AB 821: Planning and zoning: general plan: zoning ordinance: conflicts.

(1)Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and of certain land outside its boundaries. Existing law requires that county or city zoning ordinances be consistent with the general plan of the county or city by January 1, 1974. Existing law authorizes any resident or property owner to bring an action or proceeding in the superior court to enforce compliance with these provisions within 90 days of the enactment of any new zoning ordinance or the amendment of any existing zoning ordinance. Existing law requires a zoning ordinance to be amended within a reasonable time so that it is consistent with the general plan in the event that the ordinance becomes inconsistent with the plan by reason of amendment to the plan.

This bill, in the event that a zoning ordinance becomes inconsistent with a general plan due to an amendment to the general plan and a local agency receives a development application for a project that is not subject to specified provisions of law relating to housing development projects and that is consistent with the general plan but inconsistent with a zoning ordinance, would require the local agency to either amend the zoning ordinance within 180 days from the receipt of the development application to be consistent with the general plan, or to process the development application, as specified. If a local agency does not amend the zoning ordinance within 180 days from the receipt of the development application, the bill would require the local agency to process the development application. The bill would also provide that a proposed development is not deemed inconsistent with any zoning ordinance or related zoning standard or criteria, and is not required to be rezoned to accommodate the proposed development, if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the proposed development is consistent with objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan. The bill would authorize any resident or property owner to bring an action or proceeding in the superior court to enforce compliance with these provisions within 90 days of a local agencys failure to comply. By imposing new duties on local agencies with regard to local planning and zoning, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)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.

(3)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.