03 - Laserfiche WebLink

addressed and stated she will abstain from voting. She advised it is clear any voter-approved initiative cannot be overturned by a City Council and stated this is a big component. In response to Mayor Brown, City Attorney Sodergren explained an abstention does not count as an affirmative vote. Councilmember Balch advised he strongly understands the sentiment with the State's actions and likely future actions. He noted he continues to be challenged by things like the complete waiving of parking requirements in a suburban community. He advised he understands concerns about the likely impacts of SB 9 and SB 10. He noted the City has done its objective design standards in preparation. He reported there is uncertainty about how far a City Council could reach to override State housing laws. He noted local control has long been a buzzword in Pleasanton and he understands the rush to support the initiative. Councilmember Balch noted the Cal Cities decision was to take no position at this time and added many of his questions tonight were answered with silence. He advised the initiative may not be wrong, but he does not have the answers yet. He explained there are unintended consequences that could not be fully answered. He requested further analysis of the initiative. He called for restraint and guiding the community through the challenges while more knowledge is gained. Councilmember Balch reported the City just asked the State for $35 million for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances treatment plant and is looking for certification on its Housing Element. He expressed concerns about CEQA because he does not see this in the actual body of the initiative which would modify the Constitution. He noted the City has been found discriminatory in its housing policies due to a voter-approved measure. He advised he understands the fervor and heat but remains unsure how he will vote and indicated abstention is a possibility. City Attorney Sodergren clarified an abstention is considered a vote with the majority unless the Councilmember has declared a conflict of interest. Mayor Brown advised she supports local control. She reported she signed the initiative and would love to see it qualify for the ballot. She expressed support for others signing the initiative and added it is a decision the voters should make. Mayor Brown advised the resolution states the City supports the initiative and she is unsure if this is true. She explained since it is a State initiative and a Constitutional change it deserves the full vetting of Cal Cities. She advised even though she supports local control, she is not comfortable putting the City of Pleasanton's name as an endorser. Mayor Brown reported the State likely would still have eminent domain laws to help trains pass through a disapproving community. She does not like five-story buildings in downtown Pleasanton but she is not ready to modify the Constitution over a couple of projects because most of the State zoning laws are good and wise. She explained overriding all of them would give an incredible amount of power to five people and she is not ready to take all of the State's zoning powers. She expressed hopes Cal Cities will continue to advocate for local control but work collaboratively with the State to find solutions everybody can live with. Councilmember Testa amended her motion to state the City Council supports the initiative going to the ballot. She clarified it would not be taking a position on the initiative other than stating the voters should decide. Mayor Brown expressed support for the amended motion. Councilmember Arkin reaffirmed her second for the amended motion. City Council Minutes Page 12 of 17 January 18. 2022