CC MIN 01182022 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to Councilmember Arkin, City Attorney Sodergren reported he has not analyzed the proposed measure's ability to stop the Harrison Street project downtown Pleasanton. In response to Councilmember Arkin, Interim City Manager Dolan confirmed more projects like the one on Harrison Street could come forward in the future. In response to Councilmember Balch, Mr. Rhine confirmed the questions over CEQA and Fair Housing would likely have to be settled by a court to determine the intent of the voters. He confirmed if someone challenges a city's decision, it would be up to a judge to determine how CEQA would apply. In response to Councilmember Balch, Mr. Rhine advised he is not familiar with the situation involving the Livermore Municipal Airport's CEQA analysis so he cannot comment. City Attorney Sodergren advised he has not reviewed the measure from a legal standpoint and would not want to speculate. In response to Councilmember Balch, City Attorney Sodergren clarified he cannot speculate on who would pay for legal challenges because it depends on how the measure is brought to court. Councilmember Balch inquired about setting over 500 different land-use standards statewide if cities and counties can do as they please. In response to Councilmember Balch, Interim City Manager Dolan reported the City could currently use General Fund money to build affordable housing. City Attorney Sodergren advised future City Councils can change previous City Council policies but not those adopted by voters. In response to Councilmember Balch, City Attorney Sodergren advised he has not reviewed the court's 2010 opinion on Pleasanton's 1996 voter-approved housing cap recently so he could not say definitively what is in the ruling relative to discrimination issues. In response to Councilmember Balch, Mr. Rhine clarified the measure has a carve-out for local voter- approved initiatives. He advised a City Council could not interfere with what is in this potential state- level initiative if it is approved. In response to Councilmember Balch, Assistant to the City Manager Hopkins advised it is unclear whether regional mass transportation like Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) would be deemed a matter of state interest. Interim City Manager Dolan explained these questions are what led to the Cal Cities Board's conclusion there are still too many unanswered questions to take a formal position on the initiative. He advised this is also part of why the staff's recommendation is to not act. In response to Councilmember Balch, Mr. Rhine reported the Cal Cities Working Group did not discuss issues like Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) lines running through multiple cities. He advised the working group continues to have questions they are working through even with their past time commitment. In response to Councilmember Balch, Mr. Rhine advised the bill introduction deadline is a month away and the full amount of submitted housing-related legislation will be determined at that time. In response to Councilmember Narum, Mr. Rhine advised he does not know enough specifics about Valley Link. He clarified he does not know if transportation bills have language similar to housing bills. He added there is a reference to water infrastructure in the measure excluding those decisions from cities, keeping it an issue of statewide concern. He clarified the measure does not identify water sources, just water infrastructure. In response to Councilmember Narum, Mr. Rhine reported there are about a dozen potential ballot initiatives currently in the process of signature gathering. He advised Cal Cities focuses on ballot City Council Minutes Page 8 of 17 January 18,2022