Title
Recommendation to Provide Direction on Prohibiting the Use of City-Owned Properties for Civil Immigration Enforcement Purposes and Providing Immigration Resources to City Property Owners, Businesses, and Residents. (City Manager 10021030)
Body
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Gerry Beaudin, City Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is being presented to the City Council in response to a City Council referral requesting that staff provide information on immigration enforcement and resources. If desired, the City Council may provide direction to staff.
BACKGROUND
January 2017 Resolution
On January 17, 2017, City Council adopted a resolution affirming the City of Alameda’s (City) Commitment to the Values of Dignity, Inclusivity, and Respect for All Individuals, regardless of Ethnic or National Origin, Gender, Race, Religious Affiliation, Sexual Orientation, or Immigration Status. This has served as a guiding framework for addressing equity, access, and inclusion within City policies and practices. The City’s unofficial motto is Everyone Belongs Here.
April 2026 Referral
On April 7, 2026, City Council directed staff to review what other cities in Alameda County were doing to preclude the use of properties owned by those cities for immigration detainment and to bring to City Council an analysis and potential recommendations for a policy concerning City-owned properties, including what enforcement of a policy would entail.
Immigration Resources & Information Sharing
The following details the City’s efforts to provide education and resources regarding immigrant rights.
• The Know Your Rights page on the City website at
<https://www.alamedaca.gov/RESIDENTS/Information-for-Residents/Know-Your-Rights> provides resources on immigration, federal legislative contacts, and housing rights. Immigration resources include free materials such as Know Your Rights flyers in multiple languages, Red Cards with information on Constitutional Rights in multiple languages, and Yellow Cards with the Alameda County Immigration Legal and Education Partnership (ACILEP) rapid response hotline.
• On April 9, 2026, the City hosted a Bystander Training and Conflict De-Escalation Workshop with approximately 30 people in attendance.
• Thousands of Red and Yellow information cards have been distributed at all City libraries, recreation facilities, City Hall, City Hall West, and to local non-profit organizations.
DISCUSSION
Review of Alameda County and Cities
Staff researched policies, ordinances, and resolutions enacted by Alameda County and cities that have limited or prohibited the use of county or city-owned properties for civil immigration enforcement. The following table outlines the research results.
|
Jurisdiction |
Summary |
|
Alameda County |
A policy directs the county administrator to develop a coordinated immigration enforcement plan outlining rapid-response measures. A second policy establishes "ICE-Free Zones" on county-owned and county-controlled property, restricting their use for civil immigration enforcement activities, such as staging areas, processing locations, or operations bases. Also applies to parking lots, garages, vacant lots, and non-public areas of county buildings and requires clear signage, physical barriers where appropriate, and consistent enforcement policies. |
|
City of Berkeley |
No formally established policy. City Council directed a comprehensive inventory of City-owned and controlled property to determine ways to prevent federal agent access. And there is mandatory documentation and reporting of any ICE-related requests within 10 business days. |
|
City of Oakland |
Mayor Barbara Lee signed an Executive Order directing City departments to protect Oakland residents from a Federal Immigration surge. This prohibits federal officials from using city property as staging areas for immigration enforcement. |
|
City of Union City |
City Council considered an ordinance to ban ICE activities on city-owned property, but the motion did not pass; instead, City Council reaffirmed its Compassionate City policy. |
The cities of Albany, Dublin, Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Newark, Piedmont, Pleasanton, San Leandro, and Union City do not have a formally established policy prohibiting the use of city property for civil immigration enforcement.
Other Bay Area Cities and Counties
Other Bay Area cities and counties have enacted policies, resolutions, or ordinances to prohibit the use of city-owned properties for federal civil immigration enforcement. These include the City of Richmond, City of San Jose, Santa Clara County, City of Santa Clara, and the City and County of San Francisco.
State of California
The Governor is currently considering AB 1807, which would prohibit immigration enforcement on State-owned property.
State Law and Local Enforcement
Based on both California law and Alameda Police Department Policy 428, the Alameda Police Department will not use City resources or staffing to support civil enforcement of federal immigration law. The City is aligned with the following statement issued by the California Police Chiefs Association on Immigration Enforcement.
“Protecting all Californians, including the undocumented immigrants in our communities, is the primary focus of every police chief in our state. This means ensuring those living here, regardless of immigration status, are safe and secure. It also means those who have been victimized feel confident they can report crimes and cooperate with local and state law enforcement without consequence. To that end, California has numerous laws and policies in place, including those that the CA Police Chiefs Association supported or helped create, to ensure the safeguarding of every undocumented person in need of assistance - these protections must remain in place.
At the same time, the law should not shield dangerous individuals or restrict our agencies and officers from investigating and apprehending serious or violent offenders. Existing laws in California seek to strike this balance by allowing our departments to partner with federal agencies in targeting terrorist groups, human traffickers, and various criminal operations embedded with foreign agents. The City’s role in these joint public safety efforts is predicated entirely on criminal acts, not on immigration enforcement. Responding to and preventing crime will always be the guiding focus.
Expected changes in federal immigration enforcement policies have caused fear throughout our immigrant communities, including confusion and uncertainty as to what role local police may play in these new directives. It has never been the role of local police to enforce federal immigration law, nor should it be our responsibility. On behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association, we want all Californians to know our commitment remains to serve and protect you, and to be open and transparent as new policies unfold. Again, safety for all is our underlying mission, and we stand ready to work together with federal and state leaders towards achieving that shared goal.”
Options
Depending on how the City Council would like to proceed:
• City Council could, like the City of Union City, reaffirm the 2017 resolution affirming the City’s Commitment to the Values of Dignity, Inclusivity, and Respect for All Individuals, regardless of Ethnic or National Origin, Gender, Race, Religious Affiliation, Sexual Orientation, or Immigration Status; and/or
• City Council could direct staff to develop and present a resolution to prohibit the use of City-owned properties and facilities for civil immigration enforcement purposes. The resolution would apply to City-owned properties, not federally owned properties such as property at Alameda Point, Coast Guard Island, and the Naval Reserve Center; or
• City Council, like the City of Berkeley, could not formally establish a policy on this topic, but directed staff to follow up by creating an inventory of City-owned property and requiring mandatory documentation and reporting of any ICE-related requests
• City Council could provide other direction to staff.
ALTERNATIVES
City Council may consider the following alternative to the options outlined above in the report:
• Receive the report and take no further action.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
This report provides information concerning the use of City-owned properties for civil immigration enforcement purposes. The information report has no financial impact.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action supports the City Strategic Plan, Project CS40, to expand existing resources and outreach regarding immigration rights, under the priority of Enhance Community Safety and Services.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action does not constitute a “project” as defined in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378, and therefore, no further CEQA analysis is required.
CLIMATE IMPACT
There are no identifiable climate impacts or climate action opportunities associated with the subject of this report.
RECOMMENDATION
Provide direction on prohibiting the use of City-owned properties for civil immigration enforcement purposes and providing immigration resources for City property owners, businesses, and residents.
Respectfully submitted,
Gerry Beaudin, City Manager
Financial Impact section reviewed,
Ross McCarthy, Finance Director