CC MIN 01182022 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to Councilmember Balch, Mr. Heath advised in a conflict between a city and the State in matters of land use and zoning, the city would prevail and noted the point of the initiative is so a judge would not have to make this decision. He advised the only exceptions would be coastal land use, a power plant over 50 megawatts, or water, communication, and transportation infrastructure. He reported he could not answer if Pleasanton could have to pay to defend its State-conflicting positions in court in the future. In response to Councilmember Testa, Mr. Heath advised power lines are generally covered under the Public Utilities Code and are not considered zoning or planning so there would be no impacts under the initiative. Mayor Brown closed the public hearing. Councilmember Testa moved to pass a resolution supporting the initiative. She advised she has hundreds of signatures from Pleasanton residents indicating tremendous support for the initiative and noted this is an opportunity to let the voters decide. She advised they have not gotten into all of the unintended consequences minutia tonight but added they are all red herrings intended to deflect from the intent of the initiative. She advised the City Council should help get it to the ballot. Councilmember Testa reported there was a question earlier towards what may be coming next from the legislature and Senator Mike McGuire has indicated there will be forthcoming bills even more restrictive than SB 9 and SB 10. She advised she was in the Cal Cities Working Group and reported a presentation by California Yes in My Back Yard (YIMBY) stating they and the legislature will not stop until all local control has been removed. Councilmember Testa reported the proponents of the initiative went to Cal Cities before it was filed looking for a partnership and Cal Cities was unwilling to do this. Councilmember Arkin seconded the motion. She advised the initiative strengthens CEQA unlike SB 9 and SB 10 which will decimate it. She noted different cities should be making different land-use decisions and noted City Councils can change the priorities of their predecessors. She advised the Harrison Street project is not an emotional argument but rather a reality they cannot counter any portion of. She reported preserving downtown against developments like this was one of the top things she heard from residents while campaigning. She advised SB 9 and SB 10 do not address the affordable housing crisis. Councilmember Arkin advised the City should act now when the initiative is not on the ballot yet because it sends a message to the community that this is important. She explained these unwanted land uses will have irrevocable impacts for years to come. She advised SB 9 and SB 10 treat all cities the same when they are not all the same. She expressed concern that SB 9 and SB 10 overturn voter- approved initiatives. She noted if the City Council is concerned about projects like the one on Harrison Street, to approve the resolution supporting the initiative. Councilmember Narum advised all members of the dais are staunch supporters of local control and have been repeatedly frustrated by mandates, citing the earlier discussion on district elections as an example. She advised endorsing an initiative not qualified for the ballot is a slippery slope when there are many other pending initiatives out there. She questioned if it is the best use of their time when the City Council does not have a policy on State initiatives. She advised she understands the concerns. Councilmember Narum advised enough questions have been raised and the Cal Cities Board declined unanimously not to take a position, making it hard for her to support the motion. She clarified she is not opposed to the resolution but feels she needs more information and did not hear the right answers tonight. She cited the vague Valley Link answers to whether another community could stop something the City Council fully supports. She stated she is unsure of the unintended consequences but added she is also unwilling to vote against the resolution. She called for more time to have concerns City Council Minutes Page 11 of 17 January 18,2022