CA SB 611
enactedPlanning and zoning: community plans: review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · upper
Quick answers
Did CA SB 611 pass?
Yes. CA SB 611 has been enacted into law as of 2025-10-01. Latest recorded action (2025-10-01): Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 228, Statutes of 2025.
What is CA SB 611 about?
The Planning and Zoning Law requires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for its physical development and the development of any land outside its boundaries that, in the planning agency's judgment, bears relation to its planning, as provided. After the legislative body has adopted a general plan, that law also authorizes, or if so directed by the legislative body, requires, the planning agency to prepare specific plans for the systematic implementation of the general plan for all or part of the area covered by the general plan, as provided. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA limits the review of a project under its provisions if the parcel is zoned or designated in a community plan to accommodate a particular density of development, an environmental impact report was certified for that zoning or planning action, and the project is consistent with the zoning or community plan, as specified. CEQA requires a court, if it finds that any determination, finding, or decision of a public agency has been made without compliance with CEQA, to enter an order that includes one or more specified mandates, including a mandate to void the determination, finding, or decision of the public agency. Previous law, until January 1, 2025, notwithstanding the above-described requirement for a court to enter an order under CEQA, prohibited a court in an action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the acts or decisions of the local agency, including a charter city, in adopting an update to a community plan on the grounds of noncompliance with CEQA from, on the basis of that noncompliance, invalidating, reviewing, voiding, or setting aside the approval of a development project that meets certain requirements. Previous law specified that those provisions did not affect or alter the obligation for the approval of a development project that was consistent with an approved community plan update to comply with CEQA or, except as expressly provided, preclude or limit an action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the approval of a development project that was consistent with an approved community plan pursuant to specified law. Previous law provided that the repeal of those provisions does not affect any right or immunity granted by those provisions to a development project that meets specified requirements before January 1, 2025. This bill would reenact those provisions, with certain changes. The bill would specify that its provisions would apply to an update to a community plan adopted on or after January 1, 2025, and would apply to a development project for which an application has been filed with, and accepted as complete by, the local jurisdiction on or before January 1, 2036. 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. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Who sponsors CA SB 611?
Richardson is the primary sponsor of CA SB 611, joined by 1 cosponsor.
Description
The Planning and Zoning Law requires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for its physical development and the development of any land outside its boundaries that, in the planning agency's judgment, bears relation to its planning, as provided. After the legislative body has adopted a general plan, that law also authorizes, or if so directed by the legislative body, requires, the planning agency to prepare specific plans for the systematic implementation of the general plan for all or part of the area covered by the general plan, as provided. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA limits the review of a project under its provisions if the parcel is zoned or designated in a community plan to accommodate a particular density of development, an environmental impact report was certified for that zoning or planning action, and the project is consistent with the zoning or community plan, as specified. CEQA requires a court, if it finds that any determination, finding, or decision of a public agency has been made without compliance with CEQA, to enter an order that includes one or more specified mandates, including a mandate to void the determination, finding, or decision of the public agency. Previous law, until January 1, 2025, notwithstanding the above-described requirement for a court to enter an order under CEQA, prohibited a court in an action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the acts or decisions of the local agency, including a charter city, in adopting an update to a community plan on the grounds of noncompliance with CEQA from, on the basis of that noncompliance, invalidating, reviewing, voiding, or setting aside the approval of a development project that meets certain requirements. Previous law specified that those provisions did not affect or alter the obligation for the approval of a development project that was consistent with an approved community plan update to comply with CEQA or, except as expressly provided, preclude or limit an action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the approval of a development project that was consistent with an approved community plan pursuant to specified law. Previous law provided that the repeal of those provisions does not affect any right or immunity granted by those provisions to a development project that meets specified requirements before January 1, 2025. This bill would reenact those provisions, with certain changes. The bill would specify that its provisions would apply to an update to a community plan adopted on or after January 1, 2025, and would apply to a development project for which an application has been filed with, and accepted as complete by, the local jurisdiction on or before January 1, 2036. 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. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
- Introduced
- 2025-02-20
- Latest action
- 2025-10-01 — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 228, Statutes of 2025.
- Bill type
- bill
- Last updated
- —
Subjects
Sponsors
- Richardsonauthor
- Zburcoauthor
Committees
Not provided by source.
Action timeline
2025-02-20
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
introduction,reading-1,referral-committee
2025-02-21
From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 23.
2025-03-05
Referred to Coms. on L. GOV. and JUD.
referral-committee
2025-03-24
Set for hearing April 2.
2025-03-26
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.
amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2025-04-03
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 637.) (April 2).
amendment-passage,committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2025-04-07
Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2025-04-08
Set for hearing May 6.
2025-05-07
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 12. Noes 0. Page 1027.) (May 6).
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2025-05-08
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2025-05-27
Read third time. Urgency clause adopted. Passed. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 1241.) Ordered to the Assembly.
amendment-passage,passage,reading-1,reading-3
2025-05-28
In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
reading-1
2025-06-05
Referred to Coms. on L. GOV. and JUD.
referral-committee
2025-06-09
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.
amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2025-06-18
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (June 18). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2025-07-02
Coauthors revised.
2025-07-02
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (July 1).
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2025-07-03
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2025-07-14
Read third time and amended.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-3
2025-07-14
Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-3
2025-07-17
Read third time. Urgency clause adopted. Passed. (Ayes 74. Noes 0. Page 2592.) Ordered to the Senate.
amendment-passage,passage,reading-1,reading-3
2025-07-17
In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
2025-08-27
Ordered to special consent calendar.
2025-08-29
Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 37. Noes 0. Page 2287.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
amendment-passage,committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2025-09-05
Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 2 p.m.
executive-receipt
2025-10-01
Approved by the Governor.
executive-signature
2025-10-01
Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 228, Statutes of 2025.
became-law
Versions
- 02/20/25 - Introduced — 2025-02-20Compare
- 03/26/25 - Amended Senate — 2025-03-26Compare
- 04/07/25 - Amended Senate — 2025-04-07Compare
- 06/09/25 - Amended Assembly — 2025-06-09Compare
- 07/14/25 - Amended Assembly — 2025-07-14Compare
- 09/02/25 - Enrolled — 2025-09-02Compare
- 10/01/25 - Chaptered — 2025-10-01Compare
- SB611Compare
- (document, no version)Compare
Documents
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- text/html
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
Votes
Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Judiciary]
2025-04-02 · pass · 7-0
Member-level votes (7)
- Durazo: yes
- Cabaldon: yes
- Choi: yes
- Wiener: yes
- Arreguín: yes
- Laird: yes
- Seyarto: yes
Do pass
2025-05-06 · pass · 12-0
Member-level votes (13)
- Durazo: yes
- Niello: yes
- Ashby: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Umberg: yes
- Allen: yes
- Wahab: yes
- Stern: yes
- Laird: yes
- Arreguín: yes
- Wiener: yes
- Weber Pierson: yes
- Valladares: other
3rd Reading (Urgency Clause)
2025-05-27 · pass · 39-0
Member-level votes (40)
- Cabaldon: yes
- Wahab: yes
- Pérez: yes
- Padilla: yes
- Allen: yes
- Seyarto: yes
- Weber Pierson: yes
- Grove: yes
- Archuleta: yes
- Laird: yes
- Umberg: yes
- Stern: yes
- Limón: yes
- Grayson: yes
- McGuire: yes
- Jones: yes
- McNerney: yes
- Ochoa Bogh: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Ashby: yes
- Rubio: yes
- Cortese: yes
- Arreguín: yes
- Richardson: yes
- Hurtado: yes
- Smallwood-Cuevas: yes
- Cervantes: yes
- Wiener: yes
- Alvarado-Gil: yes
- Gonzalez: yes
- Valladares: yes
- Menjivar: yes
- Durazo: yes
- Becker: yes
- Strickland: yes
- Blakespear: yes
- Dahle: yes
- Choi: yes
- Niello: yes
- Reyes: other
Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Judiciary]
2025-06-18 · pass · 10-0
Member-level votes (10)
- Ta: yes
- Hoover: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Ransom: yes
- Haney: yes
- Carrillo: yes
- Blanca Rubio: yes
- Stefani: yes
- Wilson: yes
- Ramos: yes
Do pass.
2025-07-01 · pass · 12-0
Member-level votes (12)
- Connolly: yes
- Zbur: yes
- Sanchez: yes
- Harabedian: yes
- Kalra: yes
- Dixon: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Stefani: yes
- Papan: yes
- Macedo: yes
- Bryan: yes
- Bauer-Kahan: yes
SB 611 Richardson Third Reading Urgency By Zbur
2025-07-17 · pass · 74-0
Member-level votes (79)
- Hart: yes
- Flora: yes
- DeMaio: yes
- Harabedian: yes
- Ward: yes
- Rogers: yes
- Irwin: yes
- Macedo: yes
- Haney: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Celeste Rodriguez: yes
- Krell: yes
- Muratsuchi: yes
- Zbur: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Fong: yes
- Bonta: yes
- Soria: yes
- Wallis: yes
- Connolly: yes
- Hoover: yes
- Kalra: yes
- Patel: yes
- Sanchez: yes
- Schiavo: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Bains: yes
- Solache: yes
- Ávila Farías: yes
- Blanca Rubio: yes
- Bryan: yes
- Jackson: yes
- Gabriel: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Bauer-Kahan: yes
- Jeff Gonzalez: yes
- Michelle Rodriguez: yes
- Lowenthal: yes
- Sharp-Collins: yes
- Quirk-Silva: yes
- Rivas: yes
- Patterson: yes
- Petrie-Norris: yes
- Papan: yes
- Castillo: yes
- Valencia: yes
- Elhawary: yes
- Ta: yes
- Ortega: yes
- Schultz: yes
- Lee: yes
- Arambula: yes
- Carrillo: yes
- Dixon: yes
- Ramos: yes
- Alanis: yes
- Garcia: yes
- Ransom: yes
- Stefani: yes
- Ellis: yes
- Aguiar-Curry: yes
- Bennett: yes
- Davies: yes
- Lackey: yes
- McKinnor: yes
- Ahrens: yes
- Hadwick: yes
- Nguyen: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Calderon: yes
- Chen: yes
- Gipson: yes
- Wilson: yes
- Tangipa: yes
- Addis: other
- Alvarez: other
- Berman: other
- Boerner: other
- Gallagher: other
Special Consent SB611 Richardson et al. Urgency Clause
2025-08-29 · pass · 37-0
Member-level votes (40)
- Choi: yes
- Archuleta: yes
- Becker: yes
- Valladares: yes
- Cervantes: yes
- Arreguín: yes
- Hurtado: yes
- Alvarado-Gil: yes
- Caballero: yes
- McGuire: yes
- Ochoa Bogh: yes
- Rubio: yes
- Niello: yes
- Menjivar: yes
- Cortese: yes
- Weber Pierson: yes
- Durazo: yes
- Limón: yes
- Wiener: yes
- Richardson: yes
- Stern: yes
- Smallwood-Cuevas: yes
- Strickland: yes
- Wahab: yes
- Blakespear: yes
- Laird: yes
- Ashby: yes
- Gonzalez: yes
- Grayson: yes
- Umberg: yes
- McNerney: yes
- Dahle: yes
- Seyarto: yes
- Pérez: yes
- Grove: yes
- Cabaldon: yes
- Padilla: yes
- Allen: other
- Jones: other
- Reyes: other
Related bills
No related bills recorded for this bill.
Official source
Attribution
Data from openstates_bulk_csv, retrieved 2026-07-24T01:34:27.960412Z
Inspect retained evidence for changes recorded after evidence tracking began:
Use this data
Every field on this page is available from the free public API — no key or licence required. Fetch this bill as JSON: GET /api/v1/bills?jurisdiction=CA&identifier=SB 611. See the API docs or the MCP server for AI assistants.
Known limitations
- Sponsor party and chamber affiliation are not yet captured by this API.
- Committee referrals are not yet captured.
- Some documents have no extracted text yet, so version comparison may be limited.
See the methodology page for data sources and limitations.