August 10, 2004
SUBJECT: Positions on Land Use and Housing Sub-Element Legislation
REPORT IN BRIEF
On May 14, 2004, at a meeting between City Councilmembers and the Honorable Sally Lieber, Mayor John Howe requested staff to return with a discussion about two pending legislative items: AB 2980 on Housing Sub-element Self-Certification and AB 1903 on Land Use Laws regarding religious institutions. Staff has not written any letters to support or oppose this legislation, pending direction from Council.
AB 2980 establishes an alternative production-based, self-certification process for the housing elements of cities and counties. The state is currently required to review and certify all municipalities’ housing elements. This alternative method would allow cities to choose whether to go through HCD certification or to certify their own elements. If the city chooses to self-certify, certain housing production goals, low-income unit standards and yearly reporting requirements must be met (see Attachment A). This item is currently in committee, and no hearing has yet been scheduled.
AB 1903 requires municipalities to use standards that are “no less favorable” for religious uses than for non-religious places of assembly (see Attachment B). For example, a 500-seat religious use should be evaluated no differently than a 500-seat lodge hall. This law responds to recent land use disputes involving charges of discrimination based on religious uses. AB 1903 is currently in committee, and no hearing has yet been scheduled.
Staff recommends a neutral position on both these bills. While AB 2980 (Housing Self-Certification) may provide some relief from the rigorous HCD certification process, the alternative process requiring yearly reporting and production goals may ultimately be more onerous. The City of Sunnyvale already complies with the provisions of AB 1903 requiring all religious uses and places of assembly to be subject to the same standards and permitting processes. Staff recommends no further action at this time.
BACKGROUND
Staff is providing this report to afford the City Council an opportunity to consider positions on two State legislative bills. Staff’s recommendations have been developed generally based on existing City policies from documents such as the General Plan and the Legislative Action Policies, as well as, technical and implementation considerations. However, the City does not currently have policy directly related to these two issues. New positions taken by the Council will become official policies of the City and will be added to the Legislative Action Policies.
EXISTING POLICY
There is no specific policy relating to religious uses or housing certification. The following policies deal more generally with the topic.
Land Use and Transportation Element, Policy N1.14: Support the provision of a full spectrum of public and quasi-public services (e.g. parks, day care, group living, recreation centers, religious institutions) that are appropriately located in residential, commercial, and industrial neighborhoods and ensure they have beneficial effects on the surrounding area.
Housing and Community Revitalization Sub-element Policy I.3: Support housing legislation at the county, state and federal levels that will promote the goals and policies of the Housing and Community Revitalization Sub-element.
DISCUSSION
AB 2980 (Housing Element Self-Certification): State law currently requires all municipalities to produce a housing element and have it “certified” by the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The City’s Housing and Community Revitalization Sub-element was certified by HCD in 2002. This process is rigorous and time-consuming, requiring resources from both the State and the municipalities to bring the document through the certification process.
This legislation proposes a “self-certification” process that municipalities could choose as an alternative to the current HCD certification. Self-certification requires the municipality to meet certain housing production goals, low-income unit standards and yearly reporting requirements if they bypass HCD review. Housing production goals and low-income unit numbers would be [based upon a currently unidentified percentage of the Association of Bay Area Governments’ (ABAG) Regional Housing Needs numbers (see Attachment A).
Staff has concerns about this bill. The proposed housing production minimums and yearly reporting requirements are more stringent than what is currently required under HCD review. In addition, the percentages enumerated in the bill (which are currently left blank) can make a significant difference in the attainability of the standards. This item is currently in committee, and no hearing has yet been scheduled, primarily due to controversy over these percentages. While the League of California Cities supports this bill, staff recommends a neutral position. We are not confident it is a process we wish to participate in but the bill would not negatively affect the current HCD certification process.
AB 1903 (Religious Land Uses): There have been recent land use disputes nationally involving charges of discrimination based on religious uses. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) was passed by Congress in response to these concerns. RLUIPA prohibits land use regulations that impose a substantial burden on religious exercise unless the government demonstrates the regulation furthers a compelling governmental interest. The proposed California legislation takes part of RLUIPA by requiring municipalities to have standards that are “no less favorable” for religious uses than for non-religious places of assembly (see Attachment B). For example, a 500-seat religious use should be evaluated no differently than a 500-seat lodge hall.
The City already complies with this requirement. Places of assembly and religious uses are subject to the same Use Permit process and development standards. Some applications require environmental review depending on the project description. Conditions of Approval are tailored to each project depending on its impact on the surrounding area. Adoption of AB 1903 would not change the way the City currently does business. As this legislation will not noticeably benefit or harm the City, the League of California Cities and staff recommends taking a “watch” or neutral position. AB 1903 is currently in committee, and no hearing has yet been scheduled.
FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact is expected.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made through posting of the Council agenda on the City’s official notice bulletin board, posting of the agenda and report on the City's web page, publication of the Council agenda in the San Jose Mercury News, and the availability of the report in the Library and the City Clerk's Office.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Take no action at this time.
2. Adopt a Legislative Action Policy supporting the proposed legislation.
3. Adopt a Legislative Action Policy in opposition to the proposed legislation.
RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1.
Prepared by:
Diana O’Dell
Senior Planner
Reviewed by:
Robert Paternoster
Director, Community Development
Approved by:
Amy Chan
City Manager
Attachments
A. AB 2980 Text and Committee Analysis (.pdf format)
B. AB 1903 Text and Committee Analysis (.pdf format)