City Council Meeting: April 24,
2007
Agenda Item: 1-J
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Kathryn Vernez
Subject: Legislative Position to Work with
Author on Alternatives to SB 2
Recommended Action
Staff
recommends a “work with author” position on SB 2 (Cedillo) to develop
incentives rather than mandates on fair share homeless housing and shelters, thereby
preserving local control over land use issues, as well as avoiding a gubernatorial
veto.
Executive Summary
Last year
the City supported SB1322 a previous version of Senator Cedillo’s fair share
zoning /homeless housing bill that was ultimately vetoed by the Governor on
home rule grounds. SB 2 mirrors last year’s planning mandate measure. Since
then, the City has been working with the League of California Cities to develop
incentive-based legislative proposals to encourage actual siting of projects. Alternatives
might include using RHNA incentives for rehabilitation of buildings with a
suggested crediting of 2 for 1 in
meeting a city’s RHNA goal; increasing the low income redevelopment set aside
to 25%; and/or creating a housing voucher set aside at the State level as a
supplement to County general relief grants.
Discussion
Last year the
City Council adopted a support with amendment position on Senator Cedillo’s SB
1322 Fair Share Zoning/Housing Use by Right Bill.
SB 1322 would have required that a city or
county identify sites in the housing element of their general plan where
emergency homeless shelters and special needs facilities are allowed to locate
without the ability of the local governing body to change the plan once it is
adopted. Localities were afforded the ability to meet this requirement on a
subregional basis.
Fair share laws attempt to provide fair
distribution of the burdens and benefits when siting facilities or services
that serve a regional need or alleviate a regional problem. Land use patterns
and zoning policies typically are the purview only of local government and a
hallmark of local control. Most criticism of fair share policies center on the
lack of “teeth” or enforcement of these laws; that siting is a political matter
not easily addressable by State imposed rules and procedures. However because
of the gravity of achieving equitable distribution of the care and housing for
homeless people, the City supported the bill as a means to get other
communities in the region to participate at some level in the solution to end
homelessness. In order to ensure that there is not excessive concentration of
facilities and services in some areas or jurisdictions, the City requested that
the legislation be amended to provide credit to localities that have such
zoning by right and already provide services and facilities, stating that cities
like Santa Monica which do both should receive an exemption from the fair share
requirement. Since our zoning ordinance
permits emergency shelter and transitional housing by right in specific zones,
the author thought that we had already fulfilled the planning mandate of the
legislation making a credit/exemption unnecessary. The bill was ultimately
vetoed by the Governor on the grounds that the measure usurps local government
discretion and control and that another bill, AB2634 (Lieber), achieved similar
results relative to inclusion of emergency shelters in housing plans. Specifically,
AB 2634 provides that the Housing and Zoning Law’s required analysis of
population and employment trends and quantification of the locality’s existing
and projected housing needs for all income levels, in the general plan’s housing
element, shall now include extremely low income households.
In addition to issues of enforcement, there
is a bigger policy concern that the section of law amended by the bill while
meritorious for homeless shelters and special needs housing could be a concern
for the City in terms of other areas. For example, the City regulation of land
use and zoning for other types of uses could eventually be compromised.
In December,
2006 SB 2 was introduced as an identical sequel to SB 1322. The City proactively
began to work with the League of California Cities to develop options that
would create incentives to actually achieve siting. A new subcommittee of the
League met on March 1 to develop guiding principles so that the League might
better respond to legislative and regulatory proposals as they arise. Related
policy resources are being developed to increase capacity for local agencies;
provide a compendium of zoning tools, development incentives and best practices
for siting, and prioritize the allocation of available resources. Housing
element reforms are also underway to better ensure compliance. The overarching
goal is to form consensus on the issue of fair-share homeless housing through
incentives rather than mandates.
The City presented
three proposals that might create meaningful incentives for cities to encourage
desirable results. Since cities often
struggle to meet RHNA allocations and rehabilitation is excluded as eligible
construction, staff offered that cities providing rehab for homeless shelter
and special needs housing should be counted towards the RHNA goal and in fact
given a 2 for 1 credit. In addition, the low income housing set aside of
redevelopment funds might also be increased to 25% as a funding source for
these projects. Lastly, since housing the homeless is the most important
objective of all these approaches, a pilot project providing a housing voucher
add on the County General Relief grants might hold promise for reducing the
number of the destitute living on the street. In Los angles County for example,
GR grants provide $225 per month, hardly enough to cover shelter costs. We also
recommend that Prop 63 funding provide the wrap around services to the homeless
individuals that will make being housed successful.
Summary
Alternatives
to State mandated fair share zoning carry greater promise in actually siting
homeless housing projects than does a State imposed planning requirement that
erodes local land use control.
Budget/Financial Impact
There is no financial
burden imposed upon the city in taking this “work with author” position.
Prepared by:
Kathryn Vernez, Assistant to the City Manager for Community & Government Relations
|
Approved: |
|
Forwarded to Council: |
|
|
|
|
|
Kathryn
Vernez Assistant to the City Manager for
Community & Government Relations |
|
P. City
Manager |