Streamlined housing approvals: objective standards: review and modifications.

Removed the reference to 'former Section 25356' in the hazardous waste site provision, retaining only the current citation to Section 78760 of the Health and Safety Code. This is a cleanup of an outdated cross-reference.

Standard enrollment formatting changes: passage dates added for both chambers, line-number annotations stripped from statutory text, page numbers renumbered (95 to 94), and the legislative counsel's digest updated to remove 'as amended.'

Added 'or notice of intent' in two places (the legislative digest and Section 65913.4(a)(1)(B)) so that objective zoning, subdivision, and design review standards are locked in as of when the original development application OR notice of intent was first submitted, not just the application. This gives developers who file a notice of intent earlier protection against later changes to local objective standards.

Corrected a statutory citation in the hazardous waste site exclusion: changed 'former Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code' to 'former Section 25356 78760 of the Health and Safety Code,' adding section 78760 as an additional or corrected reference.

Cleaned up awkward duplicated text in paragraph (1)(B) that previously read 'when the original development application was first submitted, pursuant to paragraph (5) of subdivision (a). submitted.' Now reads simply 'when the original development application or notice of intent was first submitted.'

Removed the provision that would have limited a local government's review of site location criteria (e.g., very high fire hazard severity zones, coastal zone areas, flood zones) to only the area physically disturbed by construction as described in the application. Under the Assembly version, local governments could not consider other contiguous or noncontiguous areas even if owned or controlled by the development proponent. The Senate removed this restriction entirely.

Line numbers throughout the statutory text were renumbered to reflect the removal of the location criteria limitation language, shifting all subsequent line references. Page numbering changed from 97 to 96 reflecting the shorter document.

The bill's fiscal committee designation changed from 'no' to 'yes,' meaning it now requires a fiscal impact analysis by the Legislative Analyst's Office.

The state-mandated local program designation changed from 'no' to 'yes.' This is a significant legal reclassification: it means the bill imposes duties on local agencies that trigger the state's constitutional obligation to reimburse those agencies for mandated costs.

The digest now describes the standard for approving modifications as consistency with 'objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards' rather than the broader term 'objective planning standards,' aligning the modification standard more precisely with the terminology used in paragraph (5) of the statute.

The digest removed a standalone paragraph summarizing the hazardous waste site prohibition and its exceptions. The underlying statutory language for hazardous waste sites appears to remain in the operative text, so this is a digest-level change rather than a removal of the provision itself.

Local government review of whether a site meets location criteria (such as fire hazard zones) is now limited to the area physically disturbed by construction in the application. Contiguous or noncontiguous areas under the proponent's ownership or control are excluded unless expressly stated otherwise.

New findings state that the bill addresses a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair, explicitly applying to all cities including charter cities.

The standard for approving modifications to an approved development changed from consistency with 'objective planning standards' to consistency with 'objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards' in effect when the original application was submitted. Subsequent modifications may also use the assumptions and methodology from a previous modification, not just the original.

The litigation extension of the approval validity period is no longer limited to the first modification request. Any subsequent modification request that triggers litigation will also extend the validity period.

The bill is now classified as imposing a state-mandated local program (changed from 'no' to 'yes'), with a finding that no reimbursement is required. Fiscal committee review is also now required (changed from 'no' to 'yes').