HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-05-18 Info PacketCITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET
CITY OF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org May 18, 2017
IN Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
IP2 Agenda
MAY 24 JOINT MEETING
MISCELLANEOUS
IP3 Memo from City Attorney: Amicus briefs of cities and counties in litigation challenging
President Trump's revised travel ban
IN Bar Check Report — April 2017
IP5 Civil Service Entrance Examination: Treatment Plant Operator — Water
IP6 Civil Service Entrance Examination: Maintenance Worker I — Water Customer Service
IP7 Civil Service Entrance Examination: Geographic Information System Coordinator
DRAFT MINUTES
IP8 Community Police Review Board: May 9
IP9 Housing and Community Development: April 20
IP10 Planning and Zoning Commission: May 4
r
City Council Tentative
Meeting Schedule
.1
ME
Subject to change
IP1
CITY IOWA CITY
May 18, 2017
Date
Time
Meeting
Location
Wednesday, May 24, 2017
5:00 PM
Joint Meeting JC Brd of Supervisors J.C. Admin. Bldg.
Work Session
913 S. Dubuque St., I.C.
Tuesday, June 6, 2017
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, June 20, 2017
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Monday, July 17, 2017
4:00 PM
Reception
Johnson County
4:30 PM
Joint Entities Meeting
TBD
Tuesday, July 18, 2017
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, August 1, 2017
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, August 15, 2017
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
I P2
J� oon JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING
ty
AGENDA • MAY 24, 2017
First Floor Lobby Joint Meeting 5:00 PM
JOHNSON COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
913 SOUTH DUBUQUE STREET
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
PHONE: 319-356-6000
www.JOHNSON-COUNTY.com
www.JOHNSONCOUNTYIA.IQM2.com
JOINT MEETING BETWEEN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND THE IOWA CITY
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL - AGENDA
A. CALL TO ORDER: 5:00 PM
B. DISCUSSION/UPDATE
1. Tour with Iowa City Mayor Jim Throgmorton and the Iowa City City Council to sites of
mutual interest including, but not limited to, the following locations: Johnson County
Ambulance Service and Medical Examiner Facility, Iowa City Riverfront Crossings
Park site, Johnson County Poor Farm, private redevelopment along Gilbert Street,
and the Clinton Street road diet & bike lane installation
C. DISCUSSION FROM THE PUBLIC
D. ADJOURNMENT
Johnson County Iowa Published: 511812017 12:00 PM Page 1
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM 1P3
Date: May 18, 2017
To: City Council qp�
From: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorn
Re: Amicus briefs of cities and counties in litigation challenging President Trump's
revised travel ban.
As you may know, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals en banc (full court) and a 3 judge panel
of the 9h Circuit Court of Appeals have recently heard oral argument in the federal
government's appeals of the injunctions issued by district courts in Maryland and Hawaii,
respectively, against the President's revised travel ban of visitors from six Muslim -majority
countries (and in the 9`h Circuit the suspension of the nation's refugee program).
The City of Chicago legal department has led the effort in submitting amicus (friend of the
Court) briefs in the 4 and 9`" Circuits on behalf of Chicago, Los Angeles, New York,
Philadelphia and other cities and counties. In March I was contacted by an attorney for
Chicago asking whether Iowa City would like to join the other cities and counties in the
Maryland and Hawaii litigation. I reviewed the brief that had previously been submitted in
the Washington case and found it to be well done, particularly in its presentation of why
cities would be irreparably harmed if the President's Order was not enjoined. After
consultation with the Mayor and in light of the City's long commitment to civil rights as
reflected in the Human Rights Ordinance and the Council's reaffirmations of its support for
our immigrant communities after the election I told Chicago's counsel that Iowa City would
join. To date, on behalf of the City I have signed the amicus briefs filed with the District
Court of Hawaii supporting the State of Hawaii's successful motion to convert the
temporary restraining order to a preliminary injunction and the briefs filed in the pending
appeals in the 4`h and 91h Circuits. In substance the briefs are all very similar. I have
attached for your information the brief filed in the 91h Circuit. You will see on the first
several pages the list of cities and counties that have joined.
Please give me a call if you have questions.
Cc: Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Julie Voparil, Deputy City Clerk
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 1 of 49
No. 17-15589
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STATE OF HAWAII and ISMAIL ELSHIKH,
Plaintiffs Appellees,
U.
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants -Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii, No. 1:17-cv-00050-DKW-KSC
The Honorable Derrick K. Watson, Judge Presiding
BRIEF OF CHICAGO, LOS ANGELES, NEW YORK, PHILADELPHIA,
AND OTHER MAJOR CITIES AND COUNTIES AS AMICI CURIAE IN
SUPPORT OF AFFIRMANCE AND IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF
DEFENDANTS -APPELLANTS FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL
RYAN P. POSCABLO
BRIAN NEFF
ELIBERTY LOPEZ
Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 6t° Floor
New York, NY 10019
(212)660-1030
NICK KAHLON
Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP
Three First National Plaza
70 W. Madison Street, Suite 2900
Chicago, IL 60602
(312) 471-8700
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
City of Chicago
EDWARD N. SISKEL
Corporation Counsel
of the City of Chicago
BENNA RUTH SOLOMON
Deputy Corporation Counsel
30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 800
Chicago, IL 60602
(312) 744-7764
benna.solomon@cityofchicago.org
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae,
City of Chicago
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 2 of 49
Additional Counsel for Amici Curiae
ZACHARY W. CARTER
Corporation Counsel
of the City of New York
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
Attorney for Mayor and the City
Council of New York
SOZI PEDRO TULANTE
City Solicitor
City of Philadelphia Law Department
1515 Arch Street, 17th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Attorney for City of Philadelphia
EVER ORA RMITNTOM
City Attorney
City of Austin Law Department
P.O. Box 1088
Austin, TX 78767
512-974-2507
Anne. morgan@austintexas.gov
Attorney for City of Austin
EUGENE L. O'FLAHERTY
Corporation Counsel
One City Hall Square, Room 615
Boston, MA 02201
(617) 635-4034
eugene.oflaherty@boston.gov
Attorney for Boston and
Mayor Martin J. Walsh
G. NICHOLAS HERMAN
General Counsel
The Brough Law Firm, PLLC
1526 E. Franklin St., Suite 200
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
(919) 929-3905
herman@broughlawfirm.com
Attorney for Town of Carrboro
MICHAEL N. FEUER
City Attorney
of the City of Los Angeles
200 N. Main Street, 800 CHE
Los Angeles, CA 90012
(213)978-8100
mike.feuer@lacity.org
Attorney for City of Los Angeles
MATTHEW T. JERZYK
City Solicitor
580 Broad Street
Central Falls, RI 02863
(401) 616-2435
MJerzyk@CentralFallsRI.us
Attorney for James A. Diossa,
Mayor of Central Falls, Rhode Island
KIMBERLY M. FOXX
States Attorney for Cook County
69 W. Washington, 32nd Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
(312)603-6934
kent.ray@cookcountyil.gov
Attorney for Cook County, Illinois
GREGORY L. THOMAS
City Attorney for the City of Gary
401 Broadway, Suite 101
Gary, IN 46402
(219)881-1400
glthomas@ci.gary.in.us
Attorney for City of Gary
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 3 of 49
DONNA Y. L. LEONG
Corporation Counsel
530 S. King St., Room 110
Honolulu, HI 96813
(808)768-5100
Attorney for City and County of
Honolulu
ELEANOR M. DILKES
City Attorney
410 E. Washington St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
(319) 356-5030
eleanor-dilkes@iowa-city.org
Attorney for City of Iowa City
AARON O. LAVINE
City Attorney
108 E. Green St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
(607)274-6504
Attorney for Svante L. Myrick,
Mayor of Ithaca
JEREMY FARRELL
Corporation Counsel
Jersey City Law Department
280 Grove Street
Jersey City, NJ 07302
Attorney for City of Jersey City
SUSAN L. SEGAL
City Attorney
350 South 5th Street, Room 210
Minneapolis, MN 55415
(612) 673-3272
Susan.segal@minneapolismn.gov
Attorney for City of Minneapolis
MICHAEL P. MAY
City Attorney
210 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.,
Room 401
Madison, WI 53703
(608) 266-4511
Attorney for City of Madison
MARC P. HANSEN
County Attorney
Montgomery County, Maryland
101 Monroe St., 3rd Floor
Rockville, MD 20850
(240)777-6740
Marc.Hansen@montgomerycountymd.
gov
Attorney for Montgomery County
JOHN ROSE Jr.
Corporation Counsel
165 Church St.
New Haven, CT 06501
(203)946-7958
Attorney for City of New Haven
and Mayor Toni N. Harp
City Attorney
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Sixth Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
(510)238-3814
Bparker@oaklandcityattorney.org
Attorney for City of Oakland
TRACY REEVE
City Attorney
430 City Hall
1221 SW Fourth Ave.
Portland, OR 97204
(503)823-4047
Tracy.Reeve@portlandoregon.gov
Attorney for Portland
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 4 of 49
JEFFREY DANA
City Solicitor
444 Westminster St., Ste. 220
Providence, RI 02903
(401) 680-5333
jdana@providenceri.com
Attorney for City of Providence and
Mayor Jorge O. Elorza
MICHAEL A. GARVIN
City Counselor
City of St. Louis Law Department
1200 Market Street, Room 314
St. Louis, MO 63103
(314) 622-3361
GarvinM@stlouis-mo.gov
Attorney for City of St. Louis
IN .:.
City Attorney
400 City Hall
15 Kellogg Blvd W
Saint Paul, MN 55102
(651)266-8710
samuel.clark@ci.stpaul.mn.us
Attorney for City of Saint Paul
DENNIS J. HERRERA
San Francisco City Attorney
City Attorney's Office
City Hall Room 234
One Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Pl.
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415)544-4700
Attorney for City and County of
San Francisco
RICHARD DOYLE
City Attorney
200 East Santa Clara St., 16th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
(408)535-1900
richard.doyle@sanjoseca.gov
Attorney for City of San Jose
JAMES R. WILLIAMS
County Counsel
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
COUNSEL
70 West Hedding Street, 9th Floor
San Jose, CA 95110-1770
(408)299-5900
Attorney for Santa Clara County
JOSEPH LAWRENCE
Interim City Attorney
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, Room 310
Santa Monica, CA 90401
(310) 458-8336
Attorney for City of Santa Monica
PETER S. HOLMES
Seattle City Attorney
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2050
Seattle, WA 98104-7097
(206)684-8200
peter.holmes@seattle.gov
Attorney for City of Seattle
MICHAEL M. LORGE
Corporation Counsel
5127 Oakton Avenue
Skokie, IL 60077
(847)933-8270
Attorney for Village of Skokie
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 5 of 49
CRISTAL BRISCO
Corporation Counsel
City of South Bend Department of
Law
227 W. Jefferson Blvd., Suite 12005
South Bend, IN 46601
(574)235-9241
cbrisco@southbendin.gov
Attorney for South Bend
MICHAEL RANKIN
City Attorney
255 West Alameda, 7th Floor
P.O. Box 27210
Tucson, AZ 85726-7210
Attorney for City of Tucson
MICHAEL JENKINS
JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 110
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
(310) 643-8448
MJenkins@LocalGovLaw.com
Attorney for West Hollywood
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 6 of 49
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE................................1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT................................................................... 6
ARGUMENT.............................................................................................7
I. THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY CONCLUDED
THAT PLAINTIFFS ESTABLISHED A LIKELIHOOD
OF SUCCESS ON THE MERITS....................................................8
A. The Order Violates the Establishment Clause ..........................8
B. The Order Unlawfully Discriminates Based
On National Origin....................................................................13
II. THE BALANCE OF THE EQUITIES FAVORS AN
INJUNCTION, AND A STAY SHOULD BE DENIED ................. 19
CONCLUSION........................................................................................ 26
i
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 7 of 49
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Astoria Fed. Say. & Loan Assn v. Solimino,
501 U.S. 104 (1991)........................................................................18
Aziz v. Trump,
2017 WL 580855 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2017) .......................................
9
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah,
508 U.S. 520 (1993)........................................................................10
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr.,
473 U.S. 432 (1985)........................................................................14
Edwards v. Aguillard,
482 U.S. 578 (1987)..........................................................................8
FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.,
529 U.S. 120 (2000)........................................................................17
FTC v. Mandel Brothers, Inc.,
359 U.S. 385 (1959)........................................................................18
Gustafson v. Alloyd Co.,
513 U.S. 561 (1995)........................................................................18
Intl Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump,
2017 WL 1018235 (D. Md. Mar. 16, 2017) .......................................9
Hilton v. Braunskill,
481 U.S. 770 (1987)........................................................................24
Judulang v. Holder,
565 U.S. 42 (2011)..........................................................................19
Larson v. Valente,
456 U.S. 228 (1982)..........................................................................8
ii
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 8 of 49
Lemon v. Kurtzman,
403 U.S. 602 (1971)..........................................................................8
McCreary County v. ACLU,
545 U.S. 844 (2005)........................................................................10
Miller v. Gammie,
335 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2003)............................................................9
Olsen v. Albright,
990 F. Supp. 31 (D.D.C. 1997) ...................................................15-16
Smoot v. Boise Cascade Corp.,
942 F.2d 1408 (9th Cir. 1991)........................................................14
Romer v. Evans,
517 U.S. 620 (1996)........................................................................14
Washington v. Trump,
847 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2017)..........................................................9
Washington v. Trump,
2017 WL 992527..............................................................9,12,24-25
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
555 U.S. 7 (2008)..............................................................................7
Statutes, Legislative Materials, and Ordinances
8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A)......................................................................15-18
8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)................................................................................17-19
8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)...........................................................................18
1965 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3328..........................................................................15
Municipal Code of Chicago, Ill. § 2-160-010 ...........................................16
Municipal Code of Chicago, Ill. § 5-8-010 ...............................................16
Municipal Code of Chicago, Ill. § 9-115-180 ...........................................16
Municipal Code of Chicago, Ill. § 13-72-040 ...........................................16
Municipal Code of Los Angeles Charter § 104(i) ....................................16
iii
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 9 of 49
Municipal Code of Los Angeles Charter § 1024 ......................................16
Municipal Code of Los Angeles Admin. Code § 4.400 ............................16
Municipal Code of Los Angeles Admin. Code § 10.8 ..............................16
Municipal Code of Los Angeles Admin. Code § 10.13 ............................16
New York City Charter, § 900.................................................................16
N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 4-116....................................................................16
N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107....................................................................16
Philadelphia Code, § 9-1101....................................................................16
Philadelphia Code, § 9-1103....................................................................16
Philadelphia Code, § 9-1106....................................................................16
Philadelphia Code, § 9-1108....................................................................16
iv
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 10 of 49
STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
Amici include some of the largest cities and counties in the United
States.' Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, and Philadelphia alone
have a population of over 16.6 million, including more than five million
immigrants from 150 countries.' These cities account for almost one-
fifth of the gross domestic product.' As of 2015, approximately 213,100
residents in the Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City metropolitan
areas were born in five of the six countries targeted by the Executive
Order.'
1 The parties have consented to the filing of this brief. It was not
authored, in whole or in part, by counsel for any party, and no such
counsel or party contributed money that was intended to fund preparing
or submitting the brief. No person other than amici or their counsel
contributed money that was intended to fund preparing or submitting
the brief.
' Support for all data is in the appendix to this brief.
' Ted Hesson, Why American Cities Are Fighting to Attract Immigrants,
https://www.theatlantic. com/business/archive/2015/07/us-cities-
immigrants-economy/398987/ (NYC, LA, Houston, and Chicago are
roughly 1/5 of GDP).
' Alan Berube, These communities have a lot at stake in Trump's
executive order on immigration, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 11 of 49
Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City are some of the largest
employers in their jurisdictions, collectively employing approximately
365,000 people. In New York City, 34% of city workers are foreign -
born; in Los Angeles, 22% are. Immigrants also make up a substantial
portion of our cities' private workforces: 46% of the 4.3 million workers
in New York; 26.5% of the 1.27 million workers in Chicago; and
approximately 17% of the 640,000 workers in Philadelphia. At least
12,500 private employees work using international visas in Chicago
alone. Immigrants make up a majority of New York City's business
owners, 44% in Los Angeles, 27% in Chicago, and 14% in Philadelphia.
Chicago and Los Angeles welcome and resettle some of the largest
numbers of refugees in the United States. From October 2015 to
September 2016, approximately 2,100 refugees were resettled in the
Chicago area, including nearly 800 from the targeted countries. 2800
were resettled in the Los Angeles area, 1,900 from Iran alone. 682
refugees arrived in Philadelphia, including 176 from the targeted
countries. Approximately 1,300 refugees have been resettled in New
avenue/2017/01/30/these-communities-have-a-lot-at-stake-in-trumps-
executive-order-on-immigration/.
0
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 12 of 49
York City in the past five years.
Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, and Philadelphia also
operate or are served by large international airports. More than 400
international flights, bringing more than 60,000 passengers, arrive
daily in Chicago and Los Angeles. The tourism sectors of the local
economies in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, and Philadelphia
create roughly $70 billion a year in local revenue. In 2016, our cities
hosted more than 20 million foreign visitors, who spent an estimated
$6.3 billion in Los Angeles County, and $1.88 billion in Chicago,
including $1.25 million by tourists from the six targeted countries. As a
result of the Executive Order, New York City now predicts a 300,000 -
person drop in foreign visitors this year.' More generally, "[f]ollowing
President Trump's Jan. 27 executive order banning people from seven
predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States, the
demand for travel to the United States took a nosedive, according to
' Patrick McGeehan, New York Expects Fewer Foreign Tourists, Saying
Trump Is to Blame, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/nyregion/new-
york-foreign-tourists-trump-policies.html?_r=0.
3
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 13 of 49
data from several travel companies and research firms."'
Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, and Philadelphia together
have 162 four-year colleges and universities, with approximately
100,000 international students. Chicago is also home to 44 major
hospitals, which serve thousands of international patients a year. The
Middle East region is the top source of patients traveling to the U.S. for
medical care.'
Amici are profoundly opposed to the Executive Order, which is as
misguided as it is unconstitutional. Our cities serve as gateways for
immigrants and refugees starting new lives in America. And when they
have come, lelverywhere immigrants have enriched and strengthened
the fabric of American life."' Perhaps uniquely in the world, the
identity of American cities has been forged since the inception of our
6 Shivani Vora, After Travel Ban, Interest in Trips to U.S. Declines,
https://www. nytimes.com/2017/02/20/travel/after-travel-ban-declining-
interest-trips-to-unite d-states.html.
7 Kristen Schorsch, How Trump's Travel Ban Could Hit Medical
Tourism Hard, http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20170201/
news03/170209996/how-trumps-travel-ban-could-hit-medical-tourism-
hard.
' John F. Kennedy, A Nation of Immigrants 3 (Harper rev. ed 2008).
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 14 of 49
Nation from the toil of immigrants and their embrace of the American
ideal.
The district court properly determined that plaintiffs were likely
to succeed on their Establishment Clause claim, at least, and would
suffer irreparable harm if the Order were not enjoined. Further
supporting the district court's determination, the Order will cause
irreparable harm to cities and counties across the United States. The
Order seriously endangers our communities. Among other things, the
Order undermines trust and cooperation between local law enforcement
and immigrant communities, which is necessary to effectively detect
terrorist activity and combat crime. The Order also harms our
businesses, educational institutions, and hospitals; limits our labor
pool; decreases our tax revenues; and dampens our tourism industry.
Amici file this brief to urge the court to affirm the district court's
preliminary injunction and deny defendants' motion for a stay pending
appeal.
5
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 15 of 49
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Defendants have failed to establish that the district court abused
its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction, or that the
injunction should be stayed.
The district court properly recognized that sections 2 and 6 of the
Executive Order violate the Establishment Clause. Under the
extraordinary circumstances presented here, deference to the claimed
national security rationale for the Order is not warranted. The record
presents compelling evidence that the Order was motivated by
President Trump's stated belief that "Islam hates us" and his related
desire to exclude Muslims. Broadcast many times and in many ways,
the President's anti -Muslim message has been clear and consistent.
The Order also unlawfully discriminates based on national origin.
Both the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due
Process Clause and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965
prohibit the Order's arbitrary, blanket discrimination.
The district court's balancing of the interests on both sides amply
justifies the injunction. The public interest as reflected in the profound
C6
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 16 of 49
harm inflicted on amici and their communities provides further
support. This court should affirm the preliminary injunction.
Defendants have also failed to make the strong showing required
to obtain a stay pending appeal. The speculative harms defendants
foresee do not outweigh the concrete, imminent, and dramatic harm to
plaintiffs and their amici.
ARGUMENT
Applying Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20
(2008), the district court found that plaintiffs were likely to prevail on
their Establishment Clause claim, E.R. 53-64; that Dr. Elshikh would
suffer irreparable harm if the Executive Order takes effect, E.R. 64; and
that "the balance of equities and public interests justify granting the
Plaintiffs' TRO," E.R. 66. The court later reaffirmed those findings and
converted the TRO to a preliminary injunction. E.R. 1-24. Rejecting
defendants' attempt to disregard the historical context in which the
Order was adopted, the court held that is would not "crawl into a
corner, pull the shutters closed, and pretend it has not seen what it
has." E.R. 17.
The district court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, the
7
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 17 of 49
preliminary injunction should be affirmed, and in the interim it should
not be stayed.
I. THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY CONCLUDED
THAT PLAINTIFFS ESTABLISHED A LIKELIHOOD
OF SUCCESS ON THE MERITS.
A. The Order Violates the Establishment Clause.
"The clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one
religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another."
Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 244 (1982). Because the Executive
Order does not on its face refer to religion, E.R. 32, the district court
reviewed it under the three-part test of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S.
602, 612-13 (1971). If a policy fails any of the three parts, it violates the
Establishment Clause, Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 583 (1987),
and here, the Order fails at least the first, in that its predominant
purpose is to advance religion. As the district court recognized, the
record indicates that the Executive Order "was issued with a purpose to
disfavor a particular religion, in spite of its stated, religiously -neutral
purpose." E.R. 52-53.
To begin, the anti -Muslim statements by President Trump and his
advisors have been well documented. E.g., E.R. 57-59. The district
W
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 18 of 49
court properly concluded that this court's decision in Washington v.
Trump permits the consideration of such statements because "evidence
of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in
evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims." E.R.
16-17 (quoting Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1167 (9th Cir.
2017).9 As the district court held, such statements showed a rampant
and palpable discriminatory purpose. E.R. 59-60. Two other district
courts likewise found. Intl Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, No.
TDC-17-0361, 2017 WL 1018235, at *17-18 (D. Md. Mar. 16, 2017); Aziz
v. Trump, 2017 WL 580855, at **8-9 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2017).10
9 In the absence of a hearing en banc, the decision in Washington v.
Trump is binding in this appeal, since "a three-judge panel may not
overrule a prior decision of the court." E.g., Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d
889, 899 (9th Cir. 2003). In crediting the President's prior statements,
it is not necessary to "look behind" the Executive Order's facial purpose,
Washington v. Trump, 2017 WL 992527 at *5 (Bybee, J., dissenting), or
demand that the President disclose his "`real' reasons" for the order, id.
at *9, as the judges dissenting from this court's en banc decision not to
vacate the panel opinion concerning the prior Executive Order believed.
These have been aired by the President himself, early and often.
" Campaign statements may not always evince intent, since candidates
sometimes pledge one thing and do another once elected. But here,
President Trump has confirmed the Order's discriminatory purpose
since taking office — and it functions exactly as he promised when
campaigning.
E
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 19 of 49
It is of no moment that the Order now disclaims discriminatory
intent and professes a national security purpose, or that it lacks the
prior order's explicit religious preference. "Official action that targets
religious conduct for distinctive treatment cannot be shielded by mere
compliance with the requirement of facial neutrality." Church of the
Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 534 (1993).
For this reason, it is "the duty of the courts" to distinguish a "sincere"
secular purpose from one that is a "sham," or that is "secondary" to a
"predominately religious" purpose. McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S.
844, 862 (2005).
Here the religious objective could not be more apparent: the
Executive Order, by the administration's own admissions, was intended
to target Muslims. Furthermore, although the federal government
asserts that the Executive Order is neutral with respect to religion, this
ignores the reality of the Order's intended effects. Most of the 38,901
Muslim refugees admitted to the United States in fiscal year 2016 came
10
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 20 of 49
from the six countries targeted by the Executive Order." Indeed, given
current global conditions of civil war, ethnic conflict, drought, famine,
and radical Islamic elements, most refugees worldwide come from
predominately Muslim countries.12 Under these circumstances, an
Executive Order banning refugees is a Muslim ban. That the ban is
temporary and against fewer than all Muslims in the world ignores that
temporary and partial are not defenses to an Establishment Clause
violation.
Defendants argue that the Court should not "plop Establishment
Clause cases from the domestic context over to the foreign affairs
context." Brief for Appellants 42 (citation omitted). That simply
ignores the Order's profound and immediate domestic effects — it both
seeks to shape the make-up of the American community, and declares to
those already here that Muslims are less worthy of membership.
Unlike the President's decision to treat (or not) with a foreign theocracy,
11 Phillip Connor, U.S. admits record number of Muslim refugees in
2016, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/05/u-s-admits-
record-number-of-muslim-refugee s -in -2016/.
12 Figures at a Glance, UNHCR, http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/figures-at-
a-glance.html.
11
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 21 of 49
or to make similar foreign policy judgments, the Order injures core
Establishment Clause values and protections here at home.
The Order's asserted national security interests are unsupported.
The Order states that its restrictions are necessary to prevent "foreign
nationals who may commit, aid, or support acts of terrorism" from
entering the country. Order § 1(a). But as the district court correctly
observed, the record provides reason to question the claimed national
security justification for the Order. E.R. 60-61. This court likewise
observed that there is "no evidence that any alien from any of the
countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the
United States." Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d at 1168. Indeed, no
Americans have been killed in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil by foreign
nationals from the targeted countries since 1975.13 DHS itself reports
that country of citizenship is an "unlikely indicator" of potential
terrorist activity. E.R. 37.
The Order's assertion that "[s]ince 2001, hundreds of persons born
abroad have been convicted of terrorism -related crimes in the United
" Alex Nowrasteh, Where Do Terrorists Come From? Not the Nations
Named in Trump Ban, http://www.newsweek.com/where-do-terrorists-
come-not-seven-countries-named-550581.
12
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 22 of 49
States," Order § 1(a), does not fill that gap because it does not tie that
number to the six countries identified in section 2(c).14 These numbers
are further suspect because they include individuals initially wrapped
into a "terror -related" investigation, but later convicted of charges with
no connection to terrorism.15
Accordingly, defendants have failed to meet their burden to
demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in finding that
plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment
Clause claim.
B. The Order Unlawfully Discriminates Based
On National Origin.
The federal government's defense that the Executive Order is not
a religious ban at all but one based on national origin does not save it.
At the outset, as we explain, the Order's reliance on national origin is
" The Order also states that Attorney General Sessions has reported
that "more than 300 persons who entered the United States as refugees
are currently the subjects of counterterrorism investigations" by the
FBI. Order § 1(h). Tellingly, the Order does not claim that any of these
refugees came from the six targeted countries.
15 Shirin Sinnar, More Misleading Claims on Immigrants and
Terrorism, https://www.justsecurity.org/38341/misleading-claims-
immigrants-terrorism.
13
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 23 of 49
merely a pretext for discrimination against Muslims. Regardless, the
pretextual national origin basis for the classification is itself unlawful.
For one thing, the Order violates the equal protection component
of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.18 By banning nationals
of countries not shown to perpetrate terrorism in the United States and
not banning nationals of countries that do, the Executive Order is so
staggeringly underinclusive and overinclusive for the stated goal of
national security and so profoundly arbitrary that it is unconstitutional
for that reason alone. Utterly irrational classifications that do not serve
the stated purpose violate equal protection. City of Cleburne v.
Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 446 (1985) ("The State may not rely
on a classification whose relationship to an asserted goal is so
attenuated as to render the distinction arbitrary or irrational."); see also
Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 635 (1996) (invalidating under the Equal
Protection Clause "a status -based enactment divorced from any factual
context from which we could discern a relationship to legitimate state
16 Although the district court did not reach the merits of plaintiffs'
equal protection claim, this court "may affirm on any ground adequately
supported by the record." Smoot v. Boise Cascade Corp., 942 F.2d 1408,
1411 (9th Cir. 1991).
14
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 24 of 49 1
interests; ... a classification of persons undertaken for its own sake").
Beyond that, the Order violates the Immigration and Nationality
Act of 1965 ("INA'). "During most of its history, the United States
openly discriminated against individuals on the basis of race and
national origin in its immigration laws." Olsen v. Albright, 990 F. Supp.
31, 37 (D.D.C. 1997). But, as President Kennedy noted, "the national
origins quota system ha[d] strong overtones of an indefensible racial
preference." John F. Kennedy, A Nation of Immigrants 45 (Harper rev.
ed 2008). Accordingly, "[t]hroughout the latter half of the Twentieth
Century, Congress moved away from such discriminatory policies. The
most profound change was the [INA]," which "eliminated discrimination
on the basis of race and national origin." Id.; see also 1965 U.S.C.C.A.N.
3328, 3328 (quoting S. Rep. No. 89-748) (principal purpose of INA was
"to repeal the national origin quota provisions of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, and to substitute a new system for the selection of
immigrants to the United States"). The INA could not be more clear:
"no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated
against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's
race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence." 8 U.S.C. §
15
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 25 of 49
1152(a)(1)(A). Moreover, "[t]he legislative history surrounding the
[INA] is replete with the bold anti -discriminatory principles of the Civil
Rights Era. Indeed, the [INA] was passed alongside the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965." Olsen, 990 F. Supp. at
37. The Executive Order is in direct violation of section 1152(a).
Strong enforcement of the INA's antidiscrimination provision is
profoundly important to amici, which have adopted similar laws
prohibiting discrimination in their local communities in all aspects of
life — housing, employment, public accommodation, transportation,
schooling, government services, and public employment. E.g.,
Municipal Code of Chicago, Ill. §§ 2-160-010, 5-8-010, 9-115-180, 13-72-
040; Los Angeles Charter §§ 104(i), 1024; Los Angeles Admin. Code §§
4.400, 10.8, 10.13; New York City Charter, § 900; N.Y.C. Admin. Code
H 4-116; 8-107; Philadelphia Code, §§ 9-1101, 9-1103, 9-1106, 9-1108.
Such laws reflect amici's strong commitment to equal opportunity and
equal rights, just as section 1152(a) does. The Executive Order's
blatant discrimination based on national origin turns the clock back on
this important civil rights guarantee, and it should be set aside.
To be sure, the President has broad authority over the entry of
E.
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 26 of 49
aliens generally: "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any
aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be
detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by
proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend
the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or
nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may
deem to be appropriate." 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f). But for two reasons in
particular, section 1182(f) does not save the Executive Order.
First, section 1152(a)'s prohibition on discrimination was enacted
after section 1182(f) and is properly understood as a limitation on the
authority previously granted under section 1182(f) to suspend entry.
"Mhe meaning of one statute may be affected by other Acts,
particularly where Congress has spoken subsequently and more
specifically to the topic at hand." FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 133 (2000). Thus, although section 1182(f) grants
the President authority to suspend entry of a class of immigrants whose
entry "would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,"
section 1152 declares Congress's determination that it is not in the
national interest to discriminate based upon national origin. This
17
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 27 of 49
reading also construes these provisions "as a symmetrical and coherent
regulatory scheme," Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561, 569 (1995),
and "fit [s] all parts into an harmonious whole," FTC v. Mandel
Brothers, Inc., 359 U.S. 385, 389 (1959). By contrast, to read section
1182(f) as though section 1152(a) did not exist is inconsistent with
settled rules of statutory construction and should be rejected. E.g.,
Astoria Fed. Say. & Loan Assn v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104, 112 (1991)
("[W]e construe statutes, where possible, so as to avoid rendering
superfluous any parts thereof.").
Second, section 1182(f) should be read in light of the grounds for
denial of admission for terrorist activity that are specifically set forth in
section 1182(a)(3)(B). That provision mandates an individualized
inquiry; it does not authorize blanket exclusion based solely on the
applicant's nation of origin.
Even considering section 1182(f) in isolation, the Executive
Order's exclusion of all immigrants and refugees from six countries,
solely because of the happenstance of their birthplace, cannot stand.
The plain language of section 1182(f) requires a determination that the
entry of aliens or a class of aliens is "detrimental to the interests of the
In
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 28 of 49
United States," and here it is simply not possible to say that every
single person, or even a majority of persons, born in the six targeted
countries presents a security risk to the United States. Most obviously
perhaps, this group includes people who left their birthplace as infants
or children, and perhaps were born to parents who themselves were not
citizens of the country where their children were born. These
immigrants and refugees could have lived nearly their entire lives in
countries that even the federal government does not think present any
risk to the United States, and yet they are banned solely because of
where they were born. Even on immigration matters, discretion must
be exercised "in a reasoned manner." Judulang v. Holder, 565 U.S. 42,
53 (2011). A classification based on national origin is not rational."
II. THE BALANCE OF THE EQUITIES FAVORS AN
INJUNCTION, AND A STAY SHOULD BE DENIED.
Defendants have failed to establish that the district court abused
17 The Executive Order states the six targeted countries are unable to
"share or validate" data about individuals seeking to enter the United
States. Order § 1(d). But this assertion regarding vetting cannot be
read as a blanket "determination" that all individuals from the six
countries are "detrimental' to the United States in violation of section
1182(f).
W
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 29 of 49
its discretion in concluding that plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm
in the absence of a preliminary injunction. The court properly found
that Dr. Elshikh made a showing of "direct, concrete injuries to the
exercise of his Establishment Clause rights." E.R. 64. By contrast,
defendants identify no actual irreparable harm from the injunction.
They rely upon the general proposition that any interference with
government activity is necessarily irreparable, Brief for Appellants 54,
but the district court properly determined that the record presented
only "questionable evidence supporting the Government's national
security motivations." E.R. 66.
Beyond that, the Executive Order subverts the very national
security purpose it claims to serve and inflicts profound harms on amici
and their communities. The unlawful discrimination based on religion
and national origin undermines trust between our law enforcement
agencies and our immigrant communities, which in turn hinders our
ability to protect our residents. Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City,
Philadelphia, and the other amici, as financial, political, and cultural
hubs in the United States, draw unique attention from individuals
looking to harm this country. Additionally, local law enforcement
20
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 30 of 49
officers play an increasingly important role in efforts to detect and
protect against national security threats. For these and other reasons,
cities are a crucial part of the first-line defense against terrorism.18 To
serve the purpose of national security, our cities must be able to work in
coordination with everyone in our ethnically diverse communities.
Even at the strictly local level, the safety and security of our residents
and visitors depends upon cooperation between the residents and local
police. The United States Department of Justice's own Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services has emphasized this fact time
and again.19 With decades of experience policing neighborhoods that are
home to immigrant populations, amici are keenly and uniquely aware
18 E.g., Mitch Silber and Adam Frey, Detect, Disrupt, and Detain: Local
Law Enforcements Critical Roles in Combating Homegrown Terrorism
and the Evolving Terrorist Threat,
http://ir.lawnet.fordham. e du/cgi/viewcontent. cgi? article=2508 &context=
ulj; David Thacher, The Local Role in Homeland Security, 39 Law &
Soc'y Rev. 635 (Sept. 2005),
http s:Hdeepblue.lib. umich. e dulbitstre am/handle/2027.42/73848/j.1540-
5893.2005.00236.x.pdf?sequence=l; DHS Announces Expansion of the
Securing the Cities Program, https://www.dhs.gov/news/2015/09/14/dhs-
announces-exp ansion-securing-citie s -program.
18 E.g., Community Policing Defined, DOJ, Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services (rev. 2014), https:Hric-zai-
inc.com/Publications/cops-pl57-pub.pdf.
21
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 31 of 49
that ostracized residents are reluctant to report crimes or others
suspicious behavior. In short, by targeting immigrants based on
religion and national origin, the Executive Order makes all of our
residents and visitors, and indeed everyone in the country, less safe.
The Order's message that citizens of majority -Muslim countries
threaten national security inflicts other harm. Distrust and fear of such
individuals give rise to hate crimes against anyone different. In the
first 34 days following the 2016 election, 1,094 hate crimes and lesser
hate incidents were reported nationwide; 315 were categorized as anti -
immigrant, and 112 anti-Muslim.20 Cities across the country saw hate
crimes rise dramatically in the three months after the election. New
York City reported twice the number of hate crime incidents compared
to the same period a year prior; Chicago had twice as many arrests for
hate crimes; in Philadelphia, there was a 157% increase in the number
of hate crimes reported to police, and a 1,433% increase in hate or bias
incidents reported to the Philadelphia Commission on Human
Relations. In Los Angeles, hate crime incidents doubled, to 30, in the
20 Update: 1,094 Bias -Related Incidents in the Month Following the
Election, https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/12/16/update-1094-
bias-relate d -incidents -month -following -election.
22
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 32 of 49
month following the presidential election. And in the first five weeks of
2017, the number of hate crimes recorded in Chicago was more than
triple the number for the same period in 2016.
Foreign residents of our cities who feel unwelcome are more likely
to cut themselves off from public life and public programs. They may
refuse to participate in public health programs such as vaccinations or
seek medical care for contagious diseases. They may keep their
children out of school to avoid harassment and stay away from places of
worship. And these effects will not be limited to individuals from the
six targeted countries. Others will have cause to worry that the public
will embrace the Executive Order's anti -Muslim, anti -immigrant stance.
The Order therefore places millions of people at risk of harm or being
driven underground, making both those residents and our cities less
safe.
Finally, the incredibly broad exclusion of immigrants from the
targeted six countries — concededly many orders of magnitude broader
than any threat even the federal government perceives — inflicts serious
financial and social costs on amici. At the outset, while the Executive
Order itself applies only to people from these six countries, the anti -
23
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 33 of 49
immigrant sentiment reflected in the Order dissuades immigrants and
travelers from many others. As a result of the Order, significant
numbers of travelers are simply not coming to the United States, to say
nothing of immigrants who are dissuaded from choosing to live here.
This will cost amici hundreds of millions in tourism dollars, as well as
workers and entrepreneurs with unique skills and training. Our
colleges, universities, and hospitals will suffer as well, from a lack of
diversity, and the loss of some of the best talent in the world. Amici
urge the court to weigh these costs in the balance of harms, and to
affirm the preliminary injunction.
A stay is unwarranted. To obtain a stay pending appeal,
defendants must make a "strong showing" that they are likely to
succeed on the merits. Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987).
Defendants are not likely to prevail, as we explain above. Moreover, the
status quo since January 27, 2017, when the first Executive Order was
enjoined, is that travel and immigration restrictions have not been in
place in this country. See Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d at 1168 ("the
Government submitted no evidence to rebut the States' argument that
the district court's order merely returned the nation temporarily to the
24
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 34 of 49
position it has occupied for many previous years"). There is no reason
to upset that status quo. Defendants have not acted as though time is
of the essence. President Trump did not issue the revised Executive
Order until nearly one month after this court declined to stay the order
enjoining the original Executive Order. By contrast, this court has
expedited the appeal — a significant step toward a prompt, definitive
ruling.
Allowing the Order to go into effect on an interim basis would
itself cause irreparable harm. Amici pursue their anti -terrorism efforts
and hate -crime enforcement every day, and the Order's so-called
"pause" in immigration and refugees will not pause the need for that
vigilance, nor the Order's counterproductive impact on our efforts. At
the same time, hundreds of thousands of workers, tourists, students,
and patients worldwide are making life -changing — even life -and -death
— decisions now. At least some will be unwilling or unable to put their
lives on pause, but will make an irrevocable decision not to travel to the
United State if the injunction is stayed. Accordingly, the motion to stay
should be denied.
25
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, Dk- Entry: 137, Page 35 of 49
CONCLUSION
The district court's preliminary injunction should be affirmed, and
defendants' motion for a stay pending appeal should be denied.
RYAN P. POSCABLO
BRIAN NEFF
ELIBERTY LOPEZ
Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP
1330 Avenue of the Americas,
6'h Floor
New York, NY 10019
(212)660-1030
rposcablo@rshc-law.com
NICK KAHLON
Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP
Three First National Plaza
70 W. Madison Street, Suite 2900
Chicago, IL 60602
(312) 471-8700
nkahlon@rshc-law.com
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae,
City of Chicago
Respectfully submitted,
sBenna Ruth Solomon
EDWARD N. SISKEL
Corporation Counsel
of the City of Chicago
BENNA RUTH SOLOMON
Deputy Corporation Counsel
30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 800
Chicago, IL 60602
(312)744-7764
benna.solomon@cityofchicago.org
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae,
City of Chicago
26
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 36 of 49
APPENDIX
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 37 of 49
CHICAGO
The population of the Chicago is 2,717,534.1
Chicago has residents from more than 127 foreign countries.'
At least 572,066 of Chicago's residents are immigrants.'
3,731 of Chicago's residents were born in Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan,
Syria, and Yemen, of whom 1,650 are non -citizens'
Approximately 1.27 million people are employed in Chicago.' Of those,
26.5% are foreign -born immigrants,' including an estimated 976 non -
citizen immigrants from the six targeted countries.' The City itself
employs more than 32,000 people.'
Approximately 27% of Chicago's business owners are immigrants,9 of
whom an estimated 0.7% come from the six targeted countries.'o
1 U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5 -Year
Estimates.
' Id.
3 Id.
' U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey PUMS 1 -Year
2015 Data.
' U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5 -Year
Estimates.
6 Id.
7 Id.
3 https://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/dhr/dataset/
current_employeenames salariesandpositiontitles.html.
' https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/new-
americans-illinois.
to Id.
Al
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 38 of 49
At least 12,500 private employees work in Chicago on international
visas."
In 2016, approximately 2,091 refugees were resettled in Chicago,
including 794 from the six targeted countries.12
Chicago has 34 four-year colleges and universities, with more than
13,789 international students in the 2015-16 academic year.13 City
Colleges of Chicago (CCC) has seven colleges, with approximately 558
international students in the 2015-16 academic year. 175 of these were
born in, arrived on visas from, or are nationals of the six countries. 14
The tourism sector of Chicago's local economy accounts for $911 million
a year in local tax revenue and $2.3 billion in hotel revenue alone.15
232 flights arrive at Chicago airports from international destinations
every day, bringing 31,856 passengers.16
Each international flight arrival yields approximately $212,000 in local
economic impact.17
11 http://ireports.wrapsnet.org/ (by destination and nationality).
12 U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees and
Migration, Office of Admissions — Refugee Processing Center,
http://ireports.wrapsnet.org/.
13 http://www.collegesimply.com/colleges/illinois/chicago/four-year-
colleges/; http://www.iie.org/Research-and-Insights/Open-Doors/Fact-
Sheets-and-Infographics/US-State-Fact-Sheets/2016.
14 Jeff Donoghue, CCC, 3/9/17; (includes credit students only).
15 Alfred Orendorff, ChooseChicago.
16 http://www.flychicago.com/business/CDA/factsfig-ures/Pages/
airtraffic.aspx.
17 Jonathan Leach, Chicago Department of Aviation.
M.
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 39 of 49
In 2016, Chicago welcomed 54.1 million visitors,18 1.62 million of whom
visited from overseas.19 Approximately 1,000 international visitors
were from the six targeted countries.20
In 2015, tourism brought $14.66 billion in direct spending to Chicago.
Annually, international visitors to Chicago spend an estimated $1.88
billion, generating $112 million in state and local taxes.21
The average overseas visitor spends about $2,313 per trip visiting
Chicago.22
Tourists from the six countries account for an estimated $1.25 million of
local economic impact per year.23
Chicago is home to 44 major hospitals,24 which serve thousands of
international patients a year. The Middle East is the top source of
patients traveling to the U.S. for medical care.25
18 https://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/mayor/press—rooni/
press releases/2016/april/Mayor-Choose-Chicago-Announce-Record-
Tourism-2015.html.
" U.S. Department of Commerce, National Travel and Tourism Office.
Original source:
http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/outreachpages/download—data—table/.
2015_States_and _Cities.pdf.
20 Alfred Orendorff, ChooseChicago.
21 Id.
22 Id.
23 Id.
24 http://www.ihatoday.org/uploadDoes/l/hospcounty.pdf;
https://www.cityofchicago. org/city/en/depts/cdph/supp_info/clinical_healt
h/Find—a—clinic.html.
25 http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20170201/news03/170209996/
how -trumps -travel -ban -could -hit -medical -tourism -hard.
A3
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 40 of 49
Chicago established the Chicago Legal Protection Fund to increase legal
services for immigrant communities across the city.26 The Fund was
allocated $1.3 million for FY2017 to support organizations — including
Heartland Alliance's National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) and
The Resurrection Project (TRP) — and serve more than 20,000
immigrants through community-based outreach, education, legal
consultations, and legal representation.27
NIJC also received $150,000 from Chicago for fiscal year 2017 for its
Immigrant Children's Protection Project, which provides legal services
to unaccompanied children held in Chicago -area shelters.28
In calendar year 2016, NIJC and TRP represented clients from at least
132 countries, including all six targeted countries.29
In Chicago, there were twice as many arrests for hate crimes in the
three months after the Presidential election than during the same
period in the prior year.30
In the first five weeks of 2017, the number of hate crimes recorded in
Chicago was more than triple the number for the same period in 2016.
Additionally, hate crimes categorized as anti -Muslim or anti -Arab hit
five-year highs in Chicago in 2016.31
26 Seemi Choudry, Director of Office of New Americans, Chicago.
27 Id.
2s Id.
29 Id.
" Brandon Nemec, Mayor's Office liaison with Chicago Police
Department.
31 http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/daily-southtown/news/ct-sta-
hate-crimes-increase-st-0305-20170303-story.html.
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 41 of 49
NEW YORK CITY
The population of New York City is 8,550,405 as of 2015.52
New York has residents from more than 150 foreign countries.53
New York City is home to 3 million foreign -born New Yorkers, about
37% of the City's population. Approximately 49% of New Yorkers speak
a language other than English at home.54
New York City is home to an estimated 26,566 individuals born in
Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Iran, Somalia, and Libya.55
Approximately 4.3 million people are employed in New York City; of
those, 46% are foreign -born immigrants.56 New York City itself
employs 287,000 people,57 34% of them foreign-born.58
51% of New York City's business owners are immigrants.59
52 http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/3651000.
53 Our Immigrant Population Helps Power NYC Economy, Comptroller
Scott Stringer, 2017.
64 U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5 -Year
Estimates.
55 Id.
56 Id.
57 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/12/nyregion/bill-de-blasio-
government jobs.html?_r=0.
" U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5 -Year
Estimates.
" Our Immigrant Population Helps Power NYC Economy, Comptroller
Scott Stringer, 2017.
A5
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 42 of 49
About 1,300 refugees have been resettled in New York City in the last
five years.60
The tourism sector of New York City's local economy includes direct
visitor spending in 2015 of $42.2 bilhon.61
In 2015, New York City welcomed 58.5 million visitors, including 12.3
million foreign visitors.62 The City predicts a 300,000 -person drop in
foreign visitors this year.63
New York City has 87 four-year colleges and universities, with
approximately 50,000 international students.64
In the three months following the Presidential election, New York City
has characterized 43 crimes as possible hate crime incidents,65 an
increase of 115% for the same three-month period.66
" Data compiled by the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migrants
Office of Admissions—Refugee Processing Center.
61 http://www.nycandcompany.org/researcli/nyc-statistics-page.
62 Id.
63 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/nyregion/new-york-foreign-
tourists-trump-policies.html?_r=0.
64 46,870 foreign students were enrolled during the 2012-2013 school
year. https://www.nyeede.com/blog-entry/international-students-nye.
65 http://observer.com/2016/12/nypd-reports-huge-spike-in-hate-crimes-
since-donald-trumps-election/.
66 http://www.nyl.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2016/12/5/since-election-
day--nypd-reports-a-spike-in-hate-crimes-around-the-city-compared-to-
last-year.html.
W
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 43 of 49
LOS ANGELES
The population of our metropolitan area (Los Angeles County) is 10.2
million people, with more than 3.9 million living in the city.67
Los Angeles has residents from more than 135 foreign countries, and
185 languages are spoken here.68
At least 1.5 million city residents are themselves immigrants, 37.8% of
our total population. Approximately 43% of residents of Los Angeles
County were born in another country.fi9
As of 2015, the Los Angeles metropolitan area had over 152,000
immigrants from the six affected countries, including 136,000 from
Iran, 14,900 from Syria, 600 from Sudan, 500 from Somalia, and 100
from Yemen.70
Our city employs approximately 45,000 people, 22% of whom are
foreign -born immigrants.
44% of business owners in Los Angeles are immigrants.71
67 U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5 -Year
Estimates.
68 Id.
69 Id.
70 https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2017/01/30/these-
communities-have-a-lot-at-stake-in-trumps-executive-order-on-
immigration/.
41 2010 ACS Single year estimate.
A7
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 44 of 49
Between October 2015 and September 2016, approximately 2,800
refugees were resettled in Los Angeles County, including approximately
2,000 from the six targeted countries, and 1,900 from Iran alone.72
185 flights arrive at LAX from international destinations every day,
bringing 31,000 passengers, including more than 150 from the targeted
countries.73
The tourism sector of the local economy accounts for $21 billion a year
in direct spending by visitors to Los Angeles County and $260 million in
hotel taxes alone. Tourism supports approximately 500,000 jobs in the
leisure and hospitality sectors.74
In 2016, Los Angeles welcomed 47 million visitors, including 7.1 million
foreign nationals who spent $6.3 billion. At least 160,000 visitors hail
from the Middle East; they spent at least $185 million while in Los
Angeles.75
Los Angeles has at least ten four-year colleges and universities, with
approximately 25,000 international students.76
The Mayor of Los Angeles has reported that hate crime incidents
doubled to 30 in the month following the Presidential election.77
72 U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees and
Migration, Office of Admissions — Refugee Processing Center.
73 LAX officials.
74 Discover LA.
75 Id.
's University enrollment data.
77 http://abc7.com/politics/gareetti-discusses-las-rise-in-hate-crimes-
after-election/1651429/.
9E.
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 45 of 49
PHILADELPHIA
The population of the City of Philadelphia is approximately 1,526,006,78
and approximately 6,051,170 for the Philadelphia Metropolitan
Statistical Area.79
Philadelphia has residents from more than 130 foreign countries.80
At least 197,563 of our residents are immigrants.S1
Approximately 1,456 of Philadelphia residents were born in Iran, Libya,
Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.82
Approximately 640,661 people are employed in Philadelphia, and
108,010 of them are foreign -born (not including individuals who work in
Philadelphia but reside outside the city).83
78 U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5 -Year
Estimates.
79 U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population:
April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2014 — United States — Metropolitan and
Micropolitan.
" U.S. Census Bureau, Place of Birth for the Foreign -Born Population
in the United States, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5 -year
Estimates.
81 Id.
82 Id.
83 U.S. Census Bureau, Selected Characteristics of the Native and
Foreign -Born Populations, 2011 American Community Survey 5 -Year
Estimates.
Mm
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 46 of 49
In 2013, immigrants made up 14% of business owners in Philadelphia;
and immigrants are 28% of the area's "Main Street" business owners,
including 23% of retail store owners and 34% of restaurant owners.84
In 2016, approximately 682 refugees were resettled in Philadelphia,
including 176 from the six targeted countries.85
The Philadelphia Metropolitan Area is home to 31 four-year colleges
and universities, with 21,273 international students.86
The economic impact from tourism in Philadelphia in 2015 was $6.2
billion, including $3.9 billion in direct visitor spending, which generated
an estimated $277 million in taxes.87
In the three months following the Presidential election, eleven hate
crimes were reported to Philadelphia police, a 157% increase over the
seven reported in the three-month period around the same time last
year.88 In the same time period, the Philadelphia Commission on
84 Americas Society/Council of the Americas and Fiscal Policy Institute,
Brinain�,r Vitality to Main Street: How ImmiaTant Small Businesses
Help Local Economies Grow, at 16 (available at http://www.as-
coa.org/sites/default/files/ ImmigrantBusinessReport.pdf).
85 U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees and
Migration, Office of Admissions — Refugee Processing Center,
http://ireports.wrapsnet.org/.
" CampusPhilly; Christine Farrugia, Rajika Bhandari, Ph.D., 2015
Open Doors, Report on International Educational Exchange.
" Philadelphia Convention and Visitors Bureau (Staff Person), citing
Tourism as an Economic Engine for Greater Philadelphia 2015
Visitation and Economic Impact Report, http://files.visitphilly.com/Visit-
Philly-2015-Visitation-and-Impact-Full-Report.pdf.
" Philadelphia Police Department, Research and Analysis Unit
Statistical Section; see also Uniform Crime Reporting System, Monthly
A10
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 47 of 49
Human Relations received reports of 43 separate hate or bias incidents,
as compared to just 3 reports during the same time last year, a 1433%
increase.89
Summary Hate/Bias Motivation Report for Philadelphia City,
http://ucr.psp. state.pa.us/UCR/Reporting/Monthly/Summary/MonthlySu
mHateUI. asp?rbS et=4.
" Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations.
All
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 48 of 49
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on April 21, 2017, I electronically filed the
foregoing Brief and Appendix of Chicago, Los Angeles, New York,
Philadelphia, and Other Major Cities and Counties as Amici Curiae in
Support of Affirmance and in Opposition to a Stay Pending Appeal with
the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system.
Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be
served by the appellate CM/ECF system.
s/Benna Ruth Solomon
BENNA RUTH SOLOMON
Deputy Corporation Counsel
of the City of Chicago
30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 800
Chicago, IL 60602
(312)744-7764
benna.solomon@cityofchicago.org
Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405670, DktEntry: 137, Page 49 of 49
CNDIN 00Wrefily0IWDOMIUMrMto)D
This brief and appendix comply with the typeface requirements of
Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App.
P. 32(a)(6) because they use a proportionally spaced typeface (Century
Schoolbook) in 14 -point using Microsoft Word. The brief and appendix
comply with the type -volume limits of Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)(5) because
they together contain 6,426 words, which is less than half of the 13,000
words allowed for principal briefs under Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(i).
UO -1 a -t r
IF
Iowa City Police Department and University of Iowa DPS
Bar Check Report - April, 2017
The purpose of the Bar Check Report is to track the performance of Iowa City liquor license establishments in
monitoring their patrons for violations of Iowa City's ordinances on Possession of Alcohol Under the Legal Age
(PAULA) and Persons Under the Legal Age in Licensed or Permitted Establishments (Under 21). Bar checks are
defined by resolution as an officer -initiated check of a liquor establishment for PAULA or other alcohol related
violations. This includes checks done as part of directed checks of designated liquor establishments, and checks
initiated by officers as part of their routine duties. It does not include officer responses to calls for service.
The bar check ratios are calculated by dividing the number of citations issued to the patrons at that
establishment during the relevant period of time by the number of bar checks performed during the same period of
time. The resulting PAULA ratio holds special significance to those establishments with exception certificates,
entertainment venue status, or split venues, in that they risk losing their special status if at any time their PAULA
ratio exceeds .25 for the trailing 12 months. Note, while the resolution requires that bar checks and citations of the
University of Iowa Department of Public Safety (DPS) be included in these statistics, the DPS ceased performing bar
checks and issuing these citations to patrons in May of 2014.
Previous 12 Months Top 10
Under 21 Citations PAULA Citations
121rn , P, .IL
its
C it,.'nons
Kilo
:den Lounge
5
3
L .t;o
Union Bar
103
134
1.30097091
iUnion Bar
103
85
0.8252427
Summit. [The]
66
51
0.7727273
Summit. [The]
66
33
0.5000000
Eden Lounge
31
20
0.64516131
!Sports Column
70
24
0.3428571
Sports Column
70
22
0.3142857
Eden Lounge
31
7
0.2258065
DC's
69
20
0.28985511
'Airliner
24
4
0.1666667
Pints
33
7
0.2121212
Fieldhouse
54
8
0.1481481
Airliner
24
5
0.20833331
'DC's
69
6
0.0869565
Fieldhouse
54
11
0.2037037
Brothers Bar & Grill, [It's]
100
7
0.0700000
Martini's
32
6
0.1875000
Martini's
32
2
0.0625000
Brothers Bar & Grill, [It's]
100
17
0.1700000
,Blue Moose-
24
1
0.0416667
Only those cst,,bhshments with at least 10 bar checks oie listed in dic chart obose.
Current Month Top 10
Under 21 Citations PAULA Citations
sports Column
5
3
0.6000000
:den Lounge
5
3
0.6000000
ummit. [The]
11
6
0.5454545
Jnion Bar
11
4
0.3636364
ieldhouse
8
2
0.2500000
)C's
5
1
0.2000000
lirliner
6
1
0.1666667
Busines, N, me -
'/ficin
: it,)twrL_
_ Rat,o_
Sports Column
5
9
1.8000000
Summit. [The]
11
11
1.0000000
Martini's
3
2
0.6666667
Union Bar
11
5
0.4545455
DC's
5
2
0.4000000
Eden Lounge
5
2
0.4000000
Airliner
6
2
0.3333333
Fieldhouse
8
2
0.2500000
-exception to 21 ordinance Page 1 of 6
Iowa City Police Department
and University of Iowa DPS
Bar Check Report - April, 2017
Possession of Alcohol Under the Legal Age (PAULA) Under 21 Charges
Numbers are reflective of Iowa City Police activity and University of Iowa Police Activity
Business Name
Monthlv Totals I
Bar Under2l PAULA
Checks
Prev 12 Month Totals I
Bar Under2l PAULA
Checks
Under2l PAULA
Ratio Ratio
(Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo)
2 Dogs Pub
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
Airliner
6
1
2
24
5
4
0.2083333
0.1666667
American Legion
0
0
0
Atlas World Grill
0
0
0
Bardot Iowa
1
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
Baroncini—
0
0
0
Basta
0
0
0
Big Grove Brewery
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Blackstone—
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Blue Moose—
1
0
0
24
2
1
0.0833333
0.0416667
Bluebird Diner
0
0
0
Bob's Your Uncle
0
0
0
Bo -James
1
0
0
6
3
0
0.5
0
Bread Garden Market & Bakery ^'
0
0
0
Brix
0
0
0
Brothers Bar & Grill, [It's]
10
0
0
100
17
7
0.17
0.07
Brown Bottle, [The]—
0
0
0
Buffalo Wild Wings Grill & Bar—
0
0
0
Cactus 2 Mexican Grill (314 E Burlington)
1
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
Cactus Mexican Grill (245 s. Gilbert)
1
0
0
6
0
8
0
1.3333333
Caliente Night Club
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
Carl & Ernie's Pub & Grill
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
Carlos O'Kelly's—
0
0
0
Chili Yummy Yummy Chili
0
0
0
Chipotle Mexican Grill
0
0
0
—exception to 21 ordinance Page 2 of 6
Business Name
Monthlv Totals
Bar Under2l PAULA
Checks
Prev 12 Month Totals
Bar Under2l PAULA
Checks
Under 21 PAULA
Ratio Ratio
(Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo)
Clarion Highlander Hotel
0
0
0
Clinton St Social Club
0
0
0
Club Car, [The]
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Coach's Corner
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Colonial Lanes"
0
0
0
Dave's Foxhead Tavern
0
0
0
DC's
5
1
2
69
20
6
0.2898551
0.0869565
Deadwood, [The]
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
Devotay—
0
0
0
Donnelly's Pub
0
0
0
Dublin Underground, [The]
1
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
Eagle's, [Fraternal Order of]
0
0
0
Eden Lounge
5
3
2
31
20
7
0.6451613
0.2258065
EI Banditos
0
0
0
EI Cactus Mexican Cuisine
0
0
0
EI Dorado Mexican Restaurant
0
0
0
EI Ranchero Mexican Restaurant
0
0
0
Elks#590, [BPO]
0
0
0
EnglertTheatre—
0
0
0
Fieldhouse
8
2
2
54
11
8
0.2037037
0.1481481
FilmScene
0
0
0
First Avenue Club—
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
Formosa Asian Cuisine—
0
0
0
Gabes-
1
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
George's Buffet
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Givanni's-
0
0
0
Godfather's Pizza
0
0
0
Graze-
0
0
0
Grizzly's South Side Pub
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
Hilltop Lounge, [The]
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
Howling Dogs Bistro
0
0
0
IC Ugly's
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
-exception to 21 ordinance Page 3 of 6
Business Name
Monthlv Totals
Bar Under2l PAULA
Checks I
I Prev 12 Month Totals
Bar Under2l PAULA
Checks
I Under 21 PAULA
Ratio Ratio
(Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo)
India Cafe
0
0
0
Iron Hawk
0
0
0
Jimmy lack's Rib Shack
0
0
0
Jobsite
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
Joe's Place
1
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
Joseph's Steak House"
0
0
0
Linn Street Cafe
0
0
0
Los Portales
0
0
0
Martini's
3
0
2
32
6
2
0.1875
0.0625
Masala
0
0
0
Mekong Restaurant"
0
0
0
Micky's-
0
0
0
Mill Restaurant, [The]"
0
0
0
Moose, [Loyal Order of]
0
0
0
Mosleys
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
Motley Cow Cafe"
0
0
0
Noodles & Company-
0
0
0
Okoboji Grill"
0
0
0
Old Capitol Brew Works
0
0
0
One -Twenty -Six
0
0
0
Orchard Green Restaurant-
0
0
0
Oyama Sushi Japanese Restaurant
0
0
0
Pagliai's Pizza`
0
0
0
Panchero's (Clinton St)-
0
0
0
Panchero's Grill (Riverside Dr)-
0
0
0
Pints
3
0
0
33
7
1
0.2121212
0.0303030
Pit Smokehouse
0
0
0
Pizza Arcade
0
0
0
Pizza Hut-
0
0
0
Players
0
0
0
Quinton's Bar & Deli
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Rice Village
0
0
0
exception to 21 ordinance Page 4 of 6
Business Name
Monthly Totals I
Bar Under2l PAULA
Checks I
Prev 12 Month Totals I
Bar Unde21 PAULA
Checks
Under 21 PAULA
Ratio Ratio
(Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo)
Ride
0
0
0
Ridge Pub
0
0
0
Riverside Theatre"
0
0
0
Saloon—
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
Sam's Pizza
0
0
0
Sanctuary Restaurant, [The]
0
0
0
Shakespeare's
0
0
0
Sheraton
0
0
0
Short's Burger & Shine—
0
0
0
Short's Burger Eastside
0
0
0
Sports Column
5
3
9
70
22
24
0.3142857
0.3428571
Studio 13
1
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
Summit. [The]
11
6
11
66
51
33
0.7727273
0.5
Sushi Popo
0
0
0
Szechuan House
0
0
0
Takanami Restaurant—
0
0
0
Taqueria Acapulco
0
0
0
TCB
2
0
0
23
0
0
0
0
Thai Flavors
0
0
0
Thai Spice
0
0
0
Times Club @ Prairie Lights
0
0
0
Trumpet Blossom Cafe
0
0
0
Union Bar
11.
4
5
103
134
85
1.3009709
0.8252427
VFW Post#3949
0
0
0
Vine Tavern, [The]
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
Wig & Pen Pizza Pub—
0
0
0
Yacht Club, [Iowa City]—
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
Yen Ching
0
0
0
Z'Mariks Noodle House
0
0
0
exception to 21 ordinance Page 5 of 6
Off Premise
Monthlv Totals
Prev 12 Month Totals
Under2l
PAULA
Bar Under2l PAULA
Bar Under2l PAULA
Ratio
Ratio
Checks
Checks
(Prev 12 Mo)
(Prev 12 Mo)
Totals 79 20 35
723 298 186
0.4121715
0.2572614
0
0
1
0
1
0
99
1
0
0
Grand Totals I 36 1 I 285
exception to 21 ordinance Page 6 of 6
i I IP5
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City. Iowa 52240-1826
(319)356-5000
(319)356-5009 FAX
www.icgov.org
May 4, 2017
TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council
RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Treatment Plant Operator - Water
Under the authority of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, I do hereby
certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Treatment Plant
Operator — Water.
Samuel Fosse
IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
LyraW. Dickerson, Chair
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826
(3 19) 356-5000
(3 19) 356-5009 FAX
W W W.icgov.org
May 10, 2017
TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council
RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Maintenance Worker I — Water Customer
Service
Under the authority of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, I do hereby
certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Maintenance Worker
I —Water Customer Service.
Samuel Callahan
IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
LyraOW. Dickerson, Chair
r _ IP7
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826
(319)3S6-5000
(3 19) 356-5009 FAX
www.icgov.org
May 10, 2017
TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council
RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Geographic Information System
Coordinator
Under the authority of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, I do hereby
certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Geographic
Information System Coordinator.
Edward McNaughton
IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
�A_A � F�N✓� �� �sO�r
Lyr Dickerson, Chair
17
DRAFT IP8
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES — May 9, 2017
CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chair Orville Townsend called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Monique Green, Donald King (electronically)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mazahir Salih, Joseph Treloar
STAFF PRESENT: Kellie Fruehling
STAFF ABSENT: Legal Counsel Pat Ford
OTHERS PRESENT: Sargent Derek Frank of the ICPD
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion by King, seconded by Green, to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended.
• Minutes of the meeting on 03/14/17
• Minutes of the meeting on 04/12/17
• ICPD GO#07-03 (ADM 09.1 Fiscal Management)
• ICPD GO#00-01 (LEG -04.1 Search and Seizure)
• ICPD GO#89-05 (OPS -01.1 Radio Communications Procedure)
• ICPD GO#99-01 (OPS -02.1 Police Vehicle Pursuits)
• ICPD GO#07-02 (OPS -21.1 Detainee Processing)
• ICPD GO#99-04 (OPS -07.1 Canine Operations)
• ICPD SOG#16-03 (Fire Prevention Plan)
• ICPD SOG#01-17 (Missing Persons)
Motion carried, 3/0, Salih and Treloar absent.
NEW BUSINESS
None.
OLD BUSINESS
Community Forum Discussion — Fruehling stated that the draft minutes from the community forum had
a draft summary and the transcriptions attached for Board review before forwarding to Council. It was
moved by King, seconded by Green to forward the draft summary to Council with no changes. Motion
carried, 3/0, Salih and Treloar absent.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
None.
BOARD INFORMATION
None.
STAFF INFORMATION
Fruehling noted she had included the Council approved revised by-laws in the meeting packet for
member files.
CPRB
May 9, 2017
Page 2
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change)
•June 13, 2017, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
•July 11, 2017, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
•August 8, 2017, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
.September 12, 2017, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
ADJOURNMENT
Motion for adjournment by Green, seconded by King.
Motion carried, 310, Salih and Treloar absent.
Meeting adjourned at 5:35 P.M.
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2016-2017
(MeetingDate
KEY: X =
TERM
5/18
5/23
6/7
8/17
9/13
10/11
11/7
11/15
12/15
1/10
2/14
3/14
4/12
5/9
NAME
EXP.
Joseph
7/1/17
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
Treloar
Mazahir
7/1/17
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
O
X
O
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
Salih
Donald
7/1/19
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
O/E
OX
OX
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
King
Monique
7/1/20
---
---
---
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Green
Orville
7/1/20
---
---
---
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Townsend
Melissa
9/1/16
X
X
X
---
---
---
---
---
—
---
---
---
---
---
Jensen
Royceann
9/1/16
X
X
O
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Porter
KEY: X =
Present
O =
Absent
O/E =
Absent/Excused
NM =
No meeting
--- =
Not a Member
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
APRIL 20, 2017 — 6:30 PM
SENIOR CENTER, ROOM 202
MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Byler, Syndy Conger, Christine Harms, Harry
Olmstead, Dorothy Persson, Emily Seiple, Paula Vaughan
MEMBERS ABSENT: Bob Lamkins, John McMnstry
STAFF PRESENT: Tracy Hightshoe
OTHERS PRESENT: Maryann Dennis, Chris Villhauer
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends to amend the FY17 Annual Action Plan to
allocate all the FY17 HOME returned funds (Shelter House - $250,000) to the following
eligible projects (recommended as FY18 projects, but can proceed immediately) $200,000
ICHA — Tenant Based Rent Assistance and $50,000 to Habitat for Humanity — Affordable
Homeownership.
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends altering the March 7 CDBG/HOME budget
HCDC recommendation to City Council by removing the two HOME projects (ICHA —
Tenant Based Rent Assistance and Habitat for Humanity) from the FY18 Annual Action
Plan and altering the HOME budget. Congress has not passed a budget yet and Iowa City
has not received their final entitlement amount. As the City is expecting additional cuts to
HOME, HCDC recommends the following HOME budget:
• Successful Living: $36,000
• The Housing Fellowship Rehab: $97,000
• The Housing Fellowship CHDO Operations: $7,000
• Housing Rehab: $90,000 (Council set-aside)
• HOME admin: $25,500 (Council set-aside)
• Total HOME budget: $255,500
If the final HOME budget exceeds the estimated HOME budget by $20,000, the available
HOME funds will be allocated to The Housing Fellowship. If less than $255,500, the
projects will receive a pro -rated reduction. If the final HOME budget is more than $275,500,
staff will have another funding round for HOME funds. No applicant will receive less than
the original March 7 HCDC recommendation if another funding round is needed.
If the CDBG recommendation is within 20% of the estimate, the amount will be prorated to
each project (increase or decrease) up to the requested amount if an increase.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
Byler called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
Housing and Community Development Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 2 of 8
APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 7. 2017 MINUTES:
Hightshoe noted that in the conversation about Successful Living and why it had to be
CDBG funds the reason is based on deciding if a project is financially feasible throughout
the affordability period without Medicaid payments for housing support services. Is the
amount of rent collected, just rent, enough for them to operate affordable housing and be
financially stable for the whole compliance period?
Paragraph in minutes should read: Byler began with the Successful Living project and
noted there are six commissioners that agreed to fully fund that project. Hightshoe noted
that should be funded under CBDG funds as it may not be HOME eligible. Project must
demonstrate feasibility over the whole compliance period without the support of Medicaid
payments for support services. She has called HUD to inquire and that was verified.
Conger noted some grammatical errors throughout the minutes.
Olmstead moved to approve the minutes of March 7, 2017 with edits. Vaughn
seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
MONITORING REPORTS:
Bilam Properties, LLC: Chris Villhauer (Director of Property Management, Southgate
Companies) presented an update to the Commission. He stated they are on schedule with
their project and will be done in the May timeframe. The feedback they have received from
the townhouses that have been completed has been positive and the tenants are enjoying
their new homes.
Persson asked if this was the property off Mormon Trek, Villhauer confirmed it was, and
how many of the units have now been upgraded. Villhauer stated they are updating 40
units with this current grant, and own 53 total units in the complex. Of the 13 not being
updated at this time, some have had work done on them previously and others will have
work done in the near future.
Hightshoe explained that Bilam Properties, LLC received a $600,000 loan and they have
spent all but around $100,000.
Byler asked if they are moving tenants out of the apartments while renovating and then
moving them back in. Villhauer said they gave tenants the option of moving to another unit
in the complex and then moving back in once renovated, or just moving to a different unit
permanently.
Byler asked if anyone has had their lease expire and renewed since they have been in a
newly renovated unit and did their rent increase. Villhauer stated they did not raise any of
Housing and Community Development Commission
Apd120,2017
Page 3 of 8
the rents for the units, and all the lease renewals they are doing for August there will also
not be any rent increase.
Olmstead asked if any of the units were accessible, Villhauer stated they are not. Hightshoe
added the bedrooms are upstairs in the units.
Byler asked if they do all their work in-house and Villhauer said they generally subcontract
out and that is part of the reason why the process has been a little slower.
The Housing Fellowship: Maryann Dennis (Executive Director) started her report noting
the Sabin Townhomes are under construction, scheduled to be ready for rental in August.
Hightshoe asked when they will close on the purchase of those units. Dennis believes they
will close on their three units sometime in July.
Dennis next discussed the rehab on the houses on Dover and Wayne Streets. Both are
complete. There was a thank you note from the tenants of those units in the
Commissioners' packets. Those tenants have lived in that property since 1998 and are
thrilled with the updates. Dennis noted that The Housing Fellowship had to invest quite a
bit of money into the Dover Street house and there are some huge overgrown trees that
need considerable work and they are waiting on the weather to cooperate with finishing
that project.
Regarding the FY17 money, they have not yet utilized it. That $58,000 was intended to
purchase one property but with the market in Iowa City and the location model makes it
difficult. It they purchase one property it will likely have to be a condominium and the issue
with The Housing Fellowship purchasing condominiums is the condo association fees and
because the rents are capped. The Fellowship does own several condominiums, but the
budget this year just for condo fees is $80,000 so therefore they would prefer to try and not
buy another condo. Those fees are unpredictable, and the older condos can have
assessments as well. Dennis would prefer if the Commission would allow them to look for
land; they have identified three possible sites in Iowa City with the hopes of submitting a
low-income house tax credit application to build on the site. So the $58,000 would be for a
land acquisition.
Hightshoe stated that the City has to commit the funds and if this year goes by without the
funds being used and The Housing Fellowship doesn't get the tax credit in November, there
is no time to allocate the funds to something else. It would be an issue of timing that
Hightshoe would need to review and she will work with The Housing Fellowship to see
what can be achieved.
Persson asked how long The Housing Fellowship would hold the land before being able to
build. Dennis said when you apply for the tax credit they must have control of the land, and
the application for the tax credit is due in November and awarded in March. Then typically
it is not until fall that the construction begins, once all due diligence is complete. Hightshoe
stated that is her concern, if The Housing Fellowship does not get the tax credit in March,
we only have until July 31 to commit the funds. We would have to have a project ready to
go (site secured, environmental review done, underwriting and market analysis done, etc.)
to commit these funds by July or HUD will recapture those funds.
Housing and Community Development Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 4 of 8
Dennis noted that with the FY18 money The Housing Fellowship hopes to receive ($86,000
pending Council approval), that project also includes money from The Housing Trust Fund,
which has not been awarded yet. So the backup plan could be, if the Commission agrees,
the $86,000 is for five units and they could go up to almost $125,000 for those five units,
and then find another house to rehab.
Persson asked if The Housing Fellowship could meet the timelines with the backup plan.
Dennis confirmed for rehabs absolutely. Dennis added that the properties that they just
released had other properties in that agreement that could be used for rehab.
Byler commented on the original $58,000 to buy a home, at the meeting where the
Commission allocated those funds it came to light, for example, why Successful Living has
an easier time providing houses than The Housing Fellowship is because they are SRO
units and the rents are like $2,800 for a four-bedroom unit. Byler asked why The Housing
Fellowship couldn't rehab a house to have three individuals in one house in an effort to
achieve lower rents for each SRO unit. Hightshoe noted that The Housing Fellowship
focuses on families while Successful Living focuses on individuals. Byler understands but
noted that the housing costs are continuing to go up and the rents are not.
Byler stated he is fine with what The Housing Fellowship wants to do with the $58,000 and
the rest of the Commissioners were also in agreement. Hightshoe said once The Housing
Fellowship states their preference, rehab. or land acquisition, staff will prepare an Action
Plan amendment.
Dennis said she will find out the allocation from the Rehab Trust Fund next week. They
have three possible land sites and they could do between 24 and 30 units.
Mayor's Youth Empowerment Program: Hightshoe noted that Kari Wilken (Director of
Resources, Mayors Youth Employment Program) could not be at the meeting tonight but
sent an update via email to Kris Ackerson that Hightshoe will forward to the Commission.
Shelter House: Hightshoe gave a quick update. Rapid Rehousing Program (tenant based
rental assistance) was increased to $90,000 because of the Rose Oaks situation and they
have spent all but $11,000. The grant was to end in November 2016, but entered an
amendment to extend till December 2017 to expend all the funds. Tenant based rent
assistance takes time to spend as assistance goes out each month, not in one large payment.
The FUSE land acquisition declined their award and returned the $250,000 back to the
City. They already own the land. Shelter House chose not to accept the HOME award
because when they discussed the project with the Iowa Finance Authority (IFA) they were
told that IFA did not want to combine local HOME dollars and National Trust Fund dollars
on the same project.
Byler asked if it was IFA's preference or requirement. Hightshoe said there is no law, but
IFA told Shelter House they prefer an application that does not combine HOME funds with
Trust Fund dollars.
Housing and Community Development Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 5 of 8
CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING
PROPOSED FY2017 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN AMENDMENT #1:
Hightshoe explained that the City administers two programs; CDBG and HOME. While
HUD programs they have different rules. On May 2 of each year HUD reviews CDBG
timeliness. The City can't have more than 1.5 times their entitlement funds in their line of
credit as of May 2 or the City must enter a "workout plan" to ensure the funds are spent on
a timely basis. Hightshoe stated the City does not anticipate any problems meeting this
deadline this year.
The HOME program does not go by an expenditure ratio. Instead, funds must be committed
by a certain date. There are two years to commit HOME funds but if the City has received
more program income than anticipated it doesn't always match what is programmed out. If
after two years if the dollars have not been committed HUD will take the funds back and
will reallocate to another community. Therefore the City always tries to make sure HUD
never recaptures any of the HOME funds. The word commit has a very specific meaning in
the HOME program. A site must be secured, environmental review done, underwriting and
marketing analysis completed, all sources of funds known and committed and an agreement
entered to "commit" funds.
So therefore when Shelter House declined their $250,000 award, staff looked at what
projects could be committed by July 31 as we have a HOME commitment shortfall. This
needs to be resolved by July 31. Habitat for Humanity has a site with an option to buy, and
the money can be committed as soon as the environmental review is complete. The other
option is tenant based rent assistance, it is environmentally exempt, and that could be
committed instantly. It also doesn't need underwriting analysis because tenant based rent
assistance is exempt. Those two projects would be $220,000. This would be more than
enough to meet our HOME commitment shortfall. These projects would be moved from the
FY18 Action Plan to FY17. That would leave $30,000 to allocate for FY18. Hightshoe noted
that the City still has not received their HUD budget, and they cannot submit an Annual
Action Plan to HUD without the budget, so they are in a holding pattern. HUD anticipates
CDBG to be approximately the same with perhaps a small cut; however they anticipate cuts
to the HOME program. Staff would like to get the Annual Action Plan ready so once they
receive the HUD budget they can immediately submit the Plan to Council for approval.
However, it may not be fair to have another funding round to request submissions for
HOME funds only to find out that the City doesn't receive enough HOME funds to cover the
full recommendation.
When the Commission voted on the FY18 Annual Action Plan they made the
recommendation that if the available funds are within 20% of the allocations all will be
adjusted accordingly, if it is greater than a 20% differential the Commission will reconvene.
Hightshoe is now suggesting for more guidance from the Commission on whether the 20%
would be for the CDBG projects and a different recommendation for the HOME projects
knowing now that the budget they predicted will likely be less for HOME.
Seiple noted that two of the HOME projects in FY18 are now being funded in FY17 by the
Shelter House monies. Hightshoe confirmed that was true.
Housing and Community Development Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 6 of 8
Byler stated that with the tenant based rent assistance money, Steve Rackis indicated that
money would basically sit there until such time it was needed. Hightshoe stated they have
four years to spend it. Persson noted that Rackis stated he would likely need all that money
and it would be spent. Hightshoe said there are 2,000 people on the waithst, that money
can be spent.
Olmstead suggested giving tenant based rent assistance $200,000 and Habitat for
Humanity $20,000.
Seiple asked about the other $30,000. Hightshoe stated that Habitat for Humanity can only
proceed with one of their homes immediately which is why the other $30,000 could be
carried over to FY18.
Persson asked if any of the money could be moved down to public facilities. Hightshoe
confirmed they could not because it was HOME money. The CDBG recommendations are
proceeding how the Commission recommended at the March meeting, it is the HOME
money that is being redistributed.
The Commission discussed the $30,000 and whether to allocate it now rather than carry it
over to FY18. Byler wondered if more money was given to Habitat for Humanity if they
could find another lot to purchase. Byler would prefer to commit the additional $30,000.
Olmstead was in agreement but wanted to make sure the $30,000 was allocated to where it
could meet the most need, if there are so many on the waitlist for housing perhaps the
funds should go there.
Olmstead moved to amend the FY17 Annual Action Plan to allocate all the FY17
HOME returned funds (Shelter House - $250,000) to the following eligible projects
(previously recommended as FY18 projects, but can proceed immediately)
$200,000 to the Iowa City Housing Authority for Tenant Based Rent Assistance and
$50,000 to Habitat for Humanity — Affordable Homeownership. This
recommendation will be submitted to City Council for consideration and
approval. Persson seconded the motion. Vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
REVIEW AND CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON
APPROVAL OF FY18 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN
Byler noted that with the amendment to the FY17 Annual Action Plan it changes the
recommended awards to the FY18 Annual Action Plan HOME funds. The options are to 1)
allocate a bunch of money with no guarantee the City will even receive those monies, 2)
allocate no additional money now and when the budget is determined the partners can ask
for more money; or 3) allocate the $140,000 from the awards that were moved to FY17.
Hightshoe noted that if they lower the HOME allocation to $140,000 (does not include set
asides) that changes the administration funds — admin is 10% of the entitlement amount
plus 10% of program income. If the entitlement amount is drastically lower, the CHDO
application only gets 5% of that amount (HOME requirement that CHDO operating does
not exceed 5% of the entitlement amount). Therefore it is better to recommend a
percentage (5%) for The Housing Fellowship CHDO operating allocation rather than an
amount, so it adjusts accordingly with the funds received.
Housing and Community Development Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 7 of 8
Conger moved to alter the March 7 CDBG/HOME budget HCDC recommendation
to City Council by removing the two HOME projects (ICHA - Tenant Based Rent
Assistance and Habitat for Humanity) from the FY18 Annual Action Plan and
altering the HOME budget. Congress has not passed a budget yet and Iowa City
has not received their final entitlement amount. As the City is expecting
additional cuts to HOME, HCDC recommends the following HOME budget:
Successful Living $36,000, The Housing Fellowship Rehab - $97,000, CHDO
Operations $7,000, Housing Rehab. $90,000 (Council set-aside), HOME admin:
$25,500 (Council set-aside). Total HOME budget $255,500. If the final HOME
budget exceeds the estimated HOME budget by $20,000, the available HOME
funds will be allocated to The Housing Fellowship. If the grant is less than
$255,500, the projects will receive a pro -rated amount. If the final HOME budget
is more than $275,500, staff will have another funding round for HOME funds. No
applicant will receive less than the original March 7 HCDC recommendation if
another funding round is needed.
If the CDBG recommendation is within 20% of the estimate, the amount will be
prorated to each project (increase or decrease) up to the requested amount if an
increase.
Olmstead seconded the motion and it passed with a vote 7-0.
STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT:
Hightshoe stated that last year the City held the "So you want to start a business" series for
primarily early stage entrepreneurs and due to its success it will be offered again this year,
partnering with Kirkwood Community College and other community businesses. It will be a
half-day event at Kirkwood on Saturday, May 20. They already have 25 participants
registered.
Olmstead announced that Sally Scott will be leaving the Coalition at the end of June. If
anyone is interested please let him know.
CORRESPONDENCE:
There was a thank you note included in the Commissioner's packets.
ADJOURNMENT:
Olmstead moved to adjourn. Persson seconded the motion. Meeting adjourned.
Housing and Community Development Commission
Attendance Record
Name
Terms Exp.
5/19
6/16
8/18
9/15
10/20
11/17
12/15
1/19
2/9
2/16
3/7
4/20
Byler, Peter
7/1/17
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
Conger, Syndy
VV18
O/E
O/E
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
Harms, Christine
7/1/19
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Lamluns, Bob
7/1/19
X
O/E
O/E
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
O/E
McBinstry, John
7/1/17
X
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
Olmstead, Harry
7/1/18
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Persson, Dottie
7/1/17
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Seiple, Emily
7/1/18
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Vaughan, Paula
7/1/19
---
---
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Key:
X
= Present
O
= Absent
O/E
= Absent/Excused
---
= Vacant
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 4, 2017 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING
E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Ann Freerks, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Max
Parsons, Mark Signs, Jodie Theobald
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Bob Miklo
OTHERS PRESENT: Del Holland
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 6-0 (Dyer recused) the Commission recommends approval of REZ17-00007 an
application submitted by Iowa City Cohousing LLC for a rezoning of approximately 7.8 -acres to
amend the preliminary OPD Plan to add three additional units to Prairie Hill, a 36 -unit cohousing
development located west of Miller Avenue, south of Benton Street.
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of SUB17-00004, an application for a
preliminary and final plat of Little Ash Subdivision, a 1 -lot, 21.48 -acre residential subdivision
located on the east side of Maier Avenue.
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends the City forward a letter to the Johnson County
Board of Adjustment indicating that the City has no objection to the conditional use permit.
CALL TO ORDER:
Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
REZONING ITEM REZ17-00007:
Discussion of an application submitted by Iowa City Cohousing LLC for a rezoning of
approximately 7.8 -acres to amend the preliminary OPD Plan to add three additional units to
Prairie Hill, a 36 -unit cohousing development located west of Miller Avenue, south of Benton
Street.
Dyer recused herself and left the room during this discussion as she is on the Board of the Iowa
City Cohousing LLC.
Miklo noted that the Commission should all be familiar with this property, it is located on the
west side of Miller Avenue on the south side of Benton Street. The surrounding properties for
the most part are zoned RS -8, and to the north is Benton Hill Park which is zoned Public and to
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 4, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 2 of 5
the south is zoned Community Commercial. Miklo explained that the planned development
overlay that was approved included a private drive/street to serve 33 cohousing units. The
proposal is to amend that plan to add one additional unit to the Common House (near the center
of the development) and add two units to what was originally a duplex by adding a second floor.
Miklo showed drawings of the previous proposal and then drawings of the new proposal. The
new proposal also includes some minor design changes to other aspects of the plan, for
example the townhouses will no longer be two stories, and they will be single floor units (but
basically the same footprint). The garages would be slightly larger (extended by two feet) and
there would be additional parking to accommodate the three additional units. In terms of density
Miklo noted that this does fall in the RS -8 density, it is just under five units per acre, which is
typical for RS -8 development.
Staff is recommending approval of the amendment to the plan to allow the three additional units
and design changes.
Freerks asked if there was room for street trees along Miller Avenue. Miklo stated that yes
there will be street trees along Miller Avenue.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Del Holland , 1701 East Court Street, came forward representing the applicant to answer any
questions.
Freerks closed the public hearing.
Hensch moved to approve REZ17-00007 an application submitted by Iowa City
Cohousing LLC for a rezoning of approximately 7.8 -acres to amend the preliminary OPD
Plan to add three additional units to Prairie Hill, a 36 -unit cohousing development located
west of Miller Avenue, south of Benton Street.
Parsons seconded the motion.
Hektoen noted that this property is currently subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement and
those same conditions will remain in place. Miklo confirmed those would continue and not
change.
Freerks noted this is an exciting project that she is eager to see and the changes make sense.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
DEVELOPMENT ITEM SUB17-00004:
Discussion of an application submitted by Brian and Laura Wolf for a preliminary and final plat of
Little Ash Subdivision, a 21.48 -acre, 1 -lot residential subdivision located on Maier Avenue SW in
Fringe Area C.
Miklo noted this property is located within the two-mile Fringe Area of Iowa City, but is well
outside of the growth area and is not likely to be annexed into the city. The agreement with the
County is the City is required to review and approve subdivisions within the two-mile Fringe
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 4, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 3 of 5
Area. The subdivision is creating one buildable lot off from a larger parcel of property.
Subdivisions outside of the growth area are required to adhere to the City Rural Design
Standards contained in the Fringe Area Agreement. These standards generally conform to the
County zoning and subdivision standards rather than typical City requirements for infrastructure
and lot design.
Staff recommends that SUB17-00004, an application for a preliminary and final plat of Little Ash
Subdivision, a 1 -lot, 21.48 -acre residential subdivision located on the east side of Maier Avenue
be approved.
Freerks opened the public discussion.
Seeing no one Freerks closed the public discussion.
Parsons moved to approve SUB17-00004, an application for a preliminary and final plat of
Little Ash Subdivision, a 1 -lot, 21.48 -acre residential subdivision located on the east side
of Maier Avenue.
Theobald seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
CONDITIONAL USE ITEM CU17-00001:
Discussion of an application submitted by Paula Boback to Johnson County for a conditional
use permit to allow for a private school on property located at 3520 Osage Street. This property
is located southwest of Iowa City in Fringe Area C of the Fringe Area Policy Agreement.
Miklo noted this is the neighboring property from the one just discussed and again is well
outside the City's growth area, although in the Fringe Area. The County's Zoning Ordinance
allows schools in residential areas by a Conditional Use Permit. The County ordinance also
requires that the City review the Conditional Use Permit within the Fringe Area. Miklo reiterated
that this is not an area that is likely to be annexed into the city. He added if this area were
annexed, the City also allows schools in residential neighborhoods by a special exception
(similar to the County's Conditional Use process).
Given the proposed use is not within the Growth Area and that the school use would not be
incompatible with residential future growth, staff recommends that the City forward a letter to the
Johnson County Board of Adjustment indicating that the City has no objection to the conditional
use permit.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one Freerks closed public hearing.
Signs moved that the City forward a letter to the Johnson County Board of Adjustment
indicating that the City has no objection to the conditional use permit.
Parsons seconded the motion.
Signs noted in an effort to be transparent that the applicant's spouse is his personal doctor.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 4, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 4 of 5
Martin disclosed she one went camping with the applicants.
Dyer noted it is a wonderful school proposal.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: APRIL 20, 2017
Hensch moved to approve the meeting minutes of April 20, 2017.
Theobald seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Miklo stated that the City is continuing to work with the consulting firm that is looking at the
possibility of Form -Based Codes for the Northside and South Districts. The firm will be back in
town next week and there will be a continuation of the workshops. On Wednesday the
workshop will discuss the Northside and that will be at Horace Mann School 6:00 pm to 8:00
pm. Then on Thursday (again from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm) at Alexander Elementary School to
discuss the South District. Miklo asked that if the Commissioners plan to attend to let him know.
Signs noted he will be attending the South District discussion on Thursday. Freerks will be at
the Northside workshop.
ADJOURNMENT:
Hensch moved to adjourn.
Parsons seconded.
A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2016-2017
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member
6/2
7/7
7/21
8/4
9/1
10/6
10/20
11/17
12/1
12/15
1/19
2/2
3/2
3/16
4/6
(W.S.)
4/20
4/20
5/4
DYER, CAROLYN
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
FREERKS, ANN
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
HENSCH, MIKE
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MARTIN, PHOEBE
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
O/E
X
PARSONS, MAX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
SIGNS, MARK
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
THEOBALD, JODIE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member