City Council Staff Report Page 1 of 4 May 12, 2026
Staff Report
Agenda Item No. 5.1
DATE: May 12, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Kris Kokotaylo, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Waive Full Reading and Introduce by Title Only an Ordinance of the City of Union City Adding Chapter 2.64 to Title 2 of the Union City Municipal Code Restricting the Use of City-Owned or City-Controlled Property for Federal Civil Immigration Enforcement Activities
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Legislation and Policy Committee (the “Committee”), at its meeting on April 20, 2026, considered potential options related to the restriction of City property for civil immigration enforcement activities. The presentation followed the Committee's request to staff to return with potential options for consideration. Following the staff presentation, the Committee directed the City Attorney’s Office to prepare an ordinance prohibiting the use of City-owned and controlled facilities and property by civil immigration enforcement for City Council review and consideration. Staff recommends that the City Council consider the proposed ordinance and, should it wish to proceed, waive full reading and introduce the proposed ordinance by title only.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
This item is not directly related to the Strategic Plan.
BACKGROUND
Over the past year, there has been growing concern about immigration enforcement activities in the Bay Area. In response to potential local impacts from national immigration enforcement activities, the Committee requested that staff present potential options to limit civil immigration enforcement activities on City property.
Staff presented the Committee with information regarding approaches taken by three other jurisdictions to address the use of local agency property for civil immigration purposes.
Agenda Item No. 5.1
City Council Staff Report Page 2 of 4 May 12, 2026
Below is a summary of approaches taken by other agencies that were presented to the Committee:
City of Pinole
On December 16, 2025, the Pinole City Council adopted an ordinance prohibiting the voluntary use of City-owned or City-controlled property for civil immigration enforcement staging, processing, surveillance, or operational purposes unless required by a valid judicial warrant or court order. Additionally, the ordinance prohibits the use of City property for temporarily detaining individuals for civil immigration purposes.
The ordinance does not define staging or processing, but defines “surveillance” as “observing, recording, monitoring, or collecting information about individuals for civil immigration enforcement purposes.” The ordinance does not restrict federal agents from entering areas open to the general public and preserves the City’s obligation to comply with all lawful court orders. For example, the ordinance would not prohibit federal agents from congregating on City property that is generally available to the public. A copy of the ordinance is attached.
County of Alameda
On January 29, 2026, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution prohibiting county-owned and controlled properties from being used for staging, processing, or operations of civil immigration enforcement. “Staging area” is defined as “an area used to assemble, mobilize, and deploy vehicles … for the purpose of carrying out civil immigration enforcement operations.”
A “processing location” is defined as an area to identify and detain individuals for civil immigration enforcement, and an “operation base” is defined as an area used to plan or coordinate civil immigration enforcement operations. A copy of the resolution is attached.
City of South San Francisco
On February 4, 2026, the South San Francisco City Council adopted a resolution outlining that the city is committed to diversity and inclusion; expressing concern over recent Federal immigration enforcement actions and their impact on civil liberties; calling for accountability, transparency, and respect for due process; and clarifying existing laws and policies and the City’s response to immigration enforcement actions that do not comply with those laws and policies.
The resolution does not establish a new policy specific to civil immigration enforcement.
Instead, it addresses concerns with the current federal immigration enforcement efforts, identifies the City’s existing policies that would prohibit the use of City property for civil immigration efforts, and confirms how the City would respond to a violation. A copy of the resolution is attached.
At the April 20 Committee meeting, the Committee sought information on whether an ordinance or resolution would affect the City’s ability to pursue civil legal recourse against an agency occupying non-public spaces within the City. Staff clarified that the City could Agenda Item No. 5.1
City Council Staff Report Page 3 of 4 May 12, 2026
pursue existing remedies to generally prevent a non-City entity from occupying areas not generally open to the public or otherwise accessible to the public in the same manner.
Staff explained that neither an ordinance nor a resolution was legally required, as the City Manager already had existing authority and direction from the Council to limit access to non-public areas of City facilities for civil immigration purposes, as further explained below in the discussion section. Finally, staff explained that any violation would be addressed through civil action, if necessary, and that there would be no involvement from the Police Department, as the matter would not be criminal in nature. After receiving the information, the Committee directed staff to prepare an ordinance prohibiting the use of City-owned and controlled facilities and properties for civil immigration enforcement for full Council consideration.
DISCUSSION
Although the City has a limited role in enforcing federal law, the ordinances, resolutions, and policies adopted or under consideration by other local jurisdictions have identified several areas where the City already enforces existing laws and policies. The proposed ordinance reiterates the City Council's direction to the City Manager regarding how the City would respond if an agency attempted to conduct civil immigration enforcement activity on non-public City property.
The City generally exercises complete control over the use of its property. Union City Municipal Code Section 2.08.190 authorizes the City Manager to exercise “general supervision over all public buildings, public parks, and all other public property which are under control and jurisdiction of the City Council.” Absent approval from the City Manager or her delegate, the use of City property is prohibited if it is not expressly allowed or otherwise required to be permitted by law. This includes the use of non-public City property for civil immigration purposes.
Additionally, in 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution 5069-17 declaring Union City a “Compassionate City.” The Resolution expresses the City's commitment to a community free from prejudice, bigotry, and hate, and prohibits the City from engaging in activities solely to enforce federal immigration law. Thus, Resolution 5069-17 would prohibit the City Manager from using her authority under Union City Municipal Code Section 2.08.190 to make non-public City property available for civil immigration enforcement.
The proposed ordinance establishes Chapter 2.64, “Use of City-owned or City-controlled property for Civil Immigration Enforcement Activities,” of the Union City Municipal Code, which prohibits City-owned and controlled facilities and properties from being used for staging, processing, or operations related to civil immigration enforcement. “Staging area” is defined as “an area used to assemble, mobilize, and deploy vehicles for the purpose of carrying out civil immigration enforcement operations,” “processing location” is defined as “an area to identify and detain individuals for civil immigration enforcement,” and an “operation base” is defined as “an area used to plan or coordinate civil immigration enforcement operations.” The ordinance does not restrict such operations on City property when a valid warrant or judicial order is issued.
Agenda Item No. 5.1
City Council Staff Report Page 4 of 4 May 12, 2026
The proposed ordinance, consistent with the law, does not prevent federal officers from entering areas generally open to the public. Additionally, the proposed ordinance does not create or impose liability on the City or any City department, agency, official, or employee, nor does it create a private right of action against the City or any City personnel.
If the ordinance is adopted and City officials are made aware of federal agents taking part in civil immigration enforcement activities at a City-owned or controlled property and facility in violation of the ordinance, the City Attorney’s Office would seek legal action, such as an injunction, to address the prohibited activities.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with adopting the proposed ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council consider the proposed ordinance and, should it wish to proceed, waive full reading and introduce the proposed ordinance by title only.
Prepared by: Juliet Vaughn, Associate
Submitted by: Kristopher Kokotaylo, City Attorney
Attachments
1. Draft Ordinance
2. Union City Compassionate City Resolution No. 5069-17
3. Pinole Ordinance
4. Alameda County Resolution
5. South San Francisco Resolution