Alameda County installs 96 ‘ICE‑free’ signs and issues employee guidance as local enforcement rises

Alameda County officials on Tuesday said they have installed notices at 96 county‑owned and county‑controlled properties declaring those sites off‑limits for civil immigration enforcement and described new employee guidance and training to prepare staff for potential enforcement encounters.

County staff and supervisors framed the steps as part of a broader effort to follow the California Department of Justice’s model policies under SB 580, keep county workplaces safe and limit voluntary data sharing with federal immigration authorities. Kimberly Gassaway, director of the county’s General Services Agency, read the sign language into the record: “This property is owned or controlled by the County of Alameda. It may not be used for any civil immigration enforcement activity, including staging area, processing location, or operations space.”

The county also completed meet‑and‑confer on a countywide employee guideline and launched an online companion training. Marlieta Zamora, director of Human Resource Services, said the meet‑and‑confer concluded July 3 and that ‘‘a little over 100 employees have access’’ to the training so far. The guidance emphasizes safety first, reporting to supervisors or HR, following a chain of command and documenting interactions with federal agents.

The meeting included a summary of SB 580 resources from the state attorney general’s office; staff said the AG held a webinar earlier the same day and that materials are available on oag.ca.gov. The county reiterated five core principles from the DOJ model policy: use local resources only as required by law, limit collection and retention of identifying information, require judicial process where no legal obligation exists, direct requests to trained legal staff, and document all interactions with immigration authorities.

The county’s move comes after presenters from the Immigrant Legal Resource Center warned of increased targeted arrests and swelling detention capacity in California. Jahan Lehner, a managing attorney at the ILRC, told the committee that federal policies have reduced legal pathways, increased arrests at check‑ins, workplaces and courthouses and expanded mandatory detention, stressing the need for rapid legal response capacity.

Supervisors and staff also discussed accessibility and consistency of the signage. Supervisor Marquez said one district office received a sign that appeared different in style; staff asked supervisors to send photographs so the county could verify that consistent language was used at all sites. County staff said some signs under discussion might include braille and that they would follow up on any variations.

County leaders said they will maintain an executive‑level notification protocol to ensure coordinated response when enforcement occurs at a county facility, including notifying the Board of Supervisors, county administrator and, when appropriate, city officials and the sheriff.

The county flagged that the work is ongoing: the board previously adopted a resolution opposing repurposing FCI Dublin for detention and staff said the county will continue to monitor proposals and environmental assessments. Board members reiterated the need for strong data‑sharing limits and for training county partners to reduce the risk that local records could be used to identify or apprehend residents.

The committee will discuss related implementation materials at a board work session scheduled for July 28 and keep the public posted through the county’s Together for All web page.