CITY OF PLEASANTON
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
January 18, 2022
This meeting was conducted in accordance with Governor Newsom' s Executive Order N- 29- 20 and AB 361 COVID- 19 pandemic protocols.
SPECIAL MEETING
Mayor Brown called the teleconferenced special meeting of the City Council from various remote locations to order at the hour of 6:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Councilmembers Arkin, Balch, Narum, Testa, Mayor Brown
Absent: None
PUBLIC COMMENT— None.
ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION FOR THE FOLLOWING:
1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS per Gov' t Code § 54956. 8:
Properties: 401- 403 Old Bernal Avenue
Agency negotiator: Brian Dolan, Interim City Manager Negotiating parties: Kelly S. Djokovic and Sandra L. Neary Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment of sale
2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS per Gov' t Code § 54956. 8:
Properties: 4884 Harrison Street
Agency negotiator: Brian Dolan, Interim City Manager Negotiating parties: Kelly S. Djokovic and Sandra L. Neary Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment of purchase
CLOSED SESSION REPORT
City Attorney Dan Sodergren advised there was no reportable action.
ADJOURNMENT— The special meeting adjourned at 6:48 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING
Mayor Brown called the teleconferenced regular meeting of the City Council from various remote locations to order at the hour of 7:07 p.m. Councilmember Balch led the Pledge of Allegiance and provided opening remarks.
ROLL CALL
Present: Councilmembers Arkin, Balch, Narum, Testa, Mayor Brown
Absent: None
AGENDA AMENDMENTS
Councilmember Balch requested Item 12 be continued to a future City Council meeting. He reported writing an advice letter to the California Fair Political Practices Commission ( FPPC) and has not yet received a reply leaving him unsure of a potential need to recuse.
In response to Mayor Brown, Councilmember Testa reported she is in the same situation with the FPPC and also requested a continuance.
Mayor Brown explained there are 29 sites in the City to be submitted for an Environmental Impact Report ( EIR), and many could be within 500 feet of Councilmembers' homes, potentially requiring two out of five members of the dais to recuse themselves.
Councilmember Narum moved to continue Item 12. Councilmember Arkin seconded the motion.
MOTION: It was m/s by Narum/Arkin to continue Item 12 to a future council meeting. Motion passed by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Arkin, Balch, Narum, Testa, Mayor Brown Noes: None
Absent: None
City Attorney Dan Sodergren reported these advice letters typically return within 21 days. He theorized the longerresponsetime is due to the complexityof the issue but expectsto have responsesby the next City Council meeting.
Mayor Brown advised those wishing to speak tonight about the Housing Element can comment during Item 9.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Arkin moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Narum seconded the motion.
Mayor Brown opened the public hearing. There being no comments, the public hearing was closed.
City Attorney
1. Adopted by minute order the findings regarding public health related to the COVID- 19 pandemic to support continued virtual public city meetings per Resolution No. 21- 1249 City Manager
2. Approved meeting minutes October 19, 2021
Community Development
3. Actions of the Zoning Administrator
Economic Development
4. Public Hearing — Adopted and waived full reading of Resolution No. 22-1266 of declaring intention to renew the Tri-Valley Tourism Marketing District (TVTMD) and fixing the time and place of a public meeting and a public hearing thereon and giving notice thereof; and adopted and waived full reading of Resolution No. 22-1267 requesting consent of the cities of Livermore, Dublin, and the Town of Danville, and Contra Costa County to renew the Tri-Valley Tourism Marketing District ( TVTMD) and administer assessments
City Council Minutes Page 2 of 17 January 18, 2022
Finance
5. Approved and authorized City Manager to amend the original purchase order agreement with Robert Half International, Inc. for up to $ 160, 000 for temporary accounting staffing services Library and Recreation
6. Approved and authorized City Manager to execute a 5-year copntract with Innovative Interfaces Incorporated for the Polaris ILS library management software in the amount of$ 343, 166 Operations Services
7. Approved and authorized City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Woodard and Curran for development of the sewer collection system hydraulic model, capacity evaluation and related studies, CIP No. 16245, in the amount of$ 509, 227 MOTION: It was m/s by Arkin/ Narum to approve the Consent Calendar as recommended and as noted. Motion passed by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Arkin, Balch, Narum, Testa, Mayor Brown Noes: None
Absent: None
MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
8. Presentation of proclamation recognizing January 15-30, 2022, as Health for Humanity Yogathon Councilmember Balch read a proclamation in recognition of the 2022 Health for Humanity Yogathon.
Sanjeev Bhatawadekar, President of the Tri-Valley Chapter of the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh ( HSS), expressed appreciation for the proclamation. The goal of the annual national drive is to reach out to schools to help encourage students to stay healthy through a set of simple yoga postures. He noted the pandemic has emphasized the importance of the physical and mental health benefits provided by yoga.
9. Public Comment regarding items not listed on the agenda Andre Pegeron commented that the City should allow for the full density on each of its Housing Element sites. He reported the Bay Area has added only one house for every 4.5 jobs over the past 10 years. He advised only having above 30 units per acre will allow for having moderate to low- income people to move into those areas. He encouraged more construction near downtown.
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS
10. Public Hearing — Receive input from the community regarding boundaries and composition of districts to be established for City Councilmember district- based elections pursuant to Elections Code Section 10010 and provide initial direction to demographer on composition of draft maps City Attorney Sodergren reported in December 2021 the City Council adopted a resolution stating its intent to transition from at-large to districted elections for City Council seats in conformance with the California Voting Rights Act ( CVRA). He reported the City must hold two public hearings before any maps are drafted with this being the second of those two hearings.
Demographer Michael Wagaman of Wagaman Strategies, clarified this meeting will be more focused on the City Council providing him with preliminary direction for draft maps as opposed to the more City Council Minutes Page 3 of 17 January 18, 2022
background informational January 4 hearing. He reported he will draft at least three maps for the February 3 hearing, along with the submission of any publicly-drawn draft maps. The February 3 hearing is the time for the City Council to start narrowing down options.
Mr. Wagaman briefly reviewed the six criteria required by state law for drawing the districts. He emphasized the primary goal is to have four equally- sized districts to represent the City' s 79,894 residents according to the 2020 United States census. He noted the City is ethnically diverse but his preliminary analysis shows it would not be possible to draw a district where a protected class is a majority, most likely leaving the federal Voting Rights Act out of Pleasanton' s process aside from identifying communities of interest. He reported he is not from Pleasanton.
Mayor Brown opened the public hearing.
Ms. Jensen advised she does not support Mr. Pegeron' s comment about allowing for maximum density due to pollution and traffic concerns.
In response to Ms. Jensen, Mayor Brown clarified the City is looking for large natural dividing lines such as everything west of Interstate 680. Mr. Wagaman advised there are prescribed criteria under both state and federal law with the latter stating race cannot be the predominant factor. Mayor Brown directed the public to the City' s website where residents can draw maps.
In response to Mayor Brown, Mr. Wagaman clarified the public has been given several options because different tools work better for different people, including a paper tool where residents can draw their proposed lines by hand. He advised the timeline is short due to state law and not a City Council decision.
Andre Pegeron endorsed centering a district surrounding the downtown area to ensure his district is like- minded.
Bryan Tor expressed uncertainty over what constitutes a community of interest.
Mr. Wagaman clarified determining communities of interest is part of the purpose of the meeting. He noted he has already received three different definitions of what constitutes the downtown area.
Mr. Tor advised the City Council needs to provide direction on the boundaries of downtown, and considerations of a neighborhood, a Homeowners' Association ( HOA), or school enrollment zone.
In response to Mr. Tor, Mr. Wagaman advised the City Council can provide broad direction such as treating every HOA as a community of interest or just certain HOAs. He stated there are no limitations in the law here and advised this is part of why all discussions are public.
In response to Mr. Tor, Mayor Brown confirmed they have not yet provided any direction and noted the City Council is there now to listen. She explained the City Council will guide the City's consultants after the public hearing and will continue to gather public feedback until the approval of a final map.
Sandy Yamaota advised Ruby Hill should be moved to a different part of the City instead of the one to its immediate north for reasons of economic equity.
Mayor Brown closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Arkin would like school boundaries to be considered towards defining communities of interest. She agreed defined neighborhoods like Birdland and Ruby Hill should not be divided. She noted public maps she has seen feature jagged lines making contiguous but not compact districts. She City Council Minutes Page 4 of 17 January 18, 2022
noted simple quadrants would not work perfectly due to population numbers but advised it would help keep school zones together. .
Councilmember Narum would like to see a map draft based primarily on the school zones but noted PUSD is working to change those. She supports keeping distinct neighborhoods intact, highlighting Valley Trails and Jensen Tract. She requested at least one option with Main Street split into different districts. She noted if there is only one representative for such an important area and they have a conflict, downtown' s concerns would not be heard. She requested the area from Stoneridge Drive to Bernal Avenue and west of 1-680 be kept together because the whole community is impacted by the foothill' s issues, along with sharing schools. She noted there is anticipated growth in the northwest portion of the City and on the east side near Santa Rita Road and Valley Avenue. She advised Stoneridge Drive and Hopyard Road would make for good and understandable boundaries. She noted there should also be a map keeping the Downtown Specific Plan ( DSP) area intact although her preference is to have two people represent at least a portion of Main Street.
Councilmember Testa would like to keep neighborhoods together and noted Pleasanton does not have many of the typical concerns districting is designed to address. She advised respecting school boundaries also stands out. She advised Councilmember Narum's comments about splitting Main Street due to the possibility of a conflict leaving downtown without representation applies to every neighborhood thus implying every neighborhood should be split. She reported many residents are concerned districting will leave many communities without representation due to conflicts. She requested City Attorney Sodergren have a conversation with the FPPC about all of these potential conflicts from smaller districts of representation.
Councilmember Balch advised he likes much of what has already been mentioned. He noted it would be wise to consider having map options with both downtown intact and split. He reported using the online map tool and realizing he had to separate neighborhoods and communities of interest he had hoped to keep together because of populations and densities. He expressed concerns the actual maps will have to carve up neighborhoods due to population densities. He advised 1-680 is a bifurcating element as are some of the arroyos. He expressed support for considering school district lines.
In response to Mr. Wagaman, Councilmember Balch clarified Pleasanton has several arroyos which may make for good geographical boundaries.
Mayor Brown noted no development goes on both sides of Hopyard Road making it a great separator.
She expressed support for splitting downtown because it is the community' s gem and should be represented by two Councilmembers plus the Mayor. She expressed her desire to see two Councilmembers voting on behalf of Hacienda Business Park, noting several roads bifurcate the area.
She expressed support for using the arroyos as possible dividers and using school maps as a basis for their maps. She advised Ruby Hill is an interesting parcel due to its high economic value perhaps warranting two voting blocks, adding it could be divided by Ruby Hill Country Club. She added if a Ruby Hill resident were elected to the City Council, they may not have proper representation in the future due to conflicts.
In response to Mr. Wagaman, Interim City Manager Brian Dolan clarified the Hacienda Specific Plan encompasses the entire business park and this definition can be shared with him. Mayor Brown noted this area is primarily businesses and not residential, but those successful businesses need representation.
Councilmember Testa reported residents have inquired why every neighborhood cannot be split to have two representatives. She advised this does not seem reasonable and seems unfair that some neighborhoods would get a second City Council representative.
City Council Minutes Page 5 of 17 January 18, 2022
In response to Councilmember Testa, Mr. Wagaman clarified state law generally favors keeping communities of interest whole, but advised there are regular exceptions and a downtown area is a popular example. He said having a goal of intentionally splitting communities of interest would probably run afoul of state law. He confirmed a Councilmember will have to live in their represented district.
In response to Councilmember Testa, Mayor Brown advised there are 850 homes in Ruby Hill and if their representative cannot vote it is disappointing to the community. She stated downtown could have the same frustrating situation.
In response to Councilmember Testa, Mr. Wagaman confirmed the districts are not allowed to overlap.
Tom Willis, attorney with Olson Remcho, LLP, also confirmed districts cannot overlap due to the CVRA.
In response to Councilmember Testa, Mr. Willis advised he and City Attorney Sodergren can discuss if there are any solutions to the conflict of interest issue with smaller districts. City Attorney Sodergren advised the Political Reform Act generally does not take districting into account but noted there is a Public Generally Exception from the FPPC allowing an official to participate in the decision if it impacts 15% of the district for a residential property or 25% of the district if it is non- residential.
In response to Councilmember Balch, Mr. Willis confirmed in the transition, the current at- large elected officials would not be removed from office before the end of their terms. He explained that in 2022, they would try to align the first two district elections with the two Councilmembers who are up for reelection and the other two in 2024. He confirmed the definitions of residency for candidates do not change with districting.
11. Continued from January 4, 2022 — Discussion regarding Proposed Ballot Measure 21- 0016 Amendment 1 which provides that local land use and zoning laws override conflicting State laws, and consider taking a position
Assistant to the City Manager Becky Hopkins reported Proposed Ballot Measure 21-0016 would provide that any local ordinances, regulations, or charter provisions regarding land use zoning within the boundaries of a county or city would prevail over state law if a conflict exists. She advised staff recommends not acting at this time to allow for further study to identify any potential consequences.
She reported the initiative would override all conflicting state laws except for areas of concern related to the California Coastal Act of 1976, the siting of power plants, and the development of water, communications, or transportation infrastructure. She advised the proposed amendment to the State constitution would prevent the State legislature and local legislative bodies from passing laws invalidating voter- approved local land- use or zoning initiatives, and prohibit the State from changing, granting, or denying funding to local governments based on their implementation of this measure. She noted fiscal impacts are unclear at this time.
If the initiative were to pass, a city or county could adopt a local ordinance overriding current state laws and requirements but not voter- approved local initiatives. She clarified an ordinance adopted under a city' s police power to protect public health, safety, and welfare cannot be enforced if it conflicts with state law. She advised a conflict exists if a local ordinance duplicates state law, contradicts state law, or enters a field fully occupied by state law.
The initiative aligns with the principle in the City' s Legislative Framework of protecting local control but noted the framework does not provide guidance for taking a position on a proposed ballot initiative. She noted there is a provision considering a scenario where another city' s decision harms Pleasanton if there is no state law to remedy the situation. She reported the analysis was performed by the City's advocacy partners from the California League of Cities ( Cal Cities).
City Council Minutes Page 6 of 17 January 18, 2022
Samantha Caygill, East Bay Regional Public Affairs Manager for Cal Cities, reported they are not there to advocate for or against the potential measure but rather to update them on Cal Cities' discussion with cities across the State.
Jason Rhine, Assistant Director of Legislative Affairs for Cal Cities, stated Cal Cities' mission is protecting and expanding local control for cities to enhance the quality of life. He reported the Cal Cities Board in December directed staff to make a bold statement protecting local control as it relates to housing and zoning.
Mr. Rhine reported they held June 2021 committee meetings to consider Assembly Constitutional Amendment ( ACA)- 7. He reported a 21- member Working Group representing all 16 regional divisions was formed between the various committees and recommended taking no position after three meetings featuring a total of seven hours of deliberation. He advised the Board later unanimously affirmed not taking a position at this time and directed staff to develop a list of strategies.
Mr. Rhine reported there was unanimous support for the underlying premise of ACA 7 and the ballot measure to protect and reclaim local control. He reported many issues were identified. He listed the five greatest concerns were the possibility of pitting jurisdictions against each other, creating a disjointed patchwork approach to land use, complicating disaster and emergency management, undermining environmental justice, public health and fair housing goals, and disrupting decades of land use policy supporting and guiding local decision making.
Mr. Rhine reported Cal Cities' staff will deliver its comprehensive plan to the Board in the spring featuring a menu of strategies developed in collaboration with relevant Cal Cities' policy committees and regional divisions. He forecasted a challenging year ahead where a focus on common interests will be a call for a unified voice from cities. He advised local control is the largest thing of common interest among the State' s 482 cities. He commended Councilmember Testa' s work on their committees.
In response to Councilmember Testa, Mr. Rhine clarified there are concrete examples of the five main concerns. He advised there is ambiguity around the California Environmental. Quality Act ( CEQA) and Fair Housing laws leading the working group to conclude there will be areas of uncertainty because a court will have to interpret the intent of voters. He noted the Board decided there are too many uncertainties based upon the potential actions of individual cities.
Councilmember Testa reported there have been 70 laws passed over the past six years eroding local control, many of which eliminate CEQA. She advised there is already certainty around destructive laws like Senate Bill 35 which will allow an inappropriate project in Pleasanton' s downtown. She explained the initiative will neutralize these laws.
In response to Councilmember Testa, City Attorney Sodergren confirmed the City Council can take a position on a proposed ballot measure without it being considered an expenditure of funds for political purposes. He confirmed it is permissible for Councils to make this statement. He confirmed it is irrelevant whether the initiative is already on the ballot.
In response to Councilmember Arkin, Mr. Rhine clarified the non- housing laws most directly impacted are the mandatory elements within a General Plan, such as the mandatory safety elements around disasters. He clarified the measure deals with housing and zoning but touches on a vast body of law cities must follow when making land- use decisions. He advised over the past five years the State has gotten away from having broad parameters towards micromanaging, but the issue is if a ballot measure to combat micromanaging also throws out the overarching bookend laws. He noted this is where the concept of jurisdictions being pitted against each other could come into play. He clarified Fair Housing laws appear in multiple areas, including some outside the realm of land- use laws. He advised they are intertwined, could be hard to separate, and it is unknown how the court will interpret applications.
City Council Minutes Page 7 of 17 January 18, 2022
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
measures either in conflict or support of its guiding principles and presents them to its Board for a two- thirds vote.
City Attorney Sodergren clarified the State law prohibition is against spending public funds to advocate for oragainst a ballot measure. He advised the FPPC clarified the Council making a statement on the record does not qualify as expending public funds.
In response to Mayor Brown, Mr. Rhine advised land regulations could conceivably conflict with a city' s Climate Action Plan ( CAP) and make a State mandate to have a CAP become challengeable.
In response to Mayor Brown, Mr. Rhine explained the State does not act as a mediator to help with situations involving adjacent cities overbuilding and forcing transportation issues onto its neighbor.
In response to Mayor Brown, Mr. Rhine reported the Board taking a formal " no position" on a local control ballot measure is a strong signal given Cal Cities' mission. He advised it is only temporary acknowledging there are a lot of things to still figure out and unanswered questions. He confirmed they cannot amend the measure' s text because signatures are being collected.
Mayor Brown opened the public hearing.
Christine Bourg advised she would like to see something to prevent more inappropriate buildings like the one on Harrison Street. She noted she would sign the initiative and encouraged others to do so.
Becky Dennis advised it is risky for the City Council to endorse the initiative because Pleasanton has been found by courts to have violated housing discrimination law using a growth control measure approved by the voters. She advised it would put the City in a confrontational position with the State while trying to get its Housing Element certified. She noted the City Council has discussed providing housing for Pleasanton' s essential workers earning less than 60% of the Annual Median Income. She noted the measure speaks only of local control and not affordable housing so it gives the opposite impression.
Jill Miller advised the meeting has a theme of loss of local control between the forced redistricting and this item' s attempt to prevent State micromanaging. She noted it is a complicated issue and the measure should be approved. She advised it is not against housing, the environment, or affordable housing but rather about keeping decisions where they belong. She encouraged the City Council to make a statement in favor of the measure so the City has a say in what happens to it.
Andre Pegeron advised growth is inevitable and should be embraced. He explained there are plenty of job opportunities but not a lot of houses. He advised people should have an option to live near where they work and noted State housing initiatives provide more affordable housing closer to work, lowering pollution and prices. He advised this is why Cal Cities says going against the measure undermines environmental justice, public health, and Fair Housing goals. He encouraged building housing to solve the crisis noting educators like himself can barely afford to live where they work in Pleasanton.
Jovita Mendoza reported several cities have signed the petition before it is even on the ballot and noted the concerns are all red herrings. She explained her goal is to give land use back to cities so the decision- makers are closest to residents. She noted the State has committed no funds to affordable housing and expects cities to pay through bonds. She advised her ask of the State is to open the State' s 1.2 million vacant homes to families. She urged the City Council to bring back local control through this initiative.
JoAnna Jensen expressed concerns about what the CVRA considers a protected class and why white people cannot sue because they are not considered a protected class. She expressed support for local City Council Minutes Page 9 of 17 January 18, 2022
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
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
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. Sheexplainedsinceit is a Stateinitiativeanda Constitutionalchangeit deservesthefull vettingof 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.
CouncilmemberTestaamendedher motionto statethe City Councilsupportsthe initiativegoingto the ballot. Sheclarifiedit wouldnot betakinga positionon the initiativeotherthanstatingthevotersshould 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
Mayor Brown confirmed the motion is stating the City Council endorses and supports the initiative going to the ballot and clarified they are not endorsing the initiative. Councilmember Testa clarified the motion states the City Council supports the initiative going to the ballot for voters to decide. She advised the voters did not get to vote on SB 9 or any of the other laws triggering this initiative.
Councilmember Testa clarified telling residents the City Council endorses adding the initiative to the ballot is not the same as endorsing the initiative's details. She advised it is making a statement this subject matter is so important the voters should have their say.
Interim City Manager Dolan requested more precision on the distinction between the two motions.
Councilmember Testa explained instead of the sample resolution, they are voting to state the City Council supports the initiative going on the ballot for the voters to decide. Mayor Brown advised the reason is they are still gathering signatures.
In response to Mayor Brown, Interim City Manager Dolan explained if this is the intent it does not need to come back to the City Council but noted he continues to struggle with the difference between the two motions. He advised staff has the proposed wording and the rest is up to the City Council.
Councilmember Narum advised she is uncomfortable with things like this being done on the fly. She advised she could support the amended motion but would like to see it in writing as a draft resolution before being asked to vote on it.
Mayor Brown advised this can be brought back on the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Arkin explained the original motion was to endorse the initiative through a resolution while the amended motion merely states the City Council supports the initiative going to the ballot without taking a stance on the initiative itself. She stated this likely would not require a resolution.
Interim City Manager Dolan confirmed understanding of the wording.
MOTION: It was m/s by Testa/ Arkin to express the City Council' s support for Proposed Ballot Measure 21- 0016 proceeding to the State' s 2022 General Election ballot. Motion passed by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Arkin, Balch, Narum, Testa, Mayor Brown Noes: None
Absent: None
12. Continued - Housing Element Update - Review and approve potential sites to be considered for future rezoning for residential development and inclusion in the environmental analysis as part of the Sites Inventory for the 2023- 2031 ( 6th Cycle) Housing Element Update Mayor Brown recessed the meeting at 10:45 p.m. The meeting resumed at 10:50 p.m.
13. Consider funding options for community benefit organizations that support and expand the provision of services and amenities to Pleasanton residents Assistant to the City Manager Hopkins reported the City Council requested staff present options for extending the grant programs to community organizations supporting the local non- profit network.
Assistant to the City Manager Hopkins reported the first option would be for a one- time Opportunity Grant of up to $ 50, 000 for community benefit organizations to be reviewed by the Human Services City Council Minutes Page 13 of 17 January 18, 2022
Commission which could award either two $ 25, 000 grants or one $ 50, 000 grant. She advised funding would be available to recipients beginning in July 2022 through a process separate from the Housing and Human Services Grant ( HHSG) process since it would be a one- time award with a specific focus.
She reported applications would open on January 24 and close on February 25. She explained the Opportunity Grant criteria addresses areas of need, benefit, capacity building, collaboration, and funding. She recommended the City Council allocate $ 50, 000 from the General Fund for this program.
The second option is creating an additional category in the HHSG Program with City Council directing the Human Services Commission to allocate up to $ 50,000 for community benefit organizations. She advised the current HHSG application deadline would be extended from January 19 to February 16.
She explained applicants would complete the grant application on ZoomGrants and supplemental questions included in the staff report would be required as part of the submission declaring how the group would benefit Pleasanton' s residents.
The third option is to direct the Human Services Commission to determine if and how to provide funding for community benefit organizations in future fiscal years. She advised the Commission would provide a recommendation to the City Council in late spring and incorporate the City Council' s direction into the next HHSG funding cycle.
Staff recommends Option 1 if the City Council wants to provide grants for community benefit organizations in 2022 because it is the quickest and cleanest option for the Human Services Commission and does not interrupt the ongoing HHSG process. She advised this would also be a good opportunity for the Commission to provide feedback on how this type of funding opportunity could help meet some long-term strategic goals.
In response to Councilmember Narum, Assistant to the City Manager Hopkins reported the Three Valleys Community Foundation and the Tri-Valley Non- Profit Alliance are organizations she is aware of who could qualify for funding. She advised if an applicant does not meet qualifications, staff typically reaches out to the organizations looking for clarity. She explained all applications are provided to the Commission as a matter of record but there is a staff report noting any unmet qualifications by an applicant. She confirmed staff would not reject an application and it would be forwarded to the Commission regardless for evaluation.
In response to Councilmember Arkin, Assistant to the City Manager Hopkins clarified there are basic criteria used for all grants such as having a license, but the difference with this category would be an indirect delivery of service. She clarified they would look at how this non- profit would build capacity in Pleasanton to support other non-profits benefitting the Pleasanton community. The distinction being discussed here is organizations with no direct delivery of services. Interim City Manager Dolan advised the City has grant programs for direct service providers and this is an expansion of the grant program to reach out to an organization helping residents without providing direct services.
In response to Councilmember Testa, Assistant to the City Manager Hopkins confirmed this matter has not been discussed with the Human Services Commission. The minimum amount of an HHSG in other categories is $ 5,000. The minimum grant through the Youth Services Commission is lower, possibly 2, 000 or $ 2,500. This grant' s minimum would be higher because they would want the award to be enough to make an impact and staff feels this would be enough to do so. She advised the Commission could also give the full $ 50, 000 to one organization.
In response to Councilmember Testa, Assistant to the City Manager Hopkins stated the funding could go towards operating or capital expenses. She added it is General Fund money and uses would be up to the applicant through its proposal.
In response to Councilmember Testa, Interim City Manager Dolan clarified this grant is needed because the existing grants require an applicant to provide direct services.
City Council Minutes Page 14 of 17 January 18, 2022
In response to Councilmember Balch, Assistant to the City Manager Hopkins advised it is up to the City Council to decide if this is the best way to strengthen Pleasanton's non-profits. Option 1 is a funding option for the current Fiscal Year. Option 3 allows for more study if so desired. She advised her impression is City Council requested creating a one-time funding opportunity so staff recommends Option 1 under this short-term premise but Option 3 would be a better option looking long-term.
Interim City Manager Dolan advised the City Council could do both by approving a short- term option and then taking a more measured approach looking to the long- term.
Mayor Brown opened the public hearing.
John Sensiba, Three Valleys Community Foundation Board of Directors Chair, expressed his appreciation to the City Council for considering the new grant avenues to help non- profits. He promised to be collaborative and supportive of non- profits but never competitive against non- profits so they are likely excluded from the grant program as drafted. He expressed interest in partnering with the City outside of the grant process. He advised Three Valleys is ready to assist the City in other ways, suggesting vetting grant applications, sharing information on other grants, handling grant- making directly, or creating a fund to support things like the all- abilities playground or Amador Theatre renovation. He noted this fund would be tax- deductible for donors. He advised government regulations are complex and he will respect the City' s position regardless of the funding decision and not let it influence its decisions regarding funding Pleasanton' s non- profits.
In response to Mayor Brown, Mr. Sensiba confirmed the funding Three Valleys received from the City of Dublin was organization- specific and did not go through a grant process. He confirmed they did not have to compete because the funding was earmarked for Three Valleys. He clarified they do not wish to compete because they exist to support the non- profit community and do not wish to diminish a non profit' s ability to get funding.
Becky Dennis reported in her past work for non- profits things took away from her organizations' direct service work. She advised they would have to spend $ 10,000 on audits to be qualified to apply for some grants. She explained non- profit capacity can be built by allowing them to focus on their direct service work and not self- auditing. She reported Three Valleys can provide services like this. She advised having audit assistance would save Pleasanton' s non- profits a lot of money and it's helpful to get this expertise to help them be fully functional.
Mayor Brown closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Narum advised she is at a quandary if Three Valleys would not be applying for these grants. She noted the City of Dublin has given direct funding to Pleasanton- based Three Valleys and this aligns with what she would like to do to help get them off the ground. She explained if funding stays local through Three Valleys as opposed to a Silicon Valley area foundation, it is more likely to be dispersed in Pleasanton. She advised she is open for discussion but inclined to table the discussion directing Interim City Manager Dolan to work with Three Valleys towards a solution.
Councilmember Narum moved to table the item and direct the Interim City Manager to work with the Three Valley Board of Directors Chair towards a one- time grant program satisfying its needs.
In response to Mayor Brown, Councilmember Narum clarified one- time does not mean $ 50, 000 every year but agreed the $ 50, 000 could be spread over three years. She endorsed involving the Human Services Commission in the discussion and having it help figure out how many organizations fit the profile of indirect service to the community.
City Council Minutes Page 15 of 17 January 18, 2022
In response to Councilmember Balch, Councilmember Narum clarified the item would be tabled so staff could evaluate a funding model to better understand what is being asked of the City. She confirmed she would leave it to the Human Services Commission to see if there is a benefit for future funding to a non- direct service provider. She advised there may be a category currently missing.
Councilmember Balch seconded the motion.
In response to Mayor Brown, Councilmember Narum explained there could be an annual review by the Human Services Commission of how the funding is working out. She noted it would be a $ 16, 000 annual investment and the City Council should know what the returns are. She added this amendment to her motion.
Councilmember Balch expressed support for the amendment.
In response to Mayor Brown, Interim City Manager Dolan confirmed staff is fine with the motion.
In response to Councilmember Arkin, Councilmember Narum confirmed her motion directs staff to return with a recommendation for how to fund Three Valleys similar to how the City of Dublin did but not necessarily at the same level and on a one- time basis. She confirmed the motion is for one-time funding, perhaps spread over multiple years. There can still be future City Council discussion about whether to approve the funding proposal.
In response to Councilmember Testa, City Attorney Sodergren confirmed the motion to table requires three votes. Mayor Brown confirmed the vote is to both table and bring it back.
Councilmember Balch clarified the motion is to table staff' s three options, ask staff to bring back a revised proposal specific to Three Valleys, including a possible future Human Services Commission review or other long- term options.
Councilmember Testa questioned if this would still be a grant or a services contract because it would not be competitive. Mayor Brown suggested letting staff figure out the wording.
Councilmember Balch stated staff' s Option 3 is included in the motion. He advised the motion is to table staff' s recommendation, direct staff to return with a more specific one- time funding option for Three Valleys, and follow staffs Option 3 for future budget cycles.
Councilmember Narum confirmed the summary of the motion.
MOTION: It was m/s by Narum/Balch to table the item, direct the Interim City Manager to work with the Three Valleys Community Foundation' s Board of Directors Chair towards a one-time grant, and direct the Human Services Commission to evaluate the grant annually and discuss if there would be a benefit to awarding future grants to non- direct service providers. Motion passed by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Arkin, Balch, Narum, Mayor Brown Noes: Councilmember Testa
Absent: None
MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL
Councilmember Testa advised there is interest in developing a small business grant program for parklets. Councilmember Balch reported this is on the Economic Vitality Committee' s (EVC) Agenda for Thursday's meeting. Mayor Brown clarified the City Council approved this and it is going through the system.
City Council Minutes Page 16 of 17 January 18, 2022
Deputy City Manager Pamela Ott confirmed the EVC will be considering the framework of a parklet grant program. She advised staff hopes to be able to bring it to the City Council at the next meeting.
Interim City Manager Dolan clarified it will be at one of the February meetings because the continuation of the Housing Element discussion may impact plans.
Mayor Brown confirmed there were five votes in favor of a parklet grant program.
CouncilmemberArkin advisedtime is of the essencewith the parkletsif designsare currentlybeing made so she encouraged getting it into the next meeting.
Councilmember Balch requested staff inform the City Council when the parklet design review process opens.
COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Narum reported on updates from Valley Link initiating the National Environmental Policy Act ( NEPA) review process, the federal version of CEQA, which is required for the federal funding LAVTA is seeking.
Mayor Brown reported she is meeting with Congressman Eric Swalwell tomorrow to request funds for Valley Link.
ADJOURNMENT
Councilmember Balch adjourned the regular meeting at 11: 39 p. m., with a tribute to men and women serving in the military, honoring the memories of those who have died in defense of our country.
Respectfully s bmitted,
delynKj on
adCi y Clerk
City Council Minutes Page 17 of 17 January 18, 2022