Laserfiche WebLink
Congress is not demanding that cities give rezoning on demand - but Congress is demanding that <br />religious assembly be judged by the very same standard as non -religious assembly. In evaluating <br />whether the City of San Leandro is treating religious assembly equally with commercial <br />assembly, and whether the reasons for unequal treatment are compelling, the City Zoning Code <br />is the wrong place to start. That Zoning Code is the instrument of discrimination that is at issue <br />here. After the Church applied in May 2004 the City redefined all non-profit assemblies as <br />appropriate for the AU Overlay District. We are sorry that those many fine non-profit uses (like <br />union halls, lodges, and unprofitable entertainment) have been confined to down by them two <br />railroad tracks with churches. <br />As an objective standard, The Uniform Building Code applicable in all California cities has a <br />definition of "Assembly Building". <br />"Assembly Building. A building or a portion of a building used for the gathering together of 50 <br />or more persons at one time for such purposes as deliberation, education, worship, <br />entertainment, amusement, drinking or dining, or waitingfor transportation." Uniform Building <br />Code Section 203 A. <br />This is an objective standard, not a political standard, and it does not discriminate based upon <br />religion. There is a whole set of related regulations in the Uniform Building Code that spell out <br />non-discriminatory standards for safety in all assembly uses. We have no objection to those <br />UBC standards, and the building on Catalina Court already complies with all but the latest <br />nuances of the Building Code. For example, it is fully fire sprinkled. <br />Compelling State Interest Test <br />The compelling interest test is the standard specified by Congress in RLUIPA for this court to <br />use, as follows: <br />"No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes <br />a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or <br />institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that <br />person, assembly or institution _ <br />(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and <br />(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental <br />interest" <br />The underlying reason for RLUIPA is that First Amendment rights are being restricted by <br />municipal discrimination. Under the rational basis standard, a city can justify less than equal <br />treatment of religious uses using reasons that are of minor public benefit, and in some cases, <br />reasons which are not the real reasons for its decision. With the compelling interest test, the <br />unequal treatment of a religious use gives rise to a burden upon the City to demonstrate the <br />compelling state interest that justifies the unequal treatment. <br />Applying the Test: <br />