Loading...
SR-091107-13D/3-~ ~r ~;tYO, City Council Report Santa Monica City Council Meeting: September 11, 2007 To: Mayor and City Council From: Kathryn Vernez Subject: Legislative Position to Oppose SB 2 as Written and Continue to Work with Author on Alternatives Recommended Action Staff recommends an oppose position on SB 2 (Cedillo) in its current form and a "work with author" position to develop a fair share zoning measure that does not penalize "good actor "cities through mandates based on a definition of homeless need. Executive Summary Last year the City supported S61322, a previous version of Senator Cedillo's fair share zoning /homeless housing bill that was ultimately vetoed by the Governor on home rule grounds. Since then, the City has. been working with the author and the League of California Cities on the bill to secure an exemption for "good actor cities" or to develop incentive-based legislative proposals to encourage actual siting of projects in under-served communities. However, the City's recommendations for. legislative changes were rejected in favor of a zoning approach that would add new language to the Housing Element, requiring localities to plan for emergency shelters and limit local discretion to disapprove shelters. The obligation of local entities would be tied to "need",without any specification how need is established and consequently, local coritrol could be reduced irrespective of whether a locality already provides extensive homeless services or not. 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 its 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 and 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 2 to get other communities in the region to participate at a responsible 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 the City's 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 acredit/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, A62634 (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. Expanding Section 65589.5 to include homeless shelters and special needs housing -would significantly reduce the City's local control of these particularly sensitive uses. 3 The proposed amendments would thus further reduce local control without affording any exemption or credit for the good work the City has already done. Moreover, coupled with the proposal to tie local responsibility to local need, the proposed amendments could exacerbate Santa Monica's problems. This dilemma has arisen despite the City's efforts to ensure the proposal would protect Santa Monica. 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 in under-served cities. 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, develop 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 4 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 to County General Relief (GR) 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. The City also recommended that Prop 63 funding provide the wrap around services to the homeless individuals that will make being housed successful. These concepts were rejected. Instead SB 2 in its current form does the following: • Requires local governments to identify a zone where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use with sufficient capacity in the zone(s) to accommodate the need for emergency shelters. • The need for emergency shelters shall be assessed on annual and seasonal need; • Authorizes a local government to satisfy all or part of the zoning requirement by adopting and implementing a multijurisdictional agreement to meet needs for shelters. • Provides that a local government with an existing ordinance that complies with SB2 is not required to take additional action to identify zones for emergency shelters. However, SB2 requires that a city provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the city's need without specifying how need is established. As such, cannot discern if existing ordinance complies with SB2. • Severely restricts the discretion of local governments to deny or regulate through CUP applications to build emergency shelters by adding emergency shelters to the types of housing covered by Government Code. Section 65589.5. 5 Thus, though the measure sets out to require that all cities to shoulder some responsibility through the amendment process, it may have emerged as imposing significantly more obligations on those jurisdictions with a "need" for shelters than upon those jurisdictions which do not have homeless populations because they currently provide no services in their communities to assist them. It also clearly imposes a state mandated program and new limits on local discretion. Without a thorough understanding of how need is established, the city cannot be confident that the burdens created by legislation will not fall heavily on the city, despite significant ongoing efforts to address the homeless community in the city. San Jose and Oakland, two other cities that have addressed homelessness as "good actors", have opposed SB2 because of similar concerns. Summary Alternatives to State mandated fair share zoning carry greater promise in actually siting homeless housing projects than does a State imposed planning. requirement based on "need" and that erodes local land use control. A zoning approach with an exception for "good actor' cities like Santa Monica not tied to an unclear definition of homeless need could be supported. BudgetlFinancial Impact There is no financial burden imposed upon the city in taking this position. 6 Prepared by: Kathryn Vernez, Assistant to the City Manager for Community & Government Relations Assistant to Community Relations the City Manager for & Government manager 7 Approved: Forwarded to Council: uuL•'fF CnyIgOL RGOM ]IOO 54CR4MENTO. CA O9e1< r[~IOIEI EJI-022 n~•916~32TE81T LOS 4NOELES. C4 90014 nL X213. OI s~sc nr•213. 41SSG91 September 10, 2007 Ms. Kate Vcrnez Director of Intergovernmental Relations City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street, #209 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Dear Ms. Vemez: ~° ~• • v~~ °A I received news late Friday that the City of Santa Monica staff will be recommending the Council adopt an oppose position on my legislation, SB 2, and as a result would be seeking a veto of this important legislation. I cannot tell you how disappointed and frustrated I am by this action. It is further disconcerting that I was informed of this concern with Tess than three days left in the Legislative session and that the language in the bill that is most objectionable to the City is language that has been in the bill sinec its introduction in December of 2006 and was in SB 1322, which the City of Santa Monica supported last year. 'fo make matters worse, the bill is in the final stages of the legislative process and all deadlines to amend the bill have passed. During this session, my staff has shared language with the City's lobbyist, Josh Shaw, to effectively relieve Santa Monica of the zoning provisions of the bill. 1 discovered at the beginning of last week that City staff found this language inadequate, despite the fact that the language had been in their possession since mid-July. I find the extremely late notice of concem from Santa Monica incredibly frustrating and a breech of the good faith working relationship between the City and myself. I don't know what I or my staff could have done differently to avoid tltis situation. We communicated with the City about our policy objective in January of 2006. The City shared our objective and supported that bill {SB 1322}. ARer SB ] 322 was vetoed, I was encouraged by City staff to reintroduce this bill and consider compromising and narrowing the policy in order to receive a signature. I did just that through a working group with housing and homeless advocates, planners, policy staff, the Department of Housing and Community Development, and the League of Citics. All the language in SB 2 was negotiated through this working group and every member moved eo a support or neutral position based upon She negotiated language. AIN'T COUM~^LCL RpLES REPRESENTING THE CITIES OF LOS ANGELES. ALWPMB RA. MAYWODD. SAN MARINO. SOUTH PASADENA AND VERNON C~rz~if~zx~irx ~t~ts ~Enaxt~ SENATOR GILBERT CEDILLO TWENTY-SECOND SENATE DISTRICT COVYRTI[G 4vpRORR~4T10N9 4EALT4 vU8UG 50pETT PULE$ TNnry~j='L7uTPT10N nNO i~OUu~NG IMM1094TION 4N0 TNH ECONOMY, cwln YOl-d ¢00/Z00'd 055-1 1198 1ZS 91B 0111030 119 801VN3S-wo~j wd91~50 1001-OI-dBS When Santa Monica sought clarity that the City would not be held to the zoning requirements of the bill, we drafted language with the Governor's Department of Housing and Community Development and the League of California Cities that addressed that concern. VJe shared the language with the City of Santa Monica and no concerns with this language were communicated to us. Now, T am informed that not only is the language the City has had in hand for months inadequate, there is also a new concern with language that has been in the bill since its inception -language that was in SB 1322 which the City of Santa Monica supported and asked me to reintroduce. I have worked in good faith with the City of Santa Monica and was working with the understanding that we were partners in promoting this policy objective. I feel that I have not received the same consideration. How could the City consider opposing SB 2 now when the language the City fmds most objectionable has been in print since February of 2006!?! I would hope that the Council would recognize my efforts to work with the City on this bill, respect the integrity of the process and recognize the tremendous value of this policy, Further, i would hope a city with such a rich Iiberal tradition would not be an impediment to such a progressive public policy. If you would like to discuss this matter further, please contact my staff member, Cori Ayala at 916-651-4022. Respectfully, SenatorCril Cedt11o 22na District cc: Al] Councilmembers Kate Vemez Ed Edelman Josh Yoder qOl-d S00/t00 d 055-1 1165 !ZE 518. 0111030 119 801VN3S-mold Wd61~50 t00Z-OI-deS ~® Richard Bloom Mayor City Counci I Office 1685 Main Street City of FO BOX 2200 Santa Monies Santa Monica California 90407-2200 September 11, 2007 The Honorable Gilbert Cedillo State Capitol, Room 5100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Senator Cedillo, I've received and reviewed your letter of September 10, 2007 to Ms. Kate Vernez. Thoygh disappointed by the tone of the letter, I offer to again work to resolve any differences we have on SB2, which I understand can be easily accommodated. To assure you of our good faith, I want to summarize the history of the effort. I'm including a link to the 2006 Information Item on SB 1322 (Cedillo), which requests an exemption for cities like Santa Monica which already have or provide a high level of homeless services (www.smaov.net/citvclerk/councilfinformation items12006/Cedillo odfl. In addition, I have included the Apri124, 2007 proposed staff report (wwwsmaov.net/citvclerk/council/aflendas/2007/20070424/s2007042401-J.htm) on alternatives to SB 2 to provide incentives rather than mandates because of the absence of an exemption for Santa Monica as well as highlighting the concerns raised by the City Attorney with expansion of Government code Section 65589.5. Staff pulled this report in Apri12007 at your personal request and discussed with your staff our legal concern with that section of law being expanded, citing the City regulation of land use and zoning being compromised without an exemption for "good actor cities". With your request to not take a position on the measure, we understood that our concerns would be addressed. But, they have not been. Since the trip to New York, that you so capably organized, we have been working together. Thus, Santa Monica has been keenly aware of your bill and has long wished to support its intent and to be included in the working group that has to date included only state representatives. I wish to assure you that at no time has there been any bad faith between us. However, R was necessary to have our entire team- including lawyers, planners, human services experts and the City Manager's office- review the final version of the bill, as executed by legislative counsel. The drastically revised bill came out in print on August 31 (the Friday before Labor Day weekend) and an emergency meeting was immediately called by the City Manager and staff on Tuesday September 4. It is particularly troubling to me that the insertion of the concept of "need," which substantially changes the meaning and potential impact of the bill, occurred without input from the City of Santa Monica and at the 11th hour. Using the concept of need to establish individual cities' responsibilities puts Santa Monica at particular risk because the homeless population is already over-concentrated here. The insertion unraveled all our attempts to secure a fair and equitable fair share zoning bill that would not negatively impact Santa Monica. The insertion of need would create, for a good actor city like Santa Monica that already shoulders a disproportionate burden, more obligation,-thus institutionalizing and exacerbating an unfair distribution of services. I know that this is not your intent. However, for Santa Monica, it is simply untenable. tel: 310 458-8201 • fax: 370 458-1621 • e-mail: richard~bloomlaw.net ($ Printed on 100% ppst-consumer PCF paper I believe these problems can be resolved. Indeed, they could have been resolved prior to the close of this yeaYS session had we been able to secure a meeting with your office last Wednesday -Friday when Kate Vemez and I were in Sacramento. Your office refused to meet with us. in spite of this refusal to meet, Kata Vemez and I conGnuoualy worked with the League, Housing & Community Development Department and others ro devise technical corredbrrs that would have achieved our mutual goal. These efforts included a meeting with HCD Deputy Director Cathy Creswell, In the absence of the needed time to properly process those proposed amendments with your Office, Ms. Creswell did inform us that she intended For her Department to promulgate policy guidance, should SB 2 ba enacted,.indicating more clearly that a dfy Tike Santa Monica is eligible to be exempted from the additional planning requirements of the bill. However, khat guidance would riot protect Santa Monica to the same extent as correction in the law. Thus, I am saddened that t am unable to recommend to my colleagues that Sarrta Monica support the bill in tta drastieslly revised form of August 31. I continue to believe that ff Santa Monica had been at the table wtth the negotiating groups, this issue would have been averted or resolved. 1 certainty understand your fruslratlon and want you to know that I am equally frustrated. It would be a benefit to the city and the region io equitably dlatribute the burden of homelessness In our region. However, I cannot recommend support for a proposal which, as presemly worded, may compel Santa Monica to undertake a larger share of the burden and will oertalnly reduce local control. As always, f stand ready to work with you and your staff to achieve a balanced fair share measure. Si erely(~7 „ hard t3l~oom~. Mayor Cc: C'dy Coundl City Manager City Attorney 2007 Staff Report regarding SB1322: www smaov n Ucitvclerklcouneiitaae^~+~°nmm~no~na74/52007042401-J.htm 2008 information ttem: www.sm ov_neVci cierklw i fnfor ation to 00 Cedillo. AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY AUGUST 31, 2007 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JULY 2, 2007 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY NNE 19, 2007 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 13, 2007 AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 19, 2007 AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 8, 2007 AMENDED IN SENATE JANUARY 22, 2007 SENATE BILL Introduced by Senator Cedillo December 4, 2006 No. 2 An act to amend Sections 65582, 65583, and 65589.5 of the Government Code, relating to local planning. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 2, as amended, Cedillo. Local planning. (1) The Planning and Zoning Law requires the housing element of the general plan of a city, county, or city and county to contain, among other things, an assessment of housing needs, including an inventory of land suitable for residential development, and a program with a 5-year schedule of actions that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the goals and objectives of the housing element. This program is also required to identify adequate sites with zoning that permits owner-occupied and multifamily residential use by right, including the development of farmworker housing for low- and very low income households. 92 SB2 -2- This bill would add emergency shelters to these provisions, as specified, and would add provisions~y-a=htek to the housing element that would require a local government nay to identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit. The bill would also authorize a local government to satisfy all or part of this requirement by adopting and implementing a multijurisdictional agreement, as specked, and would delete multifamily residential use from these provisions. By increasing the duties of local public officials, the bill would create astate-mandated local program. (2) The Planning and Zoning Law requires that a local agency not disapprove a housing development project, including farmworker housing, for very low, low-, ormoderate-income households or condition its approval, including through the use of design review standards, in a manner that renders the project infeasible for development for those households unless it makes written findings, based upon substantial evidence in the record, as to one of a number of specified conditions. This bill would add supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters to these provisions and would revise the conditions upon which a disapproval or a conditional approval of~ hetss~g an emergency shelter is based. The bill would define supportive housing and transitional housing. By increasing the duties of local public officials, the bill would impose astate-mandated local program. (3) The bill would also make other technical and conforming changes to these provisions. (4) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by-the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: 1 SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the 2 following: 92 3 - SB 2 1 (a) Homelessness is a statewide problem that affects many cities 2 and counties. There are an estimated 360,000 homeless individuals 3 and families in California. In some counties, like Los Angeles, an 4 estimated 254,000 men, women, and children experience 5 homelessness over the course of each year. Some of the causes of 6 homelessness are mental illness, substance abuse, prison release, 7 and lack of affordable housing. 8 (b) Because homelessness affects people of all races, gender, 9 age, and geographic location there is a growing need for every city 10 and county to plan for the location of adequate emergency shelters. 11 Many people experiencing homelessness, primarily youth and 12 single individuals, need shelter but also have a need for residential 13 substance abuse and mental health services. 14 (c) The lack or shortage of emergency shelters for homeless 15 individuals and families in cities and counties across the state leads 16 to the concentration of services in inner cities and poor 17 communities, like the skid row area in downtown Los Angeles. 18 (d) In order to ensure access to services in every city and county 19 for homeless individuals and families, it is important that cities 20 and counties plan for these services to address the special needs 21 and circumstances of this threatened population. 22 (e) It is the responsibility of cities and counties to plan and 23 identify areas for emergency shelters. Cities and counties should 24 include this as part of their planning process and locate emergency 25 shelters where most appropriate in their community. The state 26 should not dictate where these emergency shelters should be 27 located. 28 (f) It is the responsibility of the Legislature to promote strong 29 communities and ensure that housing and residential services are 30 available in all communities. 31 SEC. 2. Section 65582 of the Government Code is amended 32 to read: 33 65582. As used in this article, the following definitions apply: 34 (a) "Community," "locality," "local government," or 35 "jurisdiction" meansa city, city and county, or county. 36 (b) "Council of governments" means a single or multicounty 37 council created by a joint powers agreement pursuant to Chapter 38 5 (commencing with Section 6500) of Division 1 of Title 1. 39 (c) "Department" means the Department of Housing and 40 Community Development. 92 SB 2 -4- 1 (d) "Emergency shelter" has the same meaning as defined in 2 subdivision (e) of Section 50801 of the Health and Safety Code. 3 (e) "Housing element" or "element" means the housing element 4 of the community's general plan, as required pursuant to this article 5 and subdivision (c) of Section 65302. 6 (f) "Supportive housing" has the same meaning as defined in 7 subdivision (b) of Section 50675:14 ofthe Health and Safety Code. 8 (g) "Transitional housing" has the same meaning as defined ih 9 subdivision (h) of Section 50675.2 of the Health and Safety Code. 10 SEC. 3. Section 65583 of the Government-Code is amended 11 to read: 12 65583. The housing element shall consist of an identification 13 and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a 14 statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial 15 resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, 16 improvement, and development of housing. The housing element 17 shall identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, 18 factory-built housing, mobilehomes, and emergency shelters, and 19 shall make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs 20 of all economic segments of the community. The element shall 21 contain all of the following: 22 (a) An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of 23 resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs. 24 The assessment and inventory shall include all of the following: 25 (1) An analysis of population and employment trends and 26 documentation ofprojections and a quantification ofthe locality's 27 existing and projected housing needs for all income levels, 28 including extremely low income households, as defined in 29 subdivision (b) of Section 50105 and Secfion 50106 of the Health 30 and Safety Code. These existing and projected needs shall include 31 the locality's share of the regional housing need in accordance 32 with Section 65584. Local agencies shall calculate the subset of 33 very low income households allotted under Section 65584 that 34 qualify as extremely low income households. The local agency 35 may either use available census data to calculate the percentage 36 of very low income households that qualify as extremely low 37 income households or presume that 50 percent of the very low 38 income households qualify as extremely low income households. 39 The number of extremely low income households and very low 92 -5- SB2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 income households shall equal the jurisdiction's allocation of very low income households pursuant to Section 65584. (2) An analysis and documentafion of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding; and housing stock condition. (3) An inventory of land suitable. for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (4) (A) The identification of a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit. The identified zone or zones shall include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7),~revided except that each local governments `v _. .v_ :~__.a .., _ _ _ -- -- shall ident~ a zone or zones that can accommodate at least one year-round emergency shelter: If the local government cannot identify a zone or zones with sufficient capacity, the local government shall include aprogram to amend its zoning ordinance to meet the requirements of this paragraph vtith within one year of the adoption of the housing element. The local government may identify additional zones where emergency shelters are permitted with a conditional use permit. The local government shall also demonstrate that existing or proposed permit processing, development, and management standards are objective and encourage and facilitate the development of, or conversion to, emergency shelters. Emergency shelters may only be subject to those development and management standards that apply to residential or commercial development within the same zone except that a local government may apply written, objective standards that include all of the following: (i) The maximum number of beds or persons permitted to be served nightly by the facility. (ii) Off=street parking based upon demonstrated need, provided that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than for other residential or commercial uses within the same zone (iii) The size and location of-client exterior and interior onsite waiting and client intake areas. 92 SB 2 -6- 1 (iv) The provision of onsite management. 2 (v) The proximity to other emergency shelters, provided that 3 emergency shelters are not required to be more than 300 feet apart. 4 (vi) The length of stay. 5 (vii) Lighting. 6 (viii) Security during hours that the emergency shelter is in 7 operation. 8 (B) The permit processing, development, and management 9 standards applied under this paagraph shall not be deemed to be 10 discretionary acts within the meaning of the California 11 Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 12 21000) of the Public Resources Code). 13 (C) A Zocal government that can demonstrate to the satisfaction 14 of the department the existence of one or more emergency shelters 15 either within its jurisdiction or pursuant to a multijurisdictional 16 agreement that can accommodate that jurisdiction's need for 17 emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7) may comply with 18 the zoning requirementsofsubparagraph(A)byidentifyingazone 19 or zones where new emergency shelters are allowed with a 20 conditional use permit. 21 (D) A local government with an existing ordinance or 22 ordinances that comply with this paragraph shall not be required 23 to take additional action to ident~ zones far emergency shelters. 24 The housing element must only describe how existing ordinances, ZS policies, and standards are consistent with the requirements of 26 this paragraph. 27 (5) An analysis ofpotential and actual governmental constraints 28 upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing 29 for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in 30 paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities 31 as identified in the analysis pursuant to paagraph (6), including 32 land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site 33 improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, 34 and local processing and permit procedures. The analysis shall 35 also demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints 36 that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the regional 37 housing need in accordance with Section 65584 and from meeting 38 the need -for housing for persons with disabilities, supportive 39 housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters identified 40 pursuant to paragraph (6). Transitional housing and supportive 92 -~- ssz 1 housing shall be considered a residential use of property, and shall 2 be subject only to those restrictions that apply to other-multifarni}y 3 dwellings residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. 4 (6) An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental 5 constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development 6 of housing for all income levels, including the availability of 7 financing, the price of land, and the cost of constructon. 8 (7) An analysis of any special housing needs, such as those of 9 the elderly, persons with disabilities, large families, farmworkers, 10 families with female heads ofhouseholds, and families and persons 11 in need of emergency shelter. The need for emergency shelter shall 12 be assessed based on annual and seasonal need. The need for 13 emergency shelter may be reduced by the number of supportive 14 housing units that are ident~ed in an adopted 10-year plan to end 15 chronic homelessness and that are either vacant or for which 16 funding has been ident~ed to allow construction during the 17 planningperiod. 18 (8) An analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with 19 respect to residential development. 20 (9) An analysis of existing assisted housing developments that 21 are eligible to change from low-income housing uses during the 22 next 10 years due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage 23 prepayment, or expiration of restrictions on use. "Assisted housing 24 developments," for the purpose of this section, shall mean 25 multifamily rental housing that receives governmental assistance 26 under federal programs listed in subdivision (a) of Section 27 65863.10, state and local multifamily revenue bond programs, 28 local redevelopment programs, the federal Community 29 Development Block Grant Program, or local in-lieu fees. "Assisted 30 housing developments" shall also include multifamily rental units 31 that were developed pursuant to a local inclusionary housing 32 program or used to qualify for a density bonus pursuant to Section 33 65916. 34 (A) The analysis shall include a listing of each development by 35 project name and address, the type of governmental assistance 36 received, the earliest possible date of change from low-income use 37 and the total number of elderly and nonelderly units that could be 38 lost from the locality's low-income housing stock in each year 39 during the 10-year period. For purposes of state and federally 92 SB 2 -8- 1 funded projects, the analysis required by this subparagraph need 2 only contain information available on a statewide basis. 3 (B) The analysis shall estimate the total cost of producing new 4 rental housing that is comparable in size and rent levels, to replace 5 the units that could change from low-income use, and an estimated 6 cost of preserving the assisted housing developments. This cost 7 analysis for replacement housing may be done aggregately for 8 each five-year period and does not have to contain a 9 project-by-project cost estimate. 10 (C) The analysis shall identify public and private nonprofit 11 corporations known to the local government which have legal and 12 managerial capacity to acquire and manage these housing 13 developments. 14 (D) The analysis shall identify and consider the use of all federal, 15 state, and local financing and subsidy programs which can be used 16 to preserve, for lower income households, the assisted housing 17 developments, identified in this paragraph, including, but not 18 limited to, federal Community Development Block Grant Program 19 funds, tax increment funds received by a redevelopment agency 20 of the community, and administrative fees received by a housing 21 authority operating within the community. In considering the use 22 of these financing and subsidy programs, the analysis shall identify 23 the amounts of funds under each available program which have 24 not been legally obligated for other purposes and which could be 25 available for use in preserving assisted housing developments. 26 (b) (1) A statement of the community's goals, quantified 27 objectives, and policies relative to the maintenance, preservation, 28 improvement, and development of housing. 29 (2) It is recognized that the total housing needs identified 30 pursuant to subdivision (a) may exceed available resources and 31 the community's ability to satisfy this need within the content of 32 the general plan requirements outlined in Article 5 (commencing 33 with Section 65300). Under these circumstances, the quantified 34 objectives need not be identical to the total housing needs. The 35 quantified objectives shall establish the maximum number of 36 housing units by income category, including extremely low income, 37 that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a 38 five-year time period. 39 (c) A program which sets forth afive-year schedule of actions 40 the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to 92 -9- SB 2 1 implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the 2 housing element through the administration of land use and 3 development controls, the provision of regulatory concessions and 4 incentives, and the utilization of appropriate federal and state 5 financing and subsidy programs when available and the utilization 6 of moneys in a low- and moderate-income housing fund of an 7 agency if the locality has established a redevelopment project azea 8 pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law (Division 24 9 (commencing with Section 33000) of the Health and Safety Code). 10 In order to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all 11 economic segments of the community, the program shall do all of 12 the following: 13 (1) Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available 14 during the planning period of the general plan with appropriate I S zoning and development standards and with services and facilities 16 to accommodate that portion of the city's or county's share of the 17 regional housing need for each income level that could not be 18 accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed 19 pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and 20 to comply with the requirements of Section 65584.09. Sites shall 21 be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development 22 of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including 23 multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, 24 housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, 25 single-roombccupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional 26 housing. 27 (A) Where the inventory of sites, pursuant to paragraph (3) of 28 subdivision (a), does not identify adequate sites to accommodate 29 the need for groups of all household income levels pursuant to 30 Section 65584, the program shall identify sites that can be 31 developed for housing within the planning period pursuant to 32 subdivision (h) of Section 65583.2. 33 (B) Where the inventory of sites pursuant to paragraph (3) of 34 subdivision (a) does not identify adequate sites to accommodate 35 the need for farmworker housing, the program shall provide for 36 sufficient sites to meet the need with zoning that permits 37 farmworker housing use by right, including density and 38 development standards that could accommodate and facilitate the 39 feasibility of the development of farmworker housing for low- and 40 very low income households. 92 SB 2 -10- 1 (2) Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the 2 needs of extremely low, very low, low-, and moderate-income 3 households. 4 (3) Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove 5 governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and 6 development of housing, including housing for all incomelevels 7 and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove 8 constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing 9 designed for, intended for occupancy by, or .with supportive 10 services for, persons with disabilities. 11 (4) Conserve and improve the condition of the existing 12 affordable housing stock, which may include addressing ways to 13 mitigate the loss of dwelling units demolished by public or private 14 action. 15 (5) Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of 16 race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, 17 familial status, or disability. 18 (6) Preserve for lower income households the assisted housing 19 developments identified pursuant to paragraph (9) of subdivision 20 (a). The program for preservation of -the assisted housing 21 developments shall utilize, .to the extent necessary, all available 22 federal, state, and local financing and subsidy programs identified 23 in paragraph (9) of subdivision (a), except where a community has 24 other urgent needs for which alternative funding sources aze not 25 available. The program may include strategies that involve local 26 regulation and technical assistance. 27 (7) The program shall include an identification of the agencies 28 and officials responsible for the implementation of the various 29 actions and the means by which consistency will be achieved with 30 other general plan elements and community goals. The local 31 government shall make a diligent effort to achieve public 32 participation of all economic segments of the community in the 33 development of the housing element, and the program shall 34 describe this effort. 35 (d) (1) A local government may satisfy all or part of its 36 requirement to ident~ a zone or zones suitable for the development 37 of emergency shelters pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision 38 (a) by adopting and implementing a multijurisdictional agreement, 39 with a maximum of two other adjacent communities, that requires 40 the participating jurisdictions to develop at least one year-round 92 -u- sBz 1 emergencyshelterwithintwoyearsofthebeginningoftheplanning 2 period. 3 (2) The agreement shall allocate a portion of the new shelter 4 capacity to each jurisdiction as credit towards its emergency 5 shelter need, and each jurisdiction shall describe how the capacity 6 was allocated as part of its housing element. 7 (3) Each memberjurisdiction ofa mult~urisdictional agreement 8 shall describe in its housing element all of the following.• 9 (A) How thejointfacilttywillmeetthejurisdiction'semergency 10 shelter need. 11 (B) The jurisdiction's contribution to the facility for both the 12 development and ongoing operation and management of the 13 facility. 14 (C) The amount and source of the funding that the jurisdiction 15 contributes to the facility. 16 (4) The aggregate capacity claimed by the participating 17 jurisdictions in their housing elements shall not exceed the actual 18 capacity of the shelter. 19 (dj ZO (e) Except as otherwise provided in this article, amendments to 21 this article that alter the required content of a housing element 22 shall apply to both of the following: 23 (1) A housing element or housing element amendment prepared 24 pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 65588 or Section 65584.02, 25 when a city, county, or city and county submits a drag to the 26 department for review pursuant to Section 65585 more than 90 27 days after the effective date of the amendment to this section. 28 (2) Any housing element or housing element amendment 29 prepared pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 65588 or Section 30 65584.02, when the city, county, or city and county fails to submit 31 the first draft to the department before the due date specified in 32 Section 65588 or 65584.02. 33 SEC. 4. Section 65589.5 of the Government Code is amended 34 to read: 35 65589.5. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the 36 following: 37 (1) The lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a 38 critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and 39 social quality of life in California. 92 SB 2 -12- 1 (2) California housing has become the most expensive in the 2 nation. The excessive cost of the state's housing supply is partially 3 caused by activities and policies of many local governments that 4 limit the approval ofhousing, increase the cost of land for housing, 5 and require that high fees and exactions be paid by producers of 6 housing: 7 (3) Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination 8 against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to 9 support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, 10 reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air 11 quality deterioration. 12 (4) Many local governments do not give adequate attention to 13 the economic, environmental, and social costs of decisions that 14 result in disapproval of housing projects, reduction in density of 15 housing projects, and excessive standards for housing projects. 16 (b) It is the policy of the state that a local government not reject 17 or make infeasible housing developments, including emergency 18 shelters, that contribute to meeting the need determined pursuant 19 to this article without a thorough analysis of the economic, social, 20 and environmental effects of the action and without complying 21 .with subdivision (d). 22 (c) The Legislature also recognizes that premature and 23 unnecessary development of agricultural lands for urban uses 24 continues to have adverse effects on the availability of those lands 25 for food and fiber production and on the economy of the state. 26 Furthermore, it is the policy of the state that development should 27 be guided away from prime agricultural lands; therefore, in 28 implementing this section, local jurisdictions should encourage, 29 to themaximum extent practicable, in filling existing urban areas. 30 (d) A local agency shall not disapprove a housing development 31 project, including farmworker housing as defined in subdivision 32 (d) of Section 50199.50 of the Health and Safety Code, for very 33 low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency 34 shelter, or condition approval in a manner that renders the project 35 infeasible for development for the use of very low, .low-, or 36 moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, including 37 through the use of design review standards, unless it makes written 38 findings, based upon substantial evidence in the record, as to one 39 of the following: 92 -13- SBZ 1 (1) The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to 2 this article that has been revised in accordance with Section 65588, 3 is in substantial compliance with this article, and the jurisdiction 4 has met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need 5 allocation pursuant to Section 65584 for the planning period for 6 the income category proposed for the housing development project, 7 provided that any disapproval or conditional approval shall not be 8 based on any of the reasons prohibited by Section 65008. If the 9 housing development project includes a mix of income categories, 10 and the jurisdiction has not met or exceeded its share of the regional 11 housing need for one or more of those categories, then this 12 pazagraph shall not be used to disapprove or conditionally approve 13 the project. The share of the regional housing need met by the 14 jurisdiction shall be calculated consistently with the forms and 15 definitions that maybe adopted by the Department of Housing and 16 Community Development pursuant to Section 65400. In the case 17 of an emergency shelter, the jurisdiction shall have met or exceeded 18 the need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph 19 (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. Any disapproval or 20 conditional approval pursuant to this paragraph shall be in 21 accordance with applicable law, rule, or standards. 22 (2) The development project or emergency shelter as proposed 23 would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or 24 safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or 25 avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the 26 development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income 27 households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter 28 financially infeasible. As used in this paragraph, a "specific, 29 adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and 30 unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public 31 health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed 32 on the date the application was deemed complete. Inconsistency 33 with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation 34 shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public 35 health or safety. 36 (3) The denial of the project or imposition of conditions is 37 required in order to comply with specific state or federal law, and 38 there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the 39 development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income 92 SB 2 -14- 1 households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter 2 financially infeasible. 3 (4) The development project or emergency shelter is proposed 4 on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is 5 surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural 6 or resource preservation purposes, or which does not have adequate 7 water or wastewater facilities to serve the project. 8 (5) The development projector emergency shelter is inconsistent 9 with both thejurisdiction's zoning ordinance and general plan land 10 use designation as specified in any element of the general plan as 11 it existed on the date the application was deemed complete, and 12 the jurisdiction has adopted a revised housing element in 13 accordance with Section 65588 that is in substantial compliance 14 with this article. 15 (A) This paragraph cannot be utilized to disapprove or 16 conditionally approve a housing development project if the 17 development project is proposed on a site that is identified as 18 suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderate-income 19 households in the jurisdiction's housing element, and consistent 20 with the density specified in the housing element, even though it 21 is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction's zoning ordinance and 22 general plan land use designation. 23 (B) If the local agency has failed to identify in the inventory of 24 land in its housing element sites that can be developed for housing 25 within the planning period and that are sufficient to provide for 26 the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need for all income 27 levels pursuant to Section 65584, then this paragraph shall not be 28 utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing 29 development project proposed for a site designated in any element 30 of the general plan for residential uses or designated in any element 31 of the general plan for commercial uses if residential uses are 32 permitted or conditionally permitted. within commercial 33 designations. In any action in court, the burden of proof shall be 34 on the local agency to show that its housing element does identify 35 adequate sites with appropriate zoning and development standards 36 and with services and facilities to accommodate the local agency's 37 share of the regional housing need for the very low and low-income 38 categories. 39 (C) If the local agency has failed to identify a zone or zones 40 where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without 92 -15- SB 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 a conditional use or other discretionary permit, has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones include sufficient capacity to~easenably accommodate the need foz emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, or has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones can-rea~istieally accommodate at least one emergency shelter ~`~vlv-tee, as required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, then this paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve an emergency shelter proposed for a site designated in any element of the general plan for industrial, commercial, or multifamily residential uses. In any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing element does satisfy the requirements of pazagraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. (e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with the Congestion Management Program required by Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section 65088) of Division 1 of Title 7 or the California Coastal Act (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code). Neither shall anything in this section be construed to relieve the local agency from making one or more of the findings required pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code or otherwise complying with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code). (f) (1) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring the development project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584. However, the development standards, conditions, and policies shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density permitted on the site and proposed by the development. (2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring an emergency shelter project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies that are consistent with pazagraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 and appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdiction's need for emergency shelter, as 92 SB 2 -16- 1 identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 2 65583. However, the development standards, conditions, and 3 policies shall be applied by the local agency to facilitate and 4 accommodate the development of the emergency shelter project. 5 (3) This section does not prohibit a local agency from imposing 6 fees and other exactions otherwise authorized by law that are 7 essential to provide necessary public services and facilities to the 8 development project or emergency shelter. 9 (g) This section shall be applicable to charter cities because the 10 Legislature finds that the lack of housing, including emergency I 1 shelter, is a critical statewide problem. 12 (h) The following definitions apply for the purposes of this 13 section: 14 (1) "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a 15 successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into 16 account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors. 17 (2) "Housing development project" means a use consisting of 18 any of the following: 19 (A) Residential units only. 20 (B) Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and 21 nonresidential uses in which nonresidential uses are limited to 22 neighborhood commercial uses and to the first floor of buildings 23 that are two or more stories. As used in this paragraph, 24 "neighborhood commercial" means small-scale general or specialty 25 stores that furnish goods and services primarily to residents of the 26 neighborhood. 27 (C) Transitional housing or supportive housing. 28 (3) "Housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income 29 households" means that either (A) at least 20 percent of the total 30 units shall be sold or rented to lower income households, as defined 31 in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or (B) 100. 32 percent of the units shall be sold or rented to moderate-income 33 households as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety 34 Code, or middle-income households, as defined in Section 65008 35 of this code. Housing units targeted for lower income households 36 shall be made available at a monthly housing cost that does not 37 exceed 30 percent of 60 percent of area median income with 38 adjustments for household size made in accordance -with the 39 adjustment factors on which the lower income eligibility limits 40 are based. Housing units targeted for persons and families of 9z -I7- ss2 2 3 4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 moderate income shall be made available at a monthly housing cost that does not exceed 30 percent of 100 percent of area median income with adjustments for household size made in accordance with the adjustment factors on which the moderate-income eligibility limits are based. (4) "Area median income" means area median income as periodically established by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. The developer shall provide sufficient legal commitments to ensure continued availability of units for very low or low-income households in accordance with the provisions of this subdivision for 30 years. (5) "Disapprove the developmentproject" includes any instance in which a local agency does either of the following: (A) Votes on a proposed housing development project application and the application is disapproved. (B) Fails to comply with the time periods specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 65950. An extension of time pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 65950) shall be deemed to be an extension of time pursuant to this pazagraph. (i) If any city, county, or city and county denies approval or imposes restrictions, including design changes, a reduction of allowable densities or the percentage of a lot that maybe occupied by a building or structure under the applicable planning and zoning in force at the time the application is deemed complete pursuant to Section 65943; that have a substantial adverse effect on the viability or affordability of a housing development for very low, low-, or moderate-income households; and the denial of the development or the imposition of restrictions on the development is the subject of a court action which challenges the denial, then the burden of proof shall be on the local legislative body to show that its decision is consistent with the findings as described in subdivision (d} and that the findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record. (j) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, including design review standazds, in effect at the time that the housing development project's application is determined to be complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the 92 SB 2 -18- 1 project or to approve it upon the condition that the project be 2 developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its 3 decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon 4 written findings supported by substantial evidence on the record 5 that both of the following conditions exist: 6 (1) The housing development project would have a specific, 7 adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project 8 is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be 9 developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a "specific, 10 adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct; and 11 unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public 12 health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed 13 on the date the application was deemed complete. 14 (2) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or 15 avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other 16 than the disapproval of the housing development project or the 17 approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at 18 a lower density. 19 (k) The applicant or any person who would be eligible to apply 20 for residency in the development or emergency shelter may bring 21 an action to enforce this section. If in any action brought to enforce 22 the provisions of this section, a court finds that the local agency 23 disapproved a project or conditioned its approval in a manner 24 rendering it infeasible for the development of an emergency shelter, 25 or housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, 26 including farmworker housing, without making the findings 27 required by this section or without making sufficient findings 28 supported by substantial evidence, the court shall issue an order 29 or judgment compelling compliance with this section within 60 30 days, including, but not limited to, an order that the local agency 31 take action on the development project or emergency shelter. The 32 court shall retain jurisdiction to ensure that its order or judgment 33 is carved out and shall award reasonable attorney's fees and costs 34 of suit to the plaintiff or petitioner who proposed the housing 35 development or emergency shelter, except under extraordinary 36 circumstances in which the court finds that awarding fees would 37 not further the purposes of this section. If the court determines that 38 its order or judgment has not been carried out within 60 days, the 39 court may issue further orders as provided by law to ensure that 40 the purposes and policies of this section are fulfilled, including, 92 -19- SB2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 but not limited to, an order to vacate the decision of the local agency, in which case the application for the project, as constituted at the time the local agency took the initial action determined to be in violation of this section, along with any standard conditions determined by the court to be generally imposed by the local agency on similar projects, shall be deemed approved unless the applicant consents to a different decision or action by the local agency. (~ If the court finds that the local agency (1) acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the -housing development or emergency shelter in violation of this section and (2) failed to carry out the court's order or judgment within 60 days as described in subdivision (k), the court in addition to any other remedies provided by this section, may impose fines upon the local agency that the local agency shall be required to deposit into a housing trust fund. Fines shall not be paid from funds that are already dedicated for affordable housing, including, but not limited to, redevelopment or low- and moderate-income housing funds and federal HOME and CDBG funds. The local agency shall commit the money in the trust fund within five years for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households. For purposes of this section, "bad faith" shall mean an action that is frivolous or otherwise entirely without merit. (m) Any action brought to enforce the provisions of this section shall be brought pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the local agency shall prepare and certify the record ofproceedings in accordance with subdivision (c) of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure no later than 30 days after the petition is served, provided that the cost of preparation of the record shall be borne by the local agency. Upon entry of the trial court's order, a party shall, in order to obtain appellate review of the order, file a petition within 20 days after service upon it of a written notice of the entry of the order, or within. such further time not exceeding an additional 20 days as the trial court may for good cause allow. If the local agency appeals the judgment of the trial court, the local agency shall post a bond, in an amount to be determined by the court, to the benefit of the plaintiff if the plaintiff is the project applicant. 92 SB 2 -20- 1 (n) In any action, the record of the proceedings before the local 2 agency shall be filed as expeditiously as possible and, 3 notwithstanding Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure or 4 subdivision (m) of this section, all or part of the record maybe 5 prepared (1) by the petitioner with the petition or petitioner's points 6 and authorities, (2) by the respondent with respondent's points and 7 authorities, (3) after payment of costs by the petitioner, or (4) as 8 otherwise directed by the court. If the expense of preparing the 9 record has been borne by the petitioner and the petitioner is the 10 prevailing party, the expense shall be taxable as costs. 11 (o) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the 12 Housing Accountability Act. 13 SEC. 5. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to 14 Section 6 ofArticle XIIIB of the California Constitution because 15 a local agency or school districthas the authority to levy service 16 charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or 17 level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 18 17556 of the Government Code. O 92