HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 7, 2017 Agenda PacketMarch 7, 2017 Dublin City Council Agenda Page 1 of 3
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, March 7, 2017
Council Chamber, 100 Civic Plaza
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL
A G E N D A
Agendas and Staff Reports are posted on the City’s Internet Website (www.dublin.ca.gov)
Agendas may be picked up at the City Clerk’s Office for no charge, or to request information on being placed on
the annual subscription list, please call 833-6650.
A complete packet of information containing Staff Reports and exhibits relate to each item is available of public
review at least 72 hours prior to a City Council Meeting or, in the event that it is delivered to City Council
members less than 72 hours prior to a City Council Meeting, as soon as it is so delivered. The packet is
available in the City Clerk’s Office and also at the Dublin Library.
CLOSED SESSION 6:30 P.M.
I. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Property: 12+/- acre parcel located about 1,000 feet northwest of intersection of Dublin Blvd.
and Arnold Road (portion of the Camp Parks property)
Agency negotiator: Chris Foss, City Manager
Negotiating parties: Dublin Unified School District
Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment
II. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: 1
potential case
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
3.1. Presentation of Certificates of Recognition to City of Dublin 2016 Citizen, Young
Citizen, and Organization of the Year, Mayor's Award Recipient, and Mayor's Legacy
Award Recipient
The City Council will present Certificates of Recognition to the City of Dublin 2016 Citizen,
Young Citizen, and Organization of the Year, the Mayor’s Award recipient, and the Mayor’s
Legacy Award recipient.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Present the Certificates of Recognition.
3.2. Presentation from Dublin San Ramon Services District
The City Council will receive a presentation from Dublin San Ramon Services District
(DSRSD) on the Dublin Trunk Sewer Rehabilitation Project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive the presentation.
3.3. St. Patrick's Day Celebration Festivities Report
The City Council will receive a preview of St. Patrick's Day Celebration festivities.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive the report.
3.4. Public Comment
At this time, the public is permitted to address the City Council on non -agendized items. Please step to the podium and
clearly state your name for the record. COMMENTS SHOULD NOT EXCEED THREE (3) MINUTES. In accordance with
State Law, no action or discussion may take place on any item not appearing on the posted agenda. The Council may
respond to statements made or questions asked, or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the
matter. Any member of the public may contact the City Clerk’s Office related to the proper procedure to place an item on a
future City Council agenda. The exceptions under which the City Council MAY discuss and/or take action on items not
appearing on the agenda are contained in Government Code Section 54954.2(b)(1)(2)(3).
March 7, 2017 Dublin City Council Agenda Page 2 of 3
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are typically non-controversial in nature and are considered for approval by the City Council with
one single action. Members of the audience, Staff or the City Council who would like an item removed from the Consent
Calendar for purposes of public input may request the Mayor to remove the item.
4.1. February 21, 2017 City Council Minutes
The City Council will consider approval of the minutes of the February 21, 2017 Regular
City Council meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the minutes of the February 21, 2017 Regular
City Council meeting.
4.2. Adoption of an Urgency Ordinance and Introduction of an Ordinance to Reauthorize
the Public, Educational, and Governmental (PEG) Fee on State Cable Franchisees
Operating Within the City of Dublin
The City Council will consider approving an urgency ordinance and introduce an ordinance
to reauthorize the public, educational, and governmental (PEG) fee on state cable franchisees
operating within the City of Dublin.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Waive the reading of and adopt, by a four-fifths vote, an
Urgency Ordinance of the City of Dublin Reauthorizing the Public, Educational, and
Governmental (PEG) Fee on State Cable Franchisees Operating within the City; and waive
the reading and INTRODUCE an Ordinance Reauthorizing the Public, Educational, and
Governmental (PEG) Fee on State Cable Franchisees Operating within the City.
4.3. Annual Progress Report on the Status of the Dublin General Plan and Housing Element
for Calendar Year 2016
The City Council will review the Annual Progress Report on the Status of the Dublin General
Plan and Housing Element for Calendar Year 2016 in accordance with Government Code
Section 65400(a)(2).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept the Annual Progress Report on the Status of the
Dublin General Plan and Housing Element Compliance for Calendar Year 2016, and direct
Staff to forward the Annual Progress Report to the California State Office of Planning and
Research and the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
4.4. Land Lease Agreement with Hamcor, Inc.
The property owner of 6440 and 6430 Dublin Court, Hamcor, Inc., has requested that the
City lease its excess right-of-way adjacent to the aforementioned property for the purpose of
displaying a single vehicle. The City entered into a similar agreement in 2006 with Hamcor,
doing business as Dublin Toyota.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Resolution Approving the Land Lease
Agreement with Hamcor, Inc.
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
5.1. Information on Sanctuary City Policies
This report responds to the City Council’s request for additional information about Sanctuary
City policies. In particular, the report discusses the various components of Sanctuary Cit y
policies and discusses the risks and benefits of adopting them.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive report and, if necessary, provide direction to
Staff.
6. PUBLIC HEARING - NONE.
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NONE.
March 7, 2017 Dublin City Council Agenda Page 3 of 3
8. NEW BUSINESS
8.1. Informational Report on High School Sites Considered By Dublin Unified School
District
The City Council will receive an informational report on the five (5) sites identified by the
Dublin Unified School District as potential locations for the second high school.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive the report.
8.2. City Process for Siting a New High School
The City Council requested Staff prepare a report describing the Dublin Unified School
District’s authority to acquire property for and to develop a second high school. The report
indicates that the District can (a) acquire property by eminent domain, (b) overrule the
Planning Commission’s determination that the high school proposal is not consistent with the
City’s General Plan; and (c) override, by a two-thirds’ vote of the Board of Trustees, the
City’s zoning ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive the report.
8.3. School Impacts and Development Decisions
The City Council will receive a report regarding the City’s ability to consider school impacts
when making decisions about development. The City Council requested this future report at
its February 7, 2017 meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive the report.
8.4. Designation of Agency Labor Negotiators, Unrepresented Employee: City Manager
The City Council will consider the appointment of two Councilmembers as representatives to
discuss conditions of employment for the City Manager.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Appoint two Councilmembers as representatives to
discuss conditions of employment for the City Manager.
8.5. Designation of Two City Councilmembers as City Representatives to Discuss
Compensation with City Attorney
The City Council will discuss the appointment of two City Councilmembers to serve as the
City’s representatives to discuss terms of the City Attorney’s contract, including
compensation, with the City Attorney.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Designate two City Councilmembers to discuss
compensation with the City Attorney.
9. OTHER BUSINESS
Brief information only reports from City Council and/or Staff, including committee reports
and reports by City Council related to meetings attended at City expense (AB1234).
10. ADJOURNMENT
This AGENDA is posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a)
If requested, pursuant to Government Code Section 54953.2, this agenda shall be made available in appropriate
alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 (42 U.S.C. Section 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereo f. To make
a request for disability-related modification or accommodation, please contact the City Clerk’s Office (925) 833 -
6650 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting.
Mission
The City of Dublin promotes and supports a high quality of life, ensures a safe and secure environment, and fosters
new opportunities.
Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: March 7, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Presentation of Certificates of Recognition to City of Dublin 2016 Citizen,
Young Citizen, and Organization of the Year, Mayor's Award Recipient,
and Mayor's Legacy Award Recipient
Prepared by: Taryn Gavagan Bozzo, Executive Aide
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will present Certificates of Recognition to the City of Dublin 2016
Citizen, Young Citizen, and Organization of the Year, the Mayor’s Award recipient, and
the Mayor’s Legacy Award recipient.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Present the Certificates of Recognition.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
DESCRIPTION:
In February of each year, the City Council recognizes a Citizen, Young Citizen and
Organization who made a significant contribution toward enhancing the quality of life for
residents of Dublin during the past year. Additionally, the Mayor presented two special
awards, the Mayor’s Award and the Mayor’s Legacy Award, to those he wished to
recognize for their extraordinary dedication to the community. The winners in each
category, along with the Mayor’s special awards recipients, were recognized at the
City’s Volunteer Recognition Event on February 22, 2017.
The City Council will formally recognize the following award winners:
· Kevin Hom, 2016 Young Citizen of the Year
· Jean Josey, 2016 Citizen of the Year
· Dublin Lions Club, 2016 Organization of the Year
3.1
Packet Pg. 4
Page 2 of 2
· Richard Boschetti, 2017 Mayor’s Award
· Valerie Barnes, 2017 Mayor’s Legacy Award
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
3.1
Packet Pg. 5
Page 1 of 1
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: March 7, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Presentation from Dublin San Ramon Services District
Prepared by: Erwin Ching, Associate Civil Engineer
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will receive a presentation from Dublin San Ramon Services District
(DSRSD) on the Dublin Trunk Sewer Rehabilitation Project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive the presentation.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
DESCRIPTION:
Dublin San Ramon Services District will provide an overview of the District's Dublin
Trunk Sewer Rehabilitation Project and the associated public outreach.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
3.2
Packet Pg. 6
Page 1 of 3
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: March 7, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
St. Patrick's Day Celebration Festivities Report
Prepared by: Tegan McLane, Cultural Arts and Heritage Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will receive a preview of St. Patrick's Day Celebration festivities.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive the report.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The 2017 St. Patrick's Day Celebration (Project # 763101) is budgeted to bring in
$103,200 in revenue. Expense associated with putting on the festival and supporting the
parade is budgeted at $94,264. The Shamrock 5K Fun Run and Walk (Project #
776114) is budgeted separately and is expected to bring in $58,500 in revenue, wi th
$29,784 in expenses. Costs for police services are not included in this number and are
typically about $25,000 annually.
DESCRIPTION:
The City of Dublin will host the 34th annual St. Patrick's Day Celebration on March 18
and 19, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM at the Dublin Civic Center. The free two-day festival,
which attracts crowds from all over the Bay Area, is expected to draw as many as
80,000 people.
The event will have a strong focus on Irish music, dance, food and drink. There will be
three outdoor stages, including one devoted to Irish dancers performing traditional folk
dance, another devoted to Celtic rock music, and a third featuring traditional music. New
this year, the San Francisco Gaelic Athletic Association will offer demonstrations of
Gaelic football and hurling, the national sport of Ireland, which has been played for more
than 3,000 years.
The City will operate a traditional Irish tea room, serving scones and shortbread along
with fresh brewed tea in china cups. Celtic Food Court vendors will sell traditional fish
3.3
Packet Pg. 7
Page 2 of 3
and chips, bangers and mash, and Irish stew, and the customary Irish -American
favorite, corned beef. The Dublin Rotary Club will manage beverage operations, with
two bars serving Guinness, Harp and Smithwicks beers on tap.
Vendors in the Irish Marketplace will sell Irish wool sweaters, tweeds and tartans, Celtic
jewelry, metalwork, pottery, candies and baked goods. More than 85 other arts and
crafts vendors will also be on hand. Carnival rides will be set up in portion of the Dubl in
Sports Grounds parking.
In honor of the City of Dublin’s 35 th birthday this year, the St. Patrick’s Day Celebration
will commemorate the occasion with special signage, a special edition emerald green
souvenir pint glass, and a leprechaun hunt challenge with a commemorative prize for
those who successfully locate all 35 leprechauns.
Sponsorships for this year’s festival are strong, with 19 businesses and $51,000 already
committed.
In conjunction with the festival, the Dublin Sister City Association will kick off the festive
weekend with its Green and White Gala dinner dance at the Dublin Senior Center.
Tickets are $65 per person and are available online.
Saturday morning, Fire Station #16 hosts the annual Firefighters Pancake Breakfast,
serving green pancakes hot off the griddle, along with sausage, eggs, juice and coffee.
Breakfast is $5 per person, purchased at the door.
The Dublin Lions Club will host its 34th annual St. Patrick's Day Parade, starting at
Saturday 9:30 AM. The parade begins at Dublin Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road,
traveling east on Dublin Boulevard, north on Village Parkway, and west on Amador
Valley Boulevard to end near the Dublin Senior Center. The parade is expected to
feature more than 80 entries, including local marching band s, floats, antique vehicles
and community groups.
Sunday morning, the City will sponsor the Shamrock 5K Fun Run and Walk, with the
race ending at the festival site. Pancakes will be cooked onsite and served in the post -
area, and many festival vendors will open early to welcome runners in from the finish
line. Since longtime Fun Run sponsor World of Shoes has closed, the new bib pickup
location is The Fit Potato, 6894 Village Parkway. Online registration for the run is being
handled through the City's registration system.
In an effort to mitigate traffic and parking issues throughout the weekend, the City is
partnering with BART and LAVTA to offer free bus rides from both BART stations, via
the Wheels Rapid 30R bus, and half -price rides within Dublin via Lyft, Uber and DeSoto
Cab. Cycling to the festival is also encouraged, and the City will provide free secure
bike parking at two bike valet stations.
3.3
Packet Pg. 8
Page 3 of 3
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
3.3
Packet Pg. 9
Page 1 of 1
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: March 7, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
February 21, 2017 City Council Minutes
Prepared by: Caroline P. Soto, City Clerk/Records Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider approval of the minutes of the February 21, 2017 Regular
City Council meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the minutes of the February 21, 2017 Regular City Council meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
DESCRIPTION:
The City Council will consider approval of the minutes of the February 21, 2017 Regular
City Council meeting.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Minutes of the February 21, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting
4.1
Packet Pg. 10
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
REGULAR MEETING – FEBRUARY 21, 2017
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 1
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 21, 2017
A Regular Meeting of the Dublin City Council was held on Tuesday, February 21, 2017,
in the City Council Chamber. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM ., by Mayor
David Haubert.
1. Call to Order
Attendee Name Title Status
Arun Goel Councilmember Present
Melissa Hernandez Councilmember Present
David Haubert Mayor Present
Abe Gupta Vice Mayor Present
Don Biddle Councilmember Present
2. Pledge of Allegiance – The pledge of allegiance was recited by the City Council, Staff
and those present at the meeting.
3. Oral Communications
3.1. Introduction of Dublin Police Services' Captain Nate Schmidt and Sergeant
Craig Evans
The City Council welcomed back Captain Schmidt and Sergeant Evans to Dublin
Police Services.
3.2. Public Comment
Rich Guarienti, Dublin resident, provided public comment.
4. Consent Calendar
Rich Guarienti, Dublin resident, pulled Item 4.3 for further discussion.
4.1. Approved the minutes of the February 7, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting.
4.2. Received the City Treasurer’s Informational report.
4.4. Adopted
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 11
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
1
,
2
0
1
7
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
(
1
3
4
8
:
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
1
,
2
0
1
7
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
)
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 21, 2017
RESOLUTION NO. 21 – 17
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH MGT OF AMERICA CONSULTING, LLC
TO CONDUCT A FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY
4.5. Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 22 – 17
APPROVING THE INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT STUDY TO EVALUATE A PROPOSAL TO CHANGE
THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 0.35 ACRES LOCATED
WEST OF THE CUL-DE-SAC TERMINUMS OF RIDGELINE PLACE WITHIN THE
SCHAEFER RANCH DEVELOPMENT FROM OPEN SPACE TO SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
4.6. Received the Payment Issuance Report.
4.7. Approved the sixth recommendation for the Cultural Arts Needs Assessment, as
proposed by the Heritage and Cultural Arts Commission.
4.8. Approved Dublin Crossing Community Park as the location for a public artwork
honoring U.S. military veterans and those currently serving.
4.9. Received the Fiscal Year 2016-17 2nd Quarter Financial Review and approved the
budget change.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Don Biddle, Councilmember
SECONDER: Abe Gupta, Vice Mayor
AYES: Goel, Hernandez, Haubert, Gupta, Biddle
Rich Guarienti, Dublin resident, provided comments.
On motion of Vm. Biddle, seconded by Cm. Gupta and by majority vote (Mayor Haubert
voting no), the City Council approved the proposed Registration Program at the Dublin
Senior Center.
5. Written Communication – None.
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 12
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
1
,
2
0
1
7
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
(
1
3
4
8
:
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
1
,
2
0
1
7
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
)
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 3
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 21, 2017
6. Public Hearing – None.
7. Unfinished Business
7.1. City Council St. Patrick’s Day Parade Participation
On motion of Cm. Gupta, seconded by Cm. Hernandez and by unanimous vote ,
the City Council agreed to walk in the parade, at a measured pace , to allow for
handing out items.
8. New Business
8.1. Mayor's Recommendation for Appointment to Senior Center Advisory
Committee
The City Council appointed Claire Salsman to the Senior Center Advisory
Committee.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: David Haubert, Mayor
SECONDER: Melissa Hernandez, Councilmember
AYES: Goel, Hernandez, Haubert, Gupta, Biddle
8.2. Citywide Tree Report
The City Council received the report and directed Staff to use funds to begin tree
replacement at a cost of $50,000 per year.
8.3. Preliminary Discussion of Public Art Master Plan Update
By consensus, the City Council asked Staff to bring back details on its
recommendations for the Public Art Master Plan, a review of the art fee program
and a site development review for art projects.
9. Other Business
The City Council recognized and congratulated Linda Smith, Assistant City Manager, for
receiving the League of California Cities John H. Nail Award.
By consensus, the City Council asked Staff to return with an item regarding steps prior
to 2020 to make a sustainable revenue source and expedited process to get businesses
in the City.
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 13
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
1
,
2
0
1
7
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
(
1
3
4
8
:
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
1
,
2
0
1
7
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
)
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 4
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 21, 2017
By consensus, the City Council asked Staff for a review of economic development
incentives, a retail update on different programs and a comparison on how the City
sizes up compared to other cities.
By consensus, the City Council directed Staff to invite BART Board of Directors to a City
Council meeting.
By consensus, the City Council requested Staff to bring back as an agenda item the
naming of the new room in the Dublin Library after Virginia Bennett, Dublin’s first
children’s librarian and Library Manager.
10. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:39 p.m. in honor of Staff Sgt. Sean Diamond and all of
our fallen troops.
Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
City Clerk
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 14
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
1
,
2
0
1
7
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
(
1
3
4
8
:
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
1
,
2
0
1
7
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
)
Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: March 7, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Adoption of an Urgency Ordinance and Introduction of an Ordinance to
Reauthorize the Public, Educational, and Governmental (PEG) Fee on
State Cable Franchisees Operating Within the City of Dublin
Prepared by: Hazel L. Wetherford, Assistant to the City Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider approving an urgency ordinance and intro duce an
ordinance to reauthorize the public, educational, and governmental (PEG) fee on state
cable franchisees operating within the City of Dublin.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Waive the reading of and adopt, by a four-fifths vote, an Urgency Ordinance of the
City of Dublin Reauthorizing the Public, Educational, and Governmental (PEG) Fee on
State Cable Franchisees Operating within the City; and waive the reading of and
INTRODUCE an Ordinance Reauthorizing the Public, Educational, and Governmental
(PEG) Fee on State Cable Franchisees Operating within the City.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Adoption of the proposed urgency ordinance and regular ordinance would result in the
City’s continued collection of PEG fees for the support of public, educational, and
governmental access channels.
DESCRIPTION:
On March 4, 2008, the City Council adopted Ordinance 09 -08, section 3.22.030 of the
Dublin Municipal Code (DMC), which imposes a public, educational and governmental
(PEG) fee on state cable franchisees operating within the City as authorized in the
Digital Infrastructure Video and Competition Act of 2006 (DIVCA).
DIVCA also provides in Section 5870(n) of the California Public Utilities Code, that a
PEG fee ordinance must be reauthorized upon expiration of an applicable state
franchise. The DMC provides that upon the expiration of any state franchise, the City’s
PEG fee is automatically reauthorized unless the franchise holder has given the City
4.2
Packet Pg. 15
Page 2 of 2
Manager and City Council 60-days written notice prior to the expiration of its st ate
franchise that the City’s fee authorization will expire.
AT&T, Inc. operates within the City under a state video services franchise that expires
on March 30, 2017, and pursuant to DMC Section 3.22.030(c), the City received no
timely written notice from AT&T of the expiration of its state franchise. Therefore,
pursuant to the provisions of DMC Section 3.22.030(c), the City’s PEG fee is
automatically reauthorized with regard to AT&T. However, it is recommended that the
City Council expressly declares that the City’s PEG fee is reauthorized by way of an
urgency ordinance followed by a regular ordinance.
A regular ordinance must, by state law, be introduced and adopted at separate
meetings of city councils. Moreover, such ordinances may not take effect sooner than
thirty days after their adoption. Because the City is less than four weeks away from the
AT&T state video services franchise from expiring, the City Council may want to
consider adopting an urgency ordinance at tonight’s City Council meeting. If the City
Council chooses to do so, Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the urgency
ordinance and introduce a regular ordinance at tonight’s meeting.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
The Agenda for this evening’s City Council meeting wa s posted and published pursuant
to applicable state law. Special public notice is not required to adopt an Urgency
Ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. An Urgency Ordinance of the City of Dublin Reauthorizing the Public, Educational,
and Governmental (PEG) Fee on State Cable Franchisees Operating within the City
2. An Ordinance of the City of Dublin Reauthorizing the Public, Educational, and
Governmental (PEG) Fee on State Cable Franchisees Operating within the City
3. Ordinance 09-08, approved March 4, 2008 (for reference)
4.2
Packet Pg. 16
ORDINANCE NO. __ - 17
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN REAUTHORIZING
THE PUBLIC, EDUCATIONAL, AND GOVERNMENTAL (PEG) FEE ON
STATE CABLE FRANCHISEES OPERATING WITHIN THE CITY
WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted Section 3.22.030 of the Dublin
Municipal Code (“DMC”), which imposes a public, educational, and governmental (“PEG”) fee
on state cable franchisees operating within the City as authorized in the Digital Infrastructure
and Video Competition Act of 2006; and
WHEREAS, Section 5870(n) of the California Public Utilities Code states that a PEG fee
ordinance must be reauthorized upon expiration of an applicable state franchise; and
WHEREAS, DMC Section 3.22.030(c) provides that, notwithstanding Section 5870(n) of
the California Public Utilities Code, upon the expiration of any state franchise, the City’s PEG
fee is automatically reauthorized unless the franchise holder has given the City Manager and
City Council 60-days’ written notice prior to the expiration of its state franchise tha t the City’s fee
authorization will expire; and
WHEREAS, AT&T, Inc. operates within the City under a state franchise that expires on
March 30, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the City received no timely written notice from AT&T of the expiration of its
state franchise pursuant to Section 3.22.030(c); and
WHEREAS, therefore, pursuant to the provisions of Section 3.22.030(c), the City’s PEG
fee is automatically reauthorized with regard to AT&T; and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding the automatic reauthorization of the City’s PEG fee as
described above, the City Council wishes to adopt an ordinance expressly declaring that the
City’s PEG fee is reauthorized.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. PEG Fee Reauthorization. The City’s PEG channel facilities fee authorized in
Section 3.22.030 of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby reauthorized to the extent required by
Section 5870(n) of the California Public Utilities Code. All state franchisees operating within the
City shall continue to collect and remit the PEG channel facilities fee as required in Section
3.22.030.
Section 2. No Change to Municipal Code. Section 3.22.030 of the Dublin Municipal Code
shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect .
Section 3. Urgency Findings and Declaration. The City Council finds and declares that
this Ordinance must be adopted as an urgency matter because it is necessary for the
immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety. The following facts and
circumstances support such necessity: Section 5870(n) of the California Public Utilities Code
states that a PEG fee ordinance must be reauthorized upon expiration of an applicable state
franchise. Although DMC Section 3.22.030 provides for continuity in PEG funding, it is in the
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 17
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
A
n
U
r
g
e
n
c
y
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
R
e
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
i
n
g
t
h
e
P
u
b
l
i
c
,
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
,
a
n
d
G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
(
P
E
G
)
F
e
e
o
n
S
t
a
t
e
C
a
b
l
e
public interest to take every measure to ensure that there is no lapse in the collection and
remission of PEG fees, which supports public, educational, and governmental access channels.
Maintaining stable funding for PEG channels is therefore vital to the public peace, health, and
safety of the City of Dublin. Without the enactment of this Ordinance as provided herein, a
lapse in the collection and remission of the PEG fee could potentially occur, endangering the
stability of PEG program funding within the City.
Based on said findings, facts and circumstances, the City Council finds that this Ordinance
should be adopted as an urgency ordinance for the immediate preservation of the public peace,
health and safety, and that it is necessary that this Ordinance should go into effect as described
below.
Section 4. Severability. The provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if any provision,
clause, sentence, word or part thereof is held illegal, invalid, unconstitutional, or inap plicable to
any person or circumstances, such illegality, invalidity, unconstitutionality, or inapplicability shall
not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions, clauses, sentences, sections, words or
parts thereof of the ordinance or their applicability to other persons or circumstances.
Section 5. Effective Date. Following adoption by at least a four-fifths vote of the City
Council, this Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced immediately upon the commencement
of AT&T’s new or renewed state franchise under the Digital Infrastructure and Video
Competition Act of 2006.
Section 6. Posting. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be
published or posted as required in Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of
California.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of March, 2017.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_____________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
City Clerk
2773348.2
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 18
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
A
n
U
r
g
e
n
c
y
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
R
e
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
i
n
g
t
h
e
P
u
b
l
i
c
,
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
,
a
n
d
G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
(
P
E
G
)
F
e
e
o
n
S
t
a
t
e
C
a
b
l
e
ORDINANCE NO. __ - 17
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
REAUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC, EDUCATIONAL, AND GOVERNMENTAL (PEG) FEE
ON STATE CABLE FRANCHISEES OPERATING WITHIN THE CITY
WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted Section 3.22.030 of the Dublin Municipal
Code (“DMC”), which imposes a public, educational, and governmental (“PEG”) fee on state
cable franchisees operating within the City as authorized in the Digital Infrastructure and Video
Competition Act of 2006; and
WHEREAS, Section 5870(n) of the California Public Utilities Code states that a PEG fee
ordinance must be reauthorized upon expiration of an applicable state franchise; and
WHEREAS, DMC Section 3.22.030(c) provides that, notwit hstanding Section 5870(n) of
the California Public Utilities Code, upon the expiration of any state franchise, the City’s PEG
fee is automatically reauthorized unless the franchise holder has given the City Manager and
City Council 60-days’ written notice prior to the expiration of its state franchise that the City’s fee
authorization will expire; and
WHEREAS, AT&T, Inc. operates within the City under a state franchise that expires on
March 30, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the City received no timely written notice from AT&T of the expiration of its
state franchise pursuant to Section 3.22.030(c); and
WHEREAS, therefore, pursuant to the provisions of Section 3.22.030(c), the City’s PEG
fee is automatically reauthorized with regard to AT&T; and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding the automatic reauthorization of the City’s PEG fee as
described above, the City Council wishes to adopt an ordinance expressly declaring that the
City’s PEG fee is reauthorized.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. PEG Fee Reauthorization. The City’s PEG channel facilities fee authorized in
Section 3.22.030 of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby reauthorized to the extent required by
Section 5870(n) of the California Public Utilities Code. All state franchisees operating within the
City shall continue to collect and remit the PEG channel facilities fee as required in Section
3.22.030.
Section 2. No Change to Municipal Code. Section 3.22.030 of the Dublin Municipal Code
shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
Section 3. Severability. The provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if any provision,
clause, sentence, word or part thereof is held illegal, invalid, u nconstitutional, or inapplicable to
any person or circumstances, such illegality, invalidity, unconstitutionality, or inapplicability shall
4.2.b
Packet Pg. 19
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
A
n
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
R
e
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
i
n
g
t
h
e
P
u
b
l
i
c
,
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
,
a
n
d
G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
(
P
E
G
)
F
e
e
o
n
S
t
a
t
e
C
a
b
l
e
not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions, clauses, sentences, sections, words or parts
thereof of the ordinance or their applicability to other persons or circumstances.
Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days
from and after the date of its passage or upon the commencement of AT&T’s new or renewed
state franchise under the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006, whichever is
later.
Section 5. Posting. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be
published or posted as required in Section 36933 of the Governmen t Code of the State of
California.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of March, 2017.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_____________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
City Clerk
2784233.1
4.2.b
Packet Pg. 20
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
A
n
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
R
e
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
i
n
g
t
h
e
P
u
b
l
i
c
,
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
,
a
n
d
G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
(
P
E
G
)
F
e
e
o
n
S
t
a
t
e
C
a
b
l
e
4.2.c
Packet Pg. 21
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
0
9
-
0
8
,
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
M
a
r
c
h
4
,
2
0
0
8
(
f
o
r
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
)
(
1
3
3
4
:
P
E
G
F
e
e
)
4.2.c
Packet Pg. 22
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
0
9
-
0
8
,
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
M
a
r
c
h
4
,
2
0
0
8
(
f
o
r
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
)
(
1
3
3
4
:
P
E
G
F
e
e
)
4.2.c
Packet Pg. 23
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
0
9
-
0
8
,
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
M
a
r
c
h
4
,
2
0
0
8
(
f
o
r
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
)
(
1
3
3
4
:
P
E
G
F
e
e
)
4.2.c
Packet Pg. 24
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
0
9
-
0
8
,
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
M
a
r
c
h
4
,
2
0
0
8
(
f
o
r
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
)
(
1
3
3
4
:
P
E
G
F
e
e
)
Page 1 of 3
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: March 7, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Annual Progress Report on the Status of the Dublin General Plan and
Housing Element for Calendar Year 2016
Prepared by: Martha Battaglia, Associate Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will review the Annual Progress Report on the Status of the Dublin
General Plan and Housing Element for Calendar Year 2016 in accordance with
Government Code Section 65400(a)(2).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Accept the Annual Progress Report on the Status of the Dublin General Plan and
Housing Element Compliance for Calendar Year 2016, and direct Staff to forward the
Annual Progress Report to the California State Office of Planning and Research and the
California Department of Housing and Community Development.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
DESCRIPTION:
Local governments are required to provide an annual report to their legislative body, the
California Office of Planning and Research (OPR), and the California Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD), on the status of the General Plan and the
progress made in implementing the General Plan as well as meeting its share of
regional housing needs (Government Code Section 65400(a)(2)).
The Annual Progress Report on the status of the Dublin General Plan and Housing
Element Compliance for Calendar Year 2016 has been prepared in accordance with the
Government Code and is included as Attachment 1 to this Staff Rep ort. The Annual
Progress Report is divided into Sections according to the Elements of the General Plan.
For each Element, a description of actions taken to further the policies of that Element is
included.
4.3
Packet Pg. 25
Page 2 of 3
The Dublin General Plan groups the seven (7) Sta te-mandated Elements and the five
(5) optional Elements into the following five Sections:
1) Land Use and Circulation Section:
Land Use Element (State-mandated)
Parks and Open Space Element (State-mandated)
Schools, Public Lands, and Utilities Element (Optional)
Circulation and Scenic Highways Element (State-mandated)
2) Housing Section:
Housing Element (State-mandated)
3) Environmental Resources Management Section:
Conservation Element (State-mandated)
Seismic Safety and Safety Element (State-mandated)
Noise Element (State-mandated)
Water Resources Element (Optional)
Energy Conservation Element (Optional)
4) Community Design and Sustainability Section:
Community Design and Sustainability Element (Optional)
5) Economic Development Section:
Economic Development Element (Optional)
Throughout 2016, the City of Dublin continued to implement the goals and policies of the
General Plan as well as work towards meeting the City’s share of the regional housing
need. The Land Use Element was amended two times during the calendar year. The
first amendment was for Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 and the second amendment was for the
Kaiser Dublin Medical Center. These amendments are described on Page 3 of the
Annual Progress Report.
No other Elements of the General Plan were amended during Calendar Year 2016. The
Housing Element was last amended in 2014 for the 2015 -2023 planning period in
accordance with State-law.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) basi c data collection
strictly for information gathering purposes which does not result in a serious or major
disturbance to an environmental resource is Categorically Exempt under Section 15306,
Class 6 (Information Collection).
4.3
Packet Pg. 26
Page 3 of 3
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
The Annual Progress Report on the Dublin General Plan and Housing Element is a
progress report to the State on the status of implementing the General Plan and
Housing Element. The Progress Report is not subject to a public hearing; therefore, a
public notice is not required. Public outreach is also not required as the progress report
does not change any of the guiding policies or programs in the General Plan. A copy of
this Staff Report has been posted to the City’s website and following the City Council’s
acceptance of the Annual Progress Report, Staff will also post the Report to the City’s
website.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Annual General Plan Progress Report 2016 combined
2. General Plan Amendment Study Status Report
4.3
Packet Pg. 27
Annual Progress Report
on the
Dublin General Plan and Housing Element
Reporting Period:
Calendar Year 2016
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 28
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
1
3
3
7
:
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
)
2 of 20
INTRODUCTION
Government Code Section 65400(a)(2) requires planning agencies to provide an annual report
to their legislative body, the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD) on the status of their General Plan and their
progress in its implementation. The report must detail the progress in meeting the jurisdiction’s
share of the regional housing need and address efforts by the local agency towards removing
governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. The
City of Dublin’s Annual Report was presented to the City Council on March 7, 2017.
The purpose for the Annual Progress Report is to: assess how the General Plan is being
implemented in accordance with adopted goals, policies and implementation measures; identify
any necessary adjustments or modifications to the General Plan as a means to improve local
implementation; provide a clear correlation between land use decisions that have been made
during the 12-month reporting period and the goals, policies and implementation measures
contained in the General Plan; and provide information regarding local agency progress in
meeting its share of regional housing needs.
The Dublin General Plan was adopted on February 11, 1985, three years following the City’s
incorporation in 1982. The General Plan contains the seven State-required elements which are
Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise and Safety. The State allows
the combining of elements or the addition of new elements as long as the required seven
elements are present in some fashion. The Dublin General Plan contains the following twelve
(12) Elements:
Land Use Element
Parks and Open Space Element
Schools, Public Lands, and Utilities
Element
Circulation and Scenic Highways
Element
Housing Element
Conservation Element
Seismic Safety and Safety Element
Noise Element
Community Design & Sustainability
Element
Economic Development Element
Water Resources Element
Energy Conservation Element
Local governments are required to keep their General Plans current and internally consistent.
There is no specific requirement that a local government update its General Plan on any
particular timeline, with the exception of the Housing Element, which is required to be updated
as prescribed by State Law. The Dublin Housing Element was last updated and certified by the
State Department of Housing and Community Development on January 21, 2015 for the 2015-
2023 planning period in accordance with State law.
The City of Dublin continues to actively implement the policies of the General Plan including the
goals, policies and programs of the Housing Element. The following represents the progress the
City has made towards implementing the General Plan and Housing Element during the
Calendar Year 2016 reporting period. The information to follow is organized to correspond with
the elements of the Dublin General Plan.
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 29
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
1
3
3
7
:
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
)
3 of 20
LAND USE ELEMENT
AMENDMENTS
The Land Use Element of the Dublin General Plan was amended two (2) times during Calendar
Year 2016 as follows:
Land Use Amendment No. 1: On June 7, 2016, the City Council adopted Resolution 91-
16 approving an amendment to the General Plan related to the Schaefer Ranch project in
the Western Extended Planning Area. The approved General Plan Amendment changed
the land use designation of 17.30 acres from Estate Residential (and originally approved
for 6 residential estate lots), to 7.04 acres designated as Single-Family Residential (to
allow 18 single-family detached homes) and 10.26 acres designated as Open Space.
Land Use Amendment No. 2: On September 20, 2016, the City Council adopted
Resolution 152-16 approving amendments to the General Plan for the Kaiser Medical
Center. Two new land use categories were added for the approximately 58 acre project
site located south of Dublin Boulevard between Tassajara Road and Fallon
Road: “Medical Campus,” which applies to the Kaiser Medical Center portion of the site,
and “Medical Campus/Commercial,” which applies to the commercially-designated
portion of the site. The Kaiser Dublin Medical Center project will be developed in three
phases over the course of up to 25 years, consisting of approximately 1.2 million square
feet of medical campus and commercial uses.
PROGRESS TOWARDS MEETING THE GOALS AND GUIDING POLICIES OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT
Residential Land Use
During the Calendar Year 2016, the following residential projects were either, approved and/or
under construction in furtherance of the guiding policies of the Land Use Element for residential
land use:
Boulevard: In November 2013, the City Council approved a General Plan Amendment,
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, Rezoning, Development Agreement, and certified an
Environmental Impact Report for the Dublin Crossing project. The project entitlements
allow for the future development of up to 1,995 residential units, up to 200,000 square
feet of commercial uses, an elementary school site, approximately 30 acres of public
parks, and associated infrastructure to serve the community. The five phase development
contains a mix of attached and detached housing types.
In June 2016, the Planning Commission approved the Vesting Tentative Map and Site
Development Review for construction of 453 townhomes, condominiums, and detached
small-lot single-family homes for Phase 1A and 1B. Construction began in 2016.
• Union - Neighborhood 1 (CalAtlantic Homes): includes 62 condominium homes.
The grading and construction of infrastructure is currently underway.
• Madison - Neighborhood 2 (CalAtlantic Homes): includes 107 townhomes. The
grading and construction of infrastructure is currently underway.
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 30
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
1
3
3
7
:
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
)
4 of 20
• Wilshire - Neighborhood 3 (Brookfield Homes): includes 75 condominium homes.
The grading and construction of infrastructure is currently underway.
• Huntington - Neighborhood 4 (Brookfield Homes): includes 69 single-family
residential units. The grading and construction of infrastructure is currently
underway.
• Filmore - Neighborhood 5 (Brookfield Homes): includes 80 townhomes. The
grading and construction of infrastructure is currently underway.
• Madison - Neighborhood 6 (CalAtlantic Homes): includes 60 single-family
residential units. The grading and construction of infrastructure is currently
underway.
Dublin Transit Center: The Dublin Transit Center project includes up to 1,800 high-
density residential units adjacent to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station.
• Tribeca (Pulte Homes) On September 16, 2014, the City Council approved a
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned
Development Zoning with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site
Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map for Site A-1 at the Dublin
Transit Center. Pulte Homes is developing 52 three-story townhomes on 2.86
acres. The project is currently under construction with completion estimated in
Summer 2017.
• Avalon II @ Dublin Station (Avalon Bay Communities): On May 17, 2011 the City
Council approved a Planned Development Zoning with a Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan, Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map for
Dublin Transit Center Site C. The project includes 505 apartment units with 10%
moderate income units. Project construction was completed in Fall 2016.
Enclave @ Tassajara Highlands (Tim Lewis Communities): On August 19, 2014, the
City Council approved a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment,
Planned Development Zoning with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site
Development Review and a Vesting Tentative Tract Map for a 12.93 acre site. The
project includes the development of 48 single-family detached residences and 3.06 acres
of Open Space. The grading and construction of infrastructure began in Fall 2016.
Grafton Plaza Residential (Taylor Morrison): On April 7, 2015, the City Council
approved a Site Development Review Permit and Vesting Tentative Map for a 115-unit
townhome condominium development on a 6.55 acre portion of the Grafton Plaza mixed-
use site. The project is currently in plan review.
Heritage Park (Pulte Homes): On July 15, 2014, the City Council approved a General
Plan and Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development
Zoning with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review and
Vesting Tentative Tract Map for the replacement of an existing commercial office
complex with 54 single-family detached units and a 14,000 square foot office building for
Challenge Dairy. The commercial building was completed in Summer 2015 and is
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 31
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
1
3
3
7
:
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
)
5 of 20
currently occupied. The residential project is currently under construction with an
estimated completion date of Summer 2017.
Irongate (Lennar Homes): On June 3, 2014, the City Council approved a General Plan
and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Zoning with a
Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative
Tract Map, and a Development Agreement for the development of 437 residential units
on 64 acres of land bounded by Central Parkway to the North, Dublin Boulevard to the
South, Fallon Road to the East and Lockhart Street to the West. Approximately 51 acres
of the site will be developed under two General Plan land use designations: Medium
Density Residential and Medium-High Density Residential. The project includes 330
Medium Density single-family detached units and 107 Medium-High Density townhouse
units for a total of 437 units. The project also includes a 10.4 acre nature park, 2.0 acre
Neighborhood Park and a 2.0 acre enhanced stream corridor. Lennar Homes began
grading in the Spring of 2015 and construction is currently underway on the
neighborhoods.
• Wexford - Neighborhood 1 (Lennar Homes): the 112 single-family detached unit
project is currently under construction.
• Hillcrest - Neighborhood 2 (Lennar Homes): the 63 single-family detached unit
project is currently under construction.
• Hillcrest - Neighborhood 3 (Lennar Homes): the 33 single-family detached unit
project is currently under construction.
• Tramore - Neighborhood 4 (Lennar Homes): the 69 small lot product (a minimum
of 1,500 square feet) project is currently under construction.
• Wexford - Neighborhood 5 (Lennar Homes): the 53 single-family detached unit
project is currently under construction.
• Ashbourne - Neighborhood 6 (Lennar Homes): the 107 3-story townhouse project
is currently under construction.
Jordan Ranch. On June 22, 2010, the City Council adopted Ordinance 13-10 to rezone
approximately 189-acre area known as Jordan Ranch to a Planned Development Zoning
District and adopted a Stage 2 Development Plan for the area. The project was amended
on June 19, 2012 and October 6, 2015. The project will provide up to 899 residential
units. Residential product types include single-family detached; cluster homes; small lot
alley homes and townhomes. Neighborhood 1 has been completed.
• Preserve - Neighborhood 2 (Toll Brothers): the 111 single-family homes, with a
3,600 square foot minimum lot size, was completed in Fall/Winter 2016.
• Capri - Neighborhood 3 (Brookfield Homes): the 94 single-family homes, with a
2,900 square foot minimum lot size, is currently under construction.
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 32
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
1
3
3
7
:
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
)
6 of 20
• Trio - Neighborhood 4 (Brookfield Homes): the 126 townhouse, 7 acre project is
currently under construction.
• Slate - Neighborhood 5 (TRI Pointe Homes): the 56 single-family detached home
project, on approximately 7.3 acres, is currently under construction.
• Kingswood - Neighborhood 6 (Landsea): the 109 townhouse project, on
approximately 6 acres, is currently under construction.
• Onyx - Neighborhood 7 (TRI Pointe Homes): the 105 single-family detached home
project, on approximately 9.3 acres, is currently under construction.
• Quartz - Parcel H (TRI Pointe Homes): the 45 single-family duet project, on
approximately 4.6 acres, the grading and infrastructure are underway.
Schaefer Ranch: The project includes 418 single-family detached residential units in five
distinct neighborhoods. As part of the project, Dublin Boulevard was extended, new trails
were constructed and a new East Bay Regional Park District staging area with a parking
lot, trailer parking area, restroom, maintenance building and associated landscaping was
constructed.
• Orchid @ Schaefer Ranch (Toll Brothers): the project includes 140 single-family
detached homes on approximately 41.5 acres located at the northwest corner of
Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road. The project is currently under
construction with completion estimated in Spring 2017.
• Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 (Discovery Builders): the 18 single-family detached home
project, on approximately 7 acres, with 10.26 acres designated as Open Space, is
currently in plan check for review.
Silvera Ranch (Nuvera Homes): The Silvera Ranch project includes a total of 254
residential units on 105 acres of land. The four phase development contains a mix of
housing types, including single-family estate size units, smaller lot single-family cluster
homes and multi-family condominiums. The final phase, which consists of 102
condominiums, was completed in 2016.
Tassajara Hills/Moller Ranch (Toll Brothers): On December 18, 2012, the City Council
approved a General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment,
Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for the
226.3 acre Moller Ranch project. The project will provide 370 single-family detached
homes, in three neighborhoods, on 80 acres; 137 acres have been designated Rural
Residential/Agricultural. Site Development Review approval for the architecture of the
homes and private clubhouse was granted by the Planning Commission on August 9,
2016. Toll Brothers is currently grading the site, constructing the back bone infrastructure
and has completed the replacement of the culvert under Tassajara Road.
• The Glen @ Tassajara Hills: 107 single-family detached units on minimum 4,500
SF lots. The project is currently in plan check review.
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 33
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
1
3
3
7
:
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
)
7 of 20
• The Knolls @ Tassajara Hills: 179 single-family detached units on minimum 5,000
SF lots. The project is currently in plan check review.
• The Bluffs @ Tassajara Hills: 84 single-family detached units on minimum 5,500
SF lots. The project is currently in plan check review.
Terrace Ridge (William Lyon Homes): In 2010, the City Council approved a General Plan
and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to modify the land use designation from
Rural Residential/Agriculture to Single-Family Residential. The Planned Development
Zoning and environmental document were also approved in 2010. On June 10, 2014, the
Planning Commission approved a Site Development Review permit for the development
of 36 single-family homes on a ten acre site. Construction began in Summer 2015 and is
expected to conclude in Spring 2017.
Wallis Ranch: Development will occur on approximately 86.5 acres of the site, with the
remaining site area devoted to permanent open space. There are 8 individual residential
neighborhoods; 6 with single-family detached units and 2 with townhomes. A General
Plan Amendment was approved in 2015 that changed the 1.26 acre Semi-Public site to
Parks/Public Recreation. Additionally, there will be a 7.59 acre City park and a private
community recreation center. The historic Antone School is proposed to be relocated and
enhanced near the entrance to the property. Grading has been completed and the
backbone infrastructure has been installed. Residential development is currently under
construction.
• Bridgecroft - Neighborhood 1 (DR Horton): the 92 single-family detached unit
project is currently under construction.
• Barnwell - Neighborhood 2 (DR Horton): the 101 single-family detached unit
project is currently under construction.
• Ivy Oak - Neighborhood 3 (Taylor Morrison): the 74 single-family detached alley
loaded unit project is currently under construction.
• Citron - Neighborhood 4 (Pulte Homes): the 147 single-family detached 6-pack
garden court unit project is currently under construction.
• Trestle - Neighborhood 5 (Warmington Homes): is developing 60 units in a 3-plex
configuration. The project is under construction.
• Riverton - Neighborhood 6 (KB Homes): the 125 townhouse project is currently
under construction.
• Driftsong - Neighborhood 7 (Warmington Homes): the 68 single-family detached
alley loaded unit project is currently under construction.
• Fielding - Neighborhood 8 (Trumark Homes): the 139 single-family detached 6-
pack court unit project is currently under construction.
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 34
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
1
3
3
7
:
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
)
8 of 20
Westport (Dublin Ranch Lot 3) (Lennar Homes): On March 4, 2014, the City Council
approved a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned
Development Zoning with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development
Review and a Vesting Tentative Tract Map for a 6.36 acre site for the development of 122
unit townhouse units. The project is currently under construction with an estimated
completion date of Spring 2017.
Residential Land Use: Downtown Dublin
Aster (Bay West): In March 2013, the Planning Commission approved a Site
Development Review Permit to construct 314 high-density residential units and 17,000
square feet of commercial uses on 4.74 acres. In 2014, the site was acquired by Bay
West. Building permits were issued in 2015. Construction continued through 2016 and
occupancy is expected to be granted in 2017
Avesta Senior & Assisted Living (Avesta Development Group, LLC): In March 2016,
the Planning Commission approved a Site Development Review Permit and Conditional
Use Permit for the Avesta project. The project includes 35 senior apartments, 13 high-
acuity assisted living units, and 32 memory care units on a one acre site in Downtown
Dublin. Construction is expected to start in 2017.
The Perch at Downtown Dublin (Trumark Homes): In October 2015, the Planning
Commission approved a Site Development Review Permit, Vesting Tentative Map, and
Conditional Use Permit for Trumark Regional. The project includes 60 townhomes on a
2.7 acre site located in the downtown. Grading began in December 2016 and the project
is currently under construction.
Valor (Eden Housing): In March 2013, the Planning Commission approved a Site
Development Review Permit to construct 72 high-density residential units on a 1.37 acre
parcel. Eden Housing is constructing the 66 unit affordable project with preference for
Veterans. Building permits were in 2015. Construction continued through 2016 and
occupancy is expected to be granted in 2017.
Commercial and Industrial Land Use
During the Calendar Year 2016 reporting period, the following commercial and industrial
projects were either approved and/or under construction in furtherance of the guiding policies of
the Land Use Element for Commercial and Industrial land use:
Aloft Hotel: In April 2016, the City Council approved a Planned Development Zoning and
a Site Development Review Permit for a 127-room, four story hotel on a two acre site.
The hotel is a part of the Grafton Plaza mixed-use project. The project is currently in plan
check review.
Fallon Gateway: Fallon Gateway is a 34 acre commercial shopping center located at the
southwest corner of Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard within the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan Area. The project was originally approved in June 2009 and includes 379,000
square feet of retail commercial development. There are 5 major tenant stores and 13
smaller commercial buildings which are planned to be constructed in four phases. On-site
amenities include outdoor seating areas, pedestrian paseos and unique paving,
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 35
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
1
3
3
7
:
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
)
9 of 20
landscaping and lighting elements. Major C (Lucky’s) and Major D (PetSmart) are
currently in plan review. Construction of Major E (Guitar Center) was completed in Winter
2016/2017.
Kaiser Dublin Medical Center: The Kaiser Dublin Medical Center project is located on
two parcels comprising approximately 58 acres south of Dublin Boulevard between
Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. The City Council approved a General Plan
Amendment to create new land use districts, and Planned Development Zoning that
allowed up to 950,000 square feet of medical campus uses in three main buildings in
addition to 250,000 square feet of commercial uses. A Site Development Review Permit
was approved for the first phase of development (a 220,000 square foot medical office
building). The project will be developed in three phases over the course of up to 25 years.
Construction of Phase 1 began in December 2016.
Shell Gas Station Remodel: In December 2015, the Community Development Director
approved a Site Development Review for a façade remodel of the existing canopy and
convenience store and site and landscaping improvements including an electronic price
sign. The project is currently under construction with an estimated completion date of
Spring 2017.
St. Raymond’s Church: In December 2015, the Planning Commission approved an
amendment to the existing Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for a
new 2,560 square foot classroom building and related site improvements. Construction of
the project was completed in Fall 2016.
Commercial and Industrial Land Use: Downtown Dublin
Dublin Valero Service Station: In April 2013, the Planning Commission approved a
Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for a 1,545 square foot expansion
of the existing mini-mart and the construction of a new carwash. The project completed
construction in 2016.
Fountainhead Montessori: In May 2016, the Community Development Director
approved a Site Development Review for a façade remodel, the construction of solar
carport structures within the parking lot and the construction of outdoor play areas and
associated site improvements related to the operation of the Fountainhead Montessori
complex. The project is currently in plan review.
Rahma Mediterranean Market & Cuisine: In November 2013, the Community
Development Director approved a Site Development Review Permit for Rahma Market at
7111 Village Parkway. The building will be a 4,762 square foot restaurant and market
occupied by Rahma Mediterranean Market & Cuisine, which will relocate from its existing
space in the Dublin Crossroads shopping center. Building permits were issued in 2015.
Construction is currently underway.
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
AMENDMENTS
The Parks and Open Space Element was not amended during Calendar Year 2016.
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 36
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
1
3
3
7
:
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
)
10 of 20
PROGRESS TOWARDS MEETING THE GOALS AND GUIDING POLICIES OF THE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
ELEMENT
Dublin Crossing Park: The Dublin Crossing Park Master Plan project was initiated in
2014 and includes the planning process for a 30-acre community park within the
Boulevard Project. The Master Plan was approved in 2016. Construction for phase one of
the 30-acre community park is expected to start in 2018.
Dublin Ranch Subarea 3: Design for the 2 acre neighborhood square and 10.75 acre
community nature park began in 2016. Construction is anticipated to be completed in
2017.
Emerald Glen Park Recreation and Aquatic Complex: The City completed the
planning and design for the Emerald Glen Park Recreation and Aquatic Complex, a
51,000 square foot facility including one indoor swimming pool, one outdoor swimming
pool, a water splash zone, a waterslide tower, community room, multi-use rooms, locker
rooms, and administrative offices. The design and construction documents have been
completed for Phase 1 of the project which includes a 31,000 square feet of indoor
space, all of the aquatics amenities, a community room lockers, changing rooms and
administrative spaces. Construction of Phase 1 began in Spring 2015 and is anticipated
to open to the public in late Spring 2017.
Fallon Sports Park, Phase II Design: The design and construction documents for
Phase II of the park were completed in late 2014. Amenities will include a lighted 90-foot
baseball diamond; two lighted synthetic turf soccer fields; adventure playground; group
picnic area; restroom and concession building and related parking and pedestrian
circulation improvements. The project went to bid in Spring 2015. The bids came in
higher than anticipated and all of the bids were rejected. The revised project was re-bid in
February 2016. Construction began in May 2016 and will be complete in 2017.
Jordan Ranch Neighborhood Park: The conceptual design documents for this 4.4-acre
park were approved and the construction documents were initiated. The park amenities
will include a shaded playground area, picnic areas and an open space meadow.
Construction of the park began in March 2016 and is anticipated to be complete in 2017
Public Safety Complex – Police Services: On March 1, 2016, the City Council
approved a new CIP for the Public Safety Complex – Police Services project to relocate
Police Services from the Civic Center to the Public Safety Complex. On May 3, 2016, the
City Council approved the Public Safety Complex master plan to renovate the building
façade and core building, demolish the attached Butler building and tower building, and
improve site parking and landscaping. The project will relocate the Emergency
Operations Center to the Public Safety Complex. Construction will start in 2017 and be
complete in 2018.
Sean Diamond Park: The community planning process was initiated in Summer 2015.
The preferred concept plan was approved in February 2016. Construction drawings were
completed in 2016 and will be bid for construction to start in 2017 and be complete in
2018.
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 37
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
1
3
3
7
:
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
)
11 of 20
SCHOOLS, PUBLIC LANDS AND UTILITIES ELEMENT
AMENDMENTS
The Schools, Public Lands, and Utilities Element was not amended during Calendar Year 2016.
PROGRESS TOWARDS MEETING THE GOALS AND GUIDING POLICIES OF THE SCHOOLS, PUBLIC LANDS
AND UTILITIES ELEMENT
Schools
In 2016, the City continued to work with developers and property owners to ensure that
adequate sites are reserved to meet the Dublin Unified School District’s (DUSD)
projected demand for future school uses.
The City partnered with the DUSD to provide a second school site within Jordan Ranch at
no cost to the District. Construction of the school is currently underway.
As part of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, a school site has been reserved for future
development by the Dublin Unified School District. The Developer will dedicate to the City
the 12 acre school site within the first final map in Project Phase 3.
The City continues to verify that school fees had been paid to the District prior to issuing
building permits for development projects in accordance with State law.
Public Lands
Alameda County Courthouse: In November 2004, Alameda County received City
approval to construct a 210,000 square foot East County Hall of Justice (County
Courthouse) complex on a 22 acre portion of the Santa Rita Property near the
intersection of Gleason Drive and Hacienda Drive. In December 2009, and again in
January 2014, Alameda County was granted an amendment to the original approval for a
slightly smaller building (196,000 square feet). The East County Hall of Justice will house
13 courtrooms and associated governmental facilities. Grading on the site began in
September 2014, vertical construction started in 2015, and the project is expected to
open to the public in 2017.
Federal and Military Communities Committee: On September 3, 2013, City Council
established the Federal and Military Communities Committee (FMCC) on which two
council members serve and which is staffed by the Public Works Department. The FMCC
provides information and updates on programs and services related to federal agencies
and military installations operating in Dublin.
Utilities
In 2016, the City continued to work closely with project applicants and service utilities to
ensure that there is adequate capacity to serve all new and existing areas of Dublin.
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 38
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
1
3
3
7
:
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
)
12 of 20
CIRCULATION AND SCENIC HIGHWAYS ELEMENT
AMENDMENTS
The Circulation and Scenic Highways Element was not amended during Calendar Year 2016.
PROGRESS TOWARDS MEETING THE GOALS AND GUIDING POLICIES OF THE CIRCULATION AND
SCENIC HIGHWAYS ELEMENT
Amador Plaza Road Project: This project was completed in 2016. It included the
construction of two mid-block crosswalks along Amador Plaza Road with enhanced
safety features designed to make downtown Dublin more walkable. The safety features
included flashing yellow lights, raised concrete medians and sidewalk extensions.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan: The Master Plan was adopted in 2015. The
Master Plan sets a pedestrian policy framework and implementation strategy with
emphasis on the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area. The City continues to implement
projects and programs identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
Dougherty Road Improvements: The City is currently widening Dougherty Road to six
lanes with bicycle lanes and a reconstructed bicycle/pedestrian path from Sierra Lane to
the northern City limit. Construction began in Fiscal Year 16-17 and will be opened to six
lanes of traffic once all of the improvements are completed.
Dublin Boulevard Improvements: The City plans to widen Dublin Boulevard to six lanes
with bicycle lanes between Sierra Court and Dublin Court. The project will also include
undergrounding of existing overhead utilities. Final design and right-of-way acquisition is
proceeding and the undergrounding of overhead utilities is scheduled to begin in FY 16-
17.
Iron Horse Trail Connectivity to BART: In 2015, the City received funding from the
Alameda County Transportation Commission to evaluate the feasibility of enhancing
access and circulation of bicycle and pedestrian traffic to and from the East
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station using the Iron Horse Trail. The final public draft of the
feasibility study was completed in 2016
Right-of-Way Maintenance: The City provides for the maintenance, repair, and
replacement of pavement, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and traffic signals throughout the
City. The City also completes annual ADA curb ramp, sidewalk repair, street overlay, and
slurry seal projects.
San Ramon Road Arterial Management Project: In 2016, the City received a grant
from the Alameda County Transportation Commission to implement transit priority and
signal coordination along this roadway. This project will also add buffer bike lanes by
narrowing the travel lanes. It is expected to be complete in the Fiscal Year 17-18.
Traffic Impact Fees: The City continues to collect traffic impact fees for new
development projects to ensure that new facilities are built to accommodate the additional
vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian trips that result from the projects.
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 39
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
1
3
3
7
:
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
)
13 of 20
Village Parkway and Brighton Drive traffic signal Improvements: In 2015, the City
received a grant from the Alameda County Transportation Commission to enhance
pedestrian access at this intersection. The City completed the project in 2016.
HOUSING ELEMENT
The updated Dublin Housing Element was certified by the State Department of Housing and
Community Development on January 21, 2015 for the 2015-2023 planning period. The Housing
Element was not amended during Calendar Year 2016.
PROGRESS TOWARD MEETING THE GOALS AND GUIDING POLICIES OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65400, the City Council is required to prepare an annual
report on the status and progress in implementing the City’s Housing Element using forms and
definitions adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development. These forms
and definitions were adopted on March 27, 2010 and are required to be used for the Annual
Progress Report. The completed forms for Calendar Year 2016 are attached as Exhibit A to
this report.
CONSERVATION ELEMENT
AMENDMENTS
The Conservation Element was not amended during Calendar Year 2016.
PROGRESS TOWARD MEETING THE GOALS AND GUIDING POLICIES OF THE CONSERVATION ELEMENT
The City continues to work on preserving Dublin’s historic resources through the
implementation of the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan
The City continues to review each new development project that is proposed near a
natural resource such as a stream corridor with the intent of protecting the resource.
Conditions of approval include measures to ensure adequate setbacks, minimal impacts
to water quality, passive recreational opportunities, and the maintenance of natural
systems to the extent possible.
The City continues to work with developers to ensure that open space corridors
established in new neighborhoods are maintained and managed appropriately, and open
space areas are contiguous with other such lands.
SEISMIC SAFETY AND SAFETY ELEMENT
AMENDMENTS
The Seismic Safety and Safety Element was not amended during Calendar Year 2016.
PROGRESS TOWARDS MEETING THE GOALS AND GUIDING POLICIES OF THE SEISMIC SAFETY AND
SAFETY ELEMENT
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 40
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
1
3
3
7
:
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
)
14 of 20
All new construction and certain building renovations are reviewed for compliance with
the California Building Code for seismic safety.
All new development projects are required to submit a Geotechnical Analysis to assess
site conditions.
The City continues to implement the Wildfire Management Plan for all properties
identified within a fire buffer zone.
The City continues to participate in the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s
(FEMA) flood insurance program.
In June 2016, the City conducted two disaster training exercises for the City’s Emergency
Operations Center Personnel.
In October 2016, the City conducted a disaster planning awareness class as part of the
City’s Safety Awareness Week.
The City has initiated an update to the 2010 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
NOISE ELEMENT
AMENDMENTS
The Noise Element was not amended during Calendar Year 2016.
PROGRESS TOWARDS MEETING THE GOALS AND GUIDING POLICIES OF THE NOISE ELEMENT
Due to the nature of the Guiding and Implementing Policies of the Noise Element, efforts
to implement this Element of the General Plan are on-going in nature. Projects are
reviewed on a case-by-case basis for adverse noise impacts to the environment and
sensitive receptors. In addition, a Noise Mitigation fee is charged to developers in the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area to assist in funding the construction of improvements
to mitigate noise impacts.
COMMUNITY DESIGN & SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT
AMENDMENTS
The Community Design & Sustainability Element was not amended during Calendar Year 2016.
PROGRESS TOWARDS MEETING THE GOALS AND GUIDING POLICIES OF THE COMMUNITY DESIGN &
SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT
The Community Design & Sustainability Element was adopted in September 2008. The
Community Design Element establishes principles, policies and implementation
measures that are designed to enhance the livability of Dublin and encourage a high level
of quality design while encouraging well designed sustainability measures. The purpose
of the Element is to enhance the physical form of the community by establishing policies
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 41
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
1
3
3
7
:
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
)
15 of 20
that will guide future development. The Community Design Element applies to
developments throughout the City. The efforts to implement this Element of the General
Plan are on-going in nature. Projects are reviewed on a case-by-case basis for
conformance with this Element.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
AMENDMENTS
The Economic Development Element was not amended during Calendar Year 2016.
PROGRESS TOWARDS MEETING THE GOALS AND GUIDING POLICIES OF THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
Maintain an Economic Development Function: The overarching objective of the
Economic Development Element is to enhance the competitiveness of the City of Dublin
and maintain a strong and diverse economic base. The Element includes specific goals,
policies and implementation measures to promote economic vibrancy, improve conditions
for small businesses, encourage development of the strategic employment supporting
sites, and achieve the Downtown vision. The City continues to maintain an Economic
Development Office to implement the economic development goals of the City. The
services include: business attraction activities; access to labor force data; business
recruitment; business retention and expansion assistance; and site selection assistance.
The goal of these efforts is to market the City's many economic advantages in order to
enhance the competitiveness of our local economy and to maintain a strong and diverse
revenue and job base in the Tri-Valley. The Economic Development Office also supports
the following efforts:
• Hosted the first annual #Commerce Con Small Business Resource Summit in
October. This event included a series of speakers on topics such as revenue
generating, marketing and effective business plans, as well as a business
resource expo and one-on-one business consulting. The event was jointly
sponsored with the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, the cities of Pleasanton,
Livermore, Danville, San Ramon and their respective Chambers of Commerce,
and the San Francisco office of the Small Business Administration (SBA). The
half-day event was designed to present speakers to the region’s small businesses
and provides connections with local resources.
• Advanced the Business Recognition Program by creating a new “Business
Anniversary Breakfast Reception” event held in September. This event, held in
partnership with the Chamber of Commerce recognized Dublin businesses that
have been operating for 20 years or more. In addition to a networking breakfast,
the event included a program highlighting the importance of local business and
awarding of plaques. Local businesses that have been in Dublin for 10 years or
longer are recognized with certificates.
• Entered into a new partnership with the Dublin Chamber of Commerce to provide
City sponsorship of key events and Chamber services relating to business
regulatory outreach. In addition in 2016, the City and Chamber held the first
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 42
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
1
3
3
7
:
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
)
16 of 20
“Decorate Dublin” contest to encourage holiday shopping as a part of the Discover
Dublin social media campaign. 2016 also included new branded shopping bags
which were distributed to merchants to promote the program.
• Commissioned a Commercial Office Market Analysis to study the feasibility of new
office development and better understand regional market trends. This information
was presented to the City Council in March 2016.
• In partnership with the cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, the Tri-Valley Regional
Occupation Program and Las Positas Community College, Dublin promoted local,
modern manufacturing with participation in National Manufacturing Day. AMP
Printing in Dublin provided tours which informed students, educators, and other
interested attendees about local career opportunities, which was followed by tours
of several other Tri-Valley businesses and a luncheon.
• In order to improve information-sharing with the community about proposed
development projects, with the Community Development Department created an
interactive development activity page, updated public noticing to include clear
language and graphics, and created planning application notice signs.
Comprehensive Marketing and Branding Plan: In February 2015, the Council adopted
a marketing and branding strategy. The brand efforts promote Dublin as a destination for
visitors, families, businesses, and events. During 2016, “The New American Backyard”
branding efforts were acknowledged with several key awards including:
• The California Association for Public Information Officers (CAPIO) received the
2016 CAPIO Award of Excellence in Communications for Branding Campaigns.
• 3CMA (City-County Communications & Marketing Association) awarded Dublin the
“Savvy” Award for Branding Graphic Design.
Elements of implementation in 2016 included:
• Development of a three-minute economic development video which includes
interviews with several Dublin business leaders. The video is shared with
prospective businesses and posted on the City’s website and new YouTube
channel.
• An update of the City’s website and social media policy to expand the use of social
media, as well as to allow two-way civic engagement with new tools such as
“Open City Hall.”
• St. Patrick’s-themed television and magazine ads were placed in February and
March. The ads ran on a variety of television networks and also in Diablo
Magazine. In addition, Dublin ads were placed in multiple BART stations to
promote Dublin’s signature event.
• Branded ads targeting new residents, visitors, and business opportunities are
being published in a range of regional and national publications including
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 43
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
1
3
3
7
:
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
)
17 of 20
California Centers, Western Real Estate Business, the San Francisco Chronicle,
San Francisco Business Times and the Urban Land Magazine.
Focus Business Visitation Program on High-Growth Companies: The Economic
Development Office continues to advance the objectives of the Business Visitation
Program through meetings with potential high growth companies throughout the City. The
Business Visitation Program was established to assist businesses with retention and
expansion needs and bring awareness to the resources available to support their
business. Key firms visited in 2016 included Zeiss Meditec, the auto dealers and retail
center owners.
Participate in Regional Economic Development Efforts: During Calendar Year 2016,
the Economic Development Office continued to partner with regional organizations such
as the East Bay Economic Development Alliance (EBEDA), Visit Tri-Valley, Innovation
Tri-Valley and i-Gate. Some of the meetings and events that were held during the
calendar year include:
• Participated in a wide-variety of EBEDA events, including Annual Legislative
Reception, Economic Development Director Council, General Assembly, Annual
Board Retreat, and the International Trade Forum. In addition, nominated several
Dublin firms for their annual Innovation Awards. Dublin-headquartered software
firm, Callidus Cloud was a finalist for a 2016 award.
• Partnered with Innovation Tri-Valley on signature events including
#GameChangers, Innovation Forum, and Dream Makers and Risk Takers, as well
as serving on their Board of Directors.
• Co-sponsored the Tri-Valley Retail, Hospitality and Tourism Summit with regional
partners.
• Staff served on the Visit Tri-Valley Board and participated in ongoing marketing
efforts including social media campaigns for Restaurant Month, Tri-Valley Beer
Trail, Wine Ships Free, #BachBash, and others.
Maintain Small-Business Friendly Development Services: The City of Dublin
continues to encourage the development of small businesses through the following:
• In 2016, developed a step-by-step “How to Start a Business—Your Guide to
Growing a Business in Dublin, California” which is printed and online. In addition
to the guide, information on business incentive programs, financing and support
services posted on the City webpage.
• Provided individualized assistance for new and expanding businesses, including
permitting, site selection searches and marketing. Also provide leasing assistance
and business recruitment efforts for vacant spaces.
• Promoted the Small Business Assistance Program to help fund ADA, Title 24, and
trash enclosure improvements and other legal obligations imposed on small
business.
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 44
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
1
3
3
7
:
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
)
18 of 20
Partner with the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority: The City worked
closely with the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority and their commercial
brokerage partner to market their development sites. The City also promotes these new
materials (marketed as “Tri-Valley Concept” Campus) on our website.
Support Downtown Business Attraction and Development Efforts: During Calendar
Year 2016, the City continued working with individual property owners to consider
improvements, joint activities and possible events.
Commercial Façade Grant Program: In 2016, the Commercial Façade Grant Program
was updated to increase funding for architectural assistance, prioritize projects that
activate downtown and clarify guidelines and application process. In addition, the
following development activities occurred downtown during the reporting period:
• Ongoing and targeted recruitment of new tenants to fill vacant spaces include both
retail and restaurant sites.
• Façade improvements in the Dublin Place shopping center were constructed to
attract new tenants, include Pieology Pizza. Exploration of reuse of the former
Coco’s and Grocery Outlet spaces are underway, as well as discussions of special
events to draw more shoppers to the Downtown.
• Inc. 82 Craft Beer/Dublin Brewing Company: Staff is working with a small business
owner to open a small craft brewing business and retail craft beer business on San
Ramon Boulevard. This project, which will help add a new gathering spot in the
Downtown, has received Sewer Capacity Assistance to help offset their startup
costs.
• Village Parkway: Throughout 2016, several façade projects were constructed,
including the outdoor patio space in front of Three Sheets Craft Beer, which will
help encourage outside dining.
• Mirchi Café: Received a Commercial Façade Improvement Grant to construct an
outdoor patio at 7083 Village Parkway. Construction of the patio is not yet
underway. Title 24 and ADA improvements were completed using the Small
Business Assistance Program.
Achieve the Downtown Vision: During Calendar Year 2016, the City continued to
advance the vision for the Downtown to improve the quality of place and quality of life in
Dublin. The City continues to be active in Downtown development in the following ways:
• Staff has worked closely with property owners to attract activation programs for the
Downtown area. Current concepts under discussion include a weekly food truck
event, and a Sunday morning Farmer’s Market. Site selection discussions are
continuing on these efforts.
• Installation continues on a pilot program for a free Wi-Fi system for part of
Downtown Dublin, to be activated Spring 2017. To start, about 30% of the
Downtown District will be covered, most notably near the West Dublin BART
station toward Dublin Boulevard, and along Village Parkway. The City will review
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 45
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
1
3
3
7
:
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
)
19 of 20
the results from the pilot program in determining whether or not to expand the
program in the future.
• Provide a consolidated toolkit to business owners and developers to promote
economic development. The toolkit includes, the Sales Tax Reimbursement
Program; Fee Deferral Program; Sewer Capacity Assistance Program;
Commercial Façade Improvement Grant Program; Small Business Assistance
Program; and PACE Financing for Energy Upgrades.
WATER RESOURCES ELEMENT
AMENDMENTS
The Water Resources Element was not amended during Calendar Year 2016.
PROGRESS TOWARDS MEETING THE GOALS AND GUIDING POLICIES OF THE WATER RESOURCES
ELEMENT
City Staff engaged in continued collaboration with the Dublin San Ramon Services
District and Zone 7 to ensure that existing and new development is served with adequate
water resources.
Staff coordinated creek cleanup events as part of Dublin Pride Week and Creek Cleanup
Day. Over 5 cubic yards of trash and recyclables were removed from local creeks.
As part of the development review process, the City continued to require installation of
full trash capture devices at public and private development projects. City Council also
opted-in to the expanded reusable bag ordinance adopted by the Alameda County Waste
Management Authority. Combined, both of these actions allowed the City to reach 70%
trash load reduction.
Staff began working on a Green Infrastructure Framework which is being developed to
set goals for reducing, over the long term, adverse water quality impacts of urbanization
on receiving waters, and meet mercury and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) total
maximum daily load reduction requirements. Green infrastructure manages stormwater
using vegetation, soils, cisterns, and natural processes. At the scale of a city or county,
green infrastructure refers to the patchwork of natural areas that provides flood
protection, cleaner water, and other benefits. At the scale of a neighborhood or site,
green infrastructure refers to stormwater management systems that mimic nature by
soaking up and storing water (also referred to as low impact development, or LID).
Staff completed the construction of several additional park facilities, implementing several
of the policies in Section 12.3.4 of the Water Resources Element.
ENERGY CONSERVATION ELEMENT
AMENDMENTS
The Energy Conservation Element was not amended during Calendar Year 2016.
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 46
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
1
3
3
7
:
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
)
20 of 20
PROGRESS TOWARDS MEETING THE GOALS AND GUIDING POLICIES OF THE ENERGY CONSERVATION
ELEMENT
City Council adopted a Resolution approving an agreement to participate in a joint
powers agency for a community choice aggregation program in Alameda County, and
adopted an uncodified ordinance authorizing the implementation of a community choice
aggregation program in Dublin. The new JPA, called the East Bay Community Energy
Authority, will provide energy with a higher renewable portfolio standard than mandated
by the State.
The Building Division ensures the continued implementation of Chapter 7.94 of the
Municipal Code (Dublin Green Building Code) and the 2013 California Green Building
Standards Code, also known as the “Cal Green” Code, which was adopted by the City
and became effective January 1, 2014.
• During Calendar Year 2016, the Building Division issued 507 residential and 6
commercial photovoltaic permits; and 38 residential and 3 commercial electrical
vehicle chargers.
Environmental Services Staff play an active role in educating residents and businesses
about the various programs, tools, and incentives of the agencies and organizations
whose main function is to encourage and enable energy conservation, including PG&E,
and StopWaste.
In May 2016, City staff coordinated a Sustainable Citizens workshop focused on ten
actions residents can take to reduce waste and their consumption of energy and water.
BayRen Multi-Family Homeowner Programs: City staff promoted the BayRen
Multifamily Residence Energy Upgrade Program to the property owners of multifamily
residences in order to notify them of energy efficient rebates of up to $750 per unit which
help pay for enhancements to aging or inefficient energy systems. Buildings that have
been updated through the BayRen Energy Upgrade Program have realized an average
whole building savings of 15%.
BEST (Business Energy Service Team): BEST worked with three Dublin businesses to
implement energy savings initiates resulting in 7,447 kWh saved.
Dublin Green Shamrock Business Program: The goal of the Dublin Green Shamrock
Business Program is to educate businesses on sustainable practices and connect them
with potential savings. Energy Conservation is part of the multi-faceted program. The
program began in October 2014. As of 2016, 30 businesses have enrolled in the
program.
Home Energy Analyzer: Residents who participated in the Home Energy Analyzer were
given access to energy assistance and were made aware of energy rebates that would
be beneficial for them.
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 47
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
1
3
3
7
:
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
)
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 48
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
1
3
3
7
:
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 49
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
1
3
3
7
:
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 50
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
1
3
3
7
:
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 51
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
1
3
3
7
:
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 52
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
1
3
3
7
:
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 53
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
1
3
3
7
:
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 54
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
1
3
3
7
:
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 55
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
1
3
3
7
:
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 56
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
1
3
3
7
:
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 57
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
0
1
6
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
(
1
3
3
7
:
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
Active General Plan Amendment Study - Status Report
Updated through February 23, 2017
Project Name Project Description Status Plnr
Council
Initiation
Date
Interim Study Items
Interim
Study CC
Date
DUSD
Consult
Date
Est. Council
Hearing Date
1 Schaefer Ranch Lot 70 GPA to convert 0.35 acres from Open
Space to Single-Family Residential and
incorporate into existing Lot 70 at the
end of Ridgeline Place.
GHAAD Board authorized Discovery Builders to file
GPA application 2/7/17. City Council initiated GPA
Study on 2/21/17. GPA Study in progress.
MB 2/21/17 n/a n/a n/a Summer 2017
*City initiated amendment.
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 58
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
S
t
u
d
y
S
t
a
t
u
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
1
3
3
7
:
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: March 7, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Land Lease Agreement with Hamcor, Inc.
Prepared by: Erin Steffen, Management Analyst
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The property owner of 6440 and 6430 Dublin Court, Hamcor, Inc., has requested that
the City lease its excess right-of-way adjacent to the aforementioned property for the
purpose of displaying a single vehicle. The City entered into a similar agre ement in
2006 with Hamcor, doing business as Dublin Toyota.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution Approving the Land Lease Agreement with Hamcor, Inc.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The proposed land lease would have an up-front cost of $12,000 and a subsequent
rental rate of $1,500 a year (10-year lease term) payable to the City of Dublin, an
amount reasonably consistent with other public/private land lease transactions
conducted on this property.
DESCRIPTION:
In 2006, the City of Dublin entered into a 10-year land lease agreement with Hamcor,
Inc., a corporation doing business as Dublin Toyota, to use a remnant of public right -of-
way for the purpose of displaying a single vehicle. The Dublin Toyota automobile
dealership relocated to a nearby property in Dublin, and the agreement ended in 2016.
Hamcor, Inc., intends to enter into an agreement with an automobile dealer to occupy
the 6440 and 6430 Dublin Court locations previously occupied by Office Depot and Fiat,
respectively. Based on this agreement, Hamcor has requested a new land lease
agreement, between Hamcor, Inc. And the City of Dublin, for the purpose of displaying a
single vehicle on the same remnant of public right-of-way. A map of the area in question
is included (Attachment 1).
4.4
Packet Pg. 59
Page 2 of 2
Under the proposed lease, Hamcor, Inc.’s tenant would utilize the same property for the
purpose of displaying a single vehicle. The proposed lease would have an up -front cost
of $12,000 and a subsequent rental rate of $1,500 a year (10 -year lease term with up to
two 1-year extensions) payable to the City of Dublin, an amount reasonably consistent
with the previously lease agreement. The agreement also includes a clause allowing the
City to prematurely terminate the agreement, if the property is required in order to
accommodate an expansion of the adjacent freeway on -ramp connecting Dougherty
Road to I-580.
Staff believes that the requested agreement will result in multiple benefits to the City.
Display of the vehicle, along with any improvements and maintenance conducted on the
property, will provide a more aesthetically pleasing property. Improvements made to the
property will improve the value of the property and will likely be reflected in future
property tax revenue to the City. The agreement also will strengthen the Cit y’s
relationship with Hamcor, Inc., resulting in a more secure long-term sales tax revenue
stream for the City.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
A copy of this Staff Report has been provided to Hamcor, Inc.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Map of Proposed Lease Area - Aerial Map
2. Resolution Approving a Land Lease Agreement with Hamcor, Inc.
3. Exhibit A to the Resolution - Lease Agreement - Hamcor, Inc.
4.4
Packet Pg. 60
Diagram of Premises
Dublin Station
Shopping Center
CalTrans
Property
United Rentals
Dublin Nissan
Hamcor, Inc.
Auto Dealership
Site
Hamcor, Inc.
Auto Dealership
Site
Project Area
Project Area
4.4.a
Packet Pg. 61
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
M
a
p
o
f
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
L
e
a
s
e
A
r
e
a
-
A
e
r
i
a
l
M
a
p
(
1
3
3
8
:
L
a
n
d
L
e
a
s
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
H
a
m
c
o
r
,
I
n
c
.
)
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. XX - 17
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * * *
APPROVING A LAND LEASE AGREEMENT WITH HAMCOR, INC.
WHEREAS, in 2006, the City entered into a 10-year land lease agreement with Hamcor, Inc.
to use a remnant of public right-of-way for the purpose of displaying a single vehicle; and
WHEREAS, Hamcor, Inc. has requested a new land lease agreement to utilize the same
public right-of-way property for the same purpose; and
WHEREAS, Hamcor, Inc. would maintain the public right-of-way and be subject to an up-front
lease payment of $12,000, and subsequent annual lease payments of $1,500; and
WHEREAS, the term of the lease is 10 years with up to two , one-year extensions; and
WHEREAS, a clause has been added to the Lease that, if the property is required in order to
accommodate an expansion of the adjacent freeway on -ramp connecting Dougherty Road to I-580,
the City may terminate the agreement; and
WHEREAS, the proposed lease will result in public benefit for the following reasons:
1. Display of the vehicle, along with any improvements and maintenance conducted
on the property, will provide a more aesthetically pleasing right -of-way;
2. Improvements made to the property will improve the value of the property
3. The agreement will strengthen the City’s relationship with Hamcor, Inc., resulting a
more secure long-term sales tax revenue stream for the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin
approves the Land Lease Agreement with Hamcor, Inc. attached hereto as Exhibit A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to execute the Land
Lease Agreement substantially in the form attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of March, 2017, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
4.4.b
Packet Pg. 62
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
p
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
a
L
a
n
d
L
e
a
s
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
H
a
m
c
o
r
,
I
n
c
.
(
1
3
3
8
:
L
a
n
d
L
e
a
s
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
H
a
m
c
o
r
,
I
n
c
.
)
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
4.4.b
Packet Pg. 63
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
p
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
a
L
a
n
d
L
e
a
s
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
H
a
m
c
o
r
,
I
n
c
.
(
1
3
3
8
:
L
a
n
d
L
e
a
s
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
H
a
m
c
o
r
,
I
n
c
.
)
4.4.c
Packet Pg. 64
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
L
e
a
s
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
-
H
a
m
c
o
r
,
I
n
c
.
(
1
3
3
8
:
L
a
n
d
L
e
a
s
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
H
a
m
c
o
r
,
I
n
c
.
)
4.4.c
Packet Pg. 65
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
L
e
a
s
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
-
H
a
m
c
o
r
,
I
n
c
.
(
1
3
3
8
:
L
a
n
d
L
e
a
s
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
H
a
m
c
o
r
,
I
n
c
.
)
4.4.c
Packet Pg. 66
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
L
e
a
s
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
-
H
a
m
c
o
r
,
I
n
c
.
(
1
3
3
8
:
L
a
n
d
L
e
a
s
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
H
a
m
c
o
r
,
I
n
c
.
)
4.4.c
Packet Pg. 67
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
L
e
a
s
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
-
H
a
m
c
o
r
,
I
n
c
.
(
1
3
3
8
:
L
a
n
d
L
e
a
s
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
H
a
m
c
o
r
,
I
n
c
.
)
4.4.c
Packet Pg. 68
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
L
e
a
s
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
-
H
a
m
c
o
r
,
I
n
c
.
(
1
3
3
8
:
L
a
n
d
L
e
a
s
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
H
a
m
c
o
r
,
I
n
c
.
)
4.4.c
Packet Pg. 69
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
L
e
a
s
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
-
H
a
m
c
o
r
,
I
n
c
.
(
1
3
3
8
:
L
a
n
d
L
e
a
s
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
H
a
m
c
o
r
,
I
n
c
.
)
4.4.c
Packet Pg. 70
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
L
e
a
s
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
-
H
a
m
c
o
r
,
I
n
c
.
(
1
3
3
8
:
L
a
n
d
L
e
a
s
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
H
a
m
c
o
r
,
I
n
c
.
)
4.4.c
Packet Pg. 71
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
L
e
a
s
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
-
H
a
m
c
o
r
,
I
n
c
.
(
1
3
3
8
:
L
a
n
d
L
e
a
s
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
H
a
m
c
o
r
,
I
n
c
.
)
4.4.c
Packet Pg. 72
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
L
e
a
s
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
-
H
a
m
c
o
r
,
I
n
c
.
(
1
3
3
8
:
L
a
n
d
L
e
a
s
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
H
a
m
c
o
r
,
I
n
c
.
)
Page 1 of 6
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: March 7, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Information on Sanctuary City Policies
Prepared by: John Bakker, City Attorney
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This report responds to the City Council’s request for additional information about
Sanctuary City policies. In particular, the report discusses the various components of
Sanctuary City policies and discusses the risks and benefits of adopting them.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive report and, if necessary, provide direction to Staff.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
DESCRIPTION:
Background
At the February 7, 2017 City Council meeting, members of the public requested that the
City Council adopt a sanctuary city policy. The City Council requested that Staff return
with this report with information about sanctuary city policies and the risks and benefits
associated with adopting them.
Definition of a Sanctuary City
The term “sanctuary city” is not defined by federal or state law, but it generally refers to
municipalities that have policies in place that limit assistance in enforcement of federal
immigration laws and the expenditure of local resources on cooperation with U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (“ICE”) enforcement programs.
Although such policies or ordinances take many forms, they generally include: 1)
limitations on city officials’ ability to share with ICE information pertaining to an
individual’s immigration status; 2) limitations on local law enforcement making arrests
and holding individuals in custody based on their immigration status; and 3) limiting
5.1
Packet Pg. 73
Page 2 of 6
federal immigration authorities’ access to non-public government spaces without a court
order.
Supporters of such policies argue that cities have local obligations and that diverting
local resources to support the enforcement of federal programs designed to deter or
discourage unauthorized immigration would undermine community relations, disrupt
municipal services, interfere with local law enforcement, and violate humanitarian
principles.
Opponents of sanctuary city policies argue that local jurisdictions that refuse to support
federal immigration policy are encouraging illegal immigration and undermining federal
enforcement efforts, as well as risking access to federal funding for important local
programs and services.
Components of Sanctuary City Policies
Limiting Information-Sharing with Federal Immigration Authorities
Some state and local entities restrict government agencies or employees from sharing
information with federal immigration authorities in order to prevent federal authorities
from using such information to identify and deport undocumented immigrants.
Existing law generally empowers the federal government to per mit, but not require, the
assistance of local officials in enforcing immigration law. In 1996, the federal
government enacted two pieces of legislation that prohibit state or local governments
from restricting voluntary communication with the federal government regarding the
immigration status of any individual: § 434 of the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA, 8 U.S.C. § 1644) and § 642 of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA, 8 U.S.C. §
1373). Both pieces of legislation were designed to facilitate communication between
state and local law enforcement agencies and federal immigration authorities regarding
undocumented immigrants. While neither of these statutes requires l ocal cooperation or
information sharing with federal immigration authorities, both prohibit a policy, statute or
ordinance that directly prohibits the voluntary sharing of information once it is acquired.
Many state and local jurisdictions throughout the United States have adopted laws or
polices restricting staff from making inquiries about a person’s immigration status. This
is one of the typical components of sanctuary city policies. The federal government has
not made a formal legal determination as to whether such state and local laws or
policies violate the federal provisions discussed above. Proponents of sanctuary
policies have argued that this method does not directly conflict with federal
requirements that states and municipalities permit the fre e exchange of information
regarding persons’ immigration status. Opponents have argued that the practice results
in government agencies or officials lacking information that they could potentially share
with federal immigration authorities, effectively curbing communication between local
and federal agencies.
Limiting Detentions for Federal Immigration Violations
Some local jurisdictions have adopted policies that restrict local law enforcement
agencies from detaining individuals in custody upon request by ICE. Federal officials
rely on local police to help enforce federal immigration laws. Federal law allows ICE to
5.1
Packet Pg. 74
Page 3 of 6
request that a local law enforcement agency detain a noncitizen in order to allow ICE to
take custody of them for the purpose of arrest and removal. (See 8 C.F.R. section
287.7.) However, nothing in federal law compels local law enforcement agencies to
comply with such requests.
A detainer request issued under this section is distinct from a criminal warrant. A
detainer request is not issued by a judge and is not based on a finding of probable
cause or evidentiary support. It is simply a request by ICE that a state or local law
enforcement agency hold individuals after their release date to provide ICE agents
extended time to decide whether to take those individuals into federal custody and then
deport them. Refusing to provide such notice or cooperation limits, but it does not
prevent, the federal government’s ability to enforce federal immigration laws.
Sanctuary jurisdictions cannot stop federal immigration officers from conducting
deportation raids (also known as immigration enforcement actions) within the
jurisdiction. If ICE obtains a warrant for the arrest of an undocumented individual, the
agency with jurisdiction could not prevent ICE from taking action. Furthermore,
sanctuary policies do not protect criminals or prevent people from being prosecuted for
illegal acts.
Limiting Federal Immigration Authorities’ Access to Public Areas
Some jurisdictions have enacted policies limiting federal immigration authorities’ ability
to enter certain government spaces. A city can limit ICE’s ability to enter non -public
forums and other city properties where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Some examples of this include interior meeting rooms or offices within City Hall. But,
public agencies cannot prevent ICE from entering public places, such as a library or
community center, or any other area that is open to the general public.
Examples of Other Nearby Jurisdictions with Sanctuary Policies
More than 300 cities around the country identify themselves as sanctuary cities,
including San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Washington,
D.C. Their policies generally contain the components discussed above. Since the
presidential election, various cities in the Bay Area have also adopted resolutions or
other policy statements declaring their intention to become or remain places of refuge or
sanctuary, including the cities of Richmond, Alameda, Berkeley, and Emeryville. San
Francisco’s ordinances, a typical example, are attached. Most of these cities have not
explicitly used the phrase “sanctuary city” in their policies.
Other municipalities considering sanctuary city policies have adopted resolutions
affirming a commitment to diversity, tolerance, and inclusivity. Some examples include
the City of Palo Alto and City of Los Altos (see Palo Alto’s resolution attached). Such
resolutions do not expressly prohibit cooperation with federal immigration agents and
are therefore unlikely to be targeted for sanction by the federal government.
Executive Order to Enforce Compliance with Federal Immigration Laws
On January 25, 2017, the President issued an Executive Order titled, “Enhancing Public
Safety in the Interior of the United States.” Exec. Order No. 13,768, 82 Fed. Reg. 8799
(Jan. 25, 2017) (“Executive Order”). The Executive Order announces that it is the
5.1
Packet Pg. 75
Page 4 of 6
Executive Branch’s policy to withhold federal funds from “sanctuary jurisdictions,” and
directs the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to ensure that
sanctuary jurisdictions do not receive federal grants. The executive order defines
sanctuary jurisdictions, as those that do not comply with provisions of federal law that
have policies that prohibit sharing information with ICE. In addition, it directs the
Secretary of Homeland Security to “make public a list of criminal actions committed by
aliens and any jurisdiction that ignored or otherwise failed to honor” detainer requests.
Furthermore, it directs the Attorney General to take enforcement action against any
local entity that “hinders the enforcement of Federal law.”
Existing and Proposed Policies Applicable to the City
Current and Pending State Sanctuary Laws
Two state laws-the TRUST Act and TRUTH Act - already limit certain aspects of local
law enforcement cooperation with ICE. The TRUST Act, which was signed into law in
October 2013, specifically prohibits local law enforcement from detaining a noncitizen
pursuant to an immigration hold after the time the person is eligible for release from
criminal custody under state or local law.
In September of 2016, the Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds
(“TRUTH”) Act was signed into law. Building on the TRUST Act, the TRUTH Act
imposes obligations on law enforcement agencies if they notify ICE of an inmate’s
upcoming date and time of release and arrange for ICE to interview the detainee. The
law enforcement agency must provide the detainee with a written consent form
explaining, among other things, the purpose of the interview, that the interview is
voluntary, and that the individual may decline to be interviewed. The Act requires the
law enforcement agency to notify the detainee of the agency’s intent to comply with ICE
requests. The Act also requires that the records related to ICE access be considered
public records.
Furthermore, beginning on January 1, 2018, the TRUTH Act will require the local
governing body of any county, city, or city and county in which a local law enforcement
agency has provided ICE access to an individual during the previous year to hold at
least one public community forum during the following year in order to provide
information to the public about ICE’s access to individuals and to receive and consider
public comment.
In December 2016, Senator De Leon introduced SB 54, which would establish as state
policy many of the components of sanctuary city policies. If passed, this law would
prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies from using resources to invest igate,
interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes. The
bill would require state agencies to review their confidentiality policies and identify any
changes necessary to ensure that information collected from individu als is limited to that
necessary to perform agency duties and is not used or disclosed for any other purpose,
including federal immigration.
Current Alameda County Policies and Practices
The Alameda County Sheriff’s Office - with which the City contracts for police services -
has adopted General Order No. 1.24, (attached) which provides deputies with
guidelines on their duties and responsibilities associated with immigration law,
5.1
Packet Pg. 76
Page 5 of 6
enforcement, arrests, detentions/detainers, and Requests for Notification. T he policy
requires the Sheriff’s Office to equally enforce laws and serve the public without
consideration of immigration status and states that the Sheriff’s Office does not accept
or honor immigration detainer requests from ICE. The policy provides that the
immigration status of a person, and the lack of immigration documentation, alone, has
no bearing on the manner in which the Sheriff’s Office staff execute s their duties. The
policy also notes the difference between an arrest warrant signed by a Judge (which the
Alameda County Sheriff’s Office does honor), and an immigration detainer signed by an
ICE agent.
Finally, the Sheriff’s Office policy provides that under no circumstances will a person be
detained or arrested by Sheriff’s Office personnel based solely on his or her immigration
status, whether known or unknown. The policy indicates that the Sheriff will not honor
ICE detainer requests, but that it will share information about persons in custody with
ICE upon ICE’s request in the same manner that it shares information with other law
enforcement agencies, including timely notification of release. The Sheriff’s Office will,
on a case by case basis, provide such information to ICE without a request from ICE if it
believes that the individual poses a significant public safety concern. As of the time the
order was issued in 2014, ICE had made about 1,000 detainer requests to Alameda
County’s Santa Rita Jail.
Risks of Becoming a Sanctuary City
Potential Financial Impacts
If the President or Congress ultimately carries through on the Executive Order to limit
the amount of federal funds allocated to jurisdictions that support “sanctuary” policies,
the City could be at risk of losing federal funds. The City was awarded just over $83,602
in federal grant funds in the funding year 2016-17. It is possible that federal policies
may restrict sanctuary cities from indirectly receiving funds that pass-through other
agencies, such as transportation planning agencies. However, the Executive Order’s
threat to withhold “all federal grant money” from sanctuary cities may be
unconstitutional.
Under the U.S. Constitution’s Taxing and Spending Clause (Article I, Section 8), the
Court has repeatedly held that there are limits on the federal government’s ability to
impose funding conditions on recipient state and local entities. First, Congress must
provide clear and advanced notice to the recipients of the federal grants. Second, the
conditions imposed on the grants must be reasonably related to the purpose of the
grant. (See National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) 132 S. Ct.
2566.)
The Executive Order’s direction to withhold all federal grant funds from agencies that
have adopted sanctuary policies is not tied to any purposes in grants. It seem s likely
that the federal government will be unable to withhold grant funding unless the grant
serves a purpose that is reasonably related to the purposes set forth in the Executive
Order - to enforce federal immigration laws.
5.1
Packet Pg. 77
Page 6 of 6
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. San Francisco Ordinance
2. Palo Alto Diversity Resolution
3. Alameda County Sheriff's Office General Order
4. Executive Order - Sanctuary Cities
5.1
Packet Pg. 78
San Franc isc o Administrative Code
CHAPTER 1 2 H:
IM M IGRATION STATUS
Sec. 12H.1.Ci ty and County of Refuge.
Sec. 12H.2.Use of Ci ty Funds Prohibited.
Sec. 12H.3.Cl erk of Board to Transmi t Copi es of thi s Chapter;
Informi ng Ci ty Empl oyees.
Sec. 12H.4.Enforcement.
Sec. 12H.5.Ci ty Undertaki ng Li mited to Promotion of General
Welfare.
Sec. 12H.6.Severabili ty.
SEC. 1 2 H.1 . CITY AND COUNTY OF REFUGE.
It is hereby affirmed that the City and County of San Franc isc o is a City and County of Refuge.
(Added by Ord. 375-89, App. 10/24/89)
SEC. 1 2 H.2 . USE OF CITY FUNDS PROHIB ITED.
No department, agency, commission, officer, or employee of the City and County of San Francisco shall use any City funds or
resources to assist in the enforce ment of Federal immigration law or to gather or disseminate information regarding release sta tus of
individuals or any other such personal information as defined in Chapter 12I in the City and County of San Francisco unless such
assistance is required by Federal or State statute, regulation, or court decision. The prohibition set forth in this Chapter 12H shall
include, but sha ll not be limited to:
(a) Assisting or coopera ting, in one's offic ial c apacity, with any investigation, detention, or arrest procedures, public or clandestine,
conducted by the Federal agency charged with enforcement of the Federal immigration law and relating to allege d violations of the
civil provisions of the Federal immigration law, exc ept as permitte d under Administrative Code Section 12I.3.
(b) Assisting or coopera ting, in one's offic ial c apacity, with any investigation, surveillance, or gathering of information conducted by
foreign governments, except for cooperation relate d to an alleged violation of City and County, State, or Federal criminal laws.
(c) Requesting information about, or disse minating information, in one's official capacity, regarding the release status of any
individual or any other such personal information as defined in Chapter 12I, exce pt as permitted under Administrative Code Section
12I.3, or conditioning the provision of services or benefits by the City and County of San Francisco upon immigration status, except as
required by Federal or State sta tute or regulation, City and County public assistance criteria, or court decision.
(d) Including on any application, questionna ire, or interview form used in relation to benefits, se rvices, or opportunities provided by
the City and County of San Francisco any question regarding immigration status other than those required by Federal or State statute,
regulation, or court decision. Any such questions existing or being used by the City and County at the time this Chapter is adopted shall
be deleted within sixty days of the adoption of this Chapter.
(Added by Ord. 375-89, App. 10/24/89; amended by Ord. 228-09, File No. 091032, App. 10-28-2009; Ord. 96-16 , File No.
160022, App. 6/17/2016, Eff. 7/17/2016)
SEC. 1 2 H.2 -1. [REPEALED.]
(Added by Ord. 282-92, App. 9/4/92; amended by Ord. 238-93, App. 8/4/93; Ord. 228-09, File No. 091032, App. 10-28-2009;
repealed by Ord. 96-16 , File No. 160022, App. 6/17/2016, Eff. 7/17/2016)
SEC. 1 2 H.3 . CLERK OF B OARD TO TRANSM IT COPIES OF THIS CHAPTER; INFORM ING CITY
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 79
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
3
4
7
:
S
a
n
c
t
u
a
r
y
C
i
t
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
)
EM PLOYEES.
The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors shall send copies of this Chapter, inc luding any future ame ndments the reto that may be made,
to every de partment, agency and commission of the City and County of San Francisco, to California's United States Senators, and to
the California Congressional dele gation, the Commissioner of the Federal agency charged with enforcement of the Federal immigration
law, the Unite d States Attorney General, and the Secretary of State and the P resident of the United States. Each appointing offic er of
the City and County of San Francisco shall inform all employees under her or his jurisdiction of the prohibitions in this ordinance, the
duty of all of her or his employee s to comply with the prohibitions in this ordinance, and that employees who fail to comply with the
prohibitions of the ordinance shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action. Each City and County employee shall be given a written
directive with instructions for implementing the provisions of this Chapter.
(Added by Ord. 375-89, App. 10/24/89; Ord. 228-09, File No. 091032, App. 10-28-2009)
SEC. 1 2 H.4 . ENFORCEM ENT.
The Human Rights Commission shall review the compliance of the City and County departments, agencies, commissions and
employees with the mandates of this ordinance in particular instances in which there is question of noncompliance or when a complaint
alleging noncompliance has be en lodged.
(Added by Ord. 375-89, App. 10/24/89)
SEC. 1 2 H.5 . CITY UNDERTAKING LIM ITED TO PROM OTION OF GENERAL WELFARE.
In undertaking the adoption and enforcement of this Chapter, the City is assuming an undertaking only to promote the general
welfare. This Cha pter is not intended to create any new rights for breach of which the City is liable in money damages to any person
who claims that such breach proximately caused injury. This section shall not be construed to limit or proscribe any other existing rights
or remedies posse ssed by such person.
(Added by Ord. 375-89, App. 10/24/89)
SEC. 1 2 H.6 . SEVERAB ILITY.
If any part of this ordinance, or the application thereof, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected
thereby, and this ordinance shall otherwise continue in full force a nd effect. To this end, the provisions of this ordina nce, and each of
them, are severa ble.
(Added by Ord. 375-89, App. 10/24/89)
CHAPTER 12I:
CIVIL IM M IGRATION DETAINERS
Sec. 12I.1.Findi ngs.
Sec. 12I.2.Defi ni tions.
Sec. 12I.3.Restr icti ons on Law Enforcement Officials.
Sec. 12I.4.Purpose of this Chapter.
Sec. 12I.5.Semiannual Repor t.
Sec. 12I.6.Severabili ty.
Sec. 12I.7.Undertaking for the General Wel fare.
SEC. 1 2 I.1 . FINDINGS.
The City a nd County of Sa n Francisco (the "City") is home to persons of diverse racial, ethnic, and national backgrounds, inc luding a
large immigrant population. The City respec ts, upholds, and values equal protec tion and equal treatment for all of our residents,
regardless of immigration sta tus. Fostering a relationship of trust, respect, and ope n communic ation between City employees and City
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 80
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
3
4
7
:
S
a
n
c
t
u
a
r
y
C
i
t
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
)
residents is essential to the City's core mission of ensuring public health, safety, and welfare, and se rving the needs of everyone in the
community, including immigrants. The purpose of this Chapter 12I, as well as of Administrative Code Chapte r 12H, is to foster re spect
and trust betwee n law enforcement and reside nts, to protect limited local resources, to encourage cooperation between residents and
City officials, inc luding especially law enforcement and public health officers and employees, and to ensure community security, and
due process for all.
The United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") is responsible for enforcing the civil immigration laws. ICE's
programs, including Secure Communities and its re placement, the P riority Enforcement P rogram ("P EP "), seek to enlist local law
enforcement's voluntary cooperation and assistance in its enforc ement efforts. In its description of P EP , ICE explains that all requests
under P EP are for voluntary a ction and that any request is not an authorization to detain persons a t the expense of the federa l
government. The federal gove rnment should not shift the financial burden of federal civil immigration enforcement, including personnel
time and costs relating to notifica tion and detention, onto local law enforcement by requesting that local law enforc ement agencies
continue detaining persons base d on non-mandatory civil immigration detainers or cooperating a nd assisting with requests to notify ICE
that a person will be released from local custody. It is not a wise and effective use of valuable City resources at a time when vita l
services are being cut.
ICE's Secure Communities program (also known as "S-Comm") shifted the burden of fede ral civil immigration enforcement onto
local law enforcement. S-Comm c ame into opera tion after the state sent fingerprints that state and local law enforcement agencies
had transmitted to the California Department of Justice ("Cal DOJ") to positively identify the arrestees and to check their criminal
history. The FBI would forward the fingerprints to the Department of Home land Security ("DHS") to be checked against immigration
and other databa ses. To give itse lf time to take a detainee into immigration c ustody, ICE would send an Immigration Detainer - Notice
of Action (DHS Form I-247) to the local law enforcement official requesting tha t the local la w enforcement official hold the individual
for up to 48 hours after that individual would othe rwise be released ("civil immigration detainers"). Civil Immigration detainers may be
issued without evidentiary support or probable cause by border patrol agents, aircra ft pilots, specia l agents, deportation officers,
immigration inspectors, and immigration adjudication officers.
Given that civil immigration detainers are issued by immigration officers without judicial oversight, and the re gula tion authorizing civil
immigration detainers provides no minimum standard of proof for their issuance, there are serious questions as to their constitutionality.
Unlike criminal warrants, which must be supported by probable cause and issued by a neutral magistrate, there are no such
requirements for the issuance of a civil immigration detainer. Several federal courts have ruled that because civil immigration de tainers
and other ICE "Notice of Ac tion" documents are issued without probable cause of criminal c onduct, they do not meet the Fourth
Amendment requirements for state or local law e nforcement officials to arrest and hold an individual in custody. (M ira n d a -Oliva res
v. Cla ck a ma s Co ., No. 3:12-cv-02317-ST *17 (D.Or. April 11, 2014) (finding tha t detention pursuant to an immigration detainer is a
seizure that must comport with the Fourth Amendment). See a lso Morales v. Ch a dbourn e, 996 F. Supp. 2d 19, 29 (D.R.I 2014);
Villa rs v. Ku b ia to wsk i, No. 12-cv-4586 *10-12 (N.D. Ill. filed May 5, 2014).)
On Dece mber 4, 2012, the Attorney General of California, Ka mala Harris, clarified the responsibilities of loca l law enforceme nt
agencies under S-Comm. The Attorney General clarified that S-Comm did not require state or local law enforcement officials to
determine an individual's immigration status or to enforce federa l immigration laws. The Attorney General also clarified that civil
immigration detainers are voluntary requests to local law enforcement agencies that do not mandate compliance. California loc al la w
enforcement agencies may determine on their own whether to c omply with non-mandatory civil immigration detaine rs. In a June 25,
2014, bulletin, the Attorney General warned that a federal court outside of California had held a county liable for damages where it
voluntarily complied with an ICE request to detain an individual, and the individual was otherwise eligible for release and that loca l law
enforcement agencies may a lso be held liable for such conduct. Over 350 jurisdictions, including Washington, D.C., Cook County,
Illinois, and many of California's 58 counties, have already acknowledged the discretionary nature of civil immigration detainers and are
declining to hold people in their jails for the additional 48 hours as requested by ICE. Local la w enforcement agencies' responsibilities,
duties, and powe rs are regulated by state law. However, complying with non-mandatory civil immigration detaine rs frequently raises
due process concerns.
According to Section 287.7 of Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the City is not re imbursed by the federa l government for
the costs associated with civil immigration detainers alone. The full cost of responding to a civil immigration de tainer can include , but is
not limited to, extended detention time, the administrative costs of tracking and responding to de tainers, and the le gal liability for
erroneously holding an individual who is not subject to a civil immigration detainer. Compliance with civil immigration detainers a nd
involvement in civil immigration enforcement diverts limited loc al resources from programs that are beneficial to the City.
The City seeks to protect public safety, which is founded on trust and cooperation of community residents and local law
enforcement. However, civil immigration detainers and notifications regarding re lease undermine community trust of law enforceme nt
by instilling fear in immigrant communities of c oming forward to report crimes and cooperate with local law enforce ment agencies. A
2013 study by the University of Illinois, entitled "Insecure Communities: Latino P erceptions of P olice Involvement in Immigration
Enforcement," found that at least 40% of Latinos surveyed are less likely to provide information to police beca use they fear exposing
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 81
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
3
4
7
:
S
a
n
c
t
u
a
r
y
C
i
t
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
)
themselves, family, or friends to a risk of de portation. Indeed, civil immigration deta iners have resulted in the tra nsfer of victims of
crime, including domestic violence victims, to ICE.
The City has e nacted numerous laws and policies to strengthen communities and to build trust between communities and local law
enforcement. Local cooperation and assistance with civil immigra tion enforc ement undermines community polic ing strategies.
In 2014, DHS ended the Secure Communities program and replaced it with P EP . P EP and S-Comm share many similarities. Just as
with S-Comm, P EP uses state and federal databases to check an individual's fingerprints against immigration and other databases.
P EP employs a number of ta ctics to facilitate transfers of individuals from loc al ja ils to immigration custody.
First, P EP uses a new form (known as DHS Form I-247N), which requests notification from local jails about an individual's release
date prior to his or her release from local custody. As with civil immigration deta iners, these notification requests a re issued by
immigration office rs without judicial oversight, thus raising questions about local law enforcement's liability for constitutional violations
if any person is overdetaine d when immigration agents are unable to be present at the time of the person's relea se from local c ustody.
Second, unde r P EP , ICE will continue to issue civil immigration detainer requests where local law enforcement officials are willing to
respond to the requests, and in instances of "spec ial circumstance s," a term that has yet to be defined by DHS. Despite federal courts
finding civil immigration detainers do not mee t Fourth Amendme nt requirements, local jurisdictions are often unable to confirm whether
or not a dete ntion request is supported by probable cause or ha s be en reviewed by a neutral magistrate.
The increase in information-sharing between local law enforcement and immigration officials raises serious conce rns about priva cy
rights. Across the country, including in the California Centra l Valley, there has been an increase of ICE agents stationed in jails, who
often have unrestricted access to jail databases, booking logs, and other documents that contain personal information of all jail inmates.
The City has a n interest in e nsuring that c onfidential information collected in the course of carrying out its municipal functions,
including but not limited to public health programs and criminal inve stigations, is not used for unintended purpose s that could hamper
collection of information vital to those functions. To carry out public health programs, the City must be able to relia bly collect
confidential information from all residents. To solve crimes and protect the public, local law enforce ment depends on the cooperation
of all City residents. Information gathering and cooperation may be jeopardize d if release of personal information results in a person
being taken into immigration custody.
In late 2015, P edro Figueroa, an immigrant father of an 8-year-old U.S. citizen, sought the San Francisco P olice Department's help in
locating his stolen vehicle. When Mr. Figueroa went to the police station to retrieve his car, which police had located, he was de tained
for some time by police officers before being relea sed, and an ICE agent was waiting to take him into immigration custody immediately
as he left the police station. It was later reported that both the P olice Department a nd the Sa n Francisco Sheriff's Department had
contact with ICE officials while Mr. Figueroa wa s at the police station. He spent over two months in an immigration detention facility
and remains in deportation proceedings. Mr. Figueroa's case has raised major concerns about local law enforc ement's relationship with
immigration authorities, and has weakened the immigrant community's confidenc e in policing practices. Community cooperation with
local law enforcement is critical to investiga ting a nd prosecuting crimes. Without the cooperation of crime victims - like Mr. Figueroa -
and witnesses, loc al law enforcement's ability to investigate and prosecute crime , particularly in communities with la rge immigrant
populations, will be seriously compromised.
(Added by Ord. 204-13, File No. 130764, App. 10/8/2013, Eff. 11/7/2013; amended by Ord. 96-16 , File No. 160022, App.
6/17/2016, Eff. 7/17/2016)
(Former Sec . 12I.1 added by Ord. 391-90, App. 12/6/90; amended by Ord. 409-97, App. 10/31/97; Ord. 38-01, File No. 010010,
App. 3/16/2001; repealed by Ord. 171-03, File No. 030422, App. 7/3/2003)
SEC. 1 2 I.2 . DEFINITIONS.
"Administrative warrant" means a document issued by the fe deral agency charge d with the enforcement of the Federal immigration
law that is used as a non-criminal, civil warra nt for immigration purposes.
"Eligible for rele ase from c ustody" means that the individual may be released from custody beca use one of the following conditions
has occurred:
(a) All criminal charges a gainst the individua l have been droppe d or dismissed.
(b) The individual has been acquitted of all criminal charges filed against him or her.
(c) The individual has served all the time required for his or her sentence.
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 82
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
3
4
7
:
S
a
n
c
t
u
a
r
y
C
i
t
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
)
(d) The individual has posted a bond, or has been released on his or her own recognizance.
(e) The individual has been referred to pre-trial diversion services.
(f) The individual is otherwise eligible for release under state or local law.
"Civil immigration detaine r" me ans a non-ma ndatory request issued by an authorized federal immigration officer under Section 287.7
of Title 8 of the Code of Fe deral Regulations, to a local law enforcement official to maintain custody of an individual for a period not to
exceed 48 hours and advise the authorized fe deral immigration officer prior to the release of that individual.
"Convicted" means the state of having been proved guilty in a judicial proceeding, unless the convictions have been expunged or
vacated pursuant to applicable law. The date that an individual is Convicted starts from the date of release.
"Firearm" me ans a device, designed to be used a s a weapon, from which is expelled through a barrel, a projectile by the force of an
explosion or other form of combustion as defined in P enal Code Se ction 16520.
"Law enforcement official" me ans any City De partment or officer or employee of a City Department, authorized to enforce criminal
statutes, regulations, or local ordinances; operate jails or maintain custody of individuals in jails; and operate juvenile detention facilities
or maintain custody of individua ls in juvenile detention facilitie s.
"Notification request" means a non-mandatory request issued by an authorize d federal immigra tion officer to a loc al law enforcement
official asking for notification to the authorize d immigration officer of an individual's release from local custody prior to the rele ase of
an individual from local custody. Notification requests may also include informal requests for relea se information by the Federal
agency charged with enforcement of the Federal immigration law.
"P ersonal information" means any confidential, identifying information about an individual, including, but not limited to, home or work
contact information, and family or emergency contact information.
"Serious Felony" means a ll serious felonies liste d under P enal Code Section 1192.7(c) that also are defined as violent felonies under
P enal Code Section 667.5(c); rape as defined in P enal Code Sections 261, and 262; exploding a destructive devic e with intent to injure
as defined in P enal Code Section 18740; assault on a person with caustic chemicals or flammable substances as defined in P enal Code
Section 244; shooting from a ve hicle at a pe rson outside the vehic le or with great bodily injury a s de fined in P e nal Code Sections
26100(c) and (d).
"Violent Felony" means any c rime listed in P enal Code Section 667.5(c); human trafficking as defined in P enal Code Section 236.1;
felony assa ult with a deadly weapon as defined in P enal Code Section 245; any crime involving use of a firearm, assault weapon,
machine gun, or .50 BMG rifle, while committing or attempting to commit a felony that is charged as a sentencing enhancement as
listed in P enal Code Sections 12022.4 and 12022.5.
(Added by Ord. 204-13, File No. 130764, App. 10/8/2013, Eff. 11/7/2013; amended by Ord. 96-16 , File No. 160022, App.
6/17/2016, Eff. 7/17/2016)
(Former Sec . 12I.2 added by Ord. 391-90, App. 12/6/90; amended by Ord. 278-96, App. 7/3/96; Ord. 409-97, App. 10/31/97; Ord.
38-01, File No. 010010, App. 3/16/2001; repe aled by Ord. 171-03, File No. 030422, App. 7/3/2003)
SEC. 1 2 I.3 . RESTRICTIONS ON LAW ENFORCEM ENT OFFICIALS.
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a law enforceme nt official shall not detain an individual on the basis of a civil immigration
detainer afte r that individual becomes eligible for release from custody.
(b) Law enforcement offic ials may continue to detain an individual in response to a civil immigration detainer for up to 48 hours
after that individual becomes eligible for release if the continued de tention is c onsistent with state and federal law, and the individual
meets both of the following criteria:
(1) The individual has been Convicted of a Violent Felony in the seven years immediately prior to the date of the civil immigration
detainer; and
(2) A magistrate has determined that there is probable ca use to believe the individual is guilty of a Violent Felony and has ordered
the individual to answer to the same pursuant to P enal Code Section 872.
In determining whether to continue to deta in an individual based solely on a civil immigration detainer as permitted in this
subsection (b), law enforceme nt officials shall consider evidence of the individua l's rehabilitation and evaluate whether the individual
poses a public safety risk. Evidence of rehabilitation or other mitigating factors to consider includes, but is not limited to: the individual's
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 83
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
3
4
7
:
S
a
n
c
t
u
a
r
y
C
i
t
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
)
ties to the community, whether the individual has been a victim of any crime, the individual's contribution to the community, and the
individual's participation in social service or rehabilitation programs.
This subsection (b) shall expire by operation of law on October 1, 2016, or upon a resolution passed by the Board of Supervisors
that finds for purposes of this Chapter, the federal government ha s enacted comprehensive immigration reform that diminishe s the
need for this subsection (b), whichever comes first.
(c) Except as provided in subsection (d), a law enforceme nt official shall not respond to a federal immigration officer's notification
request.
(d) Law Enforcement officials may respond to a federal immigration officer's notification request if the individua l meets both of the
following criteria :
(1) The individual either:
(A) has been Convicte d of a Violent Felony in the seve n years imme diately prior to the date of the notification request; or
(B) ha s be en Convicted of a Serious Felony in the five years immediate ly prior to the date of the notification request; or
(C) ha s be en Convicted of three felonies identified in P enal Code sections 1192.7(c) or 667.5(c), or Government Code sections
7282.5(a)(2) or 7282.5(a)(3), other than domestic violence, arising out of three separate incide nts in the five years immediately prior to
the date of the notification re quest; and
(2) A magistrate has determined that there is probable ca use to believe the individual is guilty of a felony identified in P ena l Code
sections 1192.7(c) or 667.5(c), or Government Code sections 7282.5(a)(2) or 7282.5(a)(3), other than domestic violence, and ha s
ordered the individual to answer to the same pursuant to P enal Code Section 872.
In determining whether to respond to a notification request as permitted by this subsection (d), law enforcement officials shall
consider evidenc e of the individual's rehabilitation and evaluate whether the individual poses a public safety risk. Evidence of
rehabilitation or other mitigating factors to consider includes, but is not limited to, the individua l's ties to the community, whether the
individual has been a victim of any crime, the individual's contribution to the community, and the individual's participation in socia l
service or re habilitation programs.
(e) Law enforcement offic ials shall not arrest or detain an individual, or provide any individual's personal information to a federal
immigration office r, on the basis of an administrative warrant, prior deportation order, or other civil immigration document based solely
on alleged viola tions of the civil provisions of immigration laws.
(f) Law enforcement officia ls shall make good faith efforts to seek federal reimbursement for all costs incurred in continuing to
detain an individual, after that individual become s eligible for re lease, in response each civil immigration detainer.
(Added by Ord. 204-13, File No. 130764, App. 10/8/2013, Eff. 11/7/2013; amended by Ord. 96-16 , File No. 160022, App.
6/17/2016, Eff. 7/17/2016)
(Former Sec . 12I.3 added by Ord. 391-90, App. 12/6/90; amended by Ord. 409-97, App. 10/31/97; Ord. 38-01, File No. 010010,
App. 3/16/2001; repealed by Ord. 171-03, File No. 030422, App. 7/3/2003)
SEC. 1 2 I.4 . PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER.
The intent of this Chapter 12I is to address requests for non-mandatory civil immigration de tainers, voluntary notification of release
of individuals, transmission of personal information, and civil immigration doc uments based solely on alleged violations of the civil
provisions of immigration laws. Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to apply to matters other than those relating to federal civil
immigration detainers, notification of release of individuals, transmission of personal information, or civil immigration documents, based
solely on alleged violations of the civil provisions of immigration la ws. In all other respects, local law enforcement agencies may
continue to collaborate with fe deral authoritie s to protect public safety. This collaboration includes, but is not limited to, participation in
joint criminal investigations that a re permitted unde r local policy or applicable city or state law.
(Added by Ord. 204-13, File No. 130764, App. 10/8/2013, Eff. 11/7/2013; amended by Ord. 96-16 , File No. 160022, App.
6/17/2016, Eff. 7/17/2016)
(Former Sec . 12I.4 added by Ord. 391-90, App. 12/6/90; amended by Ord. 409-97, App. 10/31/97; Ord. 38-01, File No. 010010,
App. 3/16/2001; repealed by Ord. 171-03, File No. 030422, App. 7/3/2003)
SEC. 1 2 I.5 . SEM IANNUAL REPORT.
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 84
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
3
4
7
:
S
a
n
c
t
u
a
r
y
C
i
t
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
)
By no later than July 1, 2014, the Sheriff and Juvenile P robation Officer shall eac h provide to the Board of Supervisors and the
Mayor a written report stating the number of de tentions that were solely based on civil immigration detainers during the first six months
following the effective date of this Chapter, and detailing the rationale behind each of those civil immigration deta iners. There after, the
Sheriff and Juvenile P robation Officer shall e ach submit a written report to the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor, by January 1st
and July 1st of each year, a ddressing the following issues for the time period cove red by the report:
(a) a de scription of all communications received from the Federal agency charged with enforcement of the Federal immigration
law, including but not limited to the number of civil immigration de tainers, notification requests, or other types of communications.
(b) a de scription of any communications the Department made to the Federal agency charged with enforcement of the Federal
immigration la w, including but not limited to any Department's responses to inquires as described in subsection 12I.5 and the
Department's determination of the applicability of subsections 12I.3(b), 12I.3(d) and 12I.3(e).
(Added by Ord. 204-13, File No. 130764, App. 10/8/2013, Eff. 11/7/2013; amended by Ord. 96-16 , File No. 160022, App.
6/17/2016, Eff. 7/17/2016)
(Former Sec . 12I.5 added by Ord. 391-90, App. 12/6/90; amended by Ord. 304-92, App. 9/29/92; Ord. 409-97, App. 10/31/97;
Ord. 38-01, File No. 010010, App. 3/16/2001; repealed by Ord. 171-03, File No. 030422, App. 7/3/2003)
SEC. 1 2 I.6 . SEVERAB ILITY.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phra se, or word of this Chapter 12I or it1 application, is for any reason held to be invalid
or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of c ompetent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affe ct the validity of the remaining
portions of this Chapter 12I. The Board of Supe rvisors hereby declares that it would have passed this Chapter 12I and each and every
section, subsection, sentenc e, clause, phrase, a nd word not dec lared invalid or unc onstitutional without regard to whether any other
portion of this Chapter 12I would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
(Added by Ord. 204-13, File No. 130764, App. 10/8/2013, Eff. 11/7/2013)
(Former Sec . 12I.6 added by Ord. 391-90, App. 12/6/90; amended by Ord. 409-97, App. 10/31/97; Ord. 38-01, File No. 010010,
App. 3/16/2001; repealed by Ord. 171-03, File No. 030422, App. 7/3/2003)
CODIFICATION NOTE
1. So in Ord. 204-13.
SEC. 1 2 I.7 . UNDERTAKING FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE.
In enacting and implementing this Chapter 12I the City is assuming an undertaking only to promote the general welfare. It is not
assuming, nor is it imposing on its officers and employees, an obligation for breach of which it is liable in money damages to a ny pe rson
who claims that such breach proximately caused injury.
(Added by Ord. 204-13, File No. 130764, App. 10/8/2013, Eff. 11/7/2013)
(Former Sec . 12I.7 added by Ord. 391-90, App. 12/6/90; amended by Ord. 38-01, File No. 010010, App. 3/16/2001; repealed by
Ord. 171-03, File No. 030422, App. 7/3/2003)
SEC. 1 2 I.8 .
(Added by Ord. 391-90, App. 12/6/90; amended by Ord. 409-97, App. 10/31/97; Ord. 38-01, File No. 010010, App. 3/16/2001;
repealed by Ord. 171-03, File No. 030422, App. 7/3/2003)
SEC. 1 2 I.1 0 .
(Added by Ord. 391-90, App. 12/6/90; amended by Ord. 38-01, File No. 010010, App. 3/16/2001; repealed by Ord. 171-03, File
No. 030422, App. 7/3/2003)
SEC. 1 2 I.1 1 .
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 85
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
3
4
7
:
S
a
n
c
t
u
a
r
y
C
i
t
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
)
(Added by Ord. 391-90, App. 12/6/90; amended by Ord. 38-01, File No. 010010, App. 3/16/2001; repealed by Ord. 171-03, File
No. 030422, App. 7/3/2003)
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 86
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
3
4
7
:
S
a
n
c
t
u
a
r
y
C
i
t
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
)
City of Palo Alto
COLLEAGUES MEMO
December 12, 2016 Page 1 of 1
(ID # 7565)
DATE: December 12, 2016
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Council Member Holman, Council Member Kniss, Council Member
Wolbach, Council Member Burt
SUBJECT: COLLEAGUES MEMO REAFFIRMING PALO ALTO'S COMMITMENT TO
A DIVERSE, SUPPORTIVE, INCLUSIVE AND PROTECTIVE COMMUNITY
We recommend Council adopt the attached Resolution affirming Palo Alto’s commitment to a
diverse, supportive, inclusive and protective community.
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 87
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
D
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
(
1
3
4
7
:
S
a
n
c
t
u
a
r
y
C
i
t
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
)
NOT YET APPROVED
161201 tlh 0140172
1
Resolution No. ________
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to
Reaffirm Palo Alto’s Commitment to a Diverse, Supportive,
Inclusive, and Protective Community
R E C I T A L S
A. Palo Altans value a community characterized by diversity, multiculturalism, and
unity, embodied in our national motto, E Pluribus Unum (from many, one); and
B. Palo Alto’s community spirit is one of protection and support, with many Palo
Altans active as volunteers in preparing for and responding to emerg encies both natural and
man-made, and ensuring the physical and emotional needs of all are considered and met
wherever possible; and
C. Each person is naturally and legally entitled to live a life unmolested by
harassment, discrimination, persecution, or assault, whether perpetrated by individuals,
groups, businesses, or government; and
D. There exists significant and growing concern in our community based upon
recent national and regional incidents of hate crimes, discrimination, sexual harassment, and
assault, and fear of a trend toward more of these crimes in the future; and
E. There also exists considerable concern in our community of risks to marginalized
communities of persecution, deportation, denial of constitutional and human rights, and
relaxation of national laws protecting people from discrimination, harassment, and assault;
and
F. Many Palo Altans, including a large number of students, have recently marched
peacefully, rallied, and otherwise communicated their rejection of bigotry and affirmed their
commitment to a diverse, supportive, inclusive, and protective community; and
G. Palo Altans value all members of our community of all religions, ancestries, and
ethnicities as well as people of any disability, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity .
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto takes this opportunity to
reinforce our commitment to a diverse, supportive, inclusive, and protective community and
RESOLVES as follows:
SECTION 1. Resolution.
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 88
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
D
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
(
1
3
4
7
:
S
a
n
c
t
u
a
r
y
C
i
t
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
)
NOT YET APPROVED
161201 tlh 0140172
2
The City of Palo Alto rejects bigotry in all its forms, including but not limited to
Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, racism, nativism, misogyny, and homophobia; and
The City of Palo Alto does not tolerate discrimination, hate crimes, harassment, or
assault; and
The City of Palo Alto will oppose any attempts to undermine the safety, security, and
rights of members of our community; and
The City of Palo Alto recognizes, values, and will proactively work to ensure the rights
and privileges of everyone in Palo Alto, regardless of religion, ancestry, country of birth,
immigration status, disability, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity; and
The City of Palo Alto will promote actual safety, a sense of security, and equal protection
of constitutional and human rights, leading by example th rough equitable treatment of all by
City officials and departments.
SECTION 2. CEQA. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not meet
the definition of a project under Public Resources Code Section 21065, thus, no environmental
assessment under the California Environmental Quality Act is required.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect immediately on its passage.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
__________________________ _____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
__________________________ _____________________________
City Attorney City Manager
_____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 89
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
D
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
(
1
3
4
7
:
S
a
n
c
t
u
a
r
y
C
i
t
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
)
ALAMEDA COUNTY
SHERIFF'S OFFICE
GENERAL ORDER
NUMBER: 1.24
RELATED ORDERS:
ISSUE DATE: January 1, 2014
REVISION DATE: July 6, 2015
CHAPTER: Law Enforcement Role,
Responsibilities, and Relationships
SUBJECT: ICE Enforcement, Arrests, Detention,
Removal, and Request for Notifications
I. PURPOSE: The purpose of this order is to provide deputies with guidelines on their duties and
responsibilities associated with immigration law, enforcement, arrests, detentions/detainers, and
Requests for Notification.
II. POLICY: The Alameda County Sheriff’s Office will equally enforce laws and serve the public without
consideration of immigration status. The ACSO does not accept and/or honor immigration detainers
from ICE. The immigration status of a person, and the lack of immigration documentation, alone, shall
have no bearing on the manner in which staff executes their duties. Please note there is a difference
between an arrest warrant signed by a Judge (which ACSO does honor), and an immigration detainer
signed by an ICE agent.
Under no circumstances shall a person be detained or arrested by Sheriff’s Office members
based solely on his or her immigration status whether known or unknown.
III. DEFINITIONS
A. IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT JURISDICTION: The U.S. Department of Homeland
Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) has primary responsibility to
investigate and enforce federal immigration laws. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office personnel
may assist ICE in the enforcement of federal immigration laws upon its specific request and in
those situations where ICE initiated investigations have led to the discovery of criminal
violations of California law. Assistance to ICE will also be provided in response to officer safety
issues or emergency requests for immediate assistance.
B. Citizen contacts, detentions, and arrests shall be based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause
in a manner prescribed by law. A deputy shall not initiate law enforcement action based solely
on observations related to a subject’s immigration status.
This General Order does not prohibit investigative inquiries in instances where the immigration
status of involved parties to a criminal act needs to be thoroughly investigated. Inquiries will be
based on a “need to know” to complete California criminal code violations. These inquiries
include, but are not limited to, investigations into human trafficking, smuggling, harboring, and
terrorism.
C. Form I-247N (Request for Notification): Request for Voluntary Notification of Release of
Suspected Priority Alien. The Form I-247N requests the receiving local law enforcement agency
notify ICE of the pending release from custody of a suspected priority removable individual at
least 48-hours prior to release, if possible. The Form I-247N does not request or authorize the
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 90
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
A
l
a
m
e
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
S
h
e
r
i
f
f
'
s
O
f
f
i
c
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
O
r
d
e
r
(
1
3
4
7
:
S
a
n
c
t
u
a
r
y
C
i
t
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
)
General Order 1.24 Page 2 of 3
LEA to hold an individual beyond the point at which he or she would otherwise be released.
Additionally, on the Form I-247N, ICE must identify the enforcement priority under which the
individual falls.
IV. ORDER
A. When Alameda County Sheriff’s Office personnel encounter perceived immigration law
violations, members shall be guided by the options set forth in this Order, which is in compliance
with state law and Alameda County policies.
B. IMMIGRATION VIOLATION COMPLAINTS: If members of the public contact any member
of the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office to report suspected immigration violations, such persons
should be directed to ICE.
C. IMMIGRATION STATUS
1. A deputy’s suspicion about any person’s immigration status shall not be used as the sole
basis to initiate contact, detain, or arrest that person unless such status is reasonably
relevant to the investigation of a crime, such as, but not limited to, trafficking, smuggling,
harboring, and terrorism.
2. Sweeps intended solely to locate and detain undocumented immigrants shall not be
conducted. Staff will not participate in ICE organized sweeps to locate and detain
undocumented residents. This does not preclude staff from assisting ICE during critical
incidents or emergency requests for assistance. Each level of assistance will be evaluated
by the on scene supervisor to ensure the ACSO’s level of participation remains consistent
with this order while protecting human life and property.
D. ESTABLISHING IDENTITY
1. Deputies should make all attempts to identify any person they detain, arrest, or who come
into the custody of the Sheriff’s Office.
2. Any person who would be cited and released, but who is unable to present satisfactory
evidence of his or her identity, will be detained for the purpose of establishing his or her
identity, consistent with the treatment of all individuals.
E. ICE IMMIGRATION DETAINERS AND REQUESTS FOR NOTIFICATION
1. The Alameda County Sheriff’s Office regularly receives immigration detainers (Form I-
247D formerly known as the Form 247) from ICE. A detainer serves to advise that ICE
seeks custody of an individual in the custody of the Sheriff’s Office. The Alameda
County Sheriff’s Office does not honor these detainers.
2. Please note, however, that if ICE asks for information about an individual that we would
otherwise share with other law enforcement agencies or is publicly available information
(including a Request for Notification, Form I-247N, through the 2015 Priority
Enforcement Program), the Sheriff’s Office shall share this information with ICE. The
Request for Notification does not seek any extended detention of the individual, but is
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 91
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
A
l
a
m
e
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
S
h
e
r
i
f
f
'
s
O
f
f
i
c
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
O
r
d
e
r
(
1
3
4
7
:
S
a
n
c
t
u
a
r
y
C
i
t
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
)
General Order 1.24 Page 3 of 3
merely asking that they receive timely notification of the release of priority aliens for
which there is an enforcement interest, as indicated by the issuance of the Request for
Notification. To be clear, the Sheriff’s Office shall not extend the detention of an
inmate so that ICE may detain the individual; rather, the Sheriff’s Office shall only
provide ICE with timely notification of release. Upon receipt of a Request for
Notification, if Sheriff’s Office staff has any questions and/or concerns, the on-duty
Watch Commander/Sergeant should be contacted before acting upon such a request.
3. Further, the Sheriff’s Office may also inform ICE about the release of aliens, even if
ICE has not made a formal Request for Notification, where the Sheriff’s Office
believes the individual(s) pose significant public safety concerns. Such determinations
shall be made on a case by case basis. Again, the Sheriff’s Office shall not extend the
detention of an inmate so that ICE may detain the individual; rather, the Sheriff’s
Office shall only provide ICE with timely notification of release.
4. TRUST ACT. The Trust Act (AB 4, 2013) provides that a person may not be held in
custody solely on the basis of a request for notification and/or detainer if he or she is
otherwise eligible to be released from custody. “Eligible for release from custody” means
that the individual may be released from custody because one of the following conditions
has occurred:
a. All criminal charges against the individual have been dropped or dismissed; or
b. The individual has been acquitted of all criminal charges; or
c. The individual has served all the time required for their sentence; or
d. The individual has posted a bond; or
e. The individual is otherwise eligible for release under state or local law.
F. WARRANT SIGNED BY A JUDGE
1. A detainer will be acted upon ONLY for inmates with pending criminal cases that would
normally be held for further criminal proceedings and if the ICE immigration detainer is
accompanied with an arrest warrant signed by a judge. An ICE detainer alone shall not
be honored.
2. Criminally charged ICE detainees in the custody of the Sheriff’s Office will receive all
the rights and privileges consistent with a county or contract inmate.
3. Note that valid warrants of arrest, regardless of crime, shall be treated equally and will
not be confused with a request for notification and/or immigration detainer. This General
Order does not affect the proper handling of arrests and detentions associated with arrest
warrants.
Attachments:
1. Sample Request For Voluntary Notification Of Release Of Suspected Priority Alien – Form
I247N
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 92
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
A
l
a
m
e
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
S
h
e
r
i
f
f
'
s
O
f
f
i
c
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
O
r
d
e
r
(
1
3
4
7
:
S
a
n
c
t
u
a
r
y
C
i
t
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
)
DHS Form I-247N
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS)
REQUEST FOR VOLUNTARY NOTIFICATION OF RELEASE OF SUSPECTED PRIORITY ALIEN
Subject ID:
Event #:
File No:
Date:
TO: (Name and Title of Institution - OR Any Subsequent Law
Enforcement Agency)
FROM: (DHS Office Address)
Name of Subject: ______________________________________________________________________________
Date of Birth: _____________________ Suspected Citizenship: ___________________ Sex: ___________
1. DHS SUSPECTS THAT THE SUBJECT IS A REMOVABLE ALIEN AND THAT THE SUBJECT IS AN IMMIGRATION
ENFORCEMENT PRIORITY BECAUSE HE/SHE (mark at least one option below, or skip to section 2):
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
January 25, 2017
Executive Order: Enhancing Public
Safety in the Interior of the United
States
EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - -
ENHANCING PUBLIC SAFETY IN THE INTERIOR OF THE
UNITED STATES
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United
States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1101 et
seq.), and in order to ensure the public safety of the American people in communities
across the United States as well as to ensure that our Nation's immigration laws are
faithfully executed, I hereby declare the policy of the executive branch to be, and order,
as follows:
Section 1. Purpose. Interior enforcement of our Nation's immigration laws is critically
important to the national security and public safety of the United States. Many aliens
who illegally enter the United States and those who overstay or otherwise violate the
terms of their visas present a significant threat to national security and public safety. This
is particularly so for aliens who engage in criminal conduct in the United States.
Sanctuary jurisdictions across the United States willfully violate Federal law in an attempt
to shield aliens from removal from the United States. These jurisdictions have caused
immeasurable harm to the American people and to the very fabric of our Republic.
Tens of thousands of removable aliens have been released into communities across the
country, solely because their home countries refuse to accept their repatriation. Many of
5.1.d
Packet Pg. 94
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
4
.
E
x
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
O
r
d
e
r
-
S
a
n
c
t
u
a
r
y
C
i
t
i
e
s
(
1
3
4
7
:
S
a
n
c
t
u
a
r
y
C
i
t
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
)
these aliens are criminals who have served time in our Federal, State, and local jails. The
presence of such individuals in the United States, and the practices of foreign nations
that refuse the repatriation of their nationals, are contrary to the national interest.
Although Federal immigration law provides a framework for Federal-State partnerships in
enforcing our immigration laws to ensure the removal of aliens who have no right to be in
the United States, the Federal Government has failed to discharge this basic sovereign
responsibility. We cannot faithfully execute the immigration laws of the United States if
we exempt classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement. The
purpose of this order is to direct executive departments and agencies (agencies) to
employ all lawful means to enforce the immigration laws of the United States.
Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the executive branch to:
(a) Ensure the faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States, including
the INA, against all removable aliens, consistent with Article II, Section 3 of the United
States Constitution and section 3331 of title 5, United States Code;
(b) Make use of all available systems and resources to ensure the efficient and faithful
execution of the immigration laws of the United States;
(c) Ensure that jurisdictions that fail to comply with applicable Federal law do not receive
Federal funds, except as mandated by law;
(d) Ensure that aliens ordered removed from the United States are promptly removed;
and
(e) Support victims, and the families of victims, of crimes committed by removable
aliens.
Sec. 3. Definitions. The terms of this order, where applicable, shall have the meaning
provided by section 1101 of title 8, United States Code.
Sec. 4. Enforcement of the Immigration Laws in the Interior of the United States. In
furtherance of the policy described in section 2 of this order, I hereby direct agencies to
employ all lawful means to ensure the faithful execution of the immigration laws of the
United States against all removable aliens.
5.1.d
Packet Pg. 95
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
4
.
E
x
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
O
r
d
e
r
-
S
a
n
c
t
u
a
r
y
C
i
t
i
e
s
(
1
3
4
7
:
S
a
n
c
t
u
a
r
y
C
i
t
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
)
Sec. 5. Enforcement Priorities. In executing faithfully the immigration laws of the United
States, the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) shall prioritize for removal those
aliens described by the Congress in sections 212(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(6)(C), 235, and
237(a)(2) and (4) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(6)(C), 1225, and 1227(a)(2)
and (4)), as well as removable aliens who:
(a) Have been convicted of any criminal offense;
(b) Have been charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not been
resolved;
(c) Have committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense;
(d) Have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official
matter or application before a governmental agency;
(e) Have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits;
(f) Are subject to a final order of removal, but who have not complied with their legal
obligation to depart the United States; or
(g) In the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or
national security.
Sec. 6. Civil Fines and Penalties. As soon as practicable, and by no later than one year
after the date of this order, the Secretary shall issue guidance and promulgate
regulations, where required by law, to ensure the assessment and collection of all fines
and penalties that the Secretary is authorized under the law to assess and collect from
aliens unlawfully present in the United States and from those who facilitate their presence
in the United States.
Sec. 7. Additional Enforcement and Removal Officers. The Secretary, through the
Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, shall, to the extent permitted by
law and subject to the availability of appropriations, take all appropriate action to hire
10,000 additional immigration officers, who shall complete relevant training and be
authorized to perform the law enforcement functions described in section 287 of the INA
(8 U.S.C. 1357).
5.1.d
Packet Pg. 96
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
4
.
E
x
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
O
r
d
e
r
-
S
a
n
c
t
u
a
r
y
C
i
t
i
e
s
(
1
3
4
7
:
S
a
n
c
t
u
a
r
y
C
i
t
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
)
Sec. 8. Federal-State Agreements. It is the policy of the executive branch to empower
State and local law enforcement agencies across the country to perform the functions of
an immigration officer in the interior of the United States to the maximum extent
permitted by law.
(a) In furtherance of this policy, the Secretary shall immediately take appropriate action
to engage with the Governors of the States, as well as local officials, for the purpose of
preparing to enter into agreements under section 287(g) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1357(g)).
(b) To the extent permitted by law and with the consent of State or local officials, as
appropriate, the Secretary shall take appropriate action, through agreements under
section 287(g) of the INA, or otherwise, to authorize State and local law enforcement
officials, as the Secretary determines are qualified and appropriate, to perform the
functions of immigration officers in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or
detention of aliens in the United States under the direction and the supervision of the
Secretary. Such authorization shall be in addition to, rather than in place of, Federal
performance of these duties.
(c) To the extent permitted by law, the Secretary may structure each agreement under
section 287(g) of the INA in a manner that provides the most effective model for
enforcing Federal immigration laws for that jurisdiction.
Sec. 9. Sanctuary Jurisdictions. It is the policy of the executive branch to ensure, to the
fullest extent of the law, that a State, or a political subdivision of a State, shall comply
with 8 U.S.C. 1373.
(a) In furtherance of this policy, the Attorney General and the Secretary, in their
discretion and to the extent consistent with law, shall ensure that jurisdictions that
willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 (sanctuary jurisdictions) are not eligible to
receive Federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes by
the Attorney General or the Secretary. The Secretary has the authority to designate, in
his discretion and to the extent consistent with law, a jurisdiction as a sanctuary
jurisdiction. The Attorney General shall take appropriate enforcement action against any
entity that violates 8 U.S.C. 1373, or which has in effect a statute, policy, or practice that
prevents or hinders the enforcement of Federal law.
(b) To better inform the public regarding the public safety threats associated with
sanctuary jurisdictions, the Secretary shall utilize the Declined Detainer Outcome Report
5.1.d
Packet Pg. 97
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
4
.
E
x
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
O
r
d
e
r
-
S
a
n
c
t
u
a
r
y
C
i
t
i
e
s
(
1
3
4
7
:
S
a
n
c
t
u
a
r
y
C
i
t
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
)
or its equivalent and, on a weekly basis, make public a comprehensive list of criminal
actions committed by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignored or otherwise failed to honor
any detainers with respect to such aliens.
(c) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget is directed to obtain and
provide relevant and responsive information on all Federal grant money that currently is
received by any sanctuary jurisdiction.
Sec. 10. Review of Previous Immigration Actions and Policies. (a) The Secretary shall
immediately take all appropriate action to terminate the Priority Enforcement Program
(PEP) described in the memorandum issued by the Secretary on November 20, 2014,
and to reinstitute the immigration program known as "Secure Communities" referenced
in that memorandum.
(b) The Secretary shall review agency regulations, policies, and procedures for
consistency with this order and, if required, publish for notice and comment proposed
regulations rescinding or revising any regulations inconsistent with this order and shall
consider whether to withdraw or modify any inconsistent policies and procedures, as
appropriate and consistent with the law.
(c) To protect our communities and better facilitate the identification, detention, and
removal of criminal aliens within constitutional and statutory parameters, the Secretary
shall consolidate and revise any applicable forms to more effectively communicate with
recipient law enforcement agencies.
Sec. 11. Department of Justice Prosecutions of Immigration Violators. The Attorney
General and the Secretary shall work together to develop and implement a program that
ensures that adequate resources are devoted to the prosecution of criminal immigration
offenses in the United States, and to develop cooperative strategies to reduce violent
crime and the reach of transnational criminal organizations into the United States.
Sec. 12. Recalcitrant Countries. The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary
of State shall cooperate to effectively implement the sanctions provided by section
243(d) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1253(d)), as appropriate. The Secretary of State shall, to the
maximum extent permitted by law, ensure that diplomatic efforts and negotiations with
foreign states include as a condition precedent the acceptance by those foreign states of
their nationals who are subject to removal from the United States.
5.1.d
Packet Pg. 98
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
4
.
E
x
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
O
r
d
e
r
-
S
a
n
c
t
u
a
r
y
C
i
t
i
e
s
(
1
3
4
7
:
S
a
n
c
t
u
a
r
y
C
i
t
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
)
Sec. 13. Office for Victims of Crimes Committed by Removable Aliens. The Secretary
shall direct the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to take all
appropriate and lawful action to establish within U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement an office to provide proactive, timely, adequate, and professional services
to victims of crimes committed by removable aliens and the family members of such
victims. This office shall provide quarterly reports studying the effects of the victimization
by criminal aliens present in the United States.
Sec. 14. Privacy Act. Agencies shall, to the extent consistent with applicable law,
ensure that their privacy policies exclude persons who are not United States citizens or
lawful permanent residents from the protections of the Privacy Act regarding personally
identifiable information.
Sec. 15. Reporting. Except as otherwise provided in this order, the Secretary and the
Attorney General shall each submit to the President a report on the progress of the
directives contained in this order within 90 days of the date of this order and again within
180 days of the date of this order.
Sec. 16. Transparency. To promote the transparency and situational awareness of
criminal aliens in the United States, the Secretary and the Attorney General are hereby
directed to collect relevant data and provide quarterly reports on the following:
(a) the immigration status of all aliens incarcerated under the supervision of the Federal
Bureau of Prisons;
(b) the immigration status of all aliens incarcerated as Federal pretrial detainees under
the supervision of the United States Marshals Service; and
(c) the immigration status of all convicted aliens incarcerated in State prisons and local
detention centers throughout the United States.
Sec. 17. Personnel Actions. The Office of Personnel Management shall take appropriate
and lawful action to facilitate hiring personnel to implement this order.
Sec. 18. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or
otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head
thereof; or
5.1.d
Packet Pg. 99
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
4
.
E
x
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
O
r
d
e
r
-
S
a
n
c
t
u
a
r
y
C
i
t
i
e
s
(
1
3
4
7
:
S
a
n
c
t
u
a
r
y
C
i
t
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
)
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to
budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the
availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or
procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its
departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other
person.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 25, 2017.
5.1.d
Packet Pg. 100
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
4
.
E
x
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
O
r
d
e
r
-
S
a
n
c
t
u
a
r
y
C
i
t
i
e
s
(
1
3
4
7
:
S
a
n
c
t
u
a
r
y
C
i
t
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
)
Page 1 of 6
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: March 7, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Informational Report on High School Sites Considered By Dublin Unified
School District
Prepared by: Linda Smith, Assistant City Manager and Luke Sims, Community
Development Director
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will receive an informational report on the five (5) sites identified by the
Dublin Unified School District as potential locations for the second high school.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive the report.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Depending on the site(s) selected by the Dublin Unified School District the new high
school, there could be financial impacts (potential loss of sales and/or propert y taxes) to
the City.
DESCRIPTION:
The Dublin Unified School District (“District”) identified the need for a second high
school site in (insert month) 2016. In May 2016, the residents of Dublin supported a
bond measure, in large part, to provide funding for the construction of the second high
school.
The District initially identified several potential sites for the facility. After further review,
the DUSD Board of Trustees, on February 1, 2017, eliminated four sites from
consideration (and eliminated a fifth site on February 14). Staff has included (below)
the District’s rationale for their elimination of the five potential sites:
8.1
Packet Pg. 101
Page 2 of 6
The Board has directed District staff to begin negotiations for potential sites to serve as
a second high school in Dublin. The sites under consideration by the DUSD include,
under private ownership The Promenade; DiManto A; DiManto B; and the Zeiss Meditec
building. There are two District-owned school sites also under consideration: Murray
and Nielsen (elementary school sites).
On February 7, 2017, the City Council requested that Staff prepare a report that
identified each potential second high school site and the potential impacts, if any, to the
City if those sites were to become a school site. Staff has prepared t he following list of
sites and a summary of their locations and the actual/potential City impacts in terms of
revenues:
Site Owner Assessor Parcel
Number
Acreage/Site SF General Plan/Specific
Plan Designation
The Promenade Grafton Station,
LLC
(4) 985-0078-004,
005, 006, and 007-00
21.71 acres Neighborhood
Commercial &
Public/Semi-Public
DiManto A Dublin Land
Company
985-0051-006-00 30.19 acres General
Commercial/Neighbor
hood
Commercial/Medium-
High Density/High
Density Residential
DiManto B Dublin Land
Company
985-0052-024-00 20.7 acres General
Commercial/Medium-
High Density/High
Density Residential
Zeiss Meditec GPT TPG 5160
Hacienda LP
986-0014-001-00 13.15 acres Campus Office
Nielsen
Elementary
Dublin Unified Public/School
Murray
Elementary
Dublin Unified Public/School
The Promenade
The subject site is located between two residential projects on the west and east sides
and is bordered on the north by Central Parkway and on the south by Dublin Blvd. The
property currently has a Stage 1 Development Plan for a “Main Street” commercial
8.1
Packet Pg. 102
Page 3 of 6
project of up to 230,000 square feet (retail and office space), and second floor
accessory residential use estimated to be equivalent to 80 units.
Currently, the property does not provide significant revenues to the City, but were it to
develop as currently zoned, the City would likely gain significant tax revenue from its
current basis. Assuming the development scenario provided, the site could potentially
generate upwards of $300,000 in property tax revenue, and potentially $550,000 in
sales tax revenue for the City, annually, based on an estimate of the potential assessed
value and the retail sales from of such a development. This further assumes a viable
retail project could be built on the site as originally proposed.
Additionally, this site includes planned infrastructure that would come with the
development of the property, including the completion of certain planned roadway and
pedestrian connections that integrate the larger Dublin Ranch community, specifically
the extensions of Grafton Street and Finnian Way (the completion of Grafton Street is
included in the General Plan Circulation Element).
DiManto - Sites A and B
The District is evaluating either or both of the sites for its use as a future high school
site. Site B sits north of Central Parkway and is bounded by Tassajara Road to the
west, Brannigan St. to the east and Gleason Road to the north. Site A is located south
of Central Parkway, bounded by the same east and west roads, and Dub lin Blvd. to the
south. No additional infrastructure is planned in this area to bisect these properties.
Additional lanes of traffic will be required once the property develops, regardless of the
development type.
8.1
Packet Pg. 103
Page 4 of 6
The site(s) currently have no formal ent itlements, only land use as defined in the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the General Plan. These plans anticipated up to
approximately 536,000 square feet of General Commercial and Neighborhood
Commercial development and 218 Medium-High and High Density residential units on
the two sites. In the recent past, the City Council has authorized two General Plan
Amendment studies to evaluate proposals that would potentially increase the number of
housing units and further refine the commercial space at or around 100,000 square feet
on Site A (these studies have since been terminated).
Currently, this property does not provide significant revenues to the City, but were it to
develop as currently zoned, the City would likely gain significant tax revenue. As suming
the full development under existing zoning and with appropriate retail market support,
the site could potentially generate upwards of $750,000 in property tax revenue and
perhaps $1,500,000 to $1,800,000 in sales tax revenue for the City, annually, should
commercial portions of the sites be fully developed as retail under the General Plan
designation.
Zeiss Meditec Building
This is the one non-school property the District is evaluating that is already in built form.
Currently, the property is home to Carl Zeiss Meditec, one of the world’s largest medical
technology suppliers. Fortunately, Carl Zeiss is looking to expand and has selected
Dublin as its place for that expansion. Zeiss will relocate into a new campus, adjacent
to the former Sybase/SAP building to be constructed by 2020. The existing building is
8.1
Packet Pg. 104
Page 5 of 6
approximately 200,000 square feet. With this potential option, it is unclear whether the
District would renovate the existing building, or demolish the site and rebuild.
Current property taxes on this site are approximately $112,000 annually to the City.
Since school districts are exempt from property taxes, the City would no longer receive
these funds. The user also generates sales tax revenue but we would anticipate that
these revenues would continue at the new location. Sales tax revenues from industrial
sites are dependent on the use; therefore, the City cannot anticipate that sales tax
revenue would be lost, only the potential for users that generate taxable revenues.
School Sites - Murray and Nielsen
There are two locations on the District’s plans for evaluation that already belong to the
District and therefore would have no meaningful change in the City’s zoning or
collection of revenues.
8.1
Packet Pg. 105
Page 6 of 6
Land Use Changes, Zoning and CEQA Process
Three of the five sites identified by the District are currently zoned or designated for
other land uses. If the District decides to pursue any of these options for a school, the
preferred approach would be for the District to request for a G eneral Plan Amendment
from the City Council so that the proposed use could be further evaluated for
consistency and be integrated with the General Plan. If the City Council did not want to
approve a change in land use/zoning, the District would be able to follow a process to
override the City’s land use authority. A separate staff report on tonight’s agenda
provides the City Council with detail about that process.
The development of a high school at these prospective sites has not be contemplated or
assessed in any past CEQA document. As such, whether the District works within the
traditional General Plan Amendment process or it proceeds to approve a high school at
one of the sites under its own authorities, proper CEQA study, analysis and
documentation will need to occur before the project can be approved by the District
Board.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
Per City Council direction, Staff notified the DUSD Superintendent about the report on
February 17, 2017. A copy of the Staff report has been sent to the District.
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
8.1
Packet Pg. 106
Page 1 of 3
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: March 7, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
City Process for Siting a New High School
Prepared by: Lindsey F. Zwicker, Associate Attorney
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council requested Staff prepare a report describing the Dublin Unified School
District’s authority to acquire property for and to develop a second high school. The
report indicates that the District can (a) acquire property by eminent domain, (b)
overrule the Planning Commission’s determination that the high school proposal is not
consistent with the City’s General Plan; and (c) override, by a two -thirds’ vote of the
Board of Trustees, the City’s zoning ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive the report.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
DESCRIPTION:
Background
The Dublin Unified School District’s Board of Trustees is in the midst of searching for a
site for a second high school. Previously, the City’s General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan designated a site for a second high school; however, the City Council
rezoned a portion of that site to residential (as part of a Dublin Ranch General Plan and
Specific Plan Amendment request) with the balance of that site to be used as a middle
school (now Fallon Middle School). The City Council took that District-requested action
in 2004.
Power of Eminent Domain
School districts have the power to acquire by eminent domain “any property necessary
to carry out any of the powers or functions of the district.” (Educ. Code § 35270.5.) The
eminent domain power allows a public agency to acquire property by filing a lawsuit and
paying the property owner what a jury determines is the property’s fair market value.
8.2
Packet Pg. 107
Page 2 of 3
The Dublin Unified School District therefore has the power to purchase property for a
new high school site either in a voluntary transaction with the property owner or by
condemning the property. The power to purchase property, of course, does not mean
that a property owner can develop property for its intended use. The City’s General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance dictate the form that development can take.
High School Site Need Not Be Consistent with the City’s General Plan
In order to acquire land for and develop a second high school, the District must seek a
General Plan conformity determination from the Planning Commission.
Local agencies, such as the School District and Dublin San Ramon Services District,
are required to submit proposed acquisitions of real property and proposed const ruction
of public buildings to the Planning Commission for a report on whether the proposals
are in “conformity” with the General Plan. (See Gov. Code, § 65402, subd. (C).) The
Planning Commission has 40 days to issue a report, otherwise the proposal is de emed
to be in conformity with the General Plan. If the report indicates that the proposal is not
in conformity with the General Plan, the local agency can overrule it. (See Friends of the
Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 859, 879.)
The District could acquire land for and develop a second high school even if the site is
not consistent with the City’s General Plan.
The District’s Board of Trustees Can Override the City’s Zoning Ordinance
In general, local agencies are required to comply with applicable zoning ordinances of
the City in which the territory of the local agency is situated. (See Gov. Code, § 53091.)
However, the governing board of a school district, “by a vote of two -thirds of its
members, may render a city or county zoning ordinance inapplicable to a proposed use
of property by the school district,” but only if it complies with Government Code section
65352.2 and Public Resources Code section 21151.2. (Gov. Code, § 53094, subd. (B).)
Section 65352.2 requires that the governing board of the school district must notify and
provide “relevant and available information” related to the preparation of a proposed
school facilities needs analysis to the Planning Commission. Upon receipt, the City
“may request a meeting with the planning agency to discuss possible methods of
coordinating planning, design, and construction of new school facilities and school sites
in coordination with the existing or planned infrastructure, general plan, and zoning
designations of the city and county…” (Gov. Code, § 65352.2, subd. (B).) “If a meeting
is requested, the planning agency shall meet with the school district following
notification.” (Id.) Section 65352.2 goes on to specify the items that may be reviewed
and considered. (Id., § 65352.2, subd. (D).)
The District can comply with Public Resources Code section 21151.2 after it determines
which site it intends to acquire. Section 21151.2 provides that before acquiring title to
property for a new school site, the District Board of Truste es “shall give” the Planning
Commission “notice in writing of the proposed acquisition.” The Planning Commission
“shall investigate the site and within 30 days of receipt of the notice shall submit” to the
Board of Trustees “a written report of its investigation and its recommendations
concerning acquisition of the site.” (Id.) The Board of Trustees may not acquire the site
until the report has been received. If the Planning Commission report “does not favor
8.2
Packet Pg. 108
Page 3 of 3
the acquisition of the property for a school site ,” the Board of Trustees must wait 30
days before acquiring the site. (Id.)
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The District’s decision to acquire a site for a new high school is a “project” that is subject
to CEQA. Therefore, the District will need to complete some form of environmental
review.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
8.2
Packet Pg. 109
Page 1 of 3
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: March 7, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
School Impacts and Development Decisions
Prepared by: Lauren Quint, Assistant City Attorney
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will receive a report regarding the City’s ability to consider school
impacts when making decisions about development. The City Council requested this
future report at its February 7, 2017 meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive the report.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
DESCRIPTION:
Historically, cities and counties had broad authority to use their police power to mitigate
the impact of land development on schools.
However, the “Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998” (also known as SB 50)
created a comprehensive framework for funding new school facilities that took away that
authority. Among other things, it prohibits cities and counties from mitigating the
impacts of new development on local schools. Instead, it sets up a process to fund
school facilities with a combination of state bond funds, local bonds, and mitigation fees
imposed by school districts.
Authorized School Facilities Fees
Under SB 50, school districts can levy fees at three different levels depe nding on
particular circumstances. A school district can levy the lowest, “Level 1” fees, as long as
a study justifies them. The maximum fee is specified by statute and increased every two
years for inflation. (Gov. Code, § 65995, subd. (B)(3).)
8.3
Packet Pg. 110
Page 2 of 3
School districts can impose “Level 2” fees-which are intended to recover fifty percent
(50%) of the school district’s facility construction costs apportioned on a “per new home
served” basis-under certain circumstances. Level 2 fees may be assessed if a school
district meets certain criteria such as passing local bonds or having substantial
enrollment in year-round schedules. (Gov. Code, §§ 65995.5, subd. (B).)
Finally, a school district may charge Level 3 fees “if state funds for new school facility
construction are not available.” (Gov. Code, § 65995.7, subd. (A)(1).) The State
Allocation Board must make a written determination that state funds are not available
before any district can elect Level 3 fees. (Ibid.)
Dublin Unified School District (“District”) is currently eligible to levy Level 3 fees. Late
last year, the State Allocation Board formally notified the California Senate and
Assembly that state funds for new school facility construction are no longer available.
This triggering event allows the District to collect Level 3 funds (at twice the level of
Level 2 funds) from residential developers. The District's most recent School Facilities
Needs Analysis places the District’s Level 3 amount at $21.32 per square foot, and the
District indicated its intention to collect fees in that amount.
In November 2016, California’s voter passed a statewide bond measure to fund school
facilities. When bonds are issued pursuant to that measure, the State Allocation Board
will likely rescind its determination that state funds are not available. At that point, the
District would no longer be able to levy Level 3 fees.
The City Cannot Deny Development Based on School Impacts
For the City, the most practical result of SB 50 is that it cannot explicitly factor school
facilities impacts into its land-use decision-making. State law deems the provisions of
SB 50 “to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation.” (Gov. Code , § 65996,
subd. (B).) It, therefore, prohibits the City from denying or conditioning land use
approvals based on a developer’s refusal to provide school facilities mitigation that
exceeds what state law allows school districts to levy (Gov. Code, § 65995, subd. (I)) or
based on the inadequacy of school facilities. (Gov. Code, § 65996, subd. (B ).)
Thus, school mitigation cannot be the stated purpose of such denials . For example, the
City could not deny a proposal to change the General Plan designation of a property
from commercial to residential - a decision ordinarily left entirely to the City Council’s
discretion - on the grounds that there are inadequate school facilities to serve the
proposed residential development. In such a circumstance, though, the City Council
might be able to identify other lawful bases for disapproving a proposal, s uch as a belief
that the site is more suitable for commercial development, or none at all.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
8.3
Packet Pg. 111
Page 3 of 3
8.3
Packet Pg. 112
Page 1 of 1
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: March 7, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Designation of Agency Labor Negotiators, Unrepresented Employee: City
Manager
Prepared by: Caroline P. Soto, City Clerk/Records Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider the appointment of two Councilmembers as
representatives to discuss conditions of employment for the City Manager.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Appoint two Councilmembers as representatives to discuss conditions of employment
for the City Manager.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
DESCRIPTION:
The City Council will consider and discuss the appointment of two Councilmembers to
serve as the City’s representatives to negotiate wit h the City Manager. The negotiators
last year were then Councilmembers Hart and Wehrenberg.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
8.4
Packet Pg. 113
1835
None.
Page 1
8.4.a
Packet Pg. 114
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
N
o
n
e
.
(
1
3
2
1
:
C
M
E
v
a
l
)
Page 1 of 1
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: March 7, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Designation of Two City Councilmembers as City Representatives to
Discuss Compensation with City Attorney
Prepared by: Caroline P. Soto, City Clerk/Records Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will discuss the appointment of two City Councilmembers to serve as
the City’s representatives to discuss terms of the City Attorney’s contract, inclu ding
compensation, with the City Attorney.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Designate two City Councilmembers to discuss compensation with the City Attorney.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
DESCRIPTION:
Pursuant to Government Code section 54957.6, this item provides fo r the designation of
two members of the City Council as the City’s representatives to discuss terms of the
City Attorney’s contract, including compensation, with the City Attorney. They will report
their recommendation to the City Council in an open session following meetings with the
City Attorney. The last time such a committee was convened was in 2016, and the two
representatives were Vice Mayor Biddle and Councilmember Wehrenberg.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
8.5
Packet Pg. 115