CC MIN 01182022 - Laserfiche WebLink

control and stated the comment affordable housing is racist is erroneous. She advised it is not in the City's laws to only give affordable housing to minorities. Mayor Brown clarified the CVRA was covered in Item 10 and encouraged Ms. Jensen to email the City Council for further discussion. She advised they all represent the entire City for being elected by an at- large majority. Olivia Sanwong advised she is trying to understand the potential unintended consequences of the initiative on a statewide level as it relates to things like PG&E transmission lines. She echoed comments by Councilmembers Balch and Narum by noting the City is completely dependent on imported water and energy which could be adversely impacted by other cities' versions of local control. Linda Harmeson encouraged residents to go to Our Neighborhood Voices' website to read and sign the petition. Jocelyn Combs agreed with the staff's recommendation because there are so many lingering questions. She advised it appears to present a simple case for local control but could have many unintended consequences. She advised it will not solve the housing problem but rather stop the State from attempting to solve it. She advised the initiative would allow the City to override Accessory Dwelling Unit laws which allowed her to build one without the City's cumbersome restrictions. She encouraged the City to meet its Housing Element so it is no longer a State control target. Mr. Heath advised while there are possible unintended consequences of the initiative, they know what the consequences are of SB 9 and SB 10. He added SB 9 is one of the largest CEQA exemptions in State history for rezoning every single-family lot in the State with no environmental review, infrastructure assessment, or owner-occupancy requirement. He advised the laws give developers an open invitation to build whatever they want wherever they want in communities with little public input. He noted this is not a measured, thoughtful, or intelligent way to proceed with land use policy. He addressed Councilmember Balch's concerns about transit by clarifying the initiative intends to keep transit and large developments next to transportation under the jurisdiction of local agencies. In response to Councilmember Arkin, Mr. Heath encouraged the City Council to look at the legal opinion from Strumwasser & Woocher LLP elaborating on why CEQA and Fair Housing are not impacted by the initiative. He read an opinion by lawyer Sabrina Venskus stating there is no language in the initiative undermining CEQA and other environmental protection laws. Councilmember Narum clarified her comments on transportation were about extending train lines and not the development around stations. In response to Councilmember Narum, Mr. Heath advised his belief transit authorities like BART are covered under either the Public Resources Code or Public Utilities Code and neither of those statutes would be considered land-use or zoning laws. He noted it would be hard for a city to override a future transportation project because they are matters of statewide concern. In response to Councilmember Balch, Mr. Heath advised the City cannot currently enact a law impacting transit projects like rail extensions. He clarified the Valley Link situation is a case where a City would have to adopt an ordinance conflicting with a statewide transportation project to get to the point where the court would have to decide if the legislature has deemed the project to be of statewide concern. He speculated there would be language in a rail project declaring it to be of statewide concern overriding a local ordinance. City Attorney Sodergren reported he has not conducted a legal analysis of the proposed measure and cannot speculate how a court would interpret these provisions. City Council Minutes Page 10 of 17 January 18,2022