. And, 8 U.S.C. § 1324 makes it a Federal crime for any person to “knowingly hires for employment at least 10 individuals with actual knowledge that the individuals are aliens described in subparagraph (B).” 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(3).
58. Title 8, U.S.C. § 1373(a) provides, “Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal State, or local government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the 23 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12539 Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 21 of 55 Page ID #:21 88 22
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
Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a).
59. Title 18, U.S.C. § 4 provides, “Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.” 18 U.S.C. § 4.
60. Title 18, U.S.C. § 371 provides, “If two or more persons conspire to either commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose…each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.” 18 U.S.C. § 371.
61. Title 18, U.S.C. § 372 provides, “If two or more
persons…conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States…or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.” 18 U.S.C. § 372.
62. The 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution holds that the Federal Government may not commandeer State or local resources to administer or enforce a Federal regulatory program against the will of the State or local resources.
63. The 10th Amendment, however, does not allow a State or its officials or its resources to violate Federal laws, including U.S. Federal immigration laws.
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 22 of 55 Page ID #:22 89 23
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
64. The 10th Amendment also does not allow a State to direct a city or its local officials or its resources to violate Federal laws, including U.S. Federal immigration laws.
65. And while the 10th Amendment holds that the Federal Government may not commandeer State and local resources against their will to act at the Federal Government’s behest, there is nothing, including the 10th Amendment itself, that prevents State or local officials or local resources from voluntarily cooperating with the Federal Government in the administration or enforcement of a Federal regulatory program, including U.S. Federal immigration laws. See Cal. ex. Rel. Becerra v. Sessions, 284 F. Supp.3d at 1035 (“No cited authority holds that the scope of state sovereignty includes the power to forbid state or local employees from voluntarily complying with a Federal program.”).
66. “Anti-commandeering” under the 10th Amendment is not a barrier to a local jurisdiction’s voluntary cooperation with the Federal Government in the administration or enforcement of a Federal regulatory program, including U.S. Federal immigration laws. See City of New York v. United States, 179 F.3d 29, 35 (2d Cir. 1999) (rejecting the city’s argument to turn the 10th Amendment “into a sword allowing states and localities to engage in passive resistance that frustrates Federal programs.”).
2. Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution
67. Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution is known as the “Supremacy Clause.” The Supremacy Clause holds that Federal law prevails over any conflicting state laws, including immigration laws.
68. The Supremacy Clause mandates that “[t]his Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 23 of 55 Page ID #:23 90 24
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
thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . . any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” U.S.
Const. art. VI, cl. 2.
69. The Supremacy Clause “prohibit[s] States from interfering with or controlling the operations of the Federal Government.” Geo Group, Inc. v. Newsom, 50 F.4th 745, 750 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting United States v. Washington, 142 S. Ct. 1976, 1984 (2022)).
70. The Constitution affords Congress the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” and to “dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.” U.S. Const. art. IV, § 3. The Constitution also affords the President of the United States the authority to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” U.S. Const. art. II, §
3. 71. The Federal Government has the preeminent role to regulate aliens entering the United States and within its borders. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4; U.S. Const. art. I § 8, cl. 3.
72. In U.S. v. King County, et al., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 30299 (9th Cir. Nov. 29, 2024), the Ninth Circuit wrote “In recognition of the Federal government’s independence from state control, the intergovernmental immunity doctrine prohibits states from ‘interfering with or controlling the operations of the Federal Government.’” Id. at *27.24
73. Recent California legislation that sought to interfere with the Federal Government’s immigration enforcement efforts was struck down as unconstitutional “Whether analyzed under intergovernmental 24 https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/11/29/23-35362.pdf Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 24 of 55 Page ID #:24 91 25
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
immunity or preemption, California cannot exert this level of control over the Federal government’s detention operations… AB 32 therefore violates the Supremacy Clause.” Geo Group, Inc., 50 F.4th at 751.
74. “Any state regulation that purports to override the Federal government’s decisions about who will carry out Federal functions runs afoul of the Supremacy Clause.” Geo Group, Inc., 50 F.4th at 750. By purporting to prevent the City of Huntington Beach from voluntarily cooperating with the Federal Government, and by purporting to prevent the City of Huntington Beach from complying with Federal immigration laws under 8 U.S.C § 1324, California’s Sanctuary State Law runs afoul of the Supremacy Clause.
75. A state enactment is unconstitutional if it is an “‘obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.’” Toll, 458 U.S. at 36 (quoting Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941)).
76. The United States Government has broad authority to establish immigration laws, which cannot be hindered or obstructed by state law. Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. at 394-95. “Effective immigration law enforcement requires a cooperative effort between all levels of government.” City of New York v. United States, 179 F.3d at 32-
33. 77. “The ‘[p]ower to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a Federal power.’” De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 354 (1976) (superseded by statute as stated in Me. Forest Prods. Council v. Cormier, 586 F. Supp. 3d 22, 39 (Dist. Maine 2022)).
78. “[T]he Executive has very broad discretion to determine immigration enforcement priorities.” Arizona Dream Act Coal. v. Brewer, 855 F.3d 957, 967 (9th Cir. 2017). “Congress expressly charged the Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 25 of 55 Page ID #:25 92 26
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
Department of Homeland Security with the responsibility of ‘[e]stablishing national immigration enforcement policies and priorities.’” Id. at 967 (quoting 6 U.S.C § 202(5)). Under President Joe Biden’s Administration, the Department of Homeland Security prioritized the arrest and removal of aliens who poses threat to national security, threat to public safety, and threat to border security “or who have unlawfully entered the country only recently.” United States v. Texas, 599 U.S. 670, 673 (2023).25
79. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress intended to preempt the field of immigration. Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. at 399. Field pre-emption is the intent to displace state law that is so pervasive that Congress left no room for the state to supplement it or that a Federal interest is so dominant that it will be assumed that state enforcement is precluded. Id.
80. In Valle Del Sol Inc. v. Whiting, 732 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2019), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal held that 8 U.S.C. § 1324 preempted state law and that the Federal scheme “reserves prosecutorial power, and thus discretion, over harboring violations to Federal prosecutors.” Id. at 1027.
81. In an opinion by the California Attorney General in 1992 examining a California city’s local sanctuary ordinance, the Attorney General stated that sanctuary law is preempted by 8 U.S.C. § 1324. CA Attorney General Opinions, 75 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 270 (Nov. 19, 1992).26 The California Attorney General concluded, “Due to the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution, a city may not 25 https://www.ice.gov/doclib/news/guidelines-civilimmigrationlaw.pdf 26 https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/opinions/pdfs/92-607.pdf Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 26 of 55 Page ID #:26 93 27
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
prohibit its officers and employees from cooperating in their official capacities with Immigration and Naturalization Service investigation, detention, or arrest procedures relating to alleged violations of the civil provisions of the Federal immigration laws.” Id. at *1.
82. The Attorney General further stated that “[w]hen a peace officer lawfully comes across information in the course of investigating a crime which reasonably leads to the belief that the person arrested is illegally present in this country, neither the state nor Federal Constitution prevents the officer from advising the INS of such information. Id. (citing Gates v. Superior Court, 193 Cal.App.3d 205, 219 (1987)).
83. The California Attorney General concluded that the
sanctuary city ordinance conflicts with Federal law because it would “undermine the deterrent effect of the criminal or civil penalties contained in the [Immigration and Naturalization] Act.” CA Attorney General Opinions, 75 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. at *2; see Gates v. Superior Court, 193 Cal.App.3d at 219 (“Where otherwise warranted investigation by local officers leads to evidence of a Federal civil or criminal violation, the local authority has the right to exchange information with Federal authorities; to deny such an exchange is not reasonable and rewards those Federal violators fortunate enough to be arrested by local, rather than Federal, officials.”).
84. The California Attorney General also stated, “The
Immigration and Naturalization Act is the law of this land and it is the ‘act of responsible citizenship’ and the ‘duty’ and the right of every citizen to assist in prosecuting and securing punishment for its breach by giving whatever information he or she may have in that regard to aid those who Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 27 of 55 Page ID #:27 94 28
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
enforce it.” CA Attorney General Opinions, 75 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. at *2 (quoting 67 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 331, *12-13 (July 24, 1984).27
85. Additionally, the California Attorney General, concluded in a 1984 opinion that, while local authorities are under no legally enforceable duty to report to the INS information about persons who entered the country in violation of 8 U.S.C § 1324, they may do so “as a matter of comity and good citizenship.” See 67 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. at *3.28
86. The California Attorney General further stated that “Congress surely did not intend that state and local governments would undermine the deterrent effect of the criminal or civil penalties contained in the [Immigration Control Act]. By giving the impression that illegal aliens may obtain refuge from such penalties in a particular locale, the ordinance creates localized immigration policy and dissipates enforcement of Federal laws.” CA Attorney General Opinions, 75 Ops.
Cal. Atty. Gen. at *5.
87. The California Attorney General determined that a sanctuary city ordinance “concerns a subject matter, immigration, wherein Federal power to regulate is exclusive.” CA Attorney General Opinions, 75 Ops.
Cal. Atty. Gen. at *3 (citing De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 354-55 (1975)). Federal preemption occurs when the local enactment “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. at 67.
88. The California Attorney General further determined “[T]hat Congress has placed great importance on the immigration detection 27 https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/opinions/pdfs/92-607.pdf 28 https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/opinions/pdfs/83-902_0.pdf Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 28 of 55 Page ID #:28 95 29
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
effort is evidenced by the criminal penalties which have been established for those who assist illegal aliens in escaping detection.” CA Attorney General Opinions, 75 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. at *5 (citing 8 U.S.C § 1324); see United States v. Rubio-Gonzales (5th Cir. 1982) 674 F.2d 1067, 1073; United States v. Cantu (5th Cir. 1977) 557 F.2d 1173, 1180; United States v. Lopez (2d Cir. 1975) 521 F.2d 437, 444; 67 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. at *10, n. 16.
89. The California Attorney General found the local sanctuary ordinance to be “‘an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.’” CA Attorney General Opinions, 75 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. at *6 (quoting Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. at 67). “A direct conflict with a Federal or state statute or regulation presents a separate and distinct basis for the preemption of a local ordinance.” (CA Attorney General Opinions, 75 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. at *6, n. 9 (citations omitted).29
90. The Sanctuary State Law is no different than the city ordinance discussed in the Attorney General’s opinion. As the Attorney General has correctly opined that Federal law preempted local sanctuary ordinance, that conclusion also applies to the state sanctuary law.
Congress intends to preempt state law over criminal immigration enforcement because it “surely did not intend that state and local governments would undermine the deterrent effect of the criminal or civil penalties contained in the [Immigration Control Act]. By giving the impression that illegal aliens may obtain refuge from such penalties in a particular locale, [Sanctuary State Law] creates localized immigration 29 https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/opinions/pdfs/92-607.pdf Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 29 of 55 Page ID #:29 96 30
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
policy and dissipates enforcement of Federal laws.” CA Attorney General Opinions, 75 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. at *5.30
D. Obstruction Caused by the Sanctuary State Law
91. Among many things, the Sanctuary State Law’s interference with the City’s coordination with the Federal Government in order to “protect” illegal immigrants from the Federal Government’s enforcement of the U.S. Federal immigration laws as Defendants Governor Newsom and Attorney General Robert Bonta explain, amounts to “harboring” of illegal aliens by the State of California.
92. The Ninth Circuit joined the Third, Fourth, and Eleventh Circuit in concluding that the Federal scheme on harboring under 8 U.S.C. § 1324 is comprehensive and field preemptive. Valle Del Sol Inc., 732 F.3d at 1025-26; see Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 724 F.3d 297, 315-16 (3rd Cir. 2013) (joining the Eleventh Circuit in finding that state law proscribing harboring or sheltering aliens infringes upon a “comprehensive statutory scheme”) (citing United States v. Alabama, 691 F.3d 1269, 1285-87 (11th Cir. 2012)); United States v. South Carolina, 906 F. Supp. 2d 463, 468 (D.S.C. 2012), aff’d, 720 F.3d 518 (11th Cir.
July 23, 2013).
93. “INA provides a comprehensive framework to penalize the transportation, concealment, and inducement of unlawfully present aliens.” Under this statutory scheme (8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii)-(iv)), the “Federal government has clearly expressed more than a ‘peripheral concern’ with the entry, movement, and residence of aliens within the United States and the breadth of these laws illustrates an overwhelmingly dominant Federal interest in the field. Georgia Latina 30 https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/opinions/pdfs/92-607.pdf Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 30 of 55 Page ID #:30 97 31
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
Alliance for Human Rights v. Governor of GA, 691 F.3d 1250, 1263-64 (11th Cir. 2012) (GLAHR).
94. The Sanctuary State Law prohibits the cooperation between City officials, including the Huntington Beach Police personnel, and the Federal Government on Federal immigration laws enforcement.
95. Under the Supremacy Clause, any state law “which interferes with or is contrary to Federal law, must yield.” Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Association, 505 U.S. 88, 108 (1992).
96. Similar to Arizona’s statute in Valle Del Sol, the Sanctuary State Law is preempted because it prohibits Huntington Beach police officers to notify Federal authorities of any unauthorized aliens in its custody and violates 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(iii) when they “knowingly or in reckless disregard” “conceals, harbors, or shields from detection” in its City Jail or “any means of transportation.”
97. “Given the Federal primacy in the field of enforcing prohibitions on the transportation, harboring, and inducement of unlawfully present aliens, the prospect of 50 individual attempts to regulate immigration-related matters cautions against permitting states to intrude into this area of dominant Federal concern.” Valle Del Sol, 732 F. 3d at p. 1027 (quoting GLAHR, 691 F.3d at 1266).
98. The Sanctuary State Law frustrates the Department of Homeland Security’s enforcement priorities to arrest or removal individuals who are a threat to national security, public safety, or recently entered the United States unlawfully. In fact, the California Attorney General Bonta supports DHS’s enforcement priorities to arrest or remove individuals who pose risk to public safety, terrorist, or recently arrived.
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 31 of 55 Page ID #:31 98 32
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
99. City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, cannot obey the Sanctuary State Law without violating 8 U.S.C, § 1324(a)(1)(iii) when they have knowledge or in reckless disregard that an individual in their custody is in violation of law and are prohibited from sharing the information with the Federal authorities.
100. The Orange County Sheriff, Don Barnes, is required to report annually to the Orange County Board of Supervisor on the county’s compliance with California Government Code §§ 7283 and 7283.1 (“California’s Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (“TRUTH”) Act).
101. Sheriff Barnes stated that OCSD is prohibited by State law to notify Immigration Control and Enforcement of the release of inmates with ICE detainers. In 2018, 1,106 inmates who had ICE detainers but did not meet eligibility for notifying ICE were released into the community. 173 out of the 1,106 inmates were rearrested “in Orange County for committing 58 different types of crimes, including attempted murder, assault and battery, child molestation, and robbery.” (Exhibit “A.”)
102. In 2019, OCSD released 1,015 inmates had ICE detainers into the community without notifying ICE of their release because they did not meet state law requirement for notification. “Of the 1,015 inmates with ICE detainers who were released back into the community, 238 have been rearrested in Orange County for committing new crimes, including assault and battery, rape, and robbery.” (Exhibit “B.”) 103. In 2020, OCSD released 168 inmates who had ICE detainers but did not meet the state law’s requirement for notifying ICE were released into the community. Out of the 168 inmates, 36 were rearrested for new crimes in Orange County. (Exhibit “C.”)
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 32 of 55 Page ID #:32 99 33
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
104. In 2021, OCSD released 199 inmates who had ICE detainers.
In compliance with state law, 143 of these 199 inmates met the state’s requirement for transfer to ICE’s custody. Only 73 out of the 143 individuals were transferred to ICE’s custody. The 70 individuals who were eligible for transfer to ICE, but were not, were released into the community. A total of 24 out of the 70 individuals were re-arrested for committing new crimes in Orange County. (Exhibit “D.”)
105. In 2021, there were 56 inmates who had ICE detainers but did not meet state law requirements for notifying ICE of their release.
Of the 56 released into the community, three were rearrested for committing new crimes in Orange County. (Exhibit “D.”)
106. In 2022, 272 inmates were released form Orange County jail had ICE detainers. OCSD notified ICE of the inmates who were eligible for transfer to ICE’s custody. Of the 155 individuals who met the eligibility, only 17 were transferred to ICE’s custody. The other 138 individuals were released into the community. A total of 20 individuals were rearrested for committing new crimes in Orange County. (Exhibit “E.”)
107. In 2022, there were 117 inmates who had ICE detainers, but state law prohibited OCSD from notifying ICE. They were released into the community. A total of 13 were rearrested for new crimes in Orange County. (Exhibit “E.”)
108. In 2023, there were 547 inmates who had ICE detainers released from Orange County Jail. OCSD notified ICE of the inmates who were eligible for transfer to ICE’s custody under state law. About 81 of those inmates eligible for notification and transfer to ICE’s custody were not transferred and released into the community. A total of 40 Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 33 of 55 Page ID #:33 100
34 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 individuals were rearrested for committing new crimes in Orange County. (Exhibit “F.”)
109. In 2023, there were 245 inmates with ICE detainers who were not eligible for notifying ICE and were released into the community. 27 were rearrested for new crimes in Orange County. These crimes were robbery, carjacking, kidnapping, parole or probation violation, sales or transport of narcotics, domestic violence, assault with a deadly weapon, felony driving under the influence. (Exhibit “F.”31)
110. Huntington Beach police officers cannot comply with both State and Federal laws while carrying out their duty. For example, an unauthorized alien who was arrested for allegedly committing petty theft and placed in city jail, the Sanctuary State Law prohibits Huntington Beach Police officers from sharing with ICE or if ICE requests information about the individual, Huntington Beach cannot provide information about the individual, and thus, concealing, harboring or shielding from detection an unauthorized alien in its “building” under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(iii). And if ICE arrives at the jail facility, Huntington Beach authority must refuse assumption of custody, as mandated by the Sanctuary State Law. Huntington Beach is in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(iii).
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
31 During his presentation to the Orange County Board of Supervisors, Sheriff Barnes reported that 27 inmates who were released into the community committed new crimes. Sheriff Barnes specified the types of crimes that these 27 individuals committed. However, these crimes were not specified in the staff report (Exhibit “F”). See https://ocgov.granicus.com/player/clip/5109?view_id=8&redirect=true Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 34 of 55 Page ID #:34 101
35 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
28 111. Compliance with 8 U.S. Code, Section 1324(a)(1)(ii) is vital to stopping human smuggling. The Sanctuary State Law mandates that law enforcement does not cooperate with Federal authorities over immigration matters, including joining a task force.
112. Huntington Beach, City officials, including Huntington Beach Police Department personnel are prohibited from cooperating, detaining, or investigating whether there is a potential for human trafficking. City officials, including Huntington Beach Police Department personnel, are prohibited from informing the Federal Government that an alien engaged in smuggling individuals into the United States who are not otherwise engaged in human trafficking for forced labor or sex services. 113. Under the Sanctuary State Law, Huntington Beach Police Officers are prohibited from asking the immigration status of aliens working for an employer. Cal. Gov. Code § 7284.6 (a)(1)(A).
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF THE SUPREMECY CLAUSE
ARTICLE VI, CLAUSE 2 OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324
(Against All Defendants)
114. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations made in each preceding paragraph of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 115. The Sanctuary State Law is unconstitutional. See U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2; U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4; 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324, 1325, 1373; 18 U.S.C. §§ 4, 371, 372; see also Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5; Cal. Const. art. XX, § 3.
116. The Supremacy Clause mandates that “[t]his Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 35 of 55 Page ID #:35 102
36 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 thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . . any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” U.S.
Const. art. VI, cl. 2.
117. The Supremacy Clause “prohibit[s] States from interfering with or controlling the operations of the Federal Government.” Geo Group, Inc., 50 F.4th at 750 (quoting United States v. Washington, 142 S.
Ct. at 1984).
118. The Sanctuary State Law violates the Supremacy Clause precisely because it interferes with, in fact it obstructs, the Federal Government’s efforts to coordinate to enforce U.S. Federal immigration laws, including but not limited to 8 U.S.C. § 1324. See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1,7285.2.
119. Under the Sanctuary State Law, City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, are mandated to “conceal, harbor, or shield from detection” any alien in their custody in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(iii). See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
120. City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, are unable to fulfill their duty to investigate or detain individuals having committed crimes without violating the Sanctuary State Law. See Cal.
Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.)
121. The Sanctuary State Law prohibits local law enforcement officers to cooperate with the Federal Government in criminal immigration investigation. See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
122. The Sanctuary State Law bars local jurisdiction from complying with 8 U.S.C. § 1324 or participate in a joint task force. See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 36 of 55 Page ID #:36 103
37 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
28 123. The Sanctuary State Law restricts cooperation between local law enforcement agencies and the Federal Government. See Cal. Gov.
Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.)
124. The Sanctuary State Law’s interference with the City’s coordination with the Federal Government in order to “protect” illegal immigrants from the Federal Government’s enforcement of the U.S.
Federal immigration laws as Defendants Governor Newsom and Attorney General Robert Bonta stated, amounts to “harboring” of illegal aliens by the State of California.
125. City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, are unable to stop crime before it occurs. Instead, they must sit idly by and wait for a human smuggling incident to become a human trafficking situation in order to intervene and comply with California Government Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6.
126. The Sanctuary State Law is an obstacle to the City’s ability to comply with U.S. Federal immigration laws. It prevents City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, from full, effective law enforcement and obstructs the City’s ability to coordinate and cooperate with Federal law enforcement agencies. As U.S. Federal immigration law, according to the Supremacy Clause, is supreme, the Sanctuary State Law is an unconstitutional barrier to the City’s effective law enforcement efforts.
127. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Absent relief, Defendants’ actions continue to harm and threaten to harm Plaintiffs by impairing enjoyment of this right.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 37 of 55 Page ID #:37 104
38 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 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF THE NATURALIZATION CLAUSE
ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 4 OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324
(Against All Defendants)
128. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations made in each preceding paragraph of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 129. The Sanctuary State Law is unconstitutional. See U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2; U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4; 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324, 1325, 1373; 18 U.S.C. §§ 4, 371, 372; see also Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5; Cal. Const. art. XX, § 3.
130. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution provides Congress with the “power… To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization… throughout the United States.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4.
131. In addition to conferring Congress with power to determine when foreign nationals may obtain U.S. citizenship, the Naturalization Clause is viewed as contributing to Congress’s power over immigration, including its power to set rules for when aliens may enter or remain in the United States.
132. In Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. at 387, the Supreme Court declared that the Federal Government’s “broad, undoubted power” over immigration was partially based “on the national government’s constitutional power to ‘establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,’ and its inherent power as sovereign to control and conduct relations with foreign nations.” Id. at 394–95 (quoting U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4). 133. The Sanctuary State Law violates the City’s right to fully control its own Police Department and fully and effectively engage in law Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 38 of 55 Page ID #:38 105
39 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 enforcement. Moreover, neither the State, nor its laws, may prevent the City of Huntington Beach from honoring, following, and/or complying with State and all Federal laws, including Federal laws on immigration, which is the supreme law of the land on immigration.
134. The Sanctuary State Law violates the City’s right to fully control its own Police Department and fully and effectively engage in law enforcement. Specifically, California Government Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, and 7285.2 prohibit local law enforcement officers to cooperate with the Federal Government in criminal immigration investigation.
135. Under the Sanctuary State Law, City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, are mandated to “conceal, harbor, or shield from detection” any alien in their custody in violation of 8 U.S.C.§ 1324(a)(1)(iii). See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
136. The Sanctuary State Law bars local jurisdiction from complying with 8 U.S.C. § 1324 or participate in a joint task force. See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2. 137. California Government Code §§ 7284.4 and 7282.5 restrict cooperation between local law enforcement agencies and the Federal Government.
138. The Sanctuary State Law allows for smugglers to transport individuals into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324 for financial gain.
139. The Sanctuary State Law places aliens at risk of harm or being trafficked because California Law Enforcement Agencies cannot engage in the enforcement of 8 U.S.C. § 1324.
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 39 of 55 Page ID #:39 106
40 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
28 140. The Sanctuary State Law prohibits local law enforcement agencies from asking employers about a person’s immigration status under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(3). Cal. Gov. Code § 7284.6(a)(1)(A). 141. In recent years, Defendant Governor Gavin Newsom has taken a series of substantial steps to incentivize the inflow of illegal immigration into California, and to protect and harbor illegal immigrants, with the implementing of policies and laws to: hire illegal immigrants in jobs in State government, give illegal immigrants taxpayer funded downpayments of $150,000 to buy homes, spend $2.3 million of taxpayer money to support the relocating and settling of illegal immigrants in rural areas of the State, give illegal immigrants home mortgage aid to buy homes, newly allocating $25 million in taxpayer funded legal defense fund for illegal immigrants to fight the Federal government’s announced crackdown on illegal immigration, which seeks to combat the violent crimes committed against U.S. citizens, and the list goes on.
142. In addition, on December 17, 2024, Defendant Attorney General Robert Bonta issued a Press Release advising illegal immigrants the ways in which his office, and the State, were going to assist in shielding illegal immigrants – “threats of mass detention, arrests, and deportation” – from detection and detention by the Federal Government.
In that Press Release, Robert Bonta directly advised that “You have the right to apply for and secure housing without sharing your immigration status,” and “You have the right to an attorney.”
143. Defendant Robert Bonta has stated, “State and local law enforcement cannot ask for your immigration status” and “State and local law enforcement cannot share your personal information” and “State and local law enforcement cannot assist ICE with immigration Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 40 of 55 Page ID #:40 107
41 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 enforcement.” Not only does his statement reflect a violation of Federal immigration law, his statement also indicates a systematic program by the State to shield illegal immigrants in response to “the President-elect making clear his intent to move forward an inhumane and destructive immigration agenda once he takes office.” Defendant Robert Bonta’s statements make clear that his systematic program to protect illegal immigrants conflicts with U.S. Federal immigration laws and Federal Government operations.
144. “Effective immigration law enforcement requires a
cooperative effort between all levels of government.” City of New York v.
United States, 179 F.3d at 32-33.
145. The Sanctuary State Law violates Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution by actively obstructing the authority of the Federal Government and obstructing the City’s ability to employ all laws available, including U.S. Federal immigration laws, to combat crime and ensure public safety by coordinating with the Federal Government to deal with certain individuals committing crime and who are subject to U.S. Federal immigration laws.
146. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Absent relief, Defendants’ actions continue to harm and threaten to harm Plaintiffs by impairing enjoyment of this right.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF U.S. FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS
TITLE 8, U.S.C. § 1324
(Against All Defendants)
147. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations made in each preceding paragraph of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 41 of 55 Page ID #:41 108
42 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
28 148. The Sanctuary State Law is unconstitutional. See U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2; U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4; 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324, 1325, 1373; 18 U.S.C. §§ 4, 371, 372; see also Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5; Cal. Const. art. XX, § 3.
149. In 1986, Congress enacted the Immigration and
Naturalization Act. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101-1537. Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324 was enacted to combat human smugglers who commit the crime by “bringing people into the United States, or unlawfully transporting and harboring people already in the United States, in deliberate evasion of immigration law.”
150. In part, 8 U.S.C. § 1324 makes it a Federal crime for any person to “knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien.” 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(i). 151. Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324 also makes it a Federal crime for any person to “knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.” 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii). 152. And, 8 U.S.C. § 1324 makes it a Federal crime for any person to “knowingly hires for employment at least 10 individuals with actual knowledge that the individuals are aliens described in subparagraph (B).” 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(3)(A).
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 42 of 55 Page ID #:42 109
43 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
28 153. Under the Sanctuary State Law, City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, are mandated to “conceal, harbor, or shield from detection” any alien in their custody in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(iii). See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7284.4, 7282.5, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
154. City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, are unable to fulfill their duty to investigate or detain individuals having committed crimes without violating the Sanctuary State Law. See Cal.
Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
155. The Sanctuary State Law prohibits local law enforcement officers to cooperate with the Federal Government in criminal immigration investigation. See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
156. The Sanctuary State Law bars local jurisdiction from complying with 8 U.S. Code, Section 1324 or participate in a joint task force. See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2. 157. The Sanctuary State Law restricts cooperation between local law enforcement agencies and the Federal Government. See Cal. Gov.
Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
158. The Sanctuary State Law’s interference with the City’s coordination with the Federal Government in order to “protect” illegal immigrants from the Federal Government’s enforcement of the U.S.
Federal immigration laws as Defendants Governor Newsom and Attorney General Robert Bonta have declared is “harboring” of illegal aliens by the State of California.
159. City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, are unable to stop crime before it occurs. Instead, they must sit idly by and wait for a human smuggling incident to become a human trafficking Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 43 of 55 Page ID #:43 110
44 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 situation in order to intervene and comply with California Government Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6.
160. The Sanctuary State Law is an obstacle to the City’s ability to comply with U.S. Federal immigration laws. It prevents City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, from full, effective law enforcement and obstructs the City’s ability to coordinate and cooperate with Federal law enforcement agencies. Pursuant to the Supremacy Clause, U.S. Federal immigration law is supreme, and the Sanctuary State Law is an unconstitutional barrier to the City’s effective law enforcement efforts.
161. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Absent relief, Defendants’ actions continue to harm and threaten to harm Plaintiffs by impairing enjoyment of this right.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF U.S. FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS
TITLE 8, U.S.C. § 1373
(Against All Defendants)
162. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations made in each preceding paragraph of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 163. The Sanctuary State Law is unconstitutional. See U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2; U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4; 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324, 1325, 1373; 18 U.S.C. §§ 4, 371, 372; see also Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5; Cal. Const. art. XX, § 3.
164. Title 8, U.S.C. § 1373(a) provides, “Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal State, or local government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 44 of 55 Page ID #:44 111
45 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 Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” 165. Under the Sanctuary State Law, City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, are mandated to “conceal, harbor, or shield from detection” any alien in their custody in violation of 8 U.S.C.§ 1324(a)(1)(iii). See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
166. The Sanctuary State Law prohibits local law enforcement officers to cooperate with the Federal Government in criminal immigration investigation. See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
167. The Sanctuary State Law’s interference with the City’s coordination with the Federal Government in order to “protect” illegal immigrants from the Federal Government’s enforcement of the Federal immigration laws as Defendants Governor Newsom and Attorney General Robert Bonta have declared is “harboring” of illegal aliens by the State of California.
168. The Sanctuary State Law is an obstacle to the City’s ability to comply with U.S. Federal immigration laws. It prevents City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, from full, effective law enforcement and obstructs the City’s ability to coordinate and cooperate with Federal law enforcement agencies. Pursuant to the Supremacy Clause, U.S. Federal immigration law is supreme, and the Sanctuary State Law is an unconstitutional barrier to the City’s effective law enforcement efforts.
169. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Absent relief, Defendants’ actions continue to harm and threaten to harm Plaintiffs by impairing enjoyment of this right.
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 45 of 55 Page ID #:45 112
46 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 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF U.S. FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS
TITLE 18, U.S.C. §§ 4, 371 AND 372
(Against All Defendants)
170. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations made in each preceding paragraph of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 171. The Sanctuary State Law is unconstitutional. See U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2; U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4; 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324, 1325, 1373; 18 U.S.C. §§ 4, 371, 372; see also Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5; Cal. Const. art. XX, § 3.
172. Title 18, U.S.C. § 4 provides, “Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.” 18 U.S.C. § 4.
173. Title 8, U.S.C. § 371 provides, “If two or more persons conspire to either commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose…each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.” See United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534, 536 (9th Cir. 1989) (“conspiracy to defraud the United States is not limited to common-law fraud but reaches ‘any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of government.’ [Citation.]”).
174. Title 8, U.S.C. § 372 provides, “If two or more
persons…conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 46 of 55 Page ID #:46 113
47 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 person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States…or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.”
175. Under the Sanctuary State Law, City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, are mandated to “conceal, harbor, or shield from detection” any alien in their custody in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(iii). See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.6, 7284.4, 7285.1, 7285.2.
176. City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, are unable to fulfill their duty to investigate or detain individuals having committed crimes without violating the Sanctuary State Law. See Cal.
Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
177. The Sanctuary State Law prohibits local law enforcement officers to cooperate with the Federal Government in criminal immigration investigation. See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
178. The Sanctuary State Law bars local jurisdiction from complying with 8 U.S. Code, Section 1324 or participate in a joint task force. See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2. 179. The Sanctuary State Law restricts cooperation between local law enforcement agencies and the Federal Government. See Cal. Gov.
Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
180. The Sanctuary State Law’s interference with the City’s coordination with the Federal Government in order to “protect” illegal immigrants from the Federal Government’s enforcement of the U.S.
Federal immigration laws as Defendants Governor Newsom and Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 47 of 55 Page ID #:47 114
48 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 Attorney General Robert Bonta have declared is tantamount to “harboring” of illegal aliens by the State of California. 181. City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, are unable to stop crime before it occurs. Instead, they must sit idly by and wait for a human smuggling incident to become a human trafficking situation in order to intervene and comply with California Government Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6.
182. The Sanctuary State Law is an obstacle to the City’s ability to comply with U.S. Federal immigration laws. It prevents City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, from full, effective law enforcement and obstructs the City’s ability to coordinate and cooperate with Federal law enforcement agencies. Pursuant to the Supremacy Clause, U.S. Federal immigration law is supreme, and the Sanctuary State Law is an unconstitutional barrier to the City’s effective law enforcement efforts.
183. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Absent relief, Defendants’ actions continue to harm and threaten to harm Plaintiffs by impairing enjoyment of this right.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
AIDING AND ABETTING, ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT
VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE §§ 31, 32
(Against All Defendants)
184. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations made in each preceding paragraph of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 185. California Penal Code § 31 provides, “All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether it be felony or misdemeanor, and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 48 of 55 Page ID #:48 115
49 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 abet in its commission, or, not being present, have advised and encouraged its commission, and all persons counseling, advising, or encouraging children under the age of fourteen years, or persons who are mentally incapacitated, to commit any crime, or who, by fraud, contrivance, or force, occasion the drunkenness of another for the purpose of causing him to commit any crime, or who, by threats, menaces, command, or coercion, compel another to commit any crime, are principals in any crime so committed.”
186. California Penal Code § 32 provides: “Every person who, after a felony has been committed, harbors, conceals or aids a principal in such felony, with the intent that said principal may avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction or punishment, having knowledge that said principal has committed such felony or has been charged with such felony or convicted thereof, is an accessory to such felony.” 187. Under the Sanctuary State Law, City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, are mandated to “conceal, harbor, or shield from detection” any alien in their custody in violation of 8 U.S.C. §1324(a)(1)(iii). See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
188. City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, are unable to fulfill their duty to investigate or detain individuals having committed crimes without violating the Sanctuary State Law. See Cal.
Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
189. The Sanctuary State Law prohibits local law enforcement officers to cooperate with the Federal Government in criminal immigration investigation. See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 49 of 55 Page ID #:49 116
50 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
28 190. The Sanctuary State Law bars local jurisdiction from complying with 8 U.S.C. § 1324 or participate in a joint task force. See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2. 191. The Sanctuary State Law restricts cooperation between local law enforcement agencies and the Federal Government. See Cal. Gov.
Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
192. The Sanctuary State Law’s interference with the City’s coordination with the Federal Government in order to “protect” illegal immigrants from the Federal Government’s enforcement of the U.S.
Federal immigration laws as Defendants Governor Newsom and Attorney General Robert Bonta have declared is “harboring” of illegal aliens by the State of California and amounts to a violation of California Penal Code §§ 31 and 32.
193. The Sanctuary State Law causes City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, to violate California Penal Code §§ 31 and 32 by aiding and abetting the commission of a crime and accessory after the fact in the commission of a crime, i.e., the violation of U.S. Federal immigration laws, including but not limited to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324 and 1325.
194. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Absent relief, Defendants’ actions continue to harm and threaten to harm Plaintiffs by impairing enjoyment of this right.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 50 of 55 Page ID #:50 117
51 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 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF OATH OF OFFICE
ARTICLE XX, § 3 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
(Against All Defendants)
195. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations made in each preceding paragraph of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 196. The Sanctuary State Law is unconstitutional. See U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2; U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4; 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324, 1325, 1373; 18 U.S.C. §§ 4, 371, 372; see also Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5; Cal. Const. art. XX, § 3.
197. Article XX, § 3 of the California Constitution provides the Oath of Office that certain City officials, including elected officials and police officers, are required to take in order to be fully vested with authority for the office they are to assume. Cal. Const. art. XX, § 3. 198. The Constitutionally required Oath of Office states “I, ___________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.” 199. The Sanctuary State Law forces the City’s officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, to violate their legal obligations and their Oaths of Office to the U.S Constitution, the California Constitution, and U.S. Federal immigration laws in violation of the California Constitution’s Oath of Office.
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 51 of 55 Page ID #:51 118
52 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
28 200. Under the Sanctuary State Law, City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, are mandated to “conceal, harbor, or shield from detection” any alien in their custody in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(iii). See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
201. City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, are unable to fulfill their duty to investigate or detain individuals having committed crimes without violating the Sanctuary State Law. See Cal.
Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
202. The Sanctuary State Law prohibits local law enforcement officers to cooperate with the Federal Government in criminal immigration investigation. See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
203. The Sanctuary State Law bars local jurisdiction from complying with 8 U.S.C. § 1324 or participate in a joint task force. See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2. 204. The Sanctuary State Law restricts cooperation between local law enforcement agencies and the Federal Government. See Cal. Gov.
Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
205. The Sanctuary State Law’s interference with the City’s coordination with the Federal Government in order to “protect” illegal immigrants from the Federal Government’s enforcement of the U.S.
Federal immigration laws causes City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, to violate the terms of their Oath of Office required by the California Constitution, i.e., that they swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that [they] will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 52 of 55 Page ID #:52 119
53 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 United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that [they] take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that [they] will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which [they] a[re] about to enter,” causing violations of U.S.
Federal immigration laws, including but not limited to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324 and 1325.
206. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Absent relief, Defendants’ actions continue to harm and threaten to harm Plaintiffs by impairing enjoyment of this right.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:
1. Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief preventing Defendants from enforcing the Sanctuary State Law (SB 54), or, alternatively, from enforcing the California statutes and constitutional provisions upon which the Sanctuary State Law is based to the extent those statutes and provisions violate the Supremacy Clause, the afore U.S. Federal immigration laws, the afore California Penal Code(s), and other provisions of the U.S. Constitution and California Constitution;
2. An order and judgment declaring that the Sanctuary State Law (SB 54), or, alternatively, the California statutes and constitutional provisions upon which the Sanctuary State Law is based, violate the Supremacy Clause, the afore U.S. Federal immigration laws, the afore California Penal Code(s), and other provisions of the U.S. Constitution and California Constitution;
3. An order and judgment declaring that the Sanctuary State Law (SB 54) provides no obstacle to Huntington Beach’s cooperation with Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 53 of 55 Page ID #:53 120
54 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 the Federal Government and acts to comply with all U.S. Federal immigration laws, or, alternatively, the California statutes and constitutional provisions upon which AB 1955 is based, violate the Supremacy Clause, the afore U.S. Federal immigration laws, the afore California Penal Code(s), and other provisions of the U.S. Constitution and California Constitution;
4. Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other applicable laws; and
5. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
DATED: January 7, 2025 MICHAEL E. GATES, City Attorney
By: /s/ Michael E. Gates .
Michael E. Gates, City Attorney
Attorney for Plaintiffs
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY
COUNCIL, HUNTINGTON BEACH
POLICE DEPARTMENT, and the
HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE
CHIEF
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 54 of 55 Page ID #:54 121
55 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 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, HUNTINGTON
BEACH CITY COUNCIL, HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE
DEPARTMENT, and the HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE CHIEF
hereby demand trial by jury in the above-entitled action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 38(b) and Local Rule 38-1.
DATED: January 7, 2025 MICHAEL E. GATES, City Attorney
By: /s/ Michael E. Gates .
Michael E. Gates, City Attorney
Attorney for Plaintiffs
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY
COUNCIL, HUNTINGTON BEACH
POLICE DEPARTMENT, and the
HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE
CHIEF
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 55 of 55 Page ID #:55 122
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MINUTE ORDER
April 23, 2019
SubmittingAgency/Deparrmenr: County Counsel
Pursuant to Government Code Section 7283.1, conduct public hearing regarding Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act and receive and file information from County law enforcement departments regarding Immigration and Customs Enforcement's access to individuals in 2018 - All Districts The following is action taken by the Board of Supervisors:
APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED rii1 OTHER □
Unanimous rii1 (1) DO: Y (2) STEEL: Y (3) WAGNER: Y (4) CHAFFEE: Y (5) BARTLETT: Y Vote Key: Y=Yes; N=No; A=Abstain; X=Excused; B.O.=Board Order Documents accompanying this matter:
D Resolution(s)
D Ordinances(s)
D Contract(s)
Item No. S49C
Special Notes:
Copies sent to:
CoCo - Nicole Sims
4125/19
l certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Minute Order adopted by the Board of Supervisors, Orange County, State of California.
Robin Stieler, Clerk of the Board
EXHIBIT A
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:56 123
County Executive Office
Memorandum
April 16, 2019
To:
From:
Subject:
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Frank Kim, County Executive Officer
Exception to Rule 21
Cf)
-·o
:t1!
r:~)
f,)
Cl\
,,;,
The County Executive Office is requesting a Supplemental Agenda Staff Report (ASR) for the April 23, 2019, Board Hearing Meeting.
Agency:
Subject:
Districts:
County Counsel
Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act Community Forum All Districts
Reason for supplemental: Conducting the public hearing and receiving and filing information regarding access to individuals that has been provided to Immigration and Customs Enforcement by County law enforcement departments during 2018 will meet the requirements of California's Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act, Government Code sections 7283 and 7283.1.
Concur:
Chai~~oc Fllfu Disaict
cc: Board of Supervisors
County Executive Office
County Counsel
EXHIBIT A
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:57 124
SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEM
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 4/23/19
LEGAL ENTITY TAKING ACTION: Board of_ Supervisors
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISTRICT(S): All Districts
SUBMITTING AGENCY /DEPARTMENT:
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
DEPARTMENT CONTACT PERSON(S): Leon J. Page (714) 834-3300 Nicole A. Sims (714) 834-3319
Agenda Item
Clerk's Use Only
N .,. • 14ii1
<:'I'>
SUBJECT: Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH)Act Community Forum
CEO CONCUR COUNTY COUNSEL REVIEW CLERK OF THE BOARD
170 l;J~ oZJ,,te~f,~ Public Hearing
Y2't1c~t/35:;L__ 3 Votes Board Majority
CEO Signature County Counsel Signature
Budgeted: N/ A Current Year Cost: N/ A
Staffing Impact: N/ A # of Positions:
Current Fiscal Year Revenue: N/ A
Funding Source: NIA
Prior Board Action: 12/04/2018 #S40A
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S)
Annual Cost:• N/ A
Sole Source: N/ A
County Audit in last 3 years N/ A
1. Pursuant to Government Code section 7283 .1, conduct public hearing regarding access to individuals that has been provided to Immigration and Customs Enforcement by County law enforcement departments during 2018.
2. Receive and file information from County law enforcement departments regarding Immigration and Customs Enforcement's access to individuals in 2018.
SUMMARY:
California's Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act (Government Code sections 7283 and 7283 .1) requires that a Community Forum be held each year, to provide the public with information about what access to individuals had been providedto Immigration and Customs Enforcement by County law enforcement departments during the preceding year.
EXHIBIT A
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:58 125
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Government Code section 7283, subdivision (d), defines "ICE access" as follows:
"ICE access" means, for the purposes of civil immigration enforcement, including when an individual is stopped with or without their consent, arrested, detained, or otherwise under the control of the local law enforcement agency, all of the following:
(1) Responding to an ICE hold, notification, or transfer request. (2) Providing notification to ICE in advance of the public that an individual is being or will be released at a certain date and time through data sharing or otherwise. (3) Providing ICE non-publicly available information regarding release dates, home addresses, or work addresses, whether through computer databases, jail logs, or otherwise.
( 4) Allowing ICE to interview an individual.
(5) Providing ICE information regarding dates and times of probation or parole checkms.
Sheriff's Department
Following the.enactment of state laws limiting law enforcement agencies' cooperation with ICE except as provided, the Sheriffs Department (OCSD) implemented a jail policy and created forms to meet the laws' requirements. OCSD'sjail policy 1206 (Attachment D) prohibits any transfer of an inmate to ICE's custody unless in accordance with state law. Following the enactment cif the Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act, OCSD created forms by which OCSD requests an inmate's written consent to be interviewed by ICE ("TRUTH Act Interview Consent Form") and also notifies an inmate if the inmate qualifies to be transferred to ICE's custody following the inmate's release from OCSD's custody ("TRUTH Act Notification Form") (Attachment E).
OCSD provided the following information:
• In 2018, a total of 1,823 inmates in the Orange County Jail had ICE detainers, meaning ICE requested that OCSD notify them when the inmates were being released and transfer the inmates to ICE's custody. The OCSD transferred 717 inmates to ICE upon completion of their time in local custody from January 1 to December 31, 2018. Those transferred were all individuals whose criminal convictions met the state law's requirement for transfer to ICE's custody. • State law prohibited OCSD from notifying ICE of the release of 1,106 inmates who had ICE detainers. Of the 1,106 inmates with ICE detainers who were released back into the community, 173 have been rearrested in Orange County for committing 5 8 different types of crimes, including attempted murder, assault and battery, child molestation, and robbery.
Probation Department
The Probation Department does not permit ICE to have access to any juvenile in Probation's custody or under Probation's supervision. This is in accord with Welfare and Institutions Code section 831, which prohibits disclosure of juvenile information to federal officials absent a court order from the Juvenile Court.
Page2
EXHIBIT A
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:59 126
The Probation Department has briefed its Probation Officers about the legal requirements for ICE access to adults. The Probation Department has not had a situation where it has allowed ICE access to an adult in Probation's custody or under Probation's supervision in 2018.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NIA
STAFFING IMPACT:
NIA
REVIEWING AGENCIES:
Sheriffs Department
Probation Department
ATTACHMENT(S):
Attachment A - Government Code section 7283
Attachment B - Government Code section 7283 .1
Attachment C - Welfare and Institutions Code section 831 Attachment D - OCSD's Jail Policy Section 1206 (Immigration) Attachment E- OCSD's Inmate Interview Consent Form and Notification Form
EXHIBIT A
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:60 127
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MINUTE ORDER
December 08, 2020
Submilling Agency/Department: County Counsel
Pursuant to Government Codes Section 7283.1 conduct public hearing regarding Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act and receive and file infom1ation from County law enforcement departments regarding Immigration and Customs En forcement's access to individuals in 2019 -All Districts The following is action taken by the Board of Supervisors:
APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED r&'I OTHER 0
Unanimous r&'I (I) DO: Y (2) STEEL: Y (3) WAGNER: Y (4) CHAr:FEE: Y (5) BARTLETT: Y Vote Key: Y=Yes; N=Nu; A=Abstain,· X=Excused; B.0. =Board Order Documents accompanying this matter:
0 Resolution(s)
0 Ordinances(s)
0 Contract(s)
Item No. S34A
Special Notes:
Copies sent to:
CoCo - Leon Page
12/ /1120
I certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the .Vlinute Order adopted by the Board of Supervisors . Orange County, State of Cal ifornia.
Robin Stief er. Clerk of the Board
EXHIBIT B
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-2 Filed 01/07/25 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:61 128
Memorandum
November 30, 2020
To: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
From:
Subject: Exception to Rule 21
' )
, ' 1
(.Jl
The County Executive Office is requesting a Supplemental Agenda Staff Report (ASR) for the December 8, 2020, Board Hearing Meeting.
Agency:
Subject:
Districts:
County Cow1sel
TRUTH Act Commlmity Forum
All Districts
Reason for supplemental: Conducting the public hearing and rece1vmg and filing information regarding access to individuals that has been provided to Immigration and Customs Enforcement by Coru1ty law enforcement departments during 2019 will meet the requirements of California's Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act, Government Code sections 7283 and 7283.1.
Concur:
cc: Board of Supervisors
County Executive Office
County Counsel
EXHIBIT B
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-2 Filed 01/07/25 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:62 129
SUPPLEMENT AL AGENDA ITEM
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 12108120
LEGAL ENTITY TAKING ACTION: Board of Supervisors
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISTRICT(S): All Districts
SUBMITTING AGENCY/DEPARTMENT:
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: Coz::n~~
Department Head Signature
DEPARTMENT CONTACT PERSON(S): Leon J. Page (714) 834-3300 Nicole A. Sims (714) 834-3319
Agenda Item C:::::--=:? / t i1
Clerk's Use 011/y _ 0.:..xr ..=:.___: -.n ,
1 , l
U1
SUBJECT: Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act Community Fornm
CEO CONCUR
2 CEO Signature
Budgeted: NI A
COUNTY COUNSEL REVIEW
Nol~~tffb )~t..C:/i~
Act if,;
~-wod.~
County Counsel Signature
Current Year Cost: NI A
CLERK OF THE BOARD
Public Hearing
3 Votes Board Majority
Staffing Impact: NI A # of Positions:
Annual Cost: NIA
Sole Source: NI A
County Audit in last 3 years NI A
Current Fiscal Year Revenue: NI A
Funding Source: NI A
Prior Board Action: NI A
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S)
1. Pursuant to Government Code section 7283.1 , conduct public hearing regarding access to individuals that has been provided to Immigration and Customs Enforcement by County law enforcement departments during 2019.
2. Receive and file information from County Jaw enforcement departments regarding Immigration and Customs Enforcement's access to individuals in 2019.
SUMMARY:
California's Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act (Government Code sections 7283 and 7283.1) requires that a Community Forum be held each year, to provide the public with
EXHIBIT B
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-2 Filed 01/07/25 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:63 130
information about what access to individuals had been provided to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by County law enforcement departments during the preceding year.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Govermnent Code section 7283, subdivision ( d), defines "ICE access" as follows:
"ICE access" means, for the purposes of civil immigration enforcement, including when an individual is stopped with or without their consent, arrested, detained, or otherwise under the control of the local law enforcement agency, all of the following:
(1) Responding to an ICE hold, notification, or transfer request. (2) Providing notification to ICE in advance of the public that an individual is being or will be released at a certain date and time through data sharing or otherwise. (3) Providing ICE non-publicly available information regarding release dates, home addresses, or work addresses, whether through computer databases, jail logs, or otherwise.
( 4) Allowing ICE to interview an individual.
(5) Providing ICE information regarding dates and times of probation or parole checkins.
Sheriff-Coroner Department
Following the enactment of state laws limiting law enforcement agencies' cooperation with ICE except as provided, the Sheriff-Coroner Department (OCSD) implemented a jail policy and created forms to meet the laws'. requirements. OCSD's jail policy 1206 (Attachment B) prohibits any transfer of an inmate to ICE's custody unless in accordance with state law. Following the enactment of the Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act, OCSD created forms by which OCSD requests an inmate's written consent to be interviewed by ICE (TRUTH Act Interview Consent Form) and also notifies an inmate if the inmate qualifies to be transferred to ICE's custody following the inmate's release from OCSD's custody (TRUTH Act Notification Form) (Attachment C). •
OCSD provided the following information for 2019:
• In 2019, a total of 1,507 inmates in the Orange County Jail had ICE detainers, meaning ICE requested that OCSD notify them when the inmates were being released and transfer the inmates to ICE's custody. OCSD transferred 492 inmates to ICE upon completion of their time in local custody from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019. Those transferred were all individuals whose criminal convictions met the state law's requirement for transfer to ICE's custody. • State law prohibited OCSD from notifying ICE of the release of 1,015 inmates who had ICE detainers. Of the 1,015 inmates with ICE detainers who were released back into the community, 238 have been rearrested in Orange County for committing new crimes, including assault and battery, rape and robbery.
EXHIBIT B
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-2 Filed 01/07/25 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:64 131
Probation Department
The Probation Department (Probation) does not permit ICE to have access to any juvenile in Probation's custody or under Probation's supervision. This is in accord with Welfare and Institutions Code section 831, which prohibits disclosure of juvenile information to federal officials absent a court order from the Juvenile Court.
Probation has briefed its Probation Officers about the legal requirements for ICE access to adults. Probation has not had a situation where it has allowed ICE access to an adult in Probation's custody or under Probation's supervision in 2019.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NIA
STAFFING IMPACT:
NIA
REVIEWING AGENCIES:
Sheriff-Coroner Department
Probation Department
ATTACHMENT(S):
Attachment A - Government Code sections 7283, 7283 .1 & Welfare and Institutions Code section 831 Attachment B - OCSD's Jail Policy Section 1206 (Immigration) Attachment C- OCSD's Inmate Interview Consent Form and Notification Form
EXHIBIT B
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-2 Filed 01/07/25 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:65 132
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MINUTE ORDER
February 23, 2021
Submilling Agency/Department: County Counsel
Pursuant to Government Code Section 7283.1, conduct public hearing regarding Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act and receive and file infonnation from County law enforcement departments regarding Immigration and Customs Enforcement's access to individuals in 2020 - All Districts The following is action taken by the Board of Supervisors:
APPROVED AS RECOM MENDED □ OTHER t?s1
RECEIVED AND FILED
Unanimous O (1) DO: (2) VACANT: (3) WAGNER: (4) CHAFFEE: (5) BARTLETT:
Vote Key: Y=Yes; N=No; A=Abstain; X=Excused; B.0. =Board Order Documents accompa nying this matter:
D Resolution(s)
D Ordinances(s)
D Contract(s)
Item No. S 15C
Special Notes:
Copies sent to:
CoCo - Nicole Sims
2i26!2 I
I c.:rtify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Minute Order adopted by the Board of Supervisors , Orange County, Stale of California.
Robin Stieler, Clerk of the l:loard
EXHIBIT C
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-3 Filed 01/07/25 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:66 133
Memorandum • ... • . I
~ ' ; I < ' .... i .,
·,,
February 17, 2021
To: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
From: Frank Kim, Cow,ty Executive Officer
Subject: Exception to Rule 21
The County Executive Office is requesting a Supplemental Agenda Staff Report (ASR) for the February 23, 2021, Board Hearing Meeting.
Agency:
Subject:
Districts:
County Counsel
Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act Commwuty Forum
All Districts
Reason for supplemental: Conducting the public hearing and rece1vmg and filing information regarding access to individuals that has been provided to Immigration and Customs Enforcement by Coimty law enforcement departments during 2020 will meet the requirements of California's Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act, Government Code sections 7283 and 7283.1.
Concur ~J;_ /).p?,
~ chairman Andrew Do, Supervisor, First District
cc: Board of Supervisors
County Executive Office
Coimty Counsel
EXHIBIT C
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-3 Filed 01/07/25 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:67 134
Agenda Item Cl f-5G
Clerk's Use Only _V __ _ SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEM
AGENDASTAFFREPORT
MEETING DATE: 02123121
LEGAL ENTITY TAKING ACTION: Board of Supervisors
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISTRICT(S): All Districts
SUBMITTING AGENCY/DEPARTMENT:
Co~ e:,,-0--V- DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
Department Head Signature
DEPARTMENT CONTACT PERSON(S): Leon J. Page (714) 834-3300 Nicole A. Sims (714) 834-3319
l'
( )
),-
l-
~ ':
(, I
: I
r ..
~.:.:.
f ' '
(, .
SUBJECT: Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act Community Forum f_ )
• I r, I
\,., . .J
l
~ '
- -:7
~ •
: •. . .
.. \.,_
___ _ !
CEOCONCUR
Michelle OigiMlly Jlg:nrd by Michelle Aguiur
ON en-Mich rite Agui1,,, o -Covnl)'
hecufr,•r Offiie. ouaChit l Fin anti•!
Otrtee,.
COUNTY COUNSEL REVIEW
/It If)~ d J,11,«,~
CLERK OF THE BOARD
Public Hearing
Aguirre tl'Nll- mid,,e-He 1guirrep ocgovcom,
t• US
Oi1r:202L0217 15.sl:06·08'00'
(_ Actio~
& cJ& (2_ ~ 3 Votes Board Majority
CEO Signature County Counsel Signature
Budgeted: NIA Current Year Cost: NI A
Staffing Impact: NIA # of Positions:
Current Fiscal Year Revenue: NIA
Funding Source: NI A
Annual Cost: NI A
Sole Source: NI A
County Audit in last 3 years NI A
Prior Board Action: 12108/2020 #S34A, 04123/2019 #S49C, 12/04/2018 #S40A
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S)
1. Pursuant to Government Code Section 7283.1 , conduct public hearing regarding access to individuals that has been provided to Immigration and Customs Enforcement by County law enforcement departments during 2020.
2. Receive and file information from County law enforcement departments regarding Immigration and Customs Enforcement's access to individuals in 2020.
SUMMARY:
California's Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds Act (Government Code sections 7283 and 7283.1) requires that a Community Forum be held each year, to provide the public with information about what access to individuals has been provided to Immigration and Customs Enforcement by County law enforcement departments during the preceding year.
EXHIBIT C
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-3 Filed 01/07/25 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:68 135
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Government Code section 7283, subdivision ( d), defines Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) access as follows:
"ICE access" means, for the purposes of civil immigration enforcement, including when an individual is stopped with or without their consent, arrested, detained, or otherwise under the control of the local law enforcement agency, all of the following:
(1) Responding to an ICE hold, notification, or transfer request. (2) Providing notification to ICE in advance of the public that an individual is being or will be released at a certain date and time through data sharing or otherwise. (3) Providing ICE non-publicly available information regarding release dates, home addresses, or work addresses, whether through computer databases, jail logs, or otherwise.
(4) Allowing ICE to interview an individual.
(5) Providing ICE information regarding dates and times of probation or parole checkms.
Sheriff-Coroner Department (OCSD)
Following the enactment of state laws limiting law enforcement agencies' cooperation with ICE except as provided, OCSD implemented a jail policy and created forms to meet the laws' requirements. OCSD's Jail Policy 1206 (Attachment B) prohibits any transfer of an inmate to ICE's custody unless in accordance with state law. Following the enactment of the Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act, OCSD created forms by which OCSD requests an inmate's written consent to be interviewed by ICE (TRUTH Act Interview Consent Form) and also notifies an inmate if the inmate qualifies to be transferred to ICE's custody following the inmate's release from OCSD's custody (TRUTH Act Notification Form) (Attachment C).
OCSD provided the following information for 2020 (see Attachment D):
• In calendar year 2020, a total of 393 inmates released from the Orange County Jail had ICE detainers, meaning ICE requested that OCSD notify them when the inmates were being released and transfer the inmates to ICE's custody. In 2020, OCSD released 225 of those 393 inmates to ICE upon completion of their time in local custody. Those transferred were all individuals whose criminal convictions met the state law's requirement for transfer to ICE's custody. • State law prohibited OCSD from notifying ICE of the release of 168 inmates who had ICE detainers. Of the 168 inmates with ICE detainers who were released back into the community, 36 were re-arrested for new crimes in Orange County.
• The 2020 statistics are significantly lower than previous years. The difference in numbers is largely due to factors associated with the pandemic. The total Orange County Jail population was 5,303 on March 7, 2020. Efforts to reduce the population to mitigate against the spread of COVID-19 occurred through much of 2020. By December 31, 2020, the jail population was 3,407. A temporary order suspending bail, court-ordered jail releases and the release of certain low-level offenders done through the Sheriffs discretion all resulted in a lower jail population. Additionally, litigation that limited capacity at ICE facilities has also been a factor in the reduced numbers.
EXHIBIT C
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-3 Filed 01/07/25 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:69 136
Probation Department (Probation)
Probation does not permit ICE to have access to any juvenile in Probation's custody or under Probation's supervision. This is in accord with Welfare and Institutions Code section 831, which prohibits disclosure of juvenile information to federal officials absent a court order from the Juvenile Court.
Probation has briefed its Probation Officers about the legal requirements for ICE access to adults. Probation has not had a situation where it has allowed ICE access to an adult in Probation's custody or under Probation's supervision in 2020.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NIA
STAFFING IMPACT:
NIA
REVIEWING AGENCIES:
Sheriff-Coroner Department
Probation Department
ATTACHMENT(S):
Attachment A- Government Code Sections 7283 and 7283.1; Welfare & Institutions Code Section 831 Attachment B - OCSD's Jail Policy Section 1206 (Immigration) Attachment C - OCSD's Inmate Interview Consent Form and Notification Form Attachment D - Orange County Jail - Immigration Detainer Data - 2020 Page3
EXHIBIT C
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-3 Filed 01/07/25 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:70 137
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MINUTE ORDER
March 22, 2022
SubmillingAgency/Department: County Counsel
Pursuant to Government Code Section 7283.1, conduct public hearing regarding Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act and receive and file infonnation from County law enforcement departments regarding Immigration and Customs Enforcement's access to individuals in 2021 - All Districts The following is action taken by the Board of Supervisors:
APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED O OTHER C!lJ
RECEIVED AND FILED
Unanimous O (I) DO: (2) FOLEY: (3) WAGNER: (4) CHAFFEE: (5) BARTLETT:
Vote Key: Y=Yes; N=No; A=Abstain,· X=Exc11sed; B.O.=Board Order Documents accompanying this matter:
0 Resolution(s)
0 Ordinances(s)
D Contract(s)
Item No. S46A
Special Notes:
Copies sent to:
CoCo - Nicole Sims
3128122
I cenify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Minute Order adopted by the Board of Supervisors, Orange County, State of California.
Robin Stieler, Clerk of the Board
By:~6(\JUJ.ll
Deputy
EXHIBIT D
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-4 Filed 01/07/25 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:71 138
County Executive Office
Memorandum
March 15, 2022
To:
From:
Subject:
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Frank Kim, County Execu tive Officer
Exception to Rule 21
. r-·,
Oig11ally signed by Frank K,m < _
DN: cn=Frank Kim, o=County of ( . -< Orange, ou=CEO, - • • email=frank.kimet,oc:gov.com, ::n r_ c=US ,,
Dale: 2022.03.15 08:43:13 -OTOO'
C...-7
0 The County Executive Office is requesting a Supplemental Agenda Staff Report for the March 22, 2022, Board Hearing.
Agency: Cow1 ty Cow1sel
Subject: TRUTH Act Community Forum
Districts: All Districts
Reason Item is Supplemental: This item is a supplemental item to allow the Sheriff's Department time to ga ther data about the access to individuals provided to Immigrntion and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during 2021 and to accommodate the Sheriff's schedule.
Justification: Tl-us item must be heard on March 22, 2022, because the 30-day public notice required by Governmen t Code Section 7283.1 specified that date. If it is continued, the 30-day public notice must be given anew. Th.is Agenda Staff Report and attachments were finalized after the fi]jng deadline to the Clerk of the Board.
Concur:
cc: Board of Supervisors
County Executive Office
County Counsel
...
,,.
..
I
0 EXHIBIT D
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-4 Filed 01/07/25 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:72 139
.,.._
Agenda Item Q J J I_ I\
Clerk's Use Only ~ I.P if
MEETING DATE:
SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEM
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
03122/22
-··· ', LEGAL ENTITY TAKING ACTION: Board of Supervisors , ·:"'1 ' c.n BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISTRICT(S): All Districts
SUBMITTING AGENCY/DEPARTMENT:
DEPARTEMENT HEAD REVIEW:
DEPARTMENT CONTACT PERSON(S):
County Counsel
Leon J. Page ~..::,:;:;--..-:-
Department Head Signature
Leon J. Page (714) 834-3300
Nicole A. Sims (714) 834-3319
SUBJECT: Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUIB) Act Community Forum -' • - .
.. - .
;:._, c .....
,, l 0
N
CEO CONCUR COUNTY COUNSEL REVIEW
Nolc.z5 d t>h1·.e.cfin--v
CLERK OF THE BOARD
Public Hearing
Action 1 ./}
Yl('~ t2. ,.,,x_µ.,.~- 3 Votes Board Majority
CEO Signature co11nty Counsel Signature
Budgeted: NI A Current Year Cost: NI A
Staffing Impact: NIA # of Positions:
Current Fiscal Year Revenue: NIA
Funding Source: NI A
Annual Cost: NIA
Sole Source: NIA
County Audit in last 3 years NIA
Prior Board Action: 412312019, Item #S49C, 12108/2020, Item #S34A, 02/231202 I, Item #S l5C
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S)
l . Pursuant to Government Code section 7283.1, conduct public hearing regarding access to individuals that has been provided to Immigration and Customs Enforcement by County law enforcement departments during 2021.
2. Receive and file information from County law enforcement departments regarding Immigration and Customs Enforcement's access to individuals in 2021.
SUMMARY:
California's Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act (Government Code sections 7283 and 7283.1) requires that a Community Forum be held each year, to provide the public with information about what access to individuals had been provided to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by County law enforcement departments during the preceding year.
Page I
r ,
EXHIBIT D
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-4 Filed 01/07/25 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:73 140
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In accord with Government Code sections 7283, subdivision (a) and 7283.1, subdivision (d), the Board has held a public hearing at its meetings on April 23, 2019, December 8, 2020, and February 23, 2021, to provide the public with information about what access to individuals had been provided to ICE by County law enforcement departments during the preceding year.
Government Code section 7283, subdivision (d), defines "ICE access" as follows:
"ICE access" means, for the purposes of civil immigration enforcement, including when an individual is stopped with or without their consent, arrested, detained, or otheJWise under the control of the local law enforcement agency, all of the following:
(I) Responding to an ICE hold, notification, or transfer request. (2) Providing notification to ICE in advance of the public that an individual is being or will be released at a certain date and time through data sharing or otherwise. (3) Providing ICE non-publicly available information regarding release dates, home addresses, or work addresses, whether through computer databases, jail logs, or otherwise.
(4) Allowing ICE to interview an individual.
(5) Providing ICE information regarding dates and times of probation or parole checkins.
Sheriff's Department (OCSD)
Following the enactment of state laws limiting law enforcement agencies' cooperation with ICB except as provided, OCSD implemented a jail policy and created forms to meet the laws' requirements. OCSD's jail policy 1206 (Attachment B) prohibits any transfer of an inmate to ICE's custody unless in accordance with state law. Following the enactment of the Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act, OCSD created forms by which OCSD requests an inmate's written consent to be interviewed by ICE ("TRUTH Act Interview Consent Form") and also notifies an inmate if the inmate qualifies to be transferred to ICE's custody following the inmate's release from OCSD's custody ("TRUTH Act Notification Fonn") (Attachment C).
OCSD provided the following information for 2021 (see Attachments D and E):
• In calendar year 2021, a total of 199 inmates released from the Orange County Jail had ICE dctainers, meaning ICE requested that OCSD notify them when the inmates were being released and transfer the inmates to ICE's custody. OCSD notified ICE about 143 of those 199 inmates upon the inmates' completion of their time in local custody. Those inmates were all individuals whose criminal convictions met the state law's requirement for transfer to ICE's custody. Of the 143 individuals, only 73 or 51 percent were transferred to ICE's custody. With respect to the other 70 individuals who, under state law, were eligible for transfer to ICE, ICE took no action and these individuals were released back into the community. A total of 24 of these individuals were re-arrested for new crimes in Orange County.
• State law prohibited OCSD from notifying ICE of the release of 56 inmates who had ICE detainers. Of the 56 inmates with ICE detainers who were released back into the community, 3 were re-arrested for new crimes in Orange County.
Page2
EXHIBIT D
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-4 Filed 01/07/25 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:74 141
,, ...
Probation Department (Probation)
Probation does not permit ICE to have access to any juvenile in Probation's custody or under Probation's supervision. This is in accord with Welfare and Institutions Code section 831, which prohibits disclosure of juveru le infonnation to federal officials absent a court order from the Juvenile Court.
Probation has briefed its officers about the legal requirements for ICE access to adults. Probation has not had a situation where it has allowed ICE access to an adult in Probation's custody or under.Probation's supervision in 2021.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NIA
STAFFING IMPACT:
NIA
REVIEWING AGENCIES:
Sheriff's Department
Probation Department
ATTACHMENT(S):
Attachment A - Government Code sections 7283 and 7283.1; Welfare & Institutions Code section 831 Attachment B - OCSits Jail Policy Section 1206 (Immigration) Attachment C- OCSD's Inmate Interview Consent Form and Notification Fonn Attachment D - Orange County Jail - Immigration Detainer Data - 2021 Attachment E - Inmates with Immigration Detainers - 2021 Page3
EXHIBIT D
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-4 Filed 01/07/25 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:75 142
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MINUTE ORDER
March 14, 2023
Submitting Agency/Department: County Counsel
Pursuant to Government Code Section 7283. I conduct public hearing regarding Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act and receive and file information from County law enforcement departments regarding Immigration and Customs Enforcement's access to indiv iduals in 2022 - All Districts The following is action taken by the Board of Supervisors:
APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED O OTHER 18:1
RECEIVED AND FILED
Unanimous O (I) DO: (2) SARMIENTO: (3) WAGNER: (4) CHAFFEE: (5) FOLEY:
Vote Key: Y= Yes,· N=No; A =Abstain; X=Excused; B.O. =Board Order Documents accompanying this matter:
D Resolution(s)
D Ordinances(s)
0 Contract(s)
Item No. S38G
Special Notes:
Copies sent to:
CoCo - Nicole Sims
3117/23
I certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Minute Order adopted by the Board of Supervisors, Orange County, State of California.
Robin Stiel er, Clerk of the Board
EXHIBIT E
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-5 Filed 01/07/25 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:76 143
County Executive Office
Memorandum
March 8, 2023
To: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
From: Frank Kim, Coun ty Executi ve Officer
Subject: Exception to Rule 21
Digitally signed by Frank Kim
ON: cn=Frank Kim, o=County
of Orange, ou:CEO,
[email protected],
c:US
Date: 2023.03.08 16:42:06
·08'00'
.
'l
The County Executive Office is requesting a Supplemental Agenda Staff Report for the March 14, 2023, Board Hearing.
Agency:
Subject:
County Cou nse 1
Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act Communily Forum
Districts: All
Reason Item is Supplemental: This item is a supplemental item to allow the Sheriff's Department time to gather da ta about the access to individuals provided to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during 2022 and to accommodate the Sheriff's schedule.
Justification: This item must be heard on March 14, 2023, because the 30-day public notice required by Government Code Section 7283.J speci • that date. If it is continued, the 30-day public notice must be given c ew. This Agend taff Re rt and attachments were finalized after the filing dea in o 1 Cle1 of the Boa• d.
Concu r:
cc: Boa rd of Supervisors
County Executive Office
County Counsel
I
' l
EXHIBIT E
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-5 Filed 01/07/25 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:77 144
r
;.
SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEM
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
MEETING DA TE: 03114123
LEGAL ENTITY TAKING ACTION: Board of Supervisors
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISTRICT(S): All Districts
SUBMITTING AGENCY/DEPARTMENT:
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
DEPARTMENT CONTACT PERSON(S):
County Counsel
L J P ............ -... eon. age~==~c::-~
Leon J. Page(714)834-3300
Nicole A. Sims (7 14) 834-33 I 9
Agenda Item
Cler k's Use 0 11/y
··,
' ".)
:j
--1
CJ
SUBJECT: Transparent Review of Unj ust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act Community Forum
CEO C ONCUR
Digltatt-, wgMd byfm1k Kim
ON cnaft~k Kim, 02County ol
Ora~.ou-.CEO,
tnu11l11franlt lum4'0CgOY com,
caUS
D.J1~ 20130308164<1-06-08'00'
CEO Sig11a111re
COUNTY COll 'SEL R EVIEW
No Legal Objection
Co11111y Co1111sel Sig11a111re
CLERK OFTIIE BOARD
Public Hearing
3 Votes Board Majority
Budgeted: NIA Current Year Cost: NIA Annual Cost: NIA
Staffing Impact: NIA # of Positions:
Current Fiscal Year Revenue: NIA
Funding Source: NIA
Sole Source: NIA
County Audit in last 3 years NIA
Prior Board Action: 12/8/2020. Item #S34A. 21231202 1, Item #S I SC, 3122/22. Item #S46A
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S)
I. Pursuant to Government Code section 7283.1 , conduct public hearing regarding access to individuals that has been provided to Immigration and Customs Enforcement by County law enforcement depat1ments during 2022.
2. Receive and tile information from County law enforcement departments regarding Immigration and Customs Enfo rcement" s access to individuals in 2022.
SUMMARY:
California's Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act (Government Code sections 7283 and 7283. I) requires that a Community Forum be held each year, to provide the public with information about what access to individuals had been provided to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by County law enforcement departments during the preceding year.
Page I
EXHIBIT E
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-5 Filed 01/07/25 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:78 145
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In accord with Government Code sections 7283, subdivision (a) and 7283.1, subdivision (d), the Board has held a public hearing at its meetings on December 8, 2020, February 23, 2021, and March 22, 2022, to provide the public with information about what access to individuals had been provided to ICE by County law enforcement departments during the preceding year.
Government Code section 7283, subdivision (d), defines "ICE access" as follows:
"ICE access" means, for the purposes of civil immigration enforcement, including when an individual is stopped with or without their consent, arrested, detained, or otherwise under the control of the local law enforcement agency, all of the following:
(I) Responding to an ICE hold, notification, or transfer request. (2) Providing notification to ICE in advance of the public that an individual is being or will be released at a certain date and time through data sharing or otherwise. (3) Providing ICE non-publicly available information regarding release dates, home addresses, or work addresses, whether through computer databases, jail logs, or otherwise.
(4) Allowing ICE to interview an individual.
(5) Providing ICE information regarding dates and times of probation or parole checkms.
Sheriff's Department (OCSD)
Following the enactment of state laws limiting law enforcement agencies' cooperation with ICE except as provided, OCSD implemented a jail policy and created forms to meet the laws' requirements. OCSD's jail policy 1206 (Attachment B) prohibits any transfer of an inmate to ICE's custody unless in accordance with state law. Following the enactment of the Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act, OCSD created forms by which OCSD requests an inmate's written consent to be interviewed by ICE ("TRUTH Act Interview Consent Form") and also notifies an inmate if the inmate qualifies to be transferred to ICE's custody following the inmate's release from OCSD's custody ("TRUTH Act Notification Form") (Attachment C).
OCSD provided the following information for 2022 (see Attachments D and E):
• In calendar year 2022, a total of 272 inmates released from the Orange County Jail had ICE detainers, meaning ICE requested that OCSD notify them when the inmates were being released from OCSD's custody. OCSD notified ICE about 155 of those 272 inmates upon the inmates' completion of their time in local custody. Those inmates were all individuals whose criminal convictions met the state law's requirement for transfer to ICE's custody. Of the 155 individuals, only l 7 or l O. 9 percent were transferred to I CE' s custody. With respect to the other I 3 8 individuals who, under state law, were eligible for transfer to ICE, ICE took no action and these individuals were released back into the community. A total of 20 of these individuals were rearrested for new crimes in Orange County. • State law prohibited OCSD from notifying ICE of the release of 117 inmates who had ICE detainers. Of the 117 inmates with ICE detainers who were released back into the community, 13 were re-arrested for new crimes in Orange County.