HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-04-04 Agenda PacketCity of Chula Vista
Staff Report
File#:17-0071, Item#: A.
PRESENTATIONONTHE“ASPIREAFTER-SCHOOLPROGRAMSATYOURNEIGHBORHOOD
RECREATION CENTER” BY GIL CONTRERAS, PRINCIPAL RECREATION MANAGER
City of Chula VistaPage 1 of 1Printed on 3/30/2017
powered by Legistar™
City of Chula Vista
Staff Report
File#:17-0118, Item#: B.
PRESENTATIONOFAPROCLAMATIONTOASSISTANTDIRECTOROFPUBLICWORKS
IRACSEMAQUILANTANPROCLAIMINGAPRIL2017ASALTRUSAINTERNATIONALMONTHIN
RECOGNITION OF THEIR CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
City of Chula VistaPage 1 of 1Printed on 3/30/2017
powered by Legistar™
City of Chula Vista
Staff Report
File#:17-0119, Item#: C.
PRESENTATIONOFAPROCLAMATIONTOENVIRONMENTALSERVICESMANAGERLYNN
FRANCE PROCLAIMING APRIL AS EARTH MONTH IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
City of Chula VistaPage 1 of 1Printed on 3/30/2017
powered by Legistar™
City of Chula Vista
Staff Report
File#:17-0130, Item#: D.
PRESENTATIONOFAPROCLAMATIONTOSOUTHBAYFRONTSAILINGASSOCIATION
PROCLAIMING APRIL 17 THROUGH APRIL 23, 2017 AS CHULA VISTA MARITIME WEEK
City of Chula VistaPage 1 of 1Printed on 3/30/2017
powered by Legistar™
City of Chula Vista
Staff Report
File#:17-0132, Item#: 1.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
MemorandumfromCouncilmemberPadillarequestinganexcusedabsencefromtheMarch21,2017
City Council meeting.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Council excuse the absence.
City of Chula VistaPage 1 of 1Printed on 3/30/2017
powered by Legistar™
City of Chula Vista
Staff Report
File#:17-0122, Item#: 2.
ORDINANCEOFTHECITYOFCHULAVISTAAMENDINGCHULAVISTAMUNICIPALCODE
SECTION1.41.140TOSPECIFYTHATATTORNEYS’FEESMAYBERECOVEREDBYTHE
PREVAILINGPARTYINNUISANCEABATEMENTPROCEEDINGSWHENTHECITY,ATTHE
OUTSETOFANACTIONORPROCEEDING,ELECTSTORECOVERITSOWNFEES(SECOND
READING AND ADOPTION)
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Council adopt the ordinance.
SUMMARY
StaffisrecommendingthattheCityCounciladoptproposedOrdinanceXXXinordertospecifythat,
inaccordancewithGovernmentCodesection38773.5,attorneys’feesmayberecoveredbythe
prevailingpartyinnuisanceabatementactionsorproceedingswhentheCity,attheoutset,electsto
seekrecoveryofitsownattorneys’fees.TheseamendmentswillensurethattheCity’sattorneys’
feesprovisionisconsistentwithstatelawandprovideamoresecureplatformforrequestingsuch
fees.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Environmental Notice
Thisactivityisnota“Project”asdefinedunderSection15378oftheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQuality
ActStateGuidelines;therefore,pursuanttoStateGuidelinesSection15060(c)(3)noenvironmental
review is required.
Environmental Determination
TheproposedactivityhasbeenreviewedforcompliancewiththeCaliforniaEnvironmentalQuality
Act(CEQA)andithasbeendeterminedthattheactivityisnota“Project”asdefinedunderSection
15378ofthestateCEQAGuidelinesbecauseitwillnotresultinaphysicalchangeinthe
environment;therefore,pursuanttoSection15060(c)(3)oftheStateCEQAGuidelines,theactivityis
not subject to the CEQA.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Not Applicable
DISCUSSION
CaliforniaGovernmentCodesection38773.5createsastatutorybasisforcitiestoenactan
ordinanceprovidingfortherecoveryofattorneys’feesinanyaction,administrativeproceeding,or
specialproceedingtoabateanuisance.InaccordancewithGovernmentCodesection38773.5,a
City’sordinancepermittingtherecoveryofattorneys’feesinnuisanceabatementproceedingsshall
provideforsuchrecoverytotheprevailingparty.Section38773.5also,however,permitsaCityto
City of Chula VistaPage 1 of 3Printed on 3/30/2017
powered by Legistar™
File#:17-0122, Item#: 2.
limitrecoveryofattorneys’feesbytheprevailingpartytothoseinstanceswhentheCityelects,atthe
outsetoftheproceeding,toseekrecoveryofitsownfees.Inotherwords,aCityordinancemay
specifythatiftheCitydoesnotelecttoseekrecoveryofattorneys’feesattheoutsetofanuisance
abatementactionorproceeding,neitherpartyshallhavetherighttoseekattorneys’fees.Inthis
way,recoveryofattorneys’feesiseitheravailabletobothpartiesinagivennuisanceabatementcase
or to neither party.
WithouttheamendmentsoutlinedinOrdinanceXXX,theCity’sabilitytorecoverattorneys’feesis
placedinjeopardyasthecurrentlanguagedoesnotprovideforrecoverytotheprevailingparty.
Accordingly,staffnowrecommendsthattheCityamendsection1.41.140toreflectthefullprovisions
ofGovernmentCodesection38773.5andtoremainconsistentwithCaliforniacaselawonthisissue.
Theproposedamendmentwouldallowfortherecoveryofattorneys’feesbytheprevailingpartyin
nuisanceabatementproceedingswhentheCityelects,attheoutsetoftheproceeding,torecoverits
own fees.
DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT
Staffhasreviewedthedecisioncontemplatedbythisactionandhasdeterminedthatitisnotsite-
specificandconsequently,the500-footrulefoundinCaliforniaCodeofRegulationsTitle2,section
18702.2(a)(11),isnotapplicabletothisdecisionforpurposesofdeterminingadisqualifyingreal
property-relatedfinancialconflictofinterestunderthePoliticalReformAct(Cal.Gov'tCode§87100,
et seq.).
Staffisnotindependentlyaware,andhasnotbeeninformedbyanyCityCouncilmember,ofany
other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter.
LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS
TheCity’sStrategicPlanhasfivemajorgoals:OperationalExcellence,EconomicVitality,Healthy
Community,StrongandSecureNeighborhoodsandaConnectedCommunity.Theamendments
section1.41.140supporttheCity’sOperationalExcellenceandEconomicVitalitygoals,asthey
permittheCitytorecoverattorneys’feesinnuisanceabatementactionswhereinithaselectedto
recover attorneys’ fees and is the prevailing party.
CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT
Thesubjectamendmentstosection1.41.140increasetheCity’sopportunitytorecoverattorneys’
feesinspecifiednuisanceabatementproceedings.However,itisdifficultandspeculativetopredict
when such fees would be recovered and in what amounts.
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
Thesubjectamendmentstosection1.41.140increasetheCity’sopportunitytorecoverattorneys’
feesinspecifiednuisanceabatementproceedings.However,itisdifficultandspeculativetopredict
when such fees would be recovered and in what amounts.
ATTACHMENTS
1.Proposed amended Section 1.41.140 with strikeout underline text
City of Chula VistaPage 2 of 3Printed on 3/30/2017
powered by Legistar™
File#:17-0122, Item#: 2.
Staff Contact: Glen Googins; Megan McClurg
City of Chula VistaPage 3 of 3Printed on 3/30/2017
powered by Legistar™
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTAAMENDING
CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 1.41.140 TO
SPECIFY THAT ATTORNEYS’ FEES MAY BE RECOVERED
BY THE PREVAILING PARTY IN NUISANCE ABATEMENT
PROCEEDINGS WHEN THE CITY, AT THE OUTSET OF AN
ACTION OR PROCEEDING, ELECTS TO RECOVER ITS
OWN FEES
WHEREAS, California Government Code section 38773.5 authorizes a city to pass an
ordinance providing for the recovery of attorneys’ fees by the prevailing party in any action,
administrative proceeding, orspecial proceeding to abate a nuisance; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code section 38773.5 also permits that such
ordinance may limit recovery of attorneys’ fees by the prevailing party to those individual
actions or proceedings in which the city elects, at the beginning of that individual action or
proceeding, to seek recovery of its own fees; and
WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the City of Chula Vista to amend the Chula Vista
Municipal Code to specify thatthe prevailing party in a nuisance abatement action or proceeding
may recover attorneys’ fees only whenthe City has elected to seek recoveryof its own attorneys’
feesat the initiation of that individual action or proceeding;
NOW THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Chula Vista doesordain as follows:
Section I.Chapter 1, Section 1.41.140 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code regarding cost
recovery in nuisance abatement actions and proceedings is amended to read as follows:
1.41.140Cost recovery.
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 38773, costs and penalties that may be recovered and
enforcedagainst responsible parties under this chapter include, but are not limited to, the
following:
1. City’s direct cost for abatement of nuisances, together with applicable overhead;
2. Costs of salary and applicable overhead of those city employees and contract personnel
involved in the investigation, enforcement and remediation or abatement of a nuisance;
3. City costs for equipment use or rental;
4. Court costs and witness fees;
5. Costs of geotechnical, engineering and other technical services and studies;
6. Administrative fines and civil penalties imposed pursuant to this chapter;
C:\\Users\\GRANIC~1\\AppData\\Local\\Temp\\BCL Technologies\\easyPDF 7\\@BCL@9C058239\\@BCL@9C058239.doc
Ordinance
Page 2
7. Reinspection fees pursuant to CVMC 1.41.060;
8. Costs of monitoring programs necessary for correcting, monitoring, abating or
mitigating nuisances and violations;
9. Any other fee, cost, or expense reasonably and rationally related to the city’s
enforcement efforts to abate a nuisance or correct a violation of this code or applicable
state law;
10. Treble damages recoverable pursuant to Government Code Section 38773.7. (See
CVMC 1.41.160(C)). (Ord. 2718 § 3, 1998).
B. Attorneys’ fees may be recovered by the prevailing party only in individual actions or
proceedings in which the City elects, at theinitiation of that individual action or proceeding, to
seek recovery of its own attorneys’ fees. If the City does not elect, at the initiation of an
individual action or proceeding, to seek recovery of its own attorneys’ fees, no other party shall
seek or recover attorneys’ fees.
Section II.Severability
If any portion of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for
anyreason held to be invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional, by a court of competent
jurisdiction, that portion shall be deemed severable, and such invalidity, unenforceability or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining portions of the
Ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council of the City of
Chula Vista hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, sentence, clause or phrase
of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, sentences, clauses
or phrases of the Ordinance be declared invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional.
Section III. Construction
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista intends this Ordinance to supplement, not to
duplicateor contradict, applicable state and federal law and this Ordinance shall be construedin
light of that intent.
Section IV. Effective Date
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force on the thirtieth day after its final passage.
Section V. Publication
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance andshall cause
the same to be published or posted according to law.
Presented byApproved as to form by
_________________________________________________________________________
Ordinance
Page 3
Glen R. GooginsGlen R. Googins
City AttorneyCity Attorney
Chula Vista Municipal Code Page 1/1
Chapter 1.41 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLIANCE AND
ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES
1.41.140 Cost recovery.
A.Pursuant to Government Code Section 38773, costs and penalties that may be recovered and enforced against
responsible parties under this chapter include, but are not limited to, the following:
1A. City’s direct cost for abatement of nuisances, together with applicable overhead;
2B. Costs of salary and applicable overhead of those city employees and contract personnel involved in the
investigation, enforcement and remediation or abatement of a nuisance;
3C. City costs for equipment use or rental;
D. Attorneys’ fees;
4E. Court costs and witness fees;
5F. Costs of geotechnical, engineering and other technical services and studies;
6G. Administrative fines and civil penalties imposed pursuant to this chapter;
7H. Reinspection fees pursuant to CVMC 1.41.060;
8I. Costs of monitoring programs necessary for correcting, monitoring, abating or mitigating nuisances and
violations;
9J. Any other fee, cost, or expense reasonably and rationally related to the city’s enforcement efforts to
abate a nuisance or correct a violation of this code or applicable state law;
10K. Treble damages recoverable pursuant to Government Code Section 38773.7. (See CVMC
1.41.160(C)). (Ord. 2718 § 3, 1998).
B. Attorneys’ fees may be recovered by the prevailing party only in individual actions or proceedings in which the
City elects, at the initiation of that individual action or proceeding, to seek recovery of its own attorneys’ fees. If
the City does not elect, at the initiation of an individual action or proceeding, to seek recovery of its own attorneys’
fees, no other party shall seek or recover attorneys’ fees.
The Chula Vista Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 3381, passed November 15, 2016.
City of Chula Vista
Staff Report
File#:17-0123, Item#: 3.
ORDINANCEOFTHECITYOFCHULAVISTAAMENDINGVARIOUSSECTIONSOFCHULAVISTA
MUNICIPALCODECHAPTER2.52TOADJUSTTHECAMPAIGNCONTRIBUTIONLIMITFORANY
ELECTION HELD ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2018 (SECOND READING AND ADOPTION)
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Council adopt the ordinance.
SUMMARY
AsrequiredbyChulaVistaMunicipalCodesection2.52.040(D),theCityClerkhasadjustedthe
campaigncontributionlimitsforindividualsandpoliticalpartycommitteesforanyelectionoccurring
onorafterJanuary1,2018.AdoptionoftheordinanceamendsvarioussectionsoftheMunicipal
Code to reflect the adjusted limits.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Environmental Notice
Theactivityisnota“Project”asdefinedunderSection15378oftheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQuality
ActStateGuidelines;therefore,pursuanttoStateGuidelinesSection15060(c)(3)noenvironmental
review is required.
Environmental Determination
TheDirectorofDevelopmentServiceshasreviewedtheproposedactivityforcompliancewiththe
CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)andhasdeterminedthattheactivityisnota“Project”as
definedunderSection15378oftheStateCEQAGuidelinesbecauseitwillnotresultinaphysical
changeintheenvironment;therefore,pursuanttoSection15060(c)(3)oftheStateCEQAGuidelines,
the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is required.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Not Applicable.
DISCUSSION
ChulaVistaMunicipalCodesection2.52.040(D)requirestheCityClerktoadjustthecampaign
contributionlimiteveryodd-numberedyeartoreflectanychangesintheConsumerPriceIndexfor
theSanDiegoareaforthetwo-yearperiodendingonDecember31stofthepreviousyear,and
requires these adjustments to be rounded to the nearest $10.
TheConsumerPriceIndexfortheSanDiegoareafortheperiodsendingDecember2014and
December 2016 were 265.145 and 274.732, respectively, demonstrating an increase of 3.49 percent.
City of Chula VistaPage 1 of 2Printed on 3/30/2017
powered by Legistar™
File#:17-0123, Item#: 3.
Thecontributionlimitswerepreviouslysetat$320forindividualsand$1,080forpoliticalparty
committeesbyChulaVistaMunicipalCodesection2.52.040(A)and(B),respectively.Applyingthe
percentageofchangeoftheConsumerPriceIndexandroundingtothenearest$10,theCityClerk
adjusted the contribution limits to $330 for individuals and $1,120 for political party committees.
TheCityClerkwillpublishtheNoticeofCampaignContributionLimitAdjustmentintheStarNewsas
requiredbyChulaVistaMunicipalCodesection2.52.040(D).Additionally,thefederalVotingRights
Act,togetherwithanagreementbetweentheU.S.DepartmentofJusticeandtheSanDiegoCounty
RegistrarofVoters,requirestranslationofallelection-relatedmaterialsandnoticesintocovered
languagespredominantlyspokenby10,000votersormoreintheCounty.Therefore,theCityClerk
willcausethenoticetobetranslatedintoChinese,Filipino,Spanish,andVietnameseandpublished
in language-specific newspapers.
DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT
Staffhasreviewedthedecisioncontemplatedbythisactionandhasdeterminedthatitisnotsite-
specificandconsequently,the500-footrulefoundinCaliforniaCodeofRegulationsTitle2,
section18702.2(a)(11),isnotapplicabletothisdecisionforpurposesofdetermininga
disqualifyingrealproperty-relatedfinancialconflictofinterestunderthePoliticalReformAct(Cal.
Gov't Code § 87100, et seq.).
Staffisnotindependentlyaware,andhasnotbeeninformedbyanyCityCouncilmember,ofany
other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter.
CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT
Adoption of the proposed ordinance has no impact on the general fund.
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
There is no ongoing fiscal impact.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Proposed Amendment to Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 2.52
Staff Contact: Kerry Bigelow
City of Chula VistaPage 2 of 2Printed on 3/30/2017
powered by Legistar™
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING
VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 2.52 TO ADJUST THE CAMPAIGN
CONTRIBUTION LIMIT FOR ANY ELECTION HELD ON OR
AFTER JANUARY 1, 2018
WHEREAS, Chula Vista Municipal Codesection 2.52.040 (D) requires the City Clerk to
adjust the campaign contribution limitsevery odd-numbered year to reflect any changes in the
st
Consumer Price Index for the San Diego area for the two-year period ending on December 31
of the previous year,and requires these adjustments to be rounded to the nearest $10; and
WHEREAS, the Consumer Price Index for the San Diego area for the periods ending
December 2014 and December 2016were 265.145and 274.732, respectively, demonstrating an
increase of 3.49percent; and
WHEREAS, the contribution limit for individuals, other than a candidate, was previously
set at $320 by Chula Vista Municipal Code section 2.52.040 (A), and the contribution limit for
political party committees was previously set at $1,080 by Chula Vista Municipal Code section
2.52.040 (B); and
WHEREAS, based on applying the percentageofchange in the Consumer Price Index
and rounding to the nearest $10, the City Clerk adjusted the contribution limit to $330 for
individuals and $1,120 for political party committees; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerkwill publishthe Notice of Campaign Contribution Limit
Adjustment in the Star News, and will havethe notice translated into Chinese, Filipino, Spanish,
and Vietnamese and published in covered language-specific newspapers as required by the
Federal Voting Rights Act.
NOW THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows:
Section I.The following sections in Chula Vista Municipal Code chapter 2.52 are
herebyamendedto adjust the Campaign Contribution limit to $330 for individuals and $1,120
for political party committees for any election held on or after January 1, 2018, and shall read as
follows:
2.52.040 Campaign contribution limits.
A. No person, other than a candidate, shall make a contribution in excess of $330 to a
candidate for a single election contest. No candidate shall solicit or accept a contribution in
excess of $330 from a person for a single election contest. A candidate may receive up to $330
from a person in each of the general and special elections. The contribution limit in this
subsection shall be adjusted biannually pursuant to subsection (D) of this section.
C:\\Users\\GRANIC~1\\AppData\\Local\\Temp\\BCL Technologies\\easyPDF 7\\@BCL@B4056EF0\\@BCL@B4056EF0.docx
Ordinance
Page 2
B. No political party committee, as that term is defined in California Government Code
Section 85205, shall make a contribution in excess of $1,120 to a candidate for a single election
contest. No candidate shall solicit or accept a contribution in excess of $1,120 from a political
party committee for a single election contest. A candidatemay receive up to $1,120 from a
political party committee in each of the general and special elections. The contribution limit in
this subsection shall be adjusted biannually pursuant to subsection (D) of this section.
\[Sections 2.52.040 C through I remain unchanged\]
2.52.050 Loans.
A. A candidate shall not personally loan to his or her campaign funds, with the intent to
receive repayment of those funds, an aggregate amount in excess of $5,000 for a single election
contest.
B. A loan or extension of credit shall be considered a contribution from the maker of the
loan or extender of credit and shall be subject to the contribution limit of $330per person,
pursuant to CVMC 2.52.040. The $330 contribution limit does not apply to loans made to a
candidatefor the purpose of a campaign by himself or herself or by a commercial lending
institution in the lender’s regular course of business on terms available to members of the general
public for which the candidate is personally liable.
2.52.100 Written solicitations by candidates.
Any candidate making a written solicitation for a contribution for his or her campaign for
City elective office shall include the following written notice in no less than six point type on
each such solicitation:
NOTICE
The Cityof Chula Vista Municipal Code limits contributions to campaigns for City
elective office to three hundredthirtydollars per person.*
*The dollar amount to be included in this notice shall be amended biannually to reflect
any CPI adjustment to the contribution limit made pursuant to CVMC 2.52.040(D).
Section II.Severability
If any portion of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for
reason held to be invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional, by a court of competent
any
jurisdiction, that portion shall be deemed severable, and such invalidity, unenforceability or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining portions of the
Ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council of the City of
Chula Vista hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, sentence, clause or phrase
of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, sentences, clauses
or phrases of the Ordinance be declared invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional.
Ordinance
Page 3
Section III. Construction
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista intends this Ordinance to supplement, not to
duplicateor contradict, applicable state and federal law and this Ordinance shall be construed in
light of that intent.
Section IV. Effective Date
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force on the thirtieth day after its final passage.
Section V. Publication
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause
the same to be published or posted according to law.
Presented byApproved as to form by
_________________________________________________________________________
Donna R. Norris, CMCGlen R. Googins
City ClerkCity Attorney
Attachment 1
Proposed Amendments to Sections of Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 2.52
2.52.040 Campaign contribution limits.
A. No person, other than a candidate, shall make a contribution in excess of $330 320.00 to a
candidate for a single election contest. No candidate shall solicit or accept a contribution in excess
of $330 320.00 from a person for a single election contest. A candidate may receive up to $330
320.00 from a person in each of the general and special elections. The contribution limit in this
subsection shall be adjusted biannually pursuant to subsection (D) of this section.
B. No political party committee, as that term is defined in California Government Code Section
85205, shall make a contribution in excess of $1,120 1,080 to a candidate for a single election
contest. No candidate shall solicit or accept a contribution in excess of $1,1201,080 from a
political party committee for a single election contest. A candidate may receive up to $1,120 1,080
from a political party committee in each of the general and special elections. The contribution limit
in this subsection shall be adjusted biannually pursuant to subsection (D) of this section.
\[Sections 2.52.040 C through I remain unchanged\]
2.52.050 Loans.
A. A candidate shall not personally loan to his or her campaign funds, with the intent to receive
repayment of those funds, an aggregate amount in excess of $5,000 for a single election contest.
B. A loan or extension of credit shall be considered a contribution from the maker of the loan or
extender of credit and shall be subject to the contribution limit of $330 320.00 per person, pursuant
to CVMC 2.52.040. The $330 320.00 contribution limit does not apply to loans made to a
candidate for the purpose of a campaign by himself or herself or by a commercial lending
public for which the candidate is personally liable. (Ord. 3340 § 1, 2015; Ord. 3179 § 1, 2011; Ord.
3086 § 1, 2007).
2.52.100 Written solicitations by candidates.
Any candidate making a written solicitation for a contribution for his or her campaign for City
elective office shall include the following written notice in no less than six-point type on each such
solicitation:
NOTICE
The City of Chula Vista Municipal Code limits contributions to campaigns for
City elective office to three hundred thirty twenty dollars per person.*
*The dollar amount to be included in this notice shall be amended biannually to reflect any CPI
adjustment to the contribution limit made pursuant to CVMC 2.52.040(D).
City of Chula Vista
Staff Report
File#:16-0540, Item#: 4.
RESOLUTIONOFTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFCHULAVISTAWAIVINGTHE
COMPETITIVEFORMALBIDREQUIREMENT,APPROVINGANAGREEMENTBETWEENTHE
CITYOFCHULAVISTAANDGRANICUS,INC.TOPROVIDESTREAMINGVIDEOANDAGENDA
MANAGEMENTSOFTWARESERVICES,ANDAUTHORIZINGTHECITYMANAGEROR
DESIGNEETOEXECUTETHEAGREEMENTANDANYAMENDMENTSTOTHEAGREEMENT
NOT TO EXCEED A TOTAL OF $150,250
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Council adopt the resolution.
SUMMARY
GranicusprovidesstreamingvideoservicesforCityCouncilandotherpublicmeetings,aswellas
agendamanagementsoftware.TheCityofChulaVistawishestorenewtheexistingcontractfor
serviceswithGranicus,Inc.forupto36months,andmaydesiretoimplementadditionalservices
that Granicus offers in the future.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Environmental Notice
Theactivityisnota“Project”asdefinedunderSection15378oftheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQuality
ActStateGuidelines;therefore,pursuanttoStateGuidelinesSection15060(c)(3)noenvironmental
review is required.
Environmental Determination
TheDirectorofDevelopmentServiceshasreviewedtheproposedactivityforcompliancewiththe
CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)andhasdeterminedthattheactivityisnota“Project”as
definedunderSection15378oftheStateCEQAGuidelinesbecauseitwillnotresultinaphysical
changeintheenvironment;therefore,pursuanttoSection15060(c)(3)oftheStateCEQAGuidelines,
the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is required.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Not Applicable
DISCUSSION
TheCityofChulaVistacurrentlyutilizesvideostreamingandagendamanagementsoftwarefrom
Granicus,Inc.TheCityhasutilizedGranicusservicessince2005,andthevideostreamingand
softwaretoolsareakeycomponenttotheCity’scommitmenttotransparencyandcommunicating
with the public.
The video streaming services broadcast each City Council meeting live over the internet, as well as
City of Chula VistaPage 1 of 3Printed on 3/30/2017
powered by Legistar™
File#:16-0540, Item#: 4.
archiving the videos for access to the public via the City’s website,www.chulavistaca.gov.
The agenda management tool was implemented in 2014 to allow the City Clerk and City staff to
create, track, approve and electronically distribute City Council agendas, staff reports, information
items and a variety of other electronic documents. In addition to streamlining processes related to
agenda publication, the Granicus service provides the public with user-friendly links to agendas,
minutes, staff reports and related documents, bookmarked meeting video, and reports.
Staff has researched other similar products and recommends continuing with Granicus due to a
variety of factors, including overall satisfaction with the products it has provided and the complexity,
cost, and staff time that would be required to implement an alternative product.
Agenda management and streaming video technologies are proprietary in nature. The ability to
provide service of and support for the technologies currently in place is exclusive to Granicus, Inc.
Therefore, staff request the City Council waive the formal bid process and enter into a renewal
agreement with Granicus.
The proposed renewal is for a total of 12 months, with two additional 12-month extensions if
exercised, for a potential total of 36 months.
Staff from the City Clerk and Information Technology Services Departments are currently researching
additional modules to add enhanced government software components provided by Granicus. Staff
proposes that the City Council authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute any
amendments to the agreement not exceeding a total of $50,000 over the base contract amount.
DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT
Staffhasreviewedthedecisioncontemplatedbythisactionandhasdeterminedthatitisnotsite-
specificandconsequently,the500-footrulefoundinCaliforniaCodeofRegulationsTitle2,section
18702.2(a)(11),isnotapplicabletothisdecisionforpurposesofdeterminingadisqualifyingreal
property-relatedfinancialconflictofinterestunderthePoliticalReformAct(Cal.Gov'tCode§87100,
et seq.).
Staffisnotindependentlyaware,andhasnotbeeninformedbyanyCityCouncilmember,ofany
other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter.
LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS
TheCity’sStrategicPlanhasfivemajorgoals:OperationalExcellence,EconomicVitality,Healthy
Community,StrongandSecureNeighborhoodsandaConnectedCommunity.Thiscontractfor
servicewillpositivelyaffectthegoalofOperationalExcellenceasitprovidesimproveddeliveryof
service, reduced staff time on manual procedures, and improved government transparency.
CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT
ThereisnonewimpacttotheGeneralFundasthecontractamountof$2,650permonthisalready
included in the FY 2017 budget.
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
Thiscontractisforatotalof36months,shouldboth12-monthextensionsbeoptionedbytheCityof
City of Chula VistaPage 2 of 3Printed on 3/30/2017
powered by Legistar™
File#:16-0540, Item#: 4.
ChulaVista.Thecontractedpriceis$2,650permonth.Thereisa5%maximumpriceescalatorbuilt
intothecontractforservice.Thetotalcontractamountcouldreach$100,250overthe36-month
period assuming a 5% increase each year during the life of the contract.
Thesecostsdonotincludepotentialmoduleadditionsasdescribedinthe“Discussion”portionofthis
report.StaffisseekingtheCityCouncil’sapprovaltoauthorizetheCityManager,orhisdesignee,to
executeamendmentstotheagreementnotexceedingatotalof$50,000overthebasecontract
amount.
ThereisnoimpacttotheGeneralFundasthesecostsarefundedviathePublicEducationand
Government (PEG) Fund.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 - Contract with Granicus, Inc.
Staff Contacts: Edward Chew, Director of ITS and Kerry Bigelow, Asst. City Clerk
City of Chula VistaPage 3 of 3Printed on 3/30/2017
powered by Legistar™
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA WAIVING THE COMPETITIVE FORMAL BID
REQUIREMENT, APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITYOF CHULA VISTAAND GRANICUS, INC. TO
PROVIDE STREAMING VIDEO AND AGENDA
MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE SERVICES, AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO
EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT AND ANY AMENDMENTS TO
THE AGREEMENT NOT TO EXCEED A TOTAL OF $150,250
WHEREAS,the City currently utilizes Granicus, Inc. software and services to provide
comprehensive agenda management, and video streaming of City Counciland other public
meetings; and
WHEREAS, the City is pleased with the services and capabilities of the Granicus, Inc.
software and does not wish to explore any alternatives at this time due to the complexity and cost
of a new system; and
WHEREAS, agenda management and streaming video technologies are proprietary in
natureand the ability to provide service of and support for the technologies currently in place is
exclusive to Granicus, Inc.; therefore, staff requests thatthe City Council waive the formal
competitive bid requirement, described in Chula Vista Municipal Code section 2.56.070, in order
to continue contracting with Granicus Inc.to provide these services; and
WHEREAS, to allow implementation of additional modules provided by Granicus, Inc.
to improve citizen access to public records, enhancetransparency, and further streamline
processes, staff requests the City Manager, or his designee, be authorized to amend the
agreement, not to exceed an additional amount of $50,000over the base contract amount; and
WHEREAS, the purchasing authority granted by this action will not exceed a total of
$150,250for the total contract amount, including the exercise of two one-year options to extend
and implementation of additional modules offered by Granicus, Inc.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista, that itwaives the formal competitive bid requirement of Municipal Code section 2.56.070;
approves the agreement between the City and Granicus, Inc., in the form presented, with such
minor modifications as may be required or approved by the City Attorney, a copy of which shall
be kept on file in the Office of the City Clerk;andauthorizesand directs the City Manager, or his
designee, toexecute the agreement and any amendments to the agreement not to exceed a total of
$150,250.
Presented byApproved as to form by
Edward ChewGlen R. Googins
Director of Information TechnologyCity Attorney
Services
City of Chula Vista
Staff Report
File#:17-0034, Item#: 5.
RESOLUTIONOFTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFCHULAVISTAAPPROVINGTHE
AGREEMENTBETWEENTHECITYOFCHULAVISTAANDACEPARKINGFORPARKING
MANAGEMENTANDENFORCEMENTSERVICESANDAPPROPRIATINGFUNDSACCORDINGLY
(4/5 VOTE REQUIRED) (This item was continued from 2/7 and 3/21/2017.)
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Council adopt the resolution.
SUMMARY
InanticipationoftheexpirationoftheagreementwithAceParking,theCityissuedarequestfor
proposalforparkingmanagementandenforcementservicesfortheDowntownParkingDistrict.Two
bidderssubmittedproposals.Afteranevaluation,aselectioncommitteerecommendedAceParking.
Inthisaction,staffrecommendsapprovalofa16monthagreementwithAceParkingwithuptothree
(3)one-yearrenewaloptions.StaffalsorecommendsanappropriationtotheParkingMeterFundto
reflect updated contract costs.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Environmental Notice
Theactivityisnota“Project”asdefinedunderSection15378oftheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQuality
ActStateGuidelines;therefore,pursuanttoStateGuidelinesSection15060(c)(3)noenvironmental
review is required.
Environmental Determination
TheDirectorofDevelopmentServiceshasreviewedtheproposedactivityforcompliancewiththe
CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)andhasdeterminedthattheactivityisnota“Project”as
definedunderSection15378oftheStateCEQAGuidelinesbecauseitwillnotresultinaphysical
changeintheenvironment;therefore,pursuanttoSection15060(c)(3)oftheStateCEQAGuidelines,
the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is required.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Not applicable.
DISCUSSION
ChulaVistaMunicipalCodeSection10.62.010.BauthorizestheCitytocontractwithadulyqualified
companyapprovedbytheChiefofPolicetoprovideenforcementofinfractionviolationsofspecified
chaptersoftheChulaVistaMunicipalCode:10.52,stopping,standingandparking;10.56,parking
meters,parkingmeterzonesandpermitparking;and10.60,loadingzones.TheCityhascontracted
forparkingmanagementandenforcementservicesintheDowntownParkingDistrictsince2009.
TheCityCouncilawardedAceParkingtheinitialcontractforparkingmanagementandenforcement
City of Chula VistaPage 1 of 3Printed on 3/30/2017
powered by Legistar™
File#:17-0034, Item#: 5.
servicesintheDistrictin2009,andAceParkinghasprovidedtheseservicessince.TheDowntown
ParkingDistrictistheonlyparkingdistrictinwhichtheCitycontractsforparkingenforcement.The
DowntownParkingDistrictisborderedbyEStreet,DelMarAvenue,HStreetandGarrettAvenue.It
providesmorethan1,700parkingspacesthroughsurfaceparkinglots,streetmeteredspaces,anda
parking structure.
InanticipationoftheexpirationoftheagreementwithAceParking,theCityissuedarequestfor
proposal(RFP)forparkingmanagementandenforcementservicesintheDowntownParkingDistrict
in2015.AceParkingandJoe’sAutoParkssubmittedproposalsinresponsetotheRFP.Acommittee
evaluatedtheproposalsandinterviewedrepresentativesfromAceParkingandJoe’sAutoParks.
ThecommitteerecommendedtheselectionofAceParking.ChiefofPoliceRoxanaKennedyhas
approved the recommendation.
StaffisrecommendingthattheCityenterintoanagreementof16monthswithAceParkingwithupto
three(3)one-yearrenewaloptionsforatotalof52months.Thefollowingtablereflectsthe
anticipatedyearlyexpensesforparkingmanagementandenforcementservicesintheDowntown
Parking District as proposed by Ace Parking:
DescriptionFY17 (4FY 2018FY2019FY2020FY2021
months)
Personnel35,896110,919114,246117,674121,204
Operating Expenses69,127213,603220,011226,612233,410
Management Fee3,80011,74212,09412,45712,831
Total108,823336,264346,351356,743367,445
StaffisalsorecommendinganappropriationtotheParkingMeterFundtoreflecttheupdated
contractcosts.ItisanticipatedthattherevenuesgeneratedintheDowntownParkingDistrictare
sufficient to cover the expense of the contract.
DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT
StaffhasreviewedthepropertyholdingsoftheCityCouncilandhasfoundthat,MayorSalashasreal
propertyholdingswithin500feetoftheboundariesofthepropertywhichisthesubjectofthisaction.
Consequently,pursuanttoCaliforniaCodeofRegulationsTitle2,sections18700and18702.2(a)(11),
thisitempresentsadisqualifyingrealproperty-relatedfinancialconflictofinterestunderthePolitical
Reform Act (Cal. Gov't Code § 87100, et seq.) for the above-identified member.
Staffisnotindependentlyaware,andhasnotbeeninformedbyanyCityCouncilmember,ofany
other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter.
LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS
TheCity’sStrategicPlanhasfivemajorgoals:OperationalExcellence,EconomicVitality,Healthy
Community,StrongandSecureNeighborhoodsandaConnectedCommunity.Theagreementwith
AceParkingsupportsthegoalofOperationalExcellence-UpholdacommitmenttoFiscalHealth.
ThroughthecompetitivebidprocesstheCityisworkingtoensurethebestuseofavailable
resources.
City of Chula VistaPage 2 of 3Printed on 3/30/2017
powered by Legistar™
File#:17-0034, Item#: 5.
CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT
RevenuesandexpendituresrelatedtotheDowntownParkingDistrictareaccountedforinthe
ParkingMeterFund.Thefiscalyear2017budgetdoesnotreflectthenewcontractamount;an
additionalappropriationof$50,000forthecurrentyearisrecommended.Theappropriationwillbe
madefromtheavailablebalanceoftheParkingMeterFund.Itisanticipatedthatrevenuesgenerated
intheDowntownParkingDistrictwillbesufficienttooffsettheexpensesrelatedtotheAceParking
agreement.
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
TheAceParkingagreementincludesanannualincreasetotheparkingmanagementbudget.The
ParkingMeterFundbudgetwillbeadjustedaccordinglyandthesechangeswillbeconsideredbythe
City Council as part of the normal annual budget process.
ItisanticipatedthatrevenuesgeneratedintheDowntownParkingDistrictwillcontinuetobe
sufficient to cover the expenses related to the Ace Parking agreement.
ATTACHMENTS
1.Agreement
Staff Contact: Angelica Aguilar, Finance Department
City of Chula VistaPage 3 of 3Printed on 3/30/2017
powered by Legistar™
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND ACE PARKING FOR
PARKING MANAGEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS ACCORDINGLY
WHEREAS,the City of Chula Vista has contracted with Ace Parking to provide parking
management and enforcement services in the Downtown Parking District since 2009; and
WHEREAS,the City of Chula Vista issuedan Request for Proposal in 2015 and received
two responses to the RFP; and
WHEREAS,the proposals were reviewed by City Staff, with the recommendationthat
the contract be awarded to Ace Parking; and
WHEREAS,the proposed agreement with Ace Parking is for a 16month term, with up to
three, one-year renewal options for a total of 52months; and
WHEREAS,the expense of the contract will be borne by the Parking Meter Fund and
will be offset by revenue generated in the parking district; and
WHEREAS,staff recommends an appropriation of $50,000 to the Supplies and Services
expense category of the Parking Meter Fund to amend the budget for the increased contract
costs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista, that it approves the agreement between the City and Ace Parking, inthe form presented,
with such minor modifications as may be required or approved by the City Attorney, a copy of
which shall be kepton file in the Office of the CityClerk, and authorizesand directsthe Mayor
to execute same.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, that it
approves an appropriation of $50,000 to the Supplies and Services expense category of the
Parking Meter Fund.
Presented byApproved as to form by
David BilbyGlen R. Googins
Director of FinanceCity Attorney
C:\\Users\\GRANIC~1\\AppData\\Local\\Temp\\BCL Technologies\\easyPDF 7\\@BCL@A005001C\\@BCL@A005001C.doc
City of Chula Vista
Staff Report
File#:17-0121, Item#: 6.
CONSIDERATIONOFDESIGNATINGAUTHORIZEDAGENTSTOACTONBEHALFOFTHECITY
TOOBTAINSTATEORFEDERALASSISTANCEFORDISASTERRELIEFANDEMERGENCY
ASSISTANCE
RESOLUTIONOFTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFCHULAVISTADESIGNATING
AUTHORIZEDAGENTSTOACTONBEHALFOFTHECITYFORPURPOSESOFOBTAINING
STATE OR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE (4/5 VOTE REQUIRED)
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Council adopt the resolution.
SUMMARY
OnJanuary18-23,2017,theCityofChulaVistawasimpactedbyaseverewinterstormthatcaused
significantdamagethroughoutthecityandrequiredanextensiveemergencyresponseoperation.
TheCityactivateditsemergencyoperationscenter(EOC)andexhaustedseveralCityresourcesto
protect life and property during the disaster.
TheCityofChulaVistaiseligibletoreceivepublicassistancefundingtopaypartofthecosts
incurredasaresultofthestorm.Assistancemayincludefundingfordebrisremoval,emergency
protectivemeasuresandpublicservices,andrepairorreplacementofdamagedpublicproperty.The
Governor’sOfficeofEmergencyServices(CalOES)ensuresstateandfederalsupportisprovidedto
eligibleapplicantsinanefficientandtimelymannerinordertoassistinrecoveryfromamajor
disaster or emergency.
Inordertoreceivefunding,theCityofChulaVistamustsubmitanapplicationpackagetoCalOES
thatincludesappropriatesupportingdocumentation.CalOESrequirestheCitytohavedesignated
agentsauthorizedbytheCitytocoordinatewithstateandfederalagenciesforthepurposesof
financial assistance as it relates to disasters.
Tomeetstaterequirements,theCityManager,AssistantCityManager,andEmergencyServices
Coordinatorhavebeenidentifiedasappropriateindividualstoserveasdesignatedagentsauthorized
tooperateonbehalfoftheCityofChulaVistaforfinancialassistancefromstateandfederal
agencies as it relates to disasters.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Environmental Notice
Theactivityisnota“Project”asdefinedunderSection15378oftheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQuality
ActStateGuidelines;therefore,pursuanttoStateGuidelinesSection15060(c)(3)noenvironmental
City of Chula VistaPage 1 of 3Printed on 3/30/2017
powered by Legistar™
File#:17-0121, Item#: 6.
review is required.
Environmental Determination
TheproposedactivityhasbeenreviewedforcompliancewiththeCaliforniaEnvironmentalQuality
Act(CEQA)andithasbeendeterminedthattheactivityisnota“Project”asdefinedunderSection
15378ofthestateCEQAGuidelinesbecauseitwillnotresultinaphysicalchangeinthe
environment;therefore,pursuanttoSection15060(c)(3)oftheStateCEQAGuidelines,theactivityis
notsubjecttotheCEQA.Notwithstandingtheforegoingithasalsobeendeterminedthatthereisno
possibilitythattheactivitymayhaveasignificanteffectontheenvironment;therefore,pursuantto
Section15061(b)(3)oftheStateCEQAGuidelines,theactivityisnotsubjecttotheCEQA.Thus,no
environmental review is required.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Not Applicable
DISCUSSION
OnJanuary18-23,2017,theCityofChulaVistawasimpactedbyaseverewinterstormthatcaused
significantdamagethroughoutthecityandrequiredanextensiveemergencyresponseoperation.
TheCityactivateditsemergencyoperationscenter(EOC)andexhaustedseveralCityresourcesto
protect life and property during the disaster.
OnMarch7,2017GovernorBrownGovernorBrowndeclaredaStateofEmergencyandrequested
PresidentialMajorDisasterDeclarationduetodamagescausedthroughoutthestateofCaliforniaby
severewinterstorms.OnMarch16,2017,PresidentDonaldJ.Trumpdeclaredamajordisaster
makingfederaldisasteraidavailabletoSanDiegoCountyfortheLateJanuary2017Storms.Asa
result,GovernorBrownalsomadeCaliforniaDisasterAssistanceAct(CDAA)fundingavailableas
well.
TheCityofChulaVistaiseligibletoreceivepublicassistancefundingtopaypartofthecosts
incurredasaresultofthestorm.Assistancemayincludefundingfordebrisremoval,emergency
protectivemeasuresandpublicservices,andrepairorreplacementofdamagedpublicproperty.The
Governor’sOfficeofEmergencyServices(CalOES)ensuresstateandfederalsupportisprovidedto
eligibleapplicantsinanefficientandtimelymannerinordertoassistinrecoveryfromamajor
disaster or emergency.
Inordertoreceivefunding,theCityofChulaVistamustsubmitanapplicationpackagetoCalOES
thatincludesappropriatesupportingdocumentation.CalOESrequirestheCitytohavedesignated
agentsauthorizedbytheCitytocoordinatewithstateandfederalagenciesforthepurposesof
financial assistance as it relates to disasters.
Perthemunicipalcode,theCityManagerservesastheDirectorofEmergencyServicesandthe
DeputyCityManagershavebeenappointedtoserveastheAssistantDirectorofEmergency
Servicesduringandemergencyand/ordisaster.Additionally,theCity’sEmergencyServices
Coordinatorisresponsibleforpreparing,overseeing,andtrackingreimbursementclaimstostateand
federalagencies.Therefore,ithasbeendeterminedthatthesepositionsshouldalsofunctionasthe
City of Chula VistaPage 2 of 3Printed on 3/30/2017
powered by Legistar™
File#:17-0121, Item#: 6.
City’sauthorizedagentstocoordinateonbehalfoftheCityforfinancialassistancefromstateand
federal agencies.
ThisresolutionandCalOESForm130,DesignationofApplicant'sAgentResolutionforNon-State
AgencieswillidentifytheCityManager,DeputyCityManagers,andtheEmergencyServices
Coordinator as the City of Chula Vista’s Authorized Agents.
DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT
Staffhasreviewedthedecisioncontemplatedbythisactionandhasdeterminedthatitisnotsite-
specificandconsequently,the500-footrulefoundinCaliforniaCodeofRegulationsTitle2,section
18702.2(a)(11),isnotapplicabletothisdecisionforpurposesofdeterminingadisqualifyingreal
property-relatedfinancialconflictofinterestunderthePoliticalReformAct(Cal.Gov'tCode§87100,
et seq.).
Staffisnotindependentlyaware,andhasnotbeeninformedbyanyCityofChulaVistaCityCouncil
member,ofanyotherfactthatmayconstituteabasisforadecisionmakerconflictofinterestinthis
matter.
LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS
TheCity’sStrategicPlanhasfivemajorgoals:OperationalExcellence,EconomicVitality,Healthy
Community,StrongandSecureNeighborhoodsandaConnectedCommunity.Designating
authorizedagentstocoordinatewithstateandfederalfordisasterfinancialassistancesupportsthe
City’sStrongandSecureNeighborhoodsgoalsasitseekstomaintainaresponsiveemergency
managementprogram,whichincludesrecoveryoperations.Recoveryincludesrestoringacommunity
toitspre-disasterconditionorbetterthroughprovidingthenecessaryresourcesandfinancial
support.DesignatingauthorizedagentsallowstheCitytopursuerecoveryfundingtorecoverand
reimbursetheCity’sexpendituresasaresultofdisasterresponse,ultimatelyrestoringtheCitytoits
pre-disaster condition financially.
CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT
There is no current year fiscal impact for adopting this resolution.
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
There is no ongoing fiscal impact for adopting this resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
1.Cal OES 130 Designation of Applicant’s Agent Resolution for Non-State Agencies
Staff Contact: Marlon King, Emergency Services Coordinator, Fire Department
City of Chula VistaPage 3 of 3Printed on 3/30/2017
powered by Legistar™
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA DESIGNATINGAUTHORIZEDAGENTSTO
ACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY FOR PURPOSES OF
OBTAINING STATE OR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code, Chapter 2.14 \[Emergency
Organization Department\],designates the City Manager as the Director of Emergency Services,
who is empowered to control and direct the effort of the emergency organization of this city;
WHEREAS, the Director of Emergency Services has appointed the Deputy City
Managers as the Assistant Director of Emergency Services respectively, to serve in the absence
of the Director;
WHEREAS, the Emergency Services Coordinator is responsible for coordinating the
activities of the City’s Emergency Management Program, including preparing, overseeing, and
tracking reimbursement claims to state and federal agencies;
WHEREAS, the State Office of Emergency Services (“Cal. OES”) requires that non-state
agencies, like the City of Chula Vista, adopt a resolution (including via the Cal OES 130
Resolution) to designate individuals (by position title) to serve as authorized persons to act on
behalf of the City for the purposes of obtaining federal financial assistance under Public Law 93-
288 as amended by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of
1988, and/or state financial assistance under the California Disaster Assistance Act; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, and Emergency Services
Coordinator, are appropriate individuals to act on behalf of the City for the purposes of obtaining
federal financial assistance under Public Law 93-288 as amended by the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988, and/or state financial assistanceunder
the California Disaster Assistance Actgiven their duties, as stated herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista, that the City Manager, as the Director of Emergency Services, the Deputy City Managers,
as the Assistant Director of Emergency Services, and the Emergency Services Coordinator are
designated as authorized agents and hereby authorized to execute for and on behalf of the City of
Chula Vista for the purposes of obtaining federal financial assistance under Public Law 93-288
as amended by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988,
and/or state financial assistance under the California Disaster Assistance Act.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista that the
City of Chula Vista hereby authorizes its agents to provide to the Governor’s Office of
Emergency Services for all matters pertaining to such state disaster assistance the assurances and
agreements required.
BE IF FURTHER RESOLVEDby the City Council of the City of Chula Vista that it
adopts the attendant Cal OES 130 Resolution (a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk’s
Office), in the form substantially presented, and that the City Manager may make such minor
modifications to said Cal OES 130 Resolution as may be required or approved by the City
Attorney.
Presented byApproved as to form by
Gary HalbertGlen R. Googins
City ManagerCity Attorney
City of Chula Vista
Staff Report
File#:17-0116, Item#: 7.
REPORTREGARDINGCURRENTCITYPOLICIESONIMMIGRATIONENFORCEMENT,THE
STATEOFTHELAWSURROUNDINGSANCTUARYCITIES,CITYCOUNCILOPTIONSINTHESE
AREAS AND RELATED MATTERS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Reviewstaff’sreport,takepublictestimony,andprovidedirectiontostaffonwhat,ifany,additional
action is desired.
SUMMARY
Inrecentmonthsfederalauthoritieshaveproposed,andtaken,variousactionstomorestrictlyand
activelyenforcefederalimmigrationlaws.Inresponse,outofanexpressedconcernforhowsuch
actionswouldadverselyaffecttheirlocalpopulations,somestatesandcitieshavetakenactionsto
opposeand/orblunttheseefforts.Suchstateandlocalactionshavetakenvariousforms,ranging
fromsymbolicdeclarationsof“sanctuary”toactualpolicychangeslimitingorprohibitingcooperation
withfederalimmigrationauthorities.Inacounter-response,anumberoffederalofficialshave
proposedmeasuresthatwoulddisqualify“sanctuary”jurisdictionsfromreceivingvarioustypesof
federal funding.
Herelocally,communityactivistsandresidents,includingCityCouncilmembers,havealsoexpressed
concernsregardingsteppedupfederalimmigrationenforcement.Questionshavebeenposedabout
theimpactsofpendinglegislation,theCity’sownpoliciesonenforcement,whatitmeanstobea
“sanctuarycity,”ora“welcomingcity,”andwhatauthorityandoptionstheCitymayhaveinthearea
of immigration enforcement.
th
CityCouncilMeeting,theMayorandCouncilreferred
FollowingpublictestimonyattheJanuary10
thismattertostaffforananalysisandareport.Thisitempresentsthatreport.Thefullreportis
presentedinthe“DISCUSSION”section,below.AnexecutivesummaryofcurrentCitypolicieson
immigration status and enforcement is presented here for your convenience:
Current City Policies Regarding Immigration Status and Enforcement
Asamatterofpolicyand/orpractice,Citystaffdoesnotinquireaboutimmigrationstatusinits
interactionswithChulaVistaresidentsorthepublicorinitsprovisionofCityservices.Thisincludes
interactionsbetweenresidentsandtheChulaVistaPoliceDepartment(CVPD).Forexample,the
CVPDdoesnotinquireregardingtheimmigrationstatusofanyonecallingforpoliceassistance,
anyoneactingasawitnesstoacrime,oranyonewhoisarrested.TheCVPDalsodoesnotengage
inanyformofenforcementoffederalimmigrationlaws.ThesepoliciesaresetforthintheCVPD
PolicyManualandareanintegralpartofCVPD’scommunitypolicingphilosophy.BecauseCVPD
transfersarresteesintoCountyoperatedjails,theCountySherriff-notCVPD-administerstermsof
theirdetainmentandrespondstorequestsfordetainerfromfederalauthorities.TheCVPD does
currentlycooperatewithfederalauthoritiesregardingenforcementoffederalcriminallawsthatare
City of Chula VistaPage 1 of 18Printed on 3/30/2017
powered by Legistar™
File#:17-0116, Item#: 7.
unrelatedtoimmigration.CVPDviewsthiscooperativerelationshipasanintegralpartofitsabilityto
address crime and disorder within the community.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Environmental Notice
Theactivityisnota“Project”asdefinedunderSection15378oftheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQuality
ActStateGuidelines;therefore,pursuanttoStateGuidelinesSection15060(c)(3)noenvironmental
review is required.
Environmental Determination
Theactivityisnota“Project”asdefinedunderSection15378oftheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQuality
ActStateGuidelines;therefore,pursuanttoStateGuidelinesSection15060(c)(3)noenvironmental
review is required.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Not applicable
DISCUSSION
A.Background
Proposedchangesinimmigrationpolicyandsteppedupenforcementofexistingimmigration
lawsunderPresidentTrumphaveresultedinmanyundocumentedindividualsfearingarrestand
deportation.Inanattempttoallaythesefears,anumberofstateandlocalgovernmentshave
opposedtheseeffortsand/oradoptedwhatarecommonlyknownas“sanctuary”policies.
RepresentativesfromACCE,theAllianceofCaliforniansforCommunityEmpowermentAction,have
addressedtheCityCouncilaskingtheCounciltoconsiderdeclaringChulaVistaa“sanctuarycity.”
RepresentativesoftheAmericanCivilLibertiesUnion(ACLU)havealsometwithCouncilMembers
andCitystaffindividuallytovoiceconcernsandlearnabouttheCity’spolicies.Inresponse,theCity
Council has asked staff for more information, and an analysis of City Council options.
Oneoftheinteresting-andchallenging-aspectsofthisdiscussionisthatthereisnouniversal
understanding of what it means to be a “sanctuary” jurisdiction.
Amongpolicymakersandcommentators,the“sanctuary”designationappearstobemost
commonlyassociatedwithastate,countyorcitythatchooses,invaryingdegrees,nottocooperate
withfederaleffortstoenforcefederalimmigrationlaws.Typicalformsofnon-cooperationinclude:
prohibitinglocallawenforcementofficers’involvementinenforcingimmigrationlaws;refusingfederal
requeststofurtherdetainaninmatebelievedtobeinviolationoffederalimmigrationlaws;or
decliningtonotifyfederalauthoritiesofsuchaninmate’simpendingreleasefromcustody.Suchstate
andlocalactionsarefrequently,butnotalways,accompaniedbysomeformofdeclarationof
“sanctuary” status.
Manyinthepublicappeartodefinetheterm“sanctuary”moreliterally,tomeanaplacewhere
non-legalimmigrantsareactuallyprotectedfromdetectionorarrestbythelocalgovernment,or
2
wheretheyareimmunefromfederalprosecution.Othersviewthedesignationmoregenerally,or
City of Chula VistaPage 2 of 18Printed on 3/30/2017
powered by Legistar™
File#:17-0116, Item#: 7.
symbolically, as meaning a place where they are “safe”.
Legaldefinitionsfor“sanctuary”jurisdictionsarestartingtobedeveloped,butmostofthese
arestillnotclear-orconsistent.ExecutiveOrder13768ofJanuary25,2017,forexample,defines
“sanctuaryjurisdictions”asthosethat“willfullyrefusetocomplywith8U.S.C.1373.”(Thisisthelaw
that,amongotherthings,prohibitslocaljurisdictionsfromenactingpoliciesthatprohibittheirsharing
ofimmigrationinformationwithfederalauthorities.)UnderthisOrder,“sanctuaryjurisdictions”so-
definedwouldnolongerbequalifiedtoreceivefederalfunding.Futurelegislationandadministrative
3
guidelines are expected to refine or expand this definition.
B.Current City/County Policies
IndecidingwhatifanythingtheCityshoulddomoreinthisarea,itiscrucialtounderstandthe
City’sexistingpolicies.These,alongwiththeCountySheriff’scurrentpoliciesonhowtorespondto
federal “detainer” requests at County-run jails, are presented below.
1.General Requests for City Services
Asamatteroflaw,policyand/orpractice,Citystaffdoesnotinquireaboutimmigration
statusinitsinteractionswiththepublic,orinitsprovisionofCityservices.Examplesinclude:A
personobtainingabusinesslicense,abuildingpermit,adoglicense,asecurityalarmpermitora
librarycard;ApersonreservingagazeboinaCitypark,signinguptoparticipateinCitysponsored
events(e.g.,theCity’sCommunityFunRun),orenrollinginarecreationclass;Apersonrequestinga
publicrecordoraskingaquestionofCitystaffregardinginterpretationoftheCityMunicipalCode;A
personpayingasewerbill,aparkingticketoranoverduelibrarybookfine;Apersonreportinga
pothole,adamagedsidewalkortree,afire,graffitiinapark,aloosedog,anabandonedhouseor
vehicle,orapossibleCodeviolation;Andapersoncallingforemergencyambulanceorfire
assistance.
2.Routine Interactions with CVPD
Likemostlawenforcementagenciesthatembracecommunitypolicing,theCVPD
focusesoncrimeanddisorderinChulaVistaneighborhoods,notimmigrationstatus.Immigration
statusisnotafactorinthereceiptorprovisionofpublicsafetyservicesbytheCVPD.Accordingly,
nopersoninteractingwithanymemberoftheCVPD-asacrimevictimorawitness-isaskedabout
immigrationstatus.CVPDofficersandcivilianstaffinteractwithcityresidentsandvisitorsdailyina
varietyofcontextsrelatedtoprovidingpublicsafetyservices:respondingtosecurityalarm
activations,followingupwithdomesticviolencevictims,reachingouttohomelessindividualsto
connectthemwithservices,andprovidingcopiesofpublicrecordsatthefrontcounter.Immigration
statusisnotaconsiderationinanyroutineorproactiveinteractionwithmembersofthepublic.
Immigrationstatusisalsonotanissue,orareaofinquiry,inconnectionwithresidentparticipationin
NeighborhoodWatchprograms,citizens’academy,CoffeeWith-A-Cop,NationalNightOut,orother
CVPD-sponsored events or activities.
FormalCVPDpolicyinthisareaissetoutintheChulaVistaPoliceDepartmentPolicy
Manual,Policy428.Thispolicystatesinpart:“TheChulaVistaPoliceDepartmentrecognizesand
valuesthediversityofthecommunityitserves.Itisincumbentuponallemployeesofthis
City of Chula VistaPage 3 of 18Printed on 3/30/2017
powered by Legistar™
File#:17-0116, Item#: 7.
Departmenttomakeapersonalcommitmenttoequalenforcementofthelawandequalserviceto
thepublicregardlessofimmigrationstatus.Confidenceinthiscommitmentwillincreasethe
effectivenessoftheDepartmentinprotectingandservingtheentirecommunity….Allindividuals,
regardlessoftheirimmigrationstatus,mustfeelsecurethatcontactinglawenforcementwillnotmake
themvulnerabletodeportation.”Policy428isalsoreflectiveoftheDepartment’sMissionStatement
totreat“allpersonswithfairness,respectanddignity.”IfaCVPDofficerwerefoundtoviolatethese
policies,afteranappropriateinvestigationanddueprocess,suchconductcouldleadtodisciplinary
action or dismissal.
3.Criminal Investigation and Arrest
Inthecriminalinvestigationandarrestarena,CVPDofficercontactswithindividuals
mustbebasedonreasonablesuspicionofcriminalactivity.Officersmayarrestindividualsonlyif
theyhaveprobablecausetobelievetheindividualhascommittedacrime.CVPDofficercontacts
andarrestsmay not bebasedonrace,ethnicity,gender,sexualorientation,religion,socioeconomic
or immigrationstatus.ThesearerequirementsofboththeU.S.ConstitutionandCVPDPolicy428.
Further,perCVPDpolicy,noinquiriesaremaderegardinganysuspect’simmigrationstatuseither
pre or post arrest.
4.CVPD does not enforce federal immigration laws
CVPDofficersdonotenforcefederalimmigrationlaws.Nordotheyparticipatein
operationswithanyfederallawenforcementagencytoenforceimmigrationlaws.Ifmembersofthe
publiccalltheCVPDtoreportsuspectedimmigrationviolationstheyarereferredtoU.S.Immigration
andCustomsEnforcement(ICE).ICEisthelargestinvestigativeagencyintheDepartmentof
HomelandSecurity(DHS).ICEisresponsibleforenforcingfederalimmigrationlawsaspartofits
homeland security mission.
Underfederallaw,thereisavoluntaryprogramunderinwhichlocalpoliceofficerscan
betrainedandcross-deputizedtoactasimmigrationagentstoenforcefederalimmigrationlaw.The
programiscommonlyknownasthe“287(g)Program.”TheCVPDdoesnotparticipatein,andhas
noplanstostartparticipatinginthisprogram.InsteadCVPDfocusesitslimitedresourcesoncrime
forthepublicsafetyoftheentirecommunity.PoliceChiefRoxanaKennedyhasrepeatedlystatedin
publicmeetings,pressinterviewsandinteractionswithmembersofthecommunitythatCVPD’sfocus
isonthepublicsafetyforallcityresidentsandvisitors,andnotonduplicatingtheworkoffederal
immigrationofficials.AsofthedateofthisreportCVPDisnotawareofanyotherlawenforcement
agency in San Diego County participating in the 287(g) Program.
5.Areas where CVPD Does Cooperate with Federal Authorities
Likemostpoliceagencies,theCVPD does participateintaskforcesthatinclude
federallawenforcementagencies.Butthesetaskforcesfocusoncrime,suchasdrugtrafficking,
terrorism,humantrafficking,organizedcrime,fugitiveapprehensionandweaponsandcurrency
violations, not civil immigration law.
UnderCVPDPolicy428,andinpractice,CVPDmightalsorespondtorequeststo
providesupportfromfederallawenforcementactivities.Forexample,ifafederallawenforcement
City of Chula VistaPage 4 of 18Printed on 3/30/2017
powered by Legistar™
File#:17-0116, Item#: 7.
agency(includingICE)wasconductingaraidofahousesuspectedofillegalactivity,CVPDwould
typicallybenotifiedandaskedtoprovidetrafficcontrolorpeacekeepingservicesintheimmediate
area.Inexigentcircumstances,assistanceforlawenforcementofficersafetycouldalsobeprovided.
If CVPD resources were available, CVPD would typically respond to this request.
6.The City Jail
CVPDusesitsjailto“book”andbrieflydetainindividualsarrestedbyCVPDofficers.
“Booking”involvesdocumentingidentifyinginformation,photographingandfingerprintinganarrested
party.Fingerprintsandphotosofallarresteesaresharedautomaticallywithotherlocal,state,and
federalagenciesthroughashareddatabase.CVPDaveragessixadultbookingsintotheCityjail
per day.
Afterbooking,malearresteesaretakentotheSanDiegoCountyCentralJailin
downtownSanDiego.FemalearresteesaretakentoLasColinasDetentionandReentryFacilityin
Santee.
CVPDjailstaffdoesnotitselfinquireregardinganarrestee’simmigrationstatus,but
maybecomeawareofdetainers,warrants,orothernotificationsbyICEthathavebeenenteredby
ICEintolawenforcementdatabases.PertheCity’sjailsproceduresmanual,ifthisoccurs,ICE
wouldbenotified.IfICEprovidesanICEDetentionorder,thatorderistransportedwiththearrestee
to the County Jail.
Jail staff:
Does not specifically inquire about the immigration status of any arrestee.
Does not proactively contact ICE to detain arrestees or for identification purposes.
DoesnotreleaselocalarresteestoICEorCustomsandBorderProtection,viadetainerorany
othermethod.Theydo,however,releaseU.S.Marshals’inmatestoICEwhensodirectedby
the Marshals Office via ICE Detainer.
Doesnotgiveconsiderationtoimmigrationstatuswhendeterminingarresteestobe
transportedtoSanDiegoCountyJail.ArresteesaretransferredtoCountyJailaccordingto
CVPD policy and the Jail’s acceptance criteria, regardless of immigration status.
Since2009theprimaryuseoftheCityjailhasbeenthroughaCitycontractwiththeU.S.
MarshalsServicetohouseindividualschargedwithfederalfelonycrimes.Underthiscontract,the
jailcurrentlyhousesonlyfemaleinmates,averaging30dailyin2016.Theseindividualshavebeen
arrestedbyfederallawenforcementofficersandareeitherincriminalpre-trialortrialproceedingsin
federalcourt,ortheyhavebeenconvictedandsentencedinfederalcourtandareawaiting
assignmenttoafederalprison.Thejailisnotusedasadetentioncenterforindividualssuspectedof
alleged civil immigration offenses.
7.County Jail Policies
ArresteesfromeveryjurisdictioninSanDiegoCounty,includingChulaVista,aretaken
tooneoftheSanDiegoCountySheriff’sDepartment’sintakejailsindowntownSanDiego,Santeeor
City of Chula VistaPage 5 of 18Printed on 3/30/2017
powered by Legistar™
File#:17-0116, Item#: 7.
Vista.TheCityhasnolegalcontrolorauthorityoverpolicieswithintheCountyjailsystem.
ImmigrantarresteesaresubjecttoevaluationbyICEagentswhoworkatthesejailsforpossible
immigrationconsequencesfollowingreleasefromSheriff’scustody.Specifically,ICEagentsreview
criminalhistory,whichistiedtofingerprintsandidentifyinginformationroutinelyobtainedinthe
bookingprocess.Ifsubjecttoimmigrationconsequences,includingremovalproceedings,these
inmatesaresubjecttotransferdirectlyfromSheriff’scustodytoICEcustodybeforeleavingaCounty
jail.ICEcustodycouldresultintransfertoanimmigrationdetentionfacilityorimmediateremoval
fromtheUnitedStates.SheriffWilliamD.Gore,inamediainterview,hasstatedhebelievesitissafer
forallconcernedforICEagentstotakecustodyofeligibleinmatesinasecurejailsettingratherthan
haveagentsseekoutindividualsafterreleasefromjailinpublicoratprivateworkplacesand
residences, where agents also may encounter additional undocumented individuals.
C.Federal Law
1.Current Federal Law/Orders
a.Federal Authority Over Immigration Enforcement Well
Established
TheU.S.FederalGovernmenthasexclusivejurisdictionoverimmigrationlaws
andtheirenforcementwithintheUnitedStates.Congressenactsimmigrationlaws;numerous
federalagenciesadministerandenforcethem;andfederalcourtsdecideimmigrationdisputesand
construeimmigrationlaw.KeyimmigrationenforcementagenciesareImmigrationandCustoms
Enforcement(ICE)andCustomsandBorderProtection(CBP).BothareintheDepartmentof
HomelandSecurity(DHS).KeylawsincludetheImmigrationandNationalityActof1952,the
ImmigrationReformandControlActof1986,andtheIllegalImmigrationReformandImmigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996.
Historically,states’attemptstoregulateimmigration,suchastaxingindividuals
uponcrossingtheborderorlimitingthenumberofindividualsfromcertainnations,havefailedeither
becausetheyviolateconstitutionalprinciplesoffederalsupremacyoverimmigration,orspecific
federallaws.Morerecentstateattemptstoregulateimmigration,bylimitingimmigrantaccessto
certainpublicassistance,requiringlawenforcementtocheckimmigrationstatus,orrequiringtheuse
ofE-Verifytopreventemploymentofunauthorizedworkers,havebeenheavilylitigatedwithmixed
outcomes.
Immigrationlawhasinterrelatedcivilandcriminallawaspects.Federalcivillaws
establishhowacitizenofanothercountrylegallymayenterorremainintheUnitedStatesona
temporarybasisasastudent,visitor,orworker.Federalcivillawsalsoestablishpathstolegal
permanentresidencyorcitizenship.Criminalviolations,however,mayhaveimmigration
consequences,affectinganindividual’sabilitytolegallyenterorremainintheUnitedStates.For
instance,apersonconvictedofacrimeofmoralturpitude,adrugcrime,oraseriousfelonycrime
maybedeniedadmissiontotheUnitedStatesormayberemovedfromtheUnitedStates.
Dependingontheindividual’slegalstatusandcriminalhistory,removalmaybeadministrative,by
immigration officials, or judicial, by order of an immigration judge.
Additionally,violationsofsomeimmigrationlawsarefelonyfederalcrimes,such
City of Chula VistaPage 6 of 18Printed on 3/30/2017
powered by Legistar™
File#:17-0116, Item#: 7.
asre-entryintotheUnitedStateswithoutpermissionafterremoval,“smuggling”acitizenofanother
countryintotheUnitedStateswithoutinspectionbyanimmigrationofficial,orimmigrationdocument
fraud.
b.LocalJurisdictionsProhibitedfromWithholdingImmigration
Information
Title8,Section1373oftheUnitedStatedCodeispartoftheIllegalImmigration
ReformandImmigrantResponsibilityActof1996.Itprohibitsstateandlocalgovernmentsfrom
havingapolicyorpracticethatforbidsmaintainingorgivingtofederalauthoritiesinformationonthe
immigrationstatusofindividuals.SimilarlyTitle8,Section1644oftheUnitedStatesCodestatesthat
nostateorlocalgovernmentmaybeprohibitedfromreceivingimmigrationstatusinformationfrom
federalentities.Notably,theselawsdonotcurrentlymandatecooperationorsharingofinformation
withfederalimmigrationauthorities.CVPDpoliciesandpracticesarecurrentlyincompliancewith
these laws.
c.Executive Orders
OnJanuary25,2017,PresidentTrumpissuedExecutiveOrder13768.Section
2(c),states:“Itisthepolicyoftheexecutivebranchto…\[e\]nsurethatjurisdictionsthatfailtocomply
with applicable Federal law do not receive Federal funds, except where mandated by law.”
Section9,SanctuaryJurisdictions,continues:“Itisthepolicyoftheexecutive
branchtoensure,tothefullestextentofthelaw,thataStateorapoliticalsubdivisionofaState,shall
complywith8U.S.C.1373.Subsection(a)continues:“Infurtheranceofthispolicy,theAttorney
GeneralandtheSecretary(ofHomelandSecurity)intheirdiscretionandtoextentconsistentwith
law,shallensurethatjurisdictionsthatwillfullyrefusetocomplywith8U.S.C.1373(sanctuary
jurisdictions)arenoteligibletoreceiveFederalgrants,exceptasdeemednecessaryforlaw
enforcementpurposesbytheAttorneyGeneralortheSecretary.TheSecretaryhasauthorityto
designate,inhisdiscretionandtotheextentconsistentwithlaw,ajurisdictionasasanctuary
jurisdiction.TheAttorneyGeneralshalltakeappropriateenforcementactionagainstanyentitythat
violates8U.S.C.1373,orwhichhasineffectastatute,policyorpracticethatpreventsorhindersthe
enforcement of federal law.”
Additionally,Subsection(b)taskstheSecretaryofHomelandSecuritywith
publishingaweeklyreporttopublicizecriminalactionscommittedbythosewithunlawfulimmigration
status and jurisdictions that ignored or otherwise failed to honor detainer requests for same.
Subsection(c)taskstheDirectoroftheOfficeofManagementandBudgetto
obtainandprovideinformationonallFederalgrantmoneycurrentlyreceivedbysanctuary
jurisdictions.ExecutiveOrder13768specificallyexcludesgrants“deemednecessaryforlaw
enforcementpurposes”bytheAttorneyGeneralorSecretaryofHomelandSecurityfromthetypesof
grantssanctuaryjurisdictionsareineligibletoreceive.PresidentTrump,throughhisAttorney
GeneralJeffSessionsorHomelandSecuritySecretaryJohnKelly,hasnotissuedguidanceinthis
area.
Anotherrelevantexampleoftheexerciseofexecutiveauthorityinthisareawas
City of Chula VistaPage 7 of 18Printed on 3/30/2017
powered by Legistar™
File#:17-0116, Item#: 7.
initiatedbyPresidentBarackObama,throughhisAttorneyGeneralLorettaLynch.In2016,then
PresidentObamausedhisexecutivepowertorequirecompliancewithallapplicablefederallaws,
including8U.S.C.1373,forallrecipientsofcriminaljusticegrantsadministeredbytheU.S.
DepartmentofJustice.EntitiesthatdonotcomplywiththeOrderwouldbeineligibletoreceiveJAG
(EdwardByrneJusticeAssistanceGrantProgram)grantsorSCAAP(StateCriminalAlienAssistance
Program)grantsinFY17-18.Otherconsequencescouldincludewithholdingfundingforgrants
alreadyawarded,ineligibilityforfuturegrantsandadministrative,civilorcriminalpenalties.(U.S.
DepartmentofJustice,OfficeofJusticePrograms(OJP)GuidanceRegardingCompliancewith8
U.S.C. §1373, July 7, 2016.)
OnMarch27,2017,AttorneyGeneralJeffSessionscitedthisGuidancein
issuingasubstantivelysimilarpolicy.HestatedtheU.S.DepartmentofJusticewillrequire
jurisdictionsapplyingforDepartmentgrantstocertifycompliancewith8U.S.C.1373asacondition
for receiving these grants.
d.Defunding Sanctuary Jurisdictions
ExecutiveOrder13768hassparkedspeculationonwhethertheFederal
Governmenthasthelegalauthoritytodefundsanctuaryjurisdictions,howandwhenitwoulddoso,
andwhatfundingisatrisk.Untilimplementinglawsareenactedorlitigationisconcluded,itisnot
possible to provide reliable answers to these questions.
WhatwedoknowisthatasofMarch30,2017,theFederalGovernmenthasnot
actedtodefundanydeemed“sanctuary”jurisdictions.WealsoknowthattheStateofCalifornia,the
CityandCountyofSanFranciscoandSantaClaraCountyhaveeachchallengedExecutiveOrder
13768infederalcourtina“pre-emptivestrike.”SanFranciscoseeksarulingthat,notwithstanding
whatareconsideredtobeits“sanctuarycity”policies,itinfactcomplieswith8U.S.C.1373.San
Franciscofurtherseeksafindingthatthislawandtheexecutiveorderareunconstitutional.Santa
Clarafiledasimilarsuitalongwithaninjunctionagainstfutureenforcementoftheexecutiveorderto
protect federal funding for its hospital and public health department.
TheargumentthattheFederalGovernmentmaynotdefundsanctuary
jurisdictionsreliesontheSupremeCourt’s“anti-commandeering”decisionsunderthe10th
AmendmentoftheUnitedStatesConstitution.Underthisdoctrine,Congressmaynotrequirestates
toaddressparticularproblemsorconscriptstateorlocalofficialstoassistintheenforcementof
federalprograms.(Printzv.UnitedStates,a1997decisionholdingthatCongresscouldnotrequire
locallawenforcementtodobackgroundchecksongunbuyersuntilafederalbackgroundprocess
wasinplace.)ThecounterargumentisthatthereareotherSupremeCourtdecisionsfindingthe
“anti-commandeering”doctrinedoesnotapplytofederalrequestsforinformation.Underthis
argument,Congressmayrequirelocalpolicetocomplywithrequestsfromfederalagentstobe
notified (to provide information) when they have arrested an undocumented immigrant.
AnotherargumentthattheFederalGovernmentmaynotdefundsanctuary
jurisdictionsrelieson“anti-coercion”decisionsbytheSupremeCourt.(See,forexample,National
FederationofIndependentBusinesses(NFIB)v.Sebelius,a2012decisionontheAffordableCare
Act,holdingthatCongresscouldnotwithholdallMedicaidfundingifastaterefusedtoexpandits
Medicaidprogram.)UndertheNFIBdecision,itwasruledlawfulforCongresstocutoffexisting
City of Chula VistaPage 8 of 18Printed on 3/30/2017
powered by Legistar™
File#:17-0116, Item#: 7.
fundingtostatesundercertaincircumstances,suchasprovidingadvancenoticeofconditionstiedto
fundingsostatescandecidewhethertoaccepttheconditionstoobtainfunding.Furthermore,
conditionsimposedmustrelatetotheFederalGovernment’sobjectivesintheprogram.Afederal
defundingthreatmayinvalidatedas“coercive”iftheamountthestatestandstoloseifitdoesnot
accepttheconditionsissubstantialenough(e.g.,thedollaramountatstakefornoncomplianceisat
least 20% of the entity’s budget).
2.Proposed Federal Legislation
Specificsondefundingsanctuaryjurisdictionscouldbeprovidedinlegislation.Inthe
currentlegislativesession,the115thCongress,federallegislatorshaveintroducedthreebills
protectingfundingforsanctuarycities(S.415,H.R.1076,andH.R.748)andfourbillsstripping
sanctuarycitiesoffundingintransportation,infrastructureandothernon-lawenforcementareas
(H.R.824,H.R.83,H.R.400,andS.87.)AsofMarch30,2017,thesefederalbillshavebeen
referred to House and Senate committees, the next step in bill review after introduction.
D.California Law
1.Current California Laws
LawenforcementofficersaresubjecttothefollowingCalifornialawsrelatedtoreporting
immigrationstatusinformationandcooperatingwithdetainers,whicharefederalrequeststoholdand
turn over inmates to immigration authorities:
a.LocalLawsnotAllowedthatProhibitCertainDisclosurestoINSRegarding
FelonyArresteesinordertomaintainEligibilityforFederallawEnforcement
Grants
CaliforniaGovernmentCodeSection53069.75,enactedin1993,providesthat
nolocallawshallprohibitapeaceofficerorcustodialofficerfromidentifyingandreportingtothe
UnitedStatesImmigrationandNaturalizationServiceanyperson,pursuanttofederallawor
regulation,towhombothofthefollowingapply:(a)thepersonwasarrestedandbooked,basedon
thearrestingofficer’sprobablecausetobelievethatthepersonarrestedhadcommittedafelony;and
(b)afterthearrestandbookinginsubdivision(a),theofficerreasonablysuspectsthattheperson
arrestedhasviolatedthecivilprovisionsoffederalimmigrationlaws.Thepurposeofthislawisto
assurethatthestateremainsincompliancewithfederalrequirementsforgrantfundingunderthe
OmnibusControlandSafeStreetsActwhicharemandatedbySection3753ofTitle42oftheUnited
States Code.
b.Mandatory Notifications Involving Certain Drug crimes
Anarrestingagencymustnotifyfederalimmigrationofficialswhenthereis
reasontobelievetheagencyhasarrestedanon-U.S.citizenforcertaindrugcrimes.Cal.Health&
SafetyCodeSection11369,enacted1991.ThisstatelawmandateisincorporatedintoCVPDPolicy
428andfollowedbyCVPDasamatterofpolicy.Note:ProposedSB54(describedbelow),would
repeal this provision.
City of Chula VistaPage 9 of 18Printed on 3/30/2017
powered by Legistar™
File#:17-0116, Item#: 7.
c.Special Rules Regarding “Detainer” Requests
A“detainer”requestisarequestfromanauthorizedimmigrationofficertokeep
anarrestedindividualincustodyforuptoanadditional48hourswheretheimmigrationofficerhas
reasontobelieve/indicatedthatthearresteehasviolatedaprovisionofimmigrationlaw.8C.F.R.
287.7.Undercurrentfederallaw,detainersare“requests”only.Inotherwords,federallawdoesnot
mandate that local law enforcement grant such requests.
CaliforniaGovernmentCodeSection7282.5,commonlyknownas“TheTrust
Act,”wasenactedin2014.TheTrustActprovidesthatafteranindividualarresteeotherwise
becomeseligibleforreleasefromcustody,alocallawenforcementofficialhasdiscretiontofurther
“detain”thatindividualonanimmigrationhold,onlyif continueddetentionwouldnotviolateanylaw,
and onlyif theindividualhasbeenconvictedofseriousfelonycrimes(suchasassault,weapons,
sexual abuse of a child, drug sales, rape, murder).
CaliforniaGovernmentCodeSection7283,commonlyknownas“TheTruthAct,”
wasenactedonJanuary1,2017.TheTruthActprovidesthatalocallawenforcemententitythat
honorsadetainerbyimmigrationofficialsmust(1)givethedetainedindividualaconsentform
(statingreasonfordetainerinterview,thattheinterviewisvoluntary,andthattheindividualmay
choosetobeinterviewedwithhis/herattorneypresent);(2)providetheindividualwithacopyofthe
detainerform;(3)notifytheindividualwhetherthelocalentityintendstocomplywiththedetainer;(4)
makethesedocumentspublicrecordssubjecttodisclosure;and(5)holdannualcommunitymeetings
to provide information on immigration detainers.
Note:Howlocallawenforcementrespondto“detainer”requestsitatthecenter
ofmany“sanctuary”debates.TheseprovisionsaremostrelevanttotheCountySheriff’sofficeas
theyarethelocallawenforcementagencyresponsibleforrespondingtoimmigrationagency
“detainers.”
2.Proposed California Laws: SB 54
AsofMarch2,2017,therewere25immigration-relatedbillspendingintheCalifornia
assembly.OfmostinteresttothesanctuaryjurisdictiondiscussionisSB54,introducedbySenate
President Kevin de León.
SB54,knownasthe“CaliforniaValuesAct”,wouldrepealCaliforniaHealthandSafety
CodeSection11369andprohibitlawenforcementofficersfromusingagencyresourcesorpersonnel
forimmigrationenforcementpurposes.TherepealofCodeSection11369wouldeliminatethe
requirementforalocallawenforcementagencytonotifyfederalauthoritiesifithadreasontobelieve
theagencyhadarrestedanon-U.S.citizenforcertaindrugcrimes.Lawenforcementactivities
prohibited by SB 54 would also include:
asking for an individual’s immigration status,
detaining an individual on the basis of a hold request,
respondingtorequestsfornotificationorotherinformationunlessthatinformationisavailable
to the public,
City of Chula VistaPage 10 of 18Printed on 3/30/2017
powered by Legistar™
File#:17-0116, Item#: 7.
providingpersonalinformationaboutanindividualunlessthatinformationisavailabletothe
public,
makingarrestsbasedoncivilimmigrationwarrants,allowingfederalimmigrationauthoritiesto
interviewindividualsinstateorlocalcustodyforimmigrationpurposesunlesspursuanttoa
judicial warrant,
performing the functions of an immigration officer,
makinganagency’sowndatabaseavailabletoanyoneforfederalimmigrationenforcement,
and
using federal immigration officers as interpreters.
Lawenforcementagenciesmayparticipateinjointlawenforcementtaskforcesaslong
astheprimarypurposeisnotimmigrationenforcement,sharecriminalhistoryinresponseto
requestsfromfederalimmigrationofficials,anddetainortransferanindividualforimmigration
enforcement with a judicial warrant.
SB54wasamendedonMarch29,2017andwasscheduledforasecondreadinginthe
Senate on March 30, when this staff report was finalized.
Note:Thisbillprimarilyaffectscountylawenforcementagenciesthatoperatejailsand
stateagenciesthatoperateprisons,becausetheseentitiesregularlyhandledetainerrequests.If
enacted,thisbillwouldrequirealllawenforcemententitiestocarefullyreviewtheirpoliciesand
practicesforcompliance,particularlyregardingcomplyingwithICErequestsfornotificationofarrests.
Charteredcitiesmayhaveanargumentagainstthelaw,ifenactedandifchallenged,thatit
improperlydirectsamunicipalaffairsuchasdeploymentofacity’spolicedepartmentintheprovision
of the city’s public safety services.
E.Recent Actions Taken by Other Jurisdictions
1.“Sanctuary City” Declarations and Policies
Anumberofstateandlocaljurisdictionshaveadoptedpoliciesthatlimittheirown
jurisdiction’sinvolvementinfederalimmigrationenforcementefforts.Thesepoliciesvarywidely,but
arefrequentlylumpedtogetheras“sanctuarypolicies.”Jurisdictionsthatadoptsuchpolicies
frequentlybecomeknownas“sanctuary”jurisdictions.Thisistrueeveniftheythemselvesdonot
formallyadoptthe“sanctuary”designation.LosAngelesMayorEricGarcetti,forexample,doesnot
use the term “sanctuary city” to describe Los Angeles, because he said the term in unclear.
Nationwide,anestimated300to350stateandlocalgovernmententitiesintheUnited
Stateshaveself-identifiedorhavebeenidentifiedbytheirlawsandpoliciesas“sanctuary”
jurisdictions. Other estimates place the number of sanctuary jurisdictions closer to 600.
InCalifornia,jurisdictionsidentifiedas“sanctuaries”includetheStateofCalifornia
(reportedlybecauseofthe2014TrustAct,whichlimitscompliancewithfederaldetainerstospecified
crimes),18Californiacounties,andmorethan30Californiacities.Citiesidentifiedas“sanctuary
cities”includeLosAngeles,Maywood,SanLeandro,SantaClara,SantaCruz,Oakland,San
Francisco, San Jose, Malibu and Santa Ana.
City of Chula VistaPage 11 of 18Printed on 3/30/2017
powered by Legistar™
File#:17-0116, Item#: 7.
AsofMarch30,2017,staffdoesnothaveinformationindicatingthatanyofthe18cities
in San Diego County has formally declared itself a “sanctuary city.”
Typicalpoliciesadoptedby“sanctuarycities”fallintooneoffivecategories:(1)the
provisionofpoliceserviceswithoutinquiriesorregardtoimmigrationstatus;(2)prohibitionsonlocal
immigrationenforcement;(3)limitsorprohibitionsonrelationshipswithfederalimmigration
authorities;(4)limitsorrefusalstorespondtofederalimmigrationdetainerornotification
requests/obligations;(5)socialservice,economicand/orlegalsupport/programsfornon-legal
immigrants.
Itshouldbenotedthatmanyofthesepoliciesaremereaffirmationsofexistingpolicies
consideredtobeconsistentwithcommunitypolicing“bestpractices.”Mostofthesepoliciesdonot
violate existing federal laws.
2.“Welcoming City” Resolutions
“WelcomingCity”resolutionstypicallydonotaddressillegalimmigrationor
enforcement.Instead,theyexpressawillingnesstowelcome,andintegrateimmigrantsand
refugees into a community.
Many“welcoming”citiesandcountiesaremembersofthenational“Welcoming
America”network.“WelcomingAmerica”isanon-profit“guidedbytheprinciplesofinclusionand
creatingcommunitiesthatprosperbecauseeveryonefeelswelcome,includingimmigrantsand
refugees.”Networkmembersincludegovernmentorganizationsandnon-profits.Prominentnational
“welcoming”citiesinthisnetworkincludeDenverCO,HoustonTX,BaltimoreMD,AustinTX,Tucson
AZ, Richmond VA and Hartford CT.
In2016,Encinitas,LemonGroveandSolanaBeachpassedresolutionscharacterizing
themselvesas“welcomingcities.”These2016resolutionsdonotaddressillegalimmigrationorlaw
enforcementinvolvementinimmigrationlawsorcooperationwithimmigrationofficials.Encinitas,for
example,adopteditsresolutiontoaffirmparticipationinthe“BuildingWelcomingCommunities
Campaign,”partoftheWhiteHouse“TaskForceonNewAmericans”topartnerwithimmigrant
immigrationefforts.Similarly,LemonGrove’sresolutionsupportedtheWhiteHouseTaskForceon
New Americans Welcoming Communities Campaign.
Lastyear,ImperialBeach’sMayorissuedawelcomingcityproclamation,butthiswas
laterretractedinresponsetoargumentsthatitlackedcommunityandCityCouncilreview.Recently,
NationalCity’s“welcomingcity”resolutionwasvoteddownbya3-2voteoftheCityCouncil.
Opponentsarguedthecitycouldlosefederalfunding;othersstatedthecityalreadysupportedall
residentsandvisitors,soaresolutionwasnotnecessary.Proponentsstatedonlysanctuary
jurisdictions,notthosethathadadopteda“welcomingcity”designation,wereatriskforlossof
federalfunding.Proponentsalsostatedthatawelcomingcitydesignationwouldberesponsiveto
voiced concerns.
3.Dis-association with Federal authorities
City of Chula VistaPage 12 of 18Printed on 3/30/2017
powered by Legistar™
File#:17-0116, Item#: 7.
SanFranciscohassuspendedcollaborationwiththeFederalBureauofInvestigations
ontheJointTerrorismTaskForce,acounterterrorismprogram.SanFranciscoPoliceChiefBillScott
endedtherelationshipinFebruaryinresponsetocommunityconcernoverpossibleincreased
surveillanceofMuslimcommunitiesundertheTrumpadministration.Policeofficialssaidtheywould
consider renewing a relationship with the FBI after obtaining guidance from its Police Commission.
TheSantaAnacitycouncildirectedstafftoreducedetaineecapacityandwinddownits
contractwithICEby2020underaleasewithICEforuseofthefacilityasanimmigrationdetention
center.Inresponse,inFebruaryof2017,ICEexerciseda90dayearlyterminationprovisioninthe
lease.Theleasehadgenerated$340,000peryearinrevenue;thisrevenuewasusedtopaydowna
portionofSantaAna’sremainingdebtthatithadincurredtobuildthejailitopenedin1997(estimated
at $24,000,000).
4.Funding for immigration attorneys
LosAngelesestablisheda$10millionfundtoprovidelegalassistancetoimmigrants
facingremoval.L.A.cityandcountygovernmentswereexpectedtocontributehalf,with
philanthropic groups contributing the rest.
TheSantaAnacitycouncilhasdirecteditsstafftodevelopaplantopayforattorneysto
represent undocumented residents facing removal.
5.Actions Rejecting Sanctuary City Proposals.
Miami-DadeCountycommissionersrecentlyvotedtoupholdtheMiami-DadeCounty
mayor’sdecisiontorescindsanctuarypoliciesandtoinsteadcooperatewithfederalenforcementof
immigrationlaws,toavoidpotentiallossoffederalfunding.TheSalinascitycouncilalsorecently
voted against adopting a sanctuary city designation.
F.Other Stakeholder Actions:
1.Advice from consular offices
ConsulatesinsomeCaliforniacitieshaveissuedadvisoriestocitizensoftheir
respectivecountriestoremainincontactwithconsularoffices,toknowtheirrights,todevelopa
familyplan,suchasassemblingbirthcertificatesandregisteringU.S.bornchildrenofforeign
nationals in the parents’ country of origin.
2.Immigration forums
Chambersofcommerce,Spanishlanguagemedia,andimmigrationattorneyshave
held free public forums to offer immigration advice and assistance in some California cities.
3.Free Internet information
TheAmericanCivilLibertiesUnionofSanDiego&ImperialCountieshaspostedfree
publicationsonitswebsite:“DeportationPreparednessKit”and“KnowYourRightswithBorder
City of Chula VistaPage 13 of 18Printed on 3/30/2017
powered by Legistar™
File#:17-0116, Item#: 7.
Patrol.”TheSanDiegoCountyBarAssociationhaspostedimmigrationreferralinformation,linksand
resources on its website.
4.Consumer protection
TheAmericanBarAssociation’sCommissiononImmigrationhaslauncheda“Fight
NotarioFraud”initiativetoreininimmigrationconsultantsengagingintheunlicensedpracticeoflaw,
to the detriment of immigrants seeking legal status.
G.City Council Options
Inrespondingtocommunityconcernsregardingfederalimmigrationenforcementactivities
withintheCity,theCityCouncilmayconsideroneormoreofthefollowingcoursesofaction.General
explanationsareprovidedforeach.Forproposalsthatconstitutesignificantchangesinexisting
policy or add courses of action, brief statements of potential benefits and risks are also provided.
1.Better Communicate Existing City Policies to the Public to Allay Community Concerns
TheCitygenerally,andCVPDinparticular,alreadyprovideservicestothecommunity
withoutregardtoimmigrationstatus.OfficialCVPDpoliciesgoevenfurtherinprovidingthatthe
“ChulaVistaPoliceDepartmentrecognizesandvaluesthediversityofthecommunityitserves.Itis
incumbentuponallemployeesofthisDepartmenttomakeapersonalcommitmenttoequal
enforcementofthelawandequalservicetothepublicregardlessofimmigrationstatus.Confidence
inthiscommitmentwillincreasetheeffectivenessoftheDepartmentinprotectingandservingthe
entirecommunity.Allindividuals,regardlessoftheirimmigrationstatus,mustfeelsecurethat
contactinglawenforcementwillnotmakethemvulnerabletodeportation.”\[CVPDPolicy428\].CVPD
doesnotenforceimmigrationlaws.Nordoesitparticipateinimmigrationenforcementactivitieswith
federalauthorities.ChiefKennedyembracesandpromotesthesepolicieswithintheCVPDandin
publicwheneverpossible.Althoughsomewouldidentifytheseas“sanctuary”policies,Chief
Kennedyviewsthesepoliciesasconsistentwith“bestpractices”forcommunitypolicing.Manyother
jurisdictionswithinsignificantimmigrantpopulationshavesimilarpolicies.TheChiefofPoliceand
otherCityleaderswillcontinuetocommunicatethesefactstothepublicinanefforttoallaypublic
concerns.Additionaleffortscouldbemadetoimproveandexpandthesecommunications.South
BayCommunityServiceshasalreadyofferedtoassistwiththisprocessthroughitsprogramsand
directlinesofcommunicationwithinChulaVista’simmigrantcommunity.TheCitycouldalsoengage
school districts and other community institutions to assist.
2.Affirm existing City policies with a formal resolution
ExistingCVPDadministrativepoliciesandprotocolsthatprotectanddonottargetnon-
citizenscouldbeformallyadoptedbyCityCouncilresolution,andtherebymademore“official”and
permanent.AformalCityCouncilresolutioncouldalsohelpcommunicatethesepoliciesmore
broadly to all segments of the population to further allay community concerns.
3.Direct staff to Continue to Monitor Federal and State Action and Report Back to Council
Significantfederalandstateactionsintheareasofimmigrationenforcementarestill
City of Chula VistaPage 14 of 18Printed on 3/30/2017
powered by Legistar™
File#:17-0116, Item#: 7.
pendingorawaitingadjudication.Onebillofparticularimport,commonlyreferredtoasCalifornia’s
“sanctuarystate”legislation,isSB54.(SeeDISCUSSIONSectionD.2,above.)Actiononthisbill
couldoccurasearlyasthisApril.Thebillappearstohavebroadcommunitysupportbutisbeing
activelyopposedbytheCaliforniaSheriffsAssociationandtheCaliforniaPeaceOfficersAssociation.
SB54couldchangethelegallandscapeinCaliforniaregardinglocallawenforcementrelationships
withfederalimmigrationandmakecertainlocaloptionsforactioninthisareamootorredundant.
AppropriateCityaction,ifany,maybeclearerandlessriskyoncesuchmattersareresolved.Until
SB54issettled,anduntiltheFederalgovernmentfurtherdefines“sanctuaryjurisdiction”and
providesmorecleardirectiononwhatfederalfundingsourcesmaybeatrisk,changingexistingCity
policiesinthisarea,ormakingdeclarationsofstatus,couldbepre-matureandpresentfinancialrisks.
CitystaffcouldbedirectedtocontinuetomonitortheseactivitiesandreportbacktotheCityCouncil
at regular intervals, or as necessary and appropriate.
4.Takeadditionalactionstoprovideinformationtothepublicandconnectimmigrantswith
services
EffortsarealreadyintheworksintheCityAttorney’sofficeandinotherdepartments,to
betterconnectChulaVistaresidentsinneedwithimmigrationresourcesbydescribingsuch
resourcesandprovidinglinksontheCitywebsite.IftheCityweretoprovidesuchresourcesitself,
new sources of funding would need to be identified.
5.Declare Chula Vista a “Welcoming City”
Aswith“sanctuarycity,”thereisnosingledefinitionforwhatitmeanstobea
“welcomingcity.”A“welcomingcity”declarationcouldbesymbolicresolution,orcouldbecoupled
withchangesincitypolicy,orwithadditionalCityprograms.TheCitycouldalsoconsiderjoiningthe
“WelcomingAmerica”network.Thisnon-profitorganizationappearstohaveasubstantial
membershiplistofcities,countiesandnon-profitsacrossthecountry.Itprofessestoofferlearning
exchangesonnationalandinternationallevelsandaccesstogovernmentleadersacrossthenation
thatarecreatingimmigrant-friendly,welcomingcommunities.Moreresearchwouldberequiredifthe
City Council were interested in pursuing this avenue.
StaffisnotawareofanycurrentfederalorstatelawsthatwouldrewardorpunishaCity
frommakinga“welcomingcity”declaration.However,withoutacommonlyunderstooddefinition,
sucharesolutioncouldcreateconfusionandmisunderstandingastotheCity’sintentamong
lawmakers,lawenforcement,refugeeprogramsand/orthecommunity.Iftheresolutionis
accompaniedbypolicychangesthatarecommonlyassociatedwithdeclared“sanctuarycities”these
would also need to be analyzed for possible additional risks. (See discussion, below.)
6.Formally Declare Chula Vista a “Sanctuary City”
TheCitycouldopttoformallydeclareitselfa“sanctuarycity”.Sucharesolutioncould
be“symbolic”withnochangesinCitypolicy,oritcouldbeaccompaniedwithactualchangesin
existing city policies and/or the addition of new City programs designed to aid non-legal immigrants.
Thebenefitsofadoptinga“sanctuarycity”designationwouldbethatitcouldserveto
allayconcernsofadvocatesandimmigrantsinthecommunitywhofearbeingtargetedanddeported
City of Chula VistaPage 15 of 18Printed on 3/30/2017
powered by Legistar™
File#:17-0116, Item#: 7.
asaresultofsteppedupimmigrationenforcementactivitiespromisedbytheTrumpadministration.
The commonly understood definition of “sanctuary” is a place of protection or refuge.
OneriskofsuchadeclarationisthattheCitymaybecommunicatingsomethingtothe
communitythatitinfactcannotdeliver.Designationasa“sanctuary”doesnotprohibitfederal
authoritiesfromenforcingimmigrationlawswithinthebordersofasanctuaryjurisdiction.Nordoesa
sanctuaryorwelcomingcitydesignationnullifyorlimitfederalimmigrationlaw.Arrestsand
convictionsinChulaVistaasa“sanctuarycity”won’tpreventimmigrationofficialsfromenforcing
federal immigration laws, with consequences under federal law beyond of the control of City officials.
Theothermajorriskofasanctuarycitydeclaration,withorwithoutactualchangesin
Citypolicy,istheriskofadverserelationshipswiththefederalgovernmentandfederallaw
enforcement.TheTrumpadministrationcontinuestopursueordersandlegislationthatthreatento
defund“sanctuarycities”.Whilefederalauthorityinthisareaisnotclearlyestablished,andthereare
defenses,sanctuarycitiesarebeingtargetedandmayfacecostlylegalfightstodefendagainst
challengestotheirpoliciesand/ordefunding.Thesearefightswithoutguaranteedoutcomes.Ifthe
Cityweretopursuethispath,additionalanalysiswouldbewarrantedtofurtheranalyzethe
seriousnessofthethreatandtheamountoftheCity’sfederalfundingthatmaybeatrisk.TheCVPD
isalsoconcernedthatitsimportantrelationshipswithfederallawenforcementagencieswouldbe
undermined;theserelationshipsorintegraltoCVPDcapacitytoaddressseriouscrimeanddisorder
within the community.
7.ActivelysupportoropposefederalorstatelawstoadvanceCityinterestsandpolicies
on immigration enforcement and communities
TheCitycouldbemoreactiveinsupportingoropposingfederalorstatelawsinthis
areaconsistentwithCity-definedinterests.GiventheCity’sexistingpoliciesandstaffing,itwouldbe
appropriatetoopposebillsimposingfurtherimmigrationenforcementrequirementsonlocal
jurisdictions,mandatingcooperationwhereitwaspreviouslyoptional,orthreateningdefundingfor
“non-compliant”cities.TheCity’scurrentlegislativeprogramcouldbeamendedtogivetheMayor
theauthoritytoactonbehalfoftheCityintheseorotherrelatedareas.(Arelateditemseeking
th
Council support for Immigration Reform is also on the April 4 agenda.)
LegalchallengestolawsoractionsinconsistentwiththeCity’sdefinedinterestscould
alsobejoinedorinitiated.TheCityAttorneywouldadvise,however,thatthecostsofsuch
endeavors,eitherinreallocatedCityAttorneystafftime,orinCityfundingforoutsidecounsel,could
be substantial.
Staff Recommendation:
ItisfullywithinCityCouncildiscretiontotakenoaction,ortoreferoneormoreofabovedescribed
optionsbacktostaffforfurtheranalysis,andforpresentationbacktoCityCouncilforits
considerationandapproval.Withrespecttoanysuchactions,staffdoesrecommend,however,that
(1)priortoformalactionstaffbegivenampleopportunitytoanalyzeanyriskstofederalfundingand
additionalcostsinvolved;and(2)anyCouncilresolutioninvolvingamaterialchangeinimmigration
enforcementpolicyoradeclarationofstatusbeaccompaniedbeastatementthatCouncil’sactionis
not intended to be in violation of federal or state law.
City of Chula VistaPage 16 of 18Printed on 3/30/2017
powered by Legistar™
File#:17-0116, Item#: 7.
DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT
Staffhasreviewedthedecisioncontemplatedbythisactionandhasdeterminedthatitisnotsite-
specificandconsequently,the500-footrulefoundinCaliforniaCodeofRegulationsTitle2,
section18702.2(a)(11),isnotapplicabletothisdecisionforpurposesofdetermininga
disqualifyingrealproperty-relatedfinancialconflictofinterestunderthePoliticalReformAct(Cal.
Gov't Code § 87100, et seq.).
Staffisnotindependentlyaware,andhasnotbeeninformedbyanyCityCouncilmember,ofany
other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter.
LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS
TheCity’sStrategicPlanhasfivemajorgoals:OperationalExcellence,EconomicVitality,Healthy
Community,StrongandSecureNeighborhoodsandaConnectedCommunity.Thisreportdiscusses
issues and policies linked to the City’s Economic Vitality and Strong and Secure Neighborhoods.
CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT
Thisreportbyitselfcreatesnocurrentyearfiscalimpacts.IftheCityCouncilweretochooseoneor
moreoptionsoutlinedinthisreportthatrequiredadditionalresources,and/orwereinconsistentwith
federalorstatelawsinwaysthatjeopardizedfederalorstatefunding,amoredetailedanalysiswould
be required. The fiscal impact of loss(es) of funding, if any, would likely occur in future years.
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
Thisreportbyitselfcreatesnoongoingfiscalimpacts.IftheCityCouncilweretochooseoneor
moreoptionsoutlinedinthisreportthatrequiredadditionalresources,and/orwereinconsistentwith
federalorstatelawsinwaysthatjeopardizedfederalorstatefunding,amoredetailedanalysiswould
be required.
ATTACHMENTS
None
StaffContact:GaryHalbert,CityManager,RoxanaKennedy,ChiefofPoliceand/orGlenGoogins,
City Attorney
City of Chula VistaPage 17 of 18Printed on 3/30/2017
powered by Legistar™
File#:17-0116, Item#: 7.
END NOTES
Note:WhilethistopichasreceivedrenewedattentionundertheTrumpadministration,the“sanctuarycity”and“sanctuarypolicies”
arenotnewconcepts.Theconceptof“sanctuary”beingofferedbylocalcitiesandinstitutionsdatesbacktotheOldTestament.
SomechurchesinmedievalEuropealsoservedas“sanctuaries”againstgovernmentarrest.Inthemodernera,theCityofBerkeley
declareditselfa“refuge”forillegalimmigrantsbackin1971.In1979LAPDadopted“SpecialOrder40”prohibitingcontactswith
the public with the objective of discovering immigration status, and arrests for immigration violations.
2
This definition is understandable, but not technically correct, as local jurisdictions do not have the legal authority to prevent federal
enforcement of immigration laws within their jurisdictions. See DISCUSSION Section C.1.a, below.
3
Thepotentiallegalandotherconsequencesofbeingknownasa“sanctuarycity”aremorefullydiscussedinDISCUSSIONSections
C.1 and G.7 of this report, below.
City of Chula VistaPage 18 of 18Printed on 3/30/2017
powered by Legistar™
City of Chula Vista
Staff Report
File#:17-0124, Item#: 8.
RESOLUTIONOFTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFCHULAVISTASUPPORTINGA
COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO IMMIGRATION REFORM
City of Chula VistaPage 1 of 1Printed on 3/30/2017
powered by Legistar™
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTASUPPORTING A COMPREHENSIVE
APPROACH TO IMMIGRATION REFORM
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista is a diverse city with residents that include
immigrants and refugees from many parts of the world who work, own homes, operate
businesses, and contribute to the economic, social, and cultural well-being of the City;
and
WHEREAS, the United States is a beacon of liberty with due process and civil
rights firmly embedded in the democratic principles of thisnation, principles that must
be reflected in our immigration system; and
WHEREAS, years of gridlock in Congress on immigration reform have created a
broken immigration system which has led to harmful social and economic implications
for the residents, many of them living in San Diego County and in the South Bay region,
where the City of Chula Vista is situated; and
WHEREAS, the cities of Chula Vista and Tijuana share significant economic,
social and cultural ties; and
WHEREAS, in addition to the cultural and social riches our nation receives
through our border, it also drives regional and national economic development
approaching $500 billion in trade and 1in 24jobs in the United States; and
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista supports added investmentin infrastructure
and technology as well as adequate staffing of ports of entry in order to keep up with the
pace of the expansion of bilateral trade and the population growth of the border region,
including the implementation of policies that take into account the protection of human
rights and human dignity; and
WHEREAS, it is important that immigration reform preserve families and keep
them together, regardless of the immigration status, race, ethnicity, religion, gender,
national origin, age, disability, family structure, sexual orientation, gender identity,
including same-sex couples, and provide sufficient family-based channels for
migration in the future; and
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista supports, and immigration reform should
include, a pathway to citizenship for the over 11 million undocumented immigrants living
within our nation's borders; and
WHEREAS, it is especially important to provide a pathway to citizenship for those
individuals who were brought to or entered into the United States without proper
documentation as young children and have been raised and educated in the United
States; and
WHEREAS, the current visa backlog for family-sponsored immigration petitions is
over 20 years long and deters individuals wanting to come to theUnited States from
doing so; and
WHEREAS, reform must clear out the visa backlog, streamline the process for
procuring visas, and include business accountability measures to ensure that U.S.
companies have the resources they need when talent is not available; and
WHEREAS, cities with large immigrant populations are safer with less property
crime, are more likely to be in better economic conditions and have higher wages than
cities with smaller immigrant communities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, thatthe City Council of the City of
Chula Vistaurges the 115th Congress to create a reasonable, bi-partisan and
comprehensive approach to reform the currently broken immigration system that is in
the best interests of the City of Chula Vista, the greater Cali-Baja region, and the nation,
as described in this Resolution.
Presented by:
______________________________
Mayor Mary Casillas-Salas
City of Chula Vista
Staff Report
File#:17-0089, Item#: 9.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9 (d)(1)
(1)City of Chula Vista v. Lexington Insurance Co.
A)United States District Court,
Case No. 16cv1105-BTM-BGS; and
B)San Diego Superior Court,
Case No. 37-2016-45312-CU-BC-CTL
(2)John Hess v. Dave Hanneman, United States District
Court, Case No. 14cv2271CAB(JMA)
City of Chula VistaPage 1 of 1Printed on 3/30/2017
powered by Legistar™
City of Chula Vista
Staff Report
File#:17-0133, Item#: 10.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54957.6
Agency designated representatives:Gary Halbert, Glen Googins, Kelley Bacon, Courtney Chase,
Maria Kachadoorian, Simon Silva, and David Bilby
Employee organizations:International Association of Firefighters (IAFF)
City of Chula VistaPage 1 of 1Printed on 3/30/2017
powered by Legistar™