05.01 Resolution Supporting Opposition to SB 54RESOLUTION NO. 11074
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ORANGE STAYING
COMPLIANCE WITH SB54 PENDING A
DECISION IN THE MATTER OF UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA v. STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, we are a nation of laws; and
WHEREAS the City of Orange is obligated to follow valid Federal and State laws; and
WHEREAS, the Federal government has broad constitutional jurisdiction over
immigration law; and
WHEREAS, the State of California enacted a statute effective January 1, 2018 known as
the California Values Act (SB 54); and
WHEREAS, the California Values Act impacts Federal immigration law and enforcement
in several respects, including: (1) precluding state and local officials from voluntarily providing to
the United States information about the release date from state or local criminal custody of criminal
aliens who may be subject to removal and are subject to detention by the United States; (2)
precluding state and local officials from voluntarily providing to the United States other
information relevant to the alien's immigration status; and (3) prohibiting state and local officials
from transferring aliens to the United States when they are scheduled to be released from state or
local custody; and
WHEREAS, The United States of America is suing The State of California in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of California (Case No. 18 -cv- 00490) (the "Lawsuit ")
claiming that the California Values Act is unconstitutional in whole in part and seeking an
injunction against enforcement of the California Values Act.; and
WHEREAS, the City Orange is caught in the middle of this dispute; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Supreme Court will likely need to decide the constitutionality of the
Sanctuary State laws; and
WHEREAS, the City of Orange should not be forced to decide whether to violate Federal
law or State law; and
WHEREAS, the City of Orange passed Resolution No. 10482 in 2010 declaring the City's
support for the enforcement of federal immigration laws; and
l o
ITEM: I DATE OF MEETING' _ -
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 10, 2018
4. REPORTS FROM MAYOR SMITH
4.1 Discussion of the updated Santiago Creek Vision Plan. (C2500.G.2.0)
Mayor Smith proposed that Council receive and file the updated Santiago Creek Vision
Plan that was included in the agenda packet.
Public Speakers:
John Moore — spoke in support of the updated plan being adopted by Council.
Shirley Grindle — spoke in support of the plan being adopted by Council so that the City
can apply for grant funds to complete the trail system.
Pamela Gelera — thanked Council for acknowledging the great resource that Santiago Creek
is and spoke in support of the plan being adopted.
MOTION — Smith
SECOND — Whitaker
AYES — Alvarez, Whitaker, Smith, Murphy, Nichols
Moved to receive and file updated Santiago Creek Vision Plan.
5. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
5.1 Mayor pro tem Murphy and Councilmember Whitaker request adoption of
Resolution No. 11074, supporting the United States and County of Orange opposition
to the California Values Act (SB 54). (I1400.0)
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange to stay compliance with SB54
pending a decision in the matter of United States of America v. State of California.
Councilmember Whitaker explained that as a general law City, the City is subject to not
only the Constitution of the United States but State Legislature as well, placing the City in
a conflicted position. Until the judiciary makes a decision, Councilmember Whitaker and
Mayor pro tem Murphy are requesting that the City stay compliance with SB 54 and file
an amicus brief.
Mayor pro tem Murphy agreed that the City of Orange is in a conflicted position based on
the Senate Bill passed by the State. Until it is determined in court, the City should defer to
federal jurisdiction and follow federal laws moving forward.
PAGE 8
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 10, 2018
5. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS (Continued)
Public Speakers:
The following people spoke in support of approving Resolution No. 11074:
Mike McCoy, Raul Rodriguez, Robin Huidstun, Vaughn Becht, Greg Susla, John Kelly,
Lori Grossman, Crystal Jade, Beverly Welch, Betty Robinson, Genevieve Peters, Haarim
Uzziel, Jesse S., Valentina Bankhead, Gay DePerio, Luis Reyes, Caprice LePante,
Matthew Cunningham, Janet West, DD Dominguez, Arthur Schaper, Robert Lauten,
Pamela Pauline, Richard Chrystie, Lael Sunny Meagher, Jo Reitkopp, AJ Ricci, Debbie
McMullin, Dawna Schoenberger, Dura Young, Tonya Leon, Larry Bales, Jeff Benson,
Benjamin, and Fred MacIntosh.
The following people spoke in opposition of approving Resolution No. 11074:
Beatriz Valencia, Luis Ortiz Franco, Laura Villa, Father William Barman, Jill Hargis,
Bonnie Robinson, Nora Shea, Don Bradley, Armando Ceriantes, Fred Smoller, Daniel
Espiritu, Mackenzie Crigger, Lindsay Walsh, Lauren Austin, David Sanneborn, Max
Lopez, Atty Mclellan, Gregory Pleasants, Jaylin Vega, Jeff Rosenblum, Gregory Mathes,
Skye Wagoner, Florice Hoffman, Elizabeth Esqueda, Larry Middendorf, Alexia Sutterman,
Harry Langenbacher, Melanie Weir, Oliver Lopez, Lisa Leitz, Isabela R., Ian L., Naui
Huitzilopochtli, Rachel Polnicki (on behalf of Congressman Correa), Robert Baca, Alisa
Hrata, Mily Kudo, Kyler Asato, Steve Serra (opposes as currently written), Julie Herrick,
Safi Nazzal, Cathery Yeh, Olivia Kellett, Juanita Walker.
RECESS: The City Council took a recess at 8:08 p.m. and reconvened at 8:22 p.m. with all
members present; and took another recess at 10:11 p.m. and reconvened at 10:28 p.m. with all
members present.
Councilmember Whitaker stated that the City of Orange is a welcoming City to all its
residents, but the City is also one that supports the rule of law. The issue with SB 54 is
with the three provisions that prevents local law enforcement from communicating to
federal law enforcement. Councilmember Whitaker suggested adding clarifying language
to the resolve of the proposed Resolution prepared by the City Attorney's office as follows:
"that the City of Orange will respectfully stay compliance with the sections of SB 54,
commonly known as the Sanctuary State Law, challenged in the United States of America
v. State of California case until it is fully and finally decided by the judiciary and the City
Attorney is directed to file an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the City of Orange supporting
the position of the United States of America, as allowed by law in any current or future
proceedings." He explained that the resolution is dealing with public safety and the conflict
of laws.
Mayor pro tem Murphy supports the revisions to the Resolution as suggested by
Councilmember Whitaker. He stated that the City needs to clarify what its position is,
especially given the sections within SB 54 that have created potential conflict between state
and federal laws.
PAGE 9
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 10, 2018
5. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS (Continued)
Councilmember Nichols also agreed that there are sections within SB 54 that create conflict
between state and federal laws. However, she does not support filing an amicus brief. She
can support the Resolution if this language is removed.
Councilmember Alvarez does not support approving the Resolution. He thinks there is a
better avenue to let the State know that the City does not like the position it has been put
in with the passing of SB 54. He does not want the City of Orange to be a sanctuary City,
but he cannot support anything that will divide the community.
Mayor Smith stated she is not in favor of approving the Resolution. She thinks it
undermines the atmosphere of trust and inclusion the Orange community values and
defends.
MOTION — Whitaker
SECOND — Murphy
AYES — Whitaker, Murphy, Nichols
NOES — Alvarez, Smith
Moved to approve Resolution No. 11074 with the amended language in the last resolve
paragraph as follows: "that the City of Orange will, respectfully, stay /cease compliance
with those sections of SB 54, commonly known as the Sanctuary State Law, challenged in
the United States of America v. State of California case until it is fully and finally decided
by the judiciary," and deleting the last clause regarding the amicus curiae brief.
RECESS: The City Council took a recess at 11:48 p.m. and reconvened at 12:00 a.m. with all
members present.
6. REPORTS FROM BOARDS, COMMITTEES, AND COMMISSIONS
6.1 Report from City Council Ad Hoc Committees related to Homelessness:
• Community Communications
• Cities and Non - profit Collaboration
• County Engagement
Community Communications
Councilmember Alvarez reported that he is on the Orange County Housing & Development
Commission, which issues housing vouchers for those in need. The Commission will be offering
financial support for the homeless, particularly veterans in the community.
PAGE 10