After raids, Carpinteria council directs staff to develop broader responses: ad hoc committee, legal and policy options

The Carpinteria City Council unanimously directed staff on Thursday to develop and return with a set of policy options in response to recent federal immigration enforcement operations and to establish an ad hoc committee to help move proposals quickly.

Staff presented a menu of options reviewed earlier in the meeting: support for pending state and federal legislation (including proposals to require visible identification for federal immigration officers and to prohibit face coverings for law-enforcement personnel), coordination with other local jurisdictions, participation in litigation (including a multijurisdictional ACLU suit mentioned during public comment), municipal resolutions or ordinances, and practical community support measures such as an online resource hub, outreach, and workshops.

What the council asked staff to explore: Council members said they wanted options that are actionable and legally sound. The list of items the council asked staff to research and return with included: - Formation of an ad hoc committee to work with nonprofits and community stakeholders for rapid response and coordination; - Options for joining or supporting litigation filed by other jurisdictions or nonprofit counsel (public commenters referenced a recently filed ACLU lawsuit seeking injunctions against federal enforcement tactics); - Model ordinances, including potential prohibitions on the use of city property or facilities by federal immigration agents unless required by law, and steps to address impersonation and identification by persons claiming to be federal agents; - Legislative advocacy at the state and federal level, including bills discussed by staff such as the “No Secret Police Act,” the “No Vigilantes Act,” the ICE Security Reform Act, and the VISIBLE Act, which would require visible identification for immigration officers; and - Practical measures: a centralized city webpage listing local resources, a multilingual emergency hotline, virtual “know your rights” workshops, and partnership frameworks to route donors and volunteers to vetted nonprofit organizations.

Public commenters and nonprofit leaders emphasized speed, coordination and trust. Casa de la Raza, the Carpinteria Children’s Project, the Fund for Santa Barbara and the 805 UndocuFund offered to partner on outreach, legal assistance and case management. Several speakers also urged the council to press the county sheriff for clearer public communication and to investigate impersonation claims.

Legal and operational constraints: Staff and the sheriff’s office representative repeatedly said local authorities have limited authority over federal operations; federal agencies typically provide “deconfliction” notice to local law enforcement but do not share tactical details. Staff recommended coalition approaches — joining with other cities or Cal Cities — and emphasized the cost and complexity of litigation.

Council direction and next steps: The council voted unanimously to direct staff to return with a package of options and to create an ad hoc mechanism for rapid follow-up. Council members asked staff to: prioritize outreach and an online resource hub; engage with regional partners, including the county; explore model ordinance language and legal risks; and reach out to California Cities (Cal Cities) and other municipal networks about coordinated action.

The council did not commit to specific litigation or ordinance language at the meeting; it requested staff analysis and legal options and set the ad hoc committee as the vehicle to refine recommendations for future council action.