Streamlined housing approvals: objective standards: review and modifications.

(1) The Planning and Zoning Law, until January 1, 2036, authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for a multifamily housing development that is subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process, as provided, and not subject to a conditional use permit, if the development satisfies specified objective planning standards (streamlining process) . Under existing law, one of those objective planning standards requires the development to not be located on a site meeting any of certain criteria, such as a site that is within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as described (location criteria) . This bill would provide that, in determining whether a site meets any of the location criteria, a local government's review of the site is limited to the area described as being physically disturbed by construction in the application for streamlined, ministerial review and does not include, unless expressly stated otherwise, other contiguous or noncontiguous areas even if under the ownership or control of the development proponent. (2) Under existing law, for purposes of the above-described streamlining process, a development proponent may request a modification to an approved development if submitted to the local government before the issuance of the final building permit required for construction of the development. Existing law requires a local government to approve a modification if it determines the modification is consistent with the objective planning standards in effect when the original development application was first submitted. Existing law requires evaluations of modifications for consistency with the objective planning standards to be made using the same assumptions and analytical methodology the local government originally used, as described. This bill would instead require the local government to approve a modification if it determines the modification is consistent with objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards that were in effect when the original development application was first submitted, as described. The bill would also require subsequent modifications to be evaluated for consistency using the same assumptions and analytical methodology the local government originally used, or that was used in a previous modification, as described. The bill would make conforming changes. (3) Existing law provides that if a development proponent requests a modification, as described above, the time during which approval of the development remains valid is extended for the number of days between the submittal of a modification request and the date of its final approval, plus an additional 180 days to allow time to obtain a building permit. Existing law also further extends that time during the pendency of litigation, if any. This bill would provide that the litigation extension is not limited to the first request for a modification submitted by the development proponent. (4) This bill would also make nonsubstantive changes. (5) The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. (6) By imposing additional duties on local officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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.