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 agencys 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.

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 agencys 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.

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 agencys 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.

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 agencys 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 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.

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 agencys 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 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.

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 agencys 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 technical provisions, with certain changes. The bill would specify that its provisions would apply to a development project commenced 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.

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 agencys 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 technical changes. The bill would specify that its provisions would apply to a development project commenced 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.

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 611

Author: Richardson (D), et al.

Amended: 7/14/25 in Assembly

Vote: 27 - Urgency

SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE: 7-0, 4/2/25

AYES: Durazo, Choi, Arreguín, Cabaldon, Laird, Seyarto, Wiener

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 12-0, 5/6/25

AYES: Umberg, Niello, Allen, Arreguín, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Stern, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Valladares

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0, 5/27/25

AYES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Reyes

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0, 7/17/25 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Planning and zoning: community plans: review under the California Environmental Quality Act

SOURCE: City of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass

DIGEST:

This bill reenacts, as an urgency measure, provisions of law that prohibit a court from invalidating a development approval that was granted based on a community plan that meets specified criteria, if the development was approved or had a complete application prior to the community plan being invalidated.

Assembly Amendments

of 7/14/25 provide that the bill applies to community plans adopted on or after January 1, 2025 and make technical changes.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires every county and city to adopt a general plan that sets out planned uses for all of the area covered by the plan. A general plan must include certain mandatory elements, such as a land use element that designates the proposed general distribution, general location, and extent of the uses of land; a housing element that establishes the locations and densities of housing for very low, low, moderate, and above moderate income households; and a circulation element that describes the general location of public infrastructure and facilities for the movement of goods and people.
2. Allows cities and counties to adopt specific plans—also known as community plans—that provide for the systematic implementation of a general plan in a particular area.
3. Requires, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the state and local governments to study and mitigate, to the extent feasible, the environmental impacts of proposed projects. An agency that proposes to undertake a project that may have a significant impact on the environment must prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to study the impacts and identify measures to mitigate those impacts. An EIR may be required at many levels of planning, including the adoption of a general plan, a specific plan, or zoning ordinance, or for an individual development project.
4. Provides for judicial review of CEQA actions taken by public agencies, following the agency's decision to carry out or approve the project. If a court finds that a project didn’t comply with CEQA, it must order the approving agency to do one of the following:
   1. Void the CEQA decision, determination, or finding;
   2. Suspend any or all specific project activities that could result in an adverse environmental change, until the public agency has taken any actions needed to bring the determination, finding, or decision into compliance with CEQA; or
   3. Take specific action to bring the determination, finding, or decision into compliance with CEQA.

This bill:

1. Prohibits a court from invalidating, reviewing, voiding, or setting aside a development approval that was granted based on a community plan that meets specified criteria on the basis of noncompliance with CEQA, if either of the following occurs:
   1. The development is approved before the court issues a stay, order, or writ that requires the challenged EIR or community plan update to be rescinded or set aside; or
   2. The application for the development project is deemed complete under the Permit Streamlining Act before the court issues a stay, order, or writ that requires the challenged EIR or community plan update to be rescinded or set aside.
2. Applies notwithstanding the duties CEQA imposes on a court to issue a stay, order, or writ if a project does not comply with CEQA.
3. Applies to developments where the community plan underlying the development approval must meet all of the following conditions:
   1. The plan was adopted by a city, including a charter city, or county for a defined geographic area within its jurisdictional boundaries;
   2. The plan serves as the land use element for the area covered by the plan;
   3. The plan has not been updated for more than 10 years from the date the plan was adopted or last updated, whichever is later;
   4. The plan includes two or more transit priority areas;
   5. The city or county that adopts the plan has adopted, on or after January 1, 2015, a circulation or mobility element as a part of the general plan;
   6. The city or county that adopts the plan has a housing element that includes housing capacity to sufficiently accommodate its regional housing needs allocation;
   7. The city or county that adopts the plan has adopted a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) threshold of significance for the area that presumes that projects in the area have a less than significant transportation impact, consistent with state regulations;
   8. The area covered by the plan update is located within an urbanized area, as defined in existing law; and
   9. The city or county that adopts the plan has also adopted any required ordinances or regulations related to the designation of very high fire hazard severity zones and floodplains.
   10. The plan was adopted on or after January 1, 2025.
4. Provides that the bill does not:
   1. Affect or alter the obligation for the approval of a development project that is consistent with an approved community plan to comply with CEQA; or
   2. Limit an action to challenge the approval of a development project that is consistent with an approved community plan.
5. Applies its provisions to a development project commenced on or before January 1, 2036, states that it is an urgency statute, and includes findings and declarations to support its purposes.

Background

City of Los Angeles Community Plans. The City of Los Angeles’s Land Use Element of its general plan comprises 34 Community Plans that contain the guiding goals and principles for how each plan area should grow. Currently, 28 of those 34 plans are at least 10 years old, and the oldest is the Chatsworth-Porter Ranch Plan, which was last updated in 1993. In 2017, the city council directed the Los Angeles Department of City Planning to update Los Angeles’s Land Use Element by 2024. However, the COVID-19 pandemic paused these updates and the city only recently resumed updating them. The City is in the process of updating its community plans citywide. 14 plans are currently in the process of being updated, three of which are in the final phase of adoption.

AB 1515 (Friedman, Chapter 269, Statutes of 2019). Major land use changes can be controversial and are often litigated under CEQA. Responding to concerns that litigation during the update process could create uncertainty over whether the old community plan or the updated plan would be in effect, the Legislature enacted AB 1515, which prohibited a court from invalidating a development approval that was granted based on a community plan that meets specified criteria, if the development was approved or had a complete application prior to the community plan being invalidated. The purpose of this measure was to allow development to proceed during the litigation process over updated community plans without fear that a court would halt projects in progress.

AB 1515 sunset on January 1, 2025. City of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass wants the Legislature to reestablish the limits on invalidating approved projects that were enacted by AB 1515.

Comments

Purpose of this bill. According to the author, “SB 611 ensures the timely execution of community development projects by restoring legal protections that prevent court challenges under the CEQA from invalidating approved projects. By extending these protections until 2036, SB 611 provides certainty for developers and communities, ensuring that legally permitted projects can proceed even when broader community plans are contested. This bill is particularly critical in cities like Los Angeles, where housing shortages and homelessness remain urgent concerns. The reinstatement of these provisions aligns with California’s broader goals of increasing housing supply and streamlining development.”

Wait a minute… CEQA can be a double-edged sword: it provides opportunities for both legitimate challenges to developments that will harm the environment and for less scrupulous actors to delay projects they don’t like for completely unrelated reasons. Delays in project approval can be costly, and operating based off of out-of-date land use plans can have environmental consequences as well. For example, the CEQA regulations in place at the time many community plans in Los Angeles were adopted encouraged suburban development because city streets already have slower moving traffic than suburban arterials, but the regulations in force today encourage infill opportunities because development in urban areas results in fewer VMT.

To mitigate these issues and to allow development to proceed as the City of Los Angeles updates its community plans, SB 611 provides protection for some development approvals from being invalidated. The potential consequences of this are limited: SB 611 does not apply to ministerial projects, and any other project approvals that require discretionary review—which applies to most projects—would still have to go through a separate project-level CEQA analysis. Furthermore, SB 611 does not prevent a court from issuing an injunction that prevents the community plan from being used if the court thinks there is a real risk that the plan will result in environmental harm. On balance, the cost of delaying development may outweigh the relatively small potential unmitigated environmental impacts.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/15/25)

City of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (Source)

California Apartment Association

California Association of Realtors

California Building Industry Association

City and County of San Francisco

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/15/25)

Livable California

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0, 7/17/25

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Addis, Alvarez, Berman, Boerner, Gallagher

Prepared by: Anton Favorini-Csorba / L. GOV. / (916) 651-4119

8/15/25 9:21:34

**** END ****

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 611

Author: Richardson (D), et al.

Amended: 7/14/25 in Assembly

Vote: 27 - Urgency

SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE: 7-0, 4/2/25

AYES: Durazo, Choi, Arreguín, Cabaldon, Laird, Seyarto, Wiener

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 12-0, 5/6/25

AYES: Umberg, Niello, Allen, Arreguín, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Stern, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Valladares

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0, 5/27/25

AYES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Reyes

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0, 7/17/25 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Planning and zoning: community plans: review under the California Environmental Quality Act

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill reenacts, as an urgency measure, provisions of law that prohibit a court from invalidating a development approval that was granted based on a community plan that meets specified criteria, if the development was approved or had a complete application prior to the community plan being invalidated.

Assembly Amendments

of 7/14/25 provide that the bill applies to community plans adopted on or after January 1, 2025 and make technical changes.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires every county and city to adopt a general plan that sets out planned uses for all of the area covered by the plan. A general plan must include certain mandatory elements, such as a land use element that designates the proposed general distribution, general location, and extent of the uses of land; a housing element that establishes the locations and densities of housing for very low, low, moderate, and above moderate income households; and a circulation element that describes the general location of public infrastructure and facilities for the movement of goods and people.
2. Allows cities and counties to adopt specific plans—also known as community plans—that provide for the systematic implementation of a general plan in a particular area.
3. Requires, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the state and local governments to study and mitigate, to the extent feasible, the environmental impacts of proposed projects. An agency that proposes to undertake a project that may have a significant impact on the environment must prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to study the impacts and identify measures to mitigate those impacts. An EIR may be required at many levels of planning, including the adoption of a general plan, a specific plan, or zoning ordinance, or for an individual development project.
4. Provides for judicial review of CEQA actions taken by public agencies, following the agency's decision to carry out or approve the project. If a court finds that a project didn’t comply with CEQA, it must order the approving agency to do one of the following:
   1. Void the CEQA decision, determination, or finding;
   2. Suspend any or all specific project activities that could result in an adverse environmental change, until the public agency has taken any actions needed to bring the determination, finding, or decision into compliance with CEQA; or
   3. Take specific action to bring the determination, finding, or decision into compliance with CEQA.

This bill:

1. Prohibits a court from invalidating, reviewing, voiding, or setting aside a development approval that was granted based on a community plan that meets specified criteria on the basis of noncompliance with CEQA, if either of the following occurs:
   1. The development is approved before the court issues a stay, order, or writ that requires the challenged EIR or community plan update to be rescinded or set aside; or
   2. The application for the development project is deemed complete under the Permit Streamlining Act before the court issues a stay, order, or writ that requires the challenged EIR or community plan update to be rescinded or set aside.
2. Applies notwithstanding the duties CEQA imposes on a court to issue a stay, order, or writ if a project does not comply with CEQA.
3. Applies to developments where the community plan underlying the development approval must meet all of the following conditions:
   1. The plan was adopted by a city, including a charter city, or county for a defined geographic area within its jurisdictional boundaries;
   2. The plan serves as the land use element for the area covered by the plan;
   3. The plan has not been updated for more than 10 years from the date the plan was adopted or last updated, whichever is later;
   4. The plan includes two or more transit priority areas;
   5. The city or county that adopts the plan has adopted, on or after January 1, 2015, a circulation or mobility element as a part of the general plan;
   6. The city or county that adopts the plan has a housing element that includes housing capacity to sufficiently accommodate its regional housing needs allocation;
   7. The city or county that adopts the plan has adopted a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) threshold of significance for the area that presumes that projects in the area have a less than significant transportation impact, consistent with state regulations;
   8. The area covered by the plan update is located within an urbanized area, as defined in existing law; and
   9. The city or county that adopts the plan has also adopted any required ordinances or regulations related to the designation of very high fire hazard severity zones and floodplains.
   10. The plan was adopted on or after January 1, 2025.
4. Provides that the bill does not:
   1. Affect or alter the obligation for the approval of a development project that is consistent with an approved community plan to comply with CEQA; or
   2. Limit an action to challenge the approval of a development project that is consistent with an approved community plan.
5. Applies its provisions to a development project commenced on or before January 1, 2036, states that it is an urgency statute, and includes findings and declarations to support its purposes.

Background

City of Los Angeles Community Plans. The City of Los Angeles’s Land Use Element of its general plan comprises 34 Community Plans that contain the guiding goals and principles for how each plan area should grow. Currently, 28 of those 34 plans are at least 10 years old, and the oldest is the Chatsworth-Porter Ranch Plan, which was last updated in 1993. In 2017, the city council directed the Los Angeles Department of City Planning to update Los Angeles’s Land Use Element by 2024. However, the COVID-19 pandemic paused these updates and the city only recently resumed updating them. The City is in the process of updating its community plans citywide. 14 plans are currently in the process of being updated, three of which are in the final phase of adoption.

AB 1515 (Friedman, Chapter 269, Statutes of 2019). Major land use changes can be controversial and are often litigated under CEQA. Responding to concerns that litigation during the update process could create uncertainty over whether the old community plan or the updated plan would be in effect, the Legislature enacted AB 1515, which prohibited a court from invalidating a development approval that was granted based on a community plan that meets specified criteria, if the development was approved or had a complete application prior to the community plan being invalidated. The purpose of this measure was to allow development to proceed during the litigation process over updated community plans without fear that a court would halt projects in progress.

AB 1515 sunset on January 1, 2025. City of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass wants the Legislature to reestablish the limits on invalidating approved projects that were enacted by AB 1515.

Comments

Purpose of this bill. According to the author, “SB 611 ensures the timely execution of community development projects by restoring legal protections that prevent court challenges under the CEQA from invalidating approved projects. By extending these protections until 2036, SB 611 provides certainty for developers and communities, ensuring that legally permitted projects can proceed even when broader community plans are contested. This bill is particularly critical in cities like Los Angeles, where housing shortages and homelessness remain urgent concerns. The reinstatement of these provisions aligns with California’s broader goals of increasing housing supply and streamlining development.”

Wait a minute… CEQA can be a double-edged sword: it provides opportunities for both legitimate challenges to developments that will harm the environment and for less scrupulous actors to delay projects they don’t like for completely unrelated reasons. Delays in project approval can be costly, and operating based off of out-of-date land use plans can have environmental consequences as well. For example, the CEQA regulations in place at the time many community plans in Los Angeles were adopted encouraged suburban development because city streets already have slower moving traffic than suburban arterials, but the regulations in force today encourage infill opportunities because development in urban areas results in fewer VMT.

To mitigate these issues and to allow development to proceed as the City of Los Angeles updates its community plans, SB 611 provides protection for some development approvals from being invalidated. The potential consequences of this are limited: SB 611 does not apply to ministerial projects, and any other project approvals that require discretionary review—which applies to most projects—would still have to go through a separate project-level CEQA analysis. Furthermore, SB 611 does not prevent a court from issuing an injunction that prevents the community plan from being used if the court thinks there is a real risk that the plan will result in environmental harm. On balance, the cost of delaying development may outweigh the relatively small potential unmitigated environmental impacts.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/14/25)

City of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (Sponsor)

California Apartment Association

California Association of Realtors

California Building Industry Association

City and County of San Francisco

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/14/25)

Livable California

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0, 7/17/25

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Addis, Alvarez, Berman, Boerner, Gallagher

Prepared by: Anton Favorini-Csorba / L. GOV. / (916) 651-4119

8/14/25 16:22:55

**** END ****

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 611

Author:(Richardson)

As Amended Ver:July 14, 2025

2/3 vote. Urgency

SUMMARY

Reenacts, as an urgency measure, provisions of law that prohibit a court from invalidating a development project that was approved under an updated community plan that is being litigated under the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA if the plan meets specified criteria.

Major Provisions

1. Prohibits a court, in any order that results from an action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the acts or decisions of a local jurisdiction in adopting an update to a community plan on the grounds of noncompliance with CEQA, from invalidating, reviewing, voiding, or setting aside the approval of any development project for which either of the following applies:
2. The development project is approved before the court issues a stay in connection with the action or proceeding or an order or writ requiring the challenged environmental impact report (EIR) or community plan update to be rescinded or set aside; or,
3. The application for the development project is deemed complete, pursuant to the Planning and Zoning Law, before the court issues a stay, order, or writ described in a), above.
4. Provides that 1), above, applies to an update to a community plan that is adopted on or after January 1, 2025.
5. Provides that this bill does not do either of the following:
6. Affect or alter the obligation of a project that is consistent with an approved community plan update to comply with CEQA; or,
7. Except as expressly provided in 1), above, preclude or limit an action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the approval of a development project that is consistent with an approved community plan pursuant to CEQA.
8. Provides that this bill applies 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.
9. Provides the following definitions:
10. "Community plan" means a plan that meets all of the following requirements:
    1. The plan was adopted by a local jurisdiction for a defined geographic area within its jurisdictional boundaries;
    2. The plan serves as the land use element for the area covered by the plan, as specified;
    3. The plan has not been updated for more than 10 years from the date the plan was adopted or last updated, whichever is later;
    4. The plan includes two or more transit priority areas, as defined;
    5. The local jurisdiction that adopts the plan has adopted or amended, on or after January 1, 2015, a circulation or mobility element as a part of the general plan;
    6. The local jurisdiction that adopts the plan has a housing element that includes housing capacity to sufficiently accommodate regional housing needs projects, as specified;
    7. The local jurisdiction that adopts the plan has adopted a vehicle miles traveled threshold of significance for the area covered by the plan, as specified;
    8. The area covered by the plan update is located within an urbanized area, as defined;
    9. The local jurisdiction that adopts the plan has also adopted any required ordinances or regulations related to either of the following:
11. The designation of very high fire hazard severity zones, as specified; and,
12. Flood plain management in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program; as specified.

b) "Development project" means any project undertaken for the purpose of development. "Development project" includes a project involving the issuance of a permit for construction or reconstruction but not a permit to operate. "Development project" does not include any ministerial projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies.

1. "Local jurisdiction" means a city, county, or city and county.
2. "Update" means a comprehensive amendment to a community plan that is intended to bring the community plan up to date with the most current land use policies and that includes amendments to both the plain text and plan land use map, as well as the adoption or amendment of any zoning ordinances necessary to bring zoning into consistency with the community plan.
3. Finds and declares that this bill addresses a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, this bill applies to all cities, including charter cities.
4. Provides that this bill is an urgency measure.
5. Makes associated findings and declarations.

COMMENTS

1. Planning and Zoning. The Planning and Zoning Law requires each city and county to prepare and periodically update a comprehensive, long-range general plan to guide future planning decisions. The general plan has seven mandatory topics, commonly referred to as elements: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open-space, noise, and safety. General plans must also either include an eighth element on environmental justice, or incorporate environmental justice concerns throughout the other elements. While state law mandates that general plans cover these specific topics, cities and counties have broad discretion in their structure, content, and level of detail.

Cities' and counties' major land use decisions—including zoning ordinances and development permitting—must be consistent with their general plans. In this way, the general plan is a blueprint for future development. The Planning and Zoning Law also establishes a planning agency in each city and county, which may be a separate planning commission, administrative body, or the legislative body of the city or county itself.

Local agencies may also adopt specific plans—also known as community plans—that provide for the systematic implementation of a general plan in a particular area. Specific plans are an optional way to guide land use planning and provide for the implementation of the general plan at the neighborhood level.

1. CEQA requires the state and local governments to study and mitigate, to the extent feasible, the environmental impacts of proposed projects. An agency that proposes to undertake a project that may have a significant impact on the environment must prepare an EIR to study the impacts and identify measures to mitigate those impacts. Community plans, like general plans, zoning ordinances, individual development projects, and others, are subject to CEQA's review, public process, and mitigation requirements.

There are statutory limits to CEQA review for certain types of projects. For example, CEQA applies only to discretionary agency decisions and not to ministerial (non-discretionary) decisions. For projects that require discretionary agency review, the review of a project under CEQA is limited if the parcel meets the following requirements:

• 1. It is zoned or designated in a community plan to accommodate a particular density of development;
  2. An EIR was certified for that zoning or planning action; and,
  3. The project is consistent with the zoning or community plan.

Additionally, any residential development project or any zoning change that is consistent with a specific plan for which an EIR has been certified after January 1, 1980, is exempt from the requirements of CEQA.

1. Judicial Review under CEQA. CEQA provides for judicial review of CEQA actions taken by public agencies, following the agency's decision to carry out or approve the project. Challenges alleging improper determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment, or alleging an EIR does not comply with CEQA, must be filed in the Superior Court within 30 days of filing of the notice of approval. If a court finds that a project didn't comply with CEQA, it must order the approving agency to do one of the following:
   1. Void some or all of the CEQA decision, determination, or finding;
   2. Suspend any or all specific project activities that could result in an adverse environmental change, until the public agency has taken any actions needed to bring the determination, finding, or decision into compliance with CEQA; or,
   3. Take specific action to bring the determination, finding, or decision into compliance with CEQA.
2. City of Los Angeles Community Plans. According to the City of Los Angeles City Planning website, the city's Land Use Element consists of 34 Community Plans that establish neighborhood-specific goals and implementation strategies to achieve the broad objectives laid out in the City's General Plan. Each Community Plan consists of a policy document and a land use map. The policy document lays out the community goals, policies, and programs, while the land use map identifies where certain uses (such as residential, commercial, and industrial) are permitted. Together, the policy document and land use map inform local zoning decisions.

28 of the 34 Community Plans have not been updated in the last ten years, though 14 are currently in the process of being updated. As discussed during the Assembly Local Government's "Introduction to the General Plan" Informational Hearing on March 12, 2025, updating general or community plans can take years due to community engagement, consultation with tribes and government agencies, the EIR process, and potential CEQA litigation.

1. AB 1515 (Friedman) Chapter 269, Statutes of 2019. Major land use changes can be controversial and are often litigated under CEQA. Responding to concerns that litigation during the community plan update process could create uncertainty over whether the old community plan or the updated plan would be in effect, the Legislature enacted AB 1515 (Friedman), which prohibited a court from invalidating a development approval that was granted based on an updated community plan that meets specified criteria, if the development was approved or had a complete application prior to the community plan being invalidated. The purpose of this measure was to allow development to proceed during the litigation process over updated community plans without fear that a court would halt projects in progress. AB 1515 sunset on January 1, 2025.

According to the Author

According to the author, "SB 611 ensures the timely execution of community development projects by restoring legal protections that prevent court challenges under the CEQA from invalidating approved projects. By extending these protections until 2036, SB 611 provides certainty for developers and communities, ensuring that legally permitted projects can proceed even when broader community plans are contested. This bill is particularly critical in cities like Los Angeles, where housing shortages and homelessness remain urgent concerns. The reinstatement of these provisions aligns with California's broader goals of increasing housing supply and streamlining development. By preventing costly and time-consuming legal battles from halting essential projects, SB 611 supports economic growth, job creation, and the development of sustainable communities."

Arguments in Support

The Office of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, sponsor of this bill, states, "Under current law, if a community plan is legally challenged under CEQA, a court may rescind or hold permits needed to implement the plan. Such challenges can significantly delay the implementation of plans, even if they align with state and local environmental and housing goals. In Los Angeles, timely execution of community plans is crucial to addressing the ongoing housing crisis. For example, the latest Hollywood Community Plan includes provisions facilitating 30,000 new housing units, which could be significantly delayed without the restoration of the provisions of AB 1515 (2019-2020).

"SB 611 aims to restore the protections provided by AB 1515, allowing community plans to be adopted even if they face litigation under CEQA. This bill will extend these provisions until January 1, 2036 with an urgency clause, citing California's ongoing housing and homeless crisis. By restoring these provisions, SB 611 will facilitate timely approval and implementation of development projects critical to meeting our housing needs."

Arguments in Opposition

Livable California, with an 'oppose unless amended' position, states, "AB 1515 was intended to temporarily insulate the County of Los Angeles from the damaging effects of having allowed its community plans, plans that supplement the general plan for various portions of the county, to become outdated. It prevented a successful challenge to the EIR for an updated community plan from also invalidating the approvals of projects relying on the updated community plan.

"While LC agrees that essentially shutting down development until the EIR for the updated plan passes muster would be draconian, simply extending what was intended to be a temporary waiver of the required consistency for another ten years would only reward continued delay.

"LC believes a better approach would be to allow the County to announce its intent to update a community plan. That would trigger a five-year 'grace period' for preparation, approval, and possible litigation on the validity of the revised plan. The provisions of Section 65458 et seq. would apply during that time. With the expiration of the five years, the community plan would be expected to be completed and valid. This would give the County an incentive to complete revisions expeditiously."

FISCAL COMMENTS

None.

VOTES

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0-1

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

ABS, ABST OR NV: Reyes

ASM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 10-0-0

YES: Carrillo, Ta, Hoover, Pacheco, Ramos, Ransom, Blanca Rubio, Stefani, Haney, Wilson

ASM JUDICIARY: 12-0-0

YES: Kalra, Dixon, Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Harabedian, Macedo, Pacheco, Papan, Sanchez, Stefani, Zbur

UPDATED

VERSION: July 14, 2025

CONSULTANT: Julia Mouat / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN: 0001107

Date of Hearing: July 1, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Ash Kalra, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 611

Author:(Richardson) – As Amended Ver:June 9, 2025

SENATE VOTE: 39-0

SUBJECT: Planning and zoning: community plans: review under the California Environmental Quality Act

KEY ISSUE: should lapsed provisions of law--that prevent a court from stopping a development project if an underlying community plan is rendered invalid--be restored?

SYNOPSIS

Community plans are hyper-localized planning documents that further refine the provisions of a general plan for an individual neighborhood. These very specific planning documents are frequently utilized to guide planning in large municipalities with dozens of distinct neighborhoods for which a municipality-wide general plan is unable to provide adequately specific planning guidance. Under existing law, the approval of a community plan, much like a general plan, is deemed a “project” for the purpose of the California Environmental Quality Act, thus triggering the need for a local agency to conduct an Environmental Impact Report on the community plan.

When community plans are well developed, with community input, the plans are frequently approved without difficulty. However, like many land use planning decisions in this state, community plans can be subject to legal challenge. When this occurs, developments approved in accordance with the plan may be thrown into legal limbo. To address this issue, in 2019, the Legislature approved AB 1515 (Friedman) Chap. 269, Stats. 2019, which permitted a development to proceed if it was previously approved in accordance with a community plan, even if that community plan was subsequently rendered invalid in court for failing to adhere to the California Environmental Quality Act. The provisions of that bill lapsed when it was allowed to sunset last year. This bill largely restores the provisions of AB 1515, and returns some legal certainty to the community plan and development process.

This bill is sponsored by the City of Los Angeles and is supported by other local agencies and the California Apartment Association. The proponents of the bill highlight the success of AB 1515 and the ongoing need for legal certainty in the community planning and development process. This bill is opposed, unless amended, by Livable California who believes that AB 1515 has outlived its usefulness and that a new approach to providing legal clarity to community plans and development is necessary. This bill was previously heard and approved by the Committee on Local Government by a 10 - 0 vote.

SUMMARY: Restores lapsed provisions of law that prohibit a court from stopping a development project solely on the grounds that the project was approved in a community plan that was subsequently rendered invalid for failure to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits a court, when issuing an order that results from an action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the acts or decisions of the local jurisdiction in adopting an update to a community plan on the grounds of noncompliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, from invalidating, reviewing, voiding, or setting aside the approval of any development project subject to the community plan for which either of the following applies:
   1. The development project is approved before the court issues a stay in connection with the action or proceeding or an order or writ requiring the challenged environmental impact report or community plan update to be rescinded or set aside; or
   2. The application for the development project is deemed complete, as specified, before the court issues a stay, order, or writ described in a).
2. Provides that this bill applies 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.
3. Defines a “community plan” as a plan that meets all of the following requirements:
   1. The plan was adopted by a local jurisdiction for a defined geographic area within its jurisdictional boundaries;
   2. The plan serves as the land use element, as provided for in the Planning and Zoning Law, for the area covered by the plan;
   3. The plan has not been updated for more than 10 years from the date the plan was adopted or last updated, whichever is later;
   4. The plan includes two or more transit priority areas, as specified;
   5. The local jurisdiction that adopts the plan has adopted or amended, on or after January 1, 2015, a circulation or mobility element as a part of the general plan;
   6. The local jurisdiction that adopts the plan has a housing element that includes housing capacity to sufficiently accommodate regional housing needs projects, as specified;
   7. The local jurisdiction that adopts the plan has adopted a vehicle miles traveled threshold of significance for the area covered by the plan, as specified;
   8. The area covered by the plan update is located within an urbanized area, as defined; and
   9. The local jurisdiction that adopts the plan has also adopted any required ordinances or regulations related to very high fire hazard severity zones and flood plain management.
4. Defines the following terms:
   1. “Development project” means any project undertaken for the purpose of development except those subject to ministerial approvals;
   2. “Local jurisdiction” means a city, county, or city and county; and
   3. “Update” means a comprehensive amendment to a community plan that is intended to bring the community plan up to date with the most current land use policies and that includes amendments to both the plain text and plan land use map, as well as the adoption or amendment of any zoning ordinances necessary to bring zoning into consistency with the community plan.
5. Provides that the bill only applies to development projects approved prior to January 1, 2036.
6. Adopts an urgency clause.
7. Makes various findings and declarations.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the California Environmental Quality Act that, generally, requires a public agency to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and to 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 significant effects. (Public Resources Code Section 21100 et seq.)
2. Defines a “project” for the purpose of the California Environmental Quality Act as an activity that may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and includes any of the following:
   1. An activity directly undertaken by any public agency;
   2. An activity undertaken by a person which is supported, in whole or in part, through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies; or
   3. An activity that involves the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies. (Public Resources Code Section 21065.)
3. Provides that an action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the acts or decisions of a public agency on the grounds of noncompliance with the California Environmental Quality Act may be commenced when it is alleged that:
   1. A public agency is carrying out or has approved a project that may have a significant effect on the environment without having determined whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment;
   2. A public agency has improperly determined whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment;
   3. An environmental impact report prepared by, or caused to be prepared by, a public agency does not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act;
   4. A public agency has improperly determined that a project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act; or
   5. Any other act or omission of a public agency does not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. (Public Resources Code Section 21167.)
4. Provides for categorical exemptions to the California Environmental Quality Act for actions that include the following:
   1. Ministerial projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies;
   2. Emergency repairs to public service facilities necessary to maintain service;
   3. Projects undertaken, carried out, or approved by a public agency to maintain, repair, restore, demolish, or replace property or facilities damaged or destroyed as a result of a disaster in a disaster-stricken area in which a state of emergency has been proclaimed by the Governor;
   4. Specified actions necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency;
   5. Actions undertaken by a public agency relating to any thermal power plant site or facility, as specified;
   6. Activities or approvals necessary to the bidding for, hosting or staging of, and funding or carrying out of, an Olympic games under the authority of the International Olympic Committee, except for the construction of facilities necessary for the Olympic games;
   7. The establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, or approval of rates, tolls, fares, or other charges by public agencies, as specified;
   8. A project for the institution or increase of passenger or commuter services on rail or highway rights-of-way already in use, including modernization of existing stations and parking facilities;
   9. A project for the institution or increase of passenger or commuter service on high-occupancy vehicle lanes already in use, including the modernization of existing stations and parking facilities; and
   10. A project for the development of a regional transportation improvement program, the state transportation improvement program, or a congestion management program. (Public Resources Code Section 21080 (b).)
5. Requires, as a part of the Planning and Zoning Law, each city and county to maintain a planning agency with the powers necessary to carry out the General Plan Law. (Government Code Section 65100.)
6. Requires every local planning agency to prepare and the legislative body of each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and of any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency’s judgment bears relation to its planning. (Government Code Section 65300.)
7. Provides that after the legislative body has adopted a general plan, the planning agency may, or if so directed by the legislative body, must, prepare specific plans for the systematic implementation of the general plan for all or part of the area covered by the general plan. (Government Code Section 65450.)
8. Authorizes a court to require a local agency to set aside its California Environmental Quality Act determinations, findings, or decisions; to set aside its determination to approve a project; to suspend specific project activities; to order specific actions needed to comply with the Act; or to combine these remedies as appropriate if the court determines a local agency failed to comply with the procedures of the California Environmental Quality Act. (Public Resources Code Section 21168.9 (a).)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed non-fiscal.

COMMENTS: Residents who disapprove of new development in their neighborhoods frequently target local land use policies for litigation. When local planning documents are litigated, especially if they have been in place for a period of time before legal challenges arise, developers subject to the plan face significant uncertainty. Seeking to lessen this uncertainty and spur housing development, in 2019, the Legislature enacted AB 1515 (Friedman) Chap. 269, Stats. 2019, which permitted a development to proceed if it was previously approved in accordance with a community plan, even if that community plan was subsequently rendered invalid in court for failing to adhere to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Those provisions of law, however, sunset on January 1, 2025. This bill would restore the provisions of AB 1515 to ensure developers can produce housing with certainty. In support of this bill, the author states:

SB 611 ensures the timely execution of community development projects by restoring legal protections that prevent court challenges under the CEQA from invalidating approved projects. By extending these protections until 2036, SB 611 provides certainty for developers and communities, ensuring that legally permitted projects can proceed even when broader community plans are contested. This bill is particularly critical in cities like Los Angeles, where housing shortages and homelessness remain urgent concerns. The reinstatement of these provisions aligns with California’s broader goals of increasing housing supply and streamlining development. By preventing costly and time-consuming legal battles from halting essential projects, SB 611 supports economic growth, job creation, and the development of sustainable communities.

The Planning and Zoning Law and community plans. California’s Planning and Zoning Law outlines the procedures local agencies must take in order to ensure the orderly development of a municipality. The guiding document for local planning is the General Plan which has been described as a local government’s “constitution” for development. (Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 540.) A general plan, which consists of nine individual “elements” outlining various aspects of local planning consists of a statement of policies to guide local planning as well as maps, diagrams, and other exhibits detailing how development is to occur in a municipality. A city or county’s land use decisions, including development permitting, must be consistent with the general plan. (See DeVita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 772.) Once a general plan has been adopted, a local government may adopt specific plans, community plans, and zoning ordinances to add further detail to the local planning process.

Community plans--the topic of this measure--are referenced in several statutes throughout the Planning and Zoning Law. However, there is no clear statutory authorization for the creation of these documents. These plans typically guide highly localized development within a specific neighborhood of a larger municipality. Given the lack of clear legal definitions or standards, courts have taken to treating community plans as “components of, or means of amending, general plans.” (Citizens Coalition Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (2018) 26 Cal. App. 5th 561, 571.) Given this link to the general plans, courts typically evaluate the adequacy of local government’s review of a community plan as if the plan were a general plan.

When planning documents are subject to CEQA challenges, developers face significant legal uncertainty. General plans, like all other local planning documents, are deemed “projects” for the purpose of CEQA. (Citizens Coalition Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles, supra.) Accordingly, local planning documents must undergo environmental review, and in most cases a local government must produce an Environmental Impact Report before approving a local planning document.

The process of finalizing an environmental impact report requires several steps. First, the local lead agency must determine if a project qualifies for one of the many exemptions to CEQA provided in statute and the Office of Planning and Research’s regulations, more commonly known as the CEQA Guidelines. If no exemption exists, the lead agency must then begin to initially study the project in order to determine the scope of the project and associated environmental review. At this point if the agency believes no environmental impacts exist they may opt to file a negative declaration stating as much and proceed to approve the project. Once the scope of the project and review is properly determined, the environmental review is conducted and a draft environmental impact report is submitted for public comment. A lead agency must respond to all written comments on the environmental impact report received during the public comment period, and revise the environmental impact report as necessary. The responses to comments should explain why the comments are rejected by the agency, or if the comment resulted in the adoption of a mitigation measure. Once the public review is completed, the agency can certify the final environmental impact report.

Once a final environmental impact report is certified, and a project is subsequently approved, any litigation over the environmental review of the project can begin. Courts require an environmental impact report to make a good faith effort at fully disclosing the impacts of the project; provide a detailed set of information about project impacts; and serve as the foundation for agency review. The court must review the environmental impact report in two ways. First, a court must determine if the environmental impact report was prepared in a procedurally sufficient manner, as described above, and contains the proper content as required by law. Secondly, the court must determine the substantive aspect of its review and determine whether the conclusions and decisions made by the lead agency are based on substantial evidence in the record. (Vineyard Area Citizens v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412.)

Under existing law, specifically Public Resources Code Section 21168.9(a), if a court determines any project (including local planning documents) fails to adhere to CEQA the court may impose numerous remedies ranging from requiring new findings under CEQA, the completion of a revised Environmental Impact Report, or setting aside the approval of an entire project. For an individual project this may be relatively easy to anticipate; however, when multiple projects are approved as being in compliance with a planning document that is subsequently struck down, this may result in significant legal uncertainty.

This bill restores certainty to project developers when community plans face legal challenges. In 2019, recognizing that several areas within the City of Los Angeles needed to undergo community plan updates, the aforementioned AB 1515 was approved by the Legislature to provide that a project that was otherwise in compliance with CEQA may proceed if any underlying community plan was deemed non-complaint with CEQA. This bill provided developers in Los Angeles and across the state with significant legal certainty. However, that measure, despite its apparent success, lapsed when its sunset date arrived on January 1, 2025. This bill restores the provisions of AB 1515 through 2036 to provide local government and developers legal certainty surrounding projects compliant with community plans.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: This bill is sponsored by the City of Los Angeles. In support of the bill the City writes:

Under current law, if a community plan is legally challenged under CEQA, a court may rescind or hold permits needed to implement the plan. Such challenges can significantly delay the implementation of plans, even if they align with state and local environmental and housing goals. In Los Angeles, timely execution of community plans is crucial to addressing the ongoing housing crisis. For example, the latest Hollywood Community Plan includes provisions facilitating 30,000 new housing units, which could be significantly delayed without the restoration of the provisions of AB 1515 (2019-2020).

SB 611 aims to restore the protections provided by AB 1515, allowing community plans to be adopted even if they face litigation under CEQA. This bill will extend these provisions until January 1, 2036 with an urgency clause, citing California’s ongoing housing and homeless crisis. By restoring these provisions, SB 611 will facilitate timely approval and implementation of development projects critical to meeting our housing needs.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: This bill is opposed, unless amended, by Livable California who argue that while the AB 1515 approach was originally appropriate, a new approach to dealing with community plan approvals is now needed. They write:

This bill would re-enact and extend until 2036 most provisions of Government Code § 65458 et seq., provisions that were enacted by AB 1515 in 2019. Those provisions were also rescinded by the enacting bill as of 2025. This bill would extend most of those provisions through 2036, an additional ten years.

AB 1515 was intended to temporarily insulate the County of Los Angeles from the damaging effects of having allowed its community plans, plans that supplement the general plan for various portions of the county, to become outdated. It prevented a successful challenge to the EIR for an updated community plan from also invalidating the approvals of projects relying on the updated community plan.

While Livable California agrees that essentially shutting down development until the EIR for the updated plan passes muster would be draconian, simply extending what was intended to be a temporary waiver of the required consistency for another ten years would only reward continued delay.

Livable California believes a better approach would be to allow the County to announce its intent to update a community plan. That would trigger a five-year “grace period” for preparation, approval, and possible litigation on the validity of the revised plan. The provisions of §65458 et seq. would apply during that time. With the expiration of the five years, the community plan would be expected to be completed and valid. This would give the County an incentive to complete revisions expeditiously.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Apartment Association

California Association of Realtors

California Building Industry Association
City of Los Angeles
City and County of San Francisco (if amended)
Office of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass

Opposition

Livable California (unless amended)

Analysis Prepared by: Nicholas Liedtke / JUD. / (916) 319-2334

Date of Hearing: June 18, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Juan Carrillo, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 611

Author:(Richardson) – As Amended Ver:June 9, 2025

SENATE VOTE: 39-0

SUBJECT: Planning and zoning: community plans: review under the California Environmental Quality Act

SUMMARY: Reenacts, as an urgency measure, provisions of law that prohibit a court from invalidating a development project that was approved under an updated community plan that is being litigated under CEQA if the plan meets specified criteria. Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits a court, in any order that results from an action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the acts or decisions of a local jurisdiction in adopting an update to a community plan on the grounds of noncompliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), from invalidating, reviewing, voiding, or setting aside the approval of any development project for which either of the following applies:
2. The development project is approved before the court issues a stay in connection with the action or proceeding or an order or writ requiring the challenged environmental impact report (EIR) or community plan update to be rescinded or set aside; or,
3. The application for the development project is deemed complete, pursuant to the Planning and Zoning Law, before the court issues a stay, order, or writ described in a), above.
4. Provides that this bill does not do either of the following:
5. Affect or alter the obligation of a project that is consistent with an approved community plan update to comply with CEQA; or,
6. Except as expressly provided in 1), above, preclude or limit an action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the approval of a development project that is consistent with an approved community plan pursuant to CEQA.
7. Provides that this bill applies 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.
8. Provides the following definitions:
9. “Community plan” means a plan that meets all of the following requirements:
   1. The plan was adopted by a local jurisdiction for a defined geographic area within its jurisdictional boundaries;
   2. The plan serves as the land use element for the area covered by the plan, as specified;
   3. The plan has not been updated for more than 10 years from the date the plan was adopted or last updated, whichever is later;
   4. The plan includes two or more transit priority areas, as defined;
   5. The local jurisdiction that adopts the plan has adopted or amended, on or after January 1, 2015, a circulation or mobility element as a part of the general plan;
   6. The local jurisdiction that adopts the plan has a housing element that includes housing capacity to sufficiently accommodate regional housing needs projects, as specified;
   7. The local jurisdiction that adopts the plan has adopted a vehicle miles traveled threshold of significance for the area covered by the plan, as specified;
   8. The area covered by the plan update is located within an urbanized area, as defined;
   9. The local jurisdiction that adopts the plan has also adopted any required ordinances or regulations related to either of the following:
10. The designation of very high fire hazard severity zones, as specified; and,
11. Flood plain management in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program; as specified.

b) “Development project” means any project undertaken for the purpose of development. “Development project” includes a project involving the issuance of a permit for construction or reconstruction but not a permit to operate. “Development project” does not include any ministerial projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies.

1. “Local jurisdiction” means a city, county, or city and county.
2. “Update” means a comprehensive amendment to a community plan that is intended to bring the community plan up to date with the most current land use policies and that includes amendments to both the plain text and plan land use map, as well as the adoption or amendment of any zoning ordinances necessary to bring zoning into consistency with the community plan.
3. Finds and declares that this bill addresses a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, this bill applies to all cities, including charter cities.
4. Provides that this bill is an urgency measure.
5. Makes associated findings and declarations.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes CEQA, which requires a public agency to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and to certify the completion of, an environmental impact report (EIR) on any 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. (Public Resources Code § 21100 et seq.)
2. Provides that, under CEQA, previously approved land use documents, including, but not limited to, general plans, specific plans, and local coastal plans, may be used in cumulative impact analysis (Public Resources Code § 21100(e).)
3. Provides for enforcement of CEQA through judicial review of CEQA actions taken by public agencies, following an agency’s decision to approve or carry out a project. Requires that challenges alleging that a determination that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment was improper, or alleging that an EIR does not comply with CEQA, be filed in the Superior Court within 30 days of filing of the notice of approval. (Public Resources Code § 21167.)
4. Requires courts to give CEQA actions and proceedings preference over all other civil actions. (Public Resources Code § 21167.1(a).)
5. Provides that during a challenge to an EIR or a negative declaration for noncompliance with CEQA, responsible agencies are required to act as though the EIR or negative declaration complies with CEQA and continue to process the application for the project under applicable timeframes. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15233; see also Public Resources Code § 21167.3.)
6. Provides that a court may require the agency to set aside its CEQA determinations, findings, or decisions; to set aside its determination to approve the project; to suspend specific project activities; to order specific actions needed to comply with CEQA; or to combine these remedies as appropriate. Provides that the court’s order must be limited to mandates necessary to achieve compliance with CEQA and may include only those specified project activities in noncompliance with CEQA. (Public Resources Code § 21168.9)
7. Establishes the Planning and Zoning Law, which requires each county or city to adopt a general plan for the physical development of the county or city and authorizes the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations by cities and counties. (Government Code § 65300 et seq.)
8. Provides that the general plan may be adopted as a single document or as a group of documents relating to subjects or geographic segments of the planning area (Government Code § 65301(b).)
9. Requires the general plan to consist of a statement of development policies and to include a diagram or diagrams and text setting forth objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals. Requires the general plan to contain seven mandatory elements: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open-space, noise, and safety. (Government Code § 65302)
10. Authorizes the local 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. Requires a specific plan to be prepared, adopted, and amended in the same manner as a general plan, except that a specific plan may be adopted by resolution or by ordinance and may be amended as often as deemed necessary by the legislative body. (Government Code § 65450-65453)
11. Requires county or city zoning ordinances to be consistent with the general plan of the county or city. (Government Code § 65860)

FISCAL EFFECT: None.

COMMENTS:

1. Bill Summary. This bill prohibits a court that issues an order to remedy an updated community plan’s noncompliance with the CEQA from including in that order a remedy, based on that noncompliance, against certain development project approvals or applications that were completed before the issuance of the court order. The bill repeals these provisions on January 1, 2036.

This bill is sponsored by the City of Los Angeles – Office of Mayor Karen Bass.

1. Author’s Statement. According to the author, “SB 611 ensures the timely execution of community development projects by restoring legal protections that prevent court challenges under the CEQA from invalidating approved projects. By extending these protections until 2036, SB 611 provides certainty for developers and communities, ensuring that legally permitted projects can proceed even when broader community plans are contested. This bill is particularly critical in cities like Los Angeles, where housing shortages and homelessness remain urgent concerns. The reinstatement of these provisions aligns with California’s broader goals of increasing housing supply and streamlining development. By preventing costly and time-consuming legal battles from halting essential projects, SB 611 supports economic growth, job creation, and the development of sustainable communities.”
2. Planning and Zoning. The Planning and Zoning Law requires each city and county to prepare and periodically update a comprehensive, long-range general plan to guide future planning decisions. The general plan has seven mandatory topics, commonly referred to as elements: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open-space, noise, and safety. General plans must also either include an eighth element on environmental justice, or incorporate environmental justice concerns throughout the other elements. While state law mandates that general plans cover these specific topics, cities and counties have broad discretion in their structure, content, and level of detail.

Cities’ and counties’ major land use decisions—including zoning ordinances and development permitting—must be consistent with their general plans. In this way, the general plan is a blueprint for future development. The Planning and Zoning Law also establishes a planning agency in each city and county, which may be a separate planning commission, administrative body, or the legislative body of the city or county itself.

Local agencies may also adopt specific plans—also known as community plans—that provide for the systematic implementation of a general plan in a particular area. Specific plans are an optional way to guide land use planning and provide for the implementation of the general plan at the neighborhood level.

1. CEQA. CEQA requires the state and local governments to study and mitigate, to the extent feasible, the environmental impacts of proposed projects. An agency that proposes to undertake a project that may have a significant impact on the environment must prepare an EIR to study the impacts and identify measures to mitigate those impacts. Community plans, like general plans, zoning ordinances, individual development projects, and others, are subject to CEQA’s review, public process, and mitigation requirements.

There are statutory limits to CEQA review for certain types of projects. For example, CEQA applies only to discretionary agency decisions and not to ministerial (non-discretionary) decisions. For projects that require discretionary agency review, the review of a project under CEQA is limited if the parcel meets the following requirements:

• 1. It is zoned or designated in a community plan to accommodate a particular density of development;
  2. An EIR was certified for that zoning or planning action; and,
  3. The project is consistent with the zoning or community plan.

Additionally, any residential development project or any zoning change that is consistent with a specific plan for which an EIR has been certified after January 1, 1980, is exempt from the requirements of CEQA.

1. Judicial Review under CEQA. CEQA provides for judicial review of CEQA actions taken by public agencies, following the agency's decision to carry out or approve the project. Challenges alleging improper determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment, or alleging an EIR does not comply with CEQA, must be filed in the Superior Court within 30 days of filing of the notice of approval. If a court finds that a project didn’t comply with CEQA, it must order the approving agency to do one of the following:
   1. Void some or all of the CEQA decision, determination, or finding;
   2. Suspend any or all specific project activities that could result in an adverse environmental change, until the public agency has taken any actions needed to bring the determination, finding, or decision into compliance with CEQA; or,
   3. Take specific action to bring the determination, finding, or decision into compliance with CEQA.
2. City of Los Angeles Community Plans. According to the City of Los Angeles City Planning website, the city’s Land Use Element consists of 34 Community Plans that establish neighborhood-specific goals and implementation strategies to achieve the broad objectives laid out in the City’s General Plan. Each Community Plan consists of a policy document and a land use map. The policy document lays out the community goals, policies, and programs, while the land use map identifies where certain uses (such as residential, commercial, and industrial) are permitted. Together, the policy document and land use map inform local zoning decisions.

28 of the 34 Community Plans have not been updated in the last ten years, though 14 are currently in the process of being updated (Table 1). As discussed during the Assembly Local Government’s “Introduction to the General Plan” Informational Hearing on March 12, 2025, updating general or community plans can take years due to community engagement, consultation with tribes and government agencies, the EIR process, and potential CEQA litigation.

Table 1. City of Los Angeles Community Plans

1. AB 1515 (Friedman) of 2019. Major land use changes can be controversial and are often litigated under CEQA. Responding to concerns that litigation during the community plan update process could create uncertainty over whether the old community plan or the updated plan would be in effect, the Legislature enacted AB 1515 (Friedman, 2019), which prohibited a court from invalidating a development approval that was granted based on an updated community plan that meets specified criteria, if the development was approved or had a complete application prior to the community plan being invalidated. The purpose of this measure was to allow development to proceed during the litigation process over updated community plans without fear that a court would halt projects in progress. AB 1515 sunset on January 1, 2025.
2. Arguments in Support. The Office of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, sponsor of this bill, states, “Under current law, if a community plan is legally challenged under CEQA, a court may rescind or hold permits needed to implement the plan. Such challenges can significantly delay the implementation of plans, even if they align with state and local environmental and housing goals. In Los Angeles, timely execution of community plans is crucial to addressing the ongoing housing crisis. For example, the latest Hollywood Community Plan includes provisions facilitating 30,000 new housing units, which could be significantly delayed without the restoration of the provisions of AB 1515 (2019-2020).

“SB 611 aims to restore the protections provided by AB 1515, allowing community plans to be adopted even if they face litigation under CEQA. This bill will extend these provisions until January 1, 2036 with an urgency clause, citing California’s ongoing housing and homeless crisis. By restoring these provisions, SB 611 will facilitate timely approval and implementation of development projects critical to meeting our housing needs.”

1. Arguments in Opposition. Livable California, with an ‘oppose unless amended’ position, states, “AB 1515 was intended to temporarily insulate the County of Los Angeles from the damaging effects of having allowed its community plans, plans that supplement the general plan for various portions of the county, to become outdated. It prevented a successful challenge to the EIR for an updated community plan from also invalidating the approvals of projects relying on the updated community plan.

“While LC agrees that essentially shutting down development until the EIR for the updated plan passes muster would be draconian, simply extending what was intended to be a temporary waiver of the required consistency for another ten years would only reward continued delay.

“LC believes a better approach would be to allow the County to announce its intent to update a community plan. That would trigger a five-year ‘grace period’ for preparation, approval, and possible litigation on the validity of the revised plan. The provisions of §65458 et seq. would apply during that time. With the expiration of the five years, the community plan would be expected to be completed and valid. This would give the County an incentive to complete revisions expeditiously.”

1. Double-Referral. This bill is double-referred to the Judiciary Committee.
2. Urgency Clause. This bill contains an urgency clause and requires a 2/3 vote of each house.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

City of Los Angeles – Office of Mayor Karen Bass (sponsor)

City of Los Angeles

California Apartment Association
California Association of Realtors
California Building Industry Association

City and County of San Francisco (support if amended)

Opposition

Livable California (oppose unless amended)

Analysis Prepared by: Julia Mouat / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 611

Author: Richardson (D)

Amended: 4/7/25

Vote: 27 - Urgency

SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE: 7-0, 4/2/25

AYES: Durazo, Choi, Arreguín, Cabaldon, Laird, Seyarto, Wiener

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 12-0, 5/6/25

AYES: Umberg, Niello, Allen, Arreguín, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Stern, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Valladares

SUBJECT: Planning and zoning: community plans: review under the California Environmental Quality Act

SOURCE: City of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass

DIGEST:

This bill reenacts, as an urgency measure, provisions of law that prohibit a court from invalidating a development approval that was granted based on a community plan that meets specified criteria, if the development was approved or had a complete application prior to the community plan being invalidated.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires every county and city to adopt a general plan that sets out planned uses for all of the area covered by the plan. A general plan must include certain mandatory elements, such as a land use element that designates the proposed general distribution, general location, and extent of the uses of land; a housing element that establishes the locations and densities of housing for very low, low, moderate, and above moderate income households; and a circulation element that describes the general location of public infrastructure and facilities for the movement of goods and people.
2. Allows cities and counties to adopt specific plans—also known as community plans—that provide for the systematic implementation of a general plan in a particular area.
3. Requires, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the state and local governments to study and mitigate, to the extent feasible, the environmental impacts of proposed projects. An agency that proposes to undertake a project that may have a significant impact on the environment must prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to study the impacts and identify measures to mitigate those impacts. An EIR may be required at many levels of planning, including the adoption of a general plan, a specific plan, or zoning ordinance, or for an individual development project.
4. Provides for judicial review of CEQA actions taken by public agencies, following the agency's decision to carry out or approve the project. If a court finds that a project didn’t comply with CEQA, it must order the approving agency to do one of the following:
   1. Void the CEQA decision, determination, or finding;
   2. Suspend any or all specific project activities that could result in an adverse environmental change, until the public agency has taken any actions needed to bring the determination, finding, or decision into compliance with CEQA; or
   3. Take specific action to bring the determination, finding, or decision into compliance with CEQA.

This bill:

1. Prohibits a court from invalidating, reviewing, voiding, or setting aside a development approval that was granted based on a community plan that meets specified criteria on the basis of noncompliance with CEQA, if either of the following occurs:
   1. The development is approved before the court issues a stay, order, or writ that requires the challenged EIR or community plan update to be rescinded or set aside; or
   2. The application for the development project is deemed complete under the Permit Streamlining Act before the court issues a stay, order, or writ that requires the challenged EIR or community plan update to be rescinded or set aside.
2. Provides that the bill applies notwithstanding the duties CEQA imposes on a court to issue a stay, order, or writ if a project does not comply with CEQA.
3. Applies to developments where the community plan underlying the development approval must meet all of the following conditions:
   1. The plan was adopted by a city, including a charter city, or county for a defined geographic area within its jurisdictional boundaries;
   2. The plan serves as the land use element for the area covered by the plan;
   3. The plan has not been updated for more than 10 years from the date the plan was adopted or last updated, whichever is later;
   4. The plan includes two or more transit priority areas;
   5. The city or county that adopts the plan has adopted, on or after January 1, 2015, a circulation or mobility element as a part of the general plan;
   6. The city or county that adopts the plan has a housing element that includes housing capacity to sufficiently accommodate its regional housing needs allocation;
   7. The city or county that adopts the plan has adopted a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) threshold of significance for the area that presumes that projects in the area have a less than significant transportation impact, consistent with state regulations;
   8. The area covered by the plan update is located within an urbanized area, as defined in existing law; and
   9. The city or county that adopts the plan has also adopted any required ordinances or regulations related to the designation of very high fire hazard severity zones and floodplains.
4. Provides that the bill does not:
   1. Affect or alter the obligation for the approval of a development project that is consistent with an approved community plan to comply with CEQA; or
   2. Limit an action to challenge the approval of a development project that is consistent with an approved community plan.
5. Applies its provisions to a development project commenced on or before January 1, 2036, states that it is an urgency statute, and includes findings and declarations to support its purposes.

Background

City of Los Angeles Community Plans. The City of Los Angeles’s Land Use Element of its general plan comprises 34 Community Plans that contain the guiding goals and principles for how each plan area should grow. Currently, 28 of those 34 plans are at least 10 years old, and the oldest is the Chatsworth-Porter Ranch Plan, which was last updated in 1993. In 2017, the city council directed the Los Angeles Department of City Planning to update Los Angeles’s Land Use Element by 2024. However, the COVID-19 pandemic paused these updates and the city only recently resumed updating them. The City is in the process of updating its community plans citywide. 14 plans are currently in the process of being updated, three of which are in the final phase of adoption.

AB 1515 (Friedman, Chapter 269, Statutes of 2019). Major land use changes can be controversial and are often litigated under CEQA. Responding to concerns that litigation during the update process could create uncertainty over whether the old community plan or the updated plan would be in effect, the Legislature enacted AB 1515, which prohibited a court from invalidating a development approval that was granted based on a community plan that meets specified criteria, if the development was approved or had a complete application prior to the community plan being invalidated. The purpose of this measure was to allow development to proceed during the litigation process over updated community plans without fear that a court would halt projects in progress.

AB 1515 sunset on January 1, 2025. City of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass wants the Legislature to reestablish the limits on invalidating approved projects that were enacted by AB 1515.

Comments

Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “SB 611 ensures the timely execution of community development projects by restoring legal protections that prevent court challenges under the CEQA from invalidating approved projects. By extending these protections until 2036, SB 611 provides certainty for developers and communities, ensuring that legally permitted projects can proceed even when broader community plans are contested. This bill is particularly critical in cities like Los Angeles, where housing shortages and homelessness remain urgent concerns. The reinstatement of these provisions aligns with California’s broader goals of increasing housing supply and streamlining development.”

Wait a minute… CEQA can be a double-edged sword: it provides opportunities for both legitimate challenges to developments that will harm the environment and for less scrupulous actors to delay projects they don’t like for completely unrelated reasons. Delays in project approval can be costly, and operating based off of out-of-date land use plans can have environmental consequences as well. For example, the CEQA regulations in place at the time many community plans in Los Angeles were adopted encouraged suburban development because city streets already have slower moving traffic than suburban arterials, but the regulations in force today encourage infill opportunities because development in urban areas results in fewer VMT.

To mitigate these issues and to allow development to proceed as the City of Los Angeles updates its community plans, SB 611 provides protection for some development approvals from being invalidated. The potential consequences of this are limited: SB 611 does not apply to ministerial projects, and any other project approvals that require discretionary review—which applies to most projects—would still have to go through a separate project-level CEQA analysis. Furthermore, SB 611 does not prevent a court from issuing an injunction that prevents the community plan from being used if the court thinks there is a real risk that the plan will result in environmental harm. On balance, the cost of delaying development may outweigh the relatively small potential unmitigated environmental impacts.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/8/25)

City of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (source)

California Apartment Association

California Association of Realtors

California Building Industry Association

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/8/25)

Livable California

Prepared by: Anton Favorini-Csorba / L. GOV. / (916) 651-4119

5/9/25 13:49:43

**** END ****

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2025-2026 Regular Session

Bill No: SB 611 (Author:Richardson)

Version: April 7, 2025

Hearing Date: May 6, 2025

Fiscal: No

Urgency: Yes

Consultant: AM

SUBJECT

Planning and zoning: community plans: review under the California Environmental Quality Act

DIGEST

This bill prohibits a court that issues an order to remedy an updated community plan’s noncompliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) from including in that order a remedy, based on that noncompliance, against certain development project approvals or applications that were completed before the issuance of the court order. The bill repeals these provisions on January 1, 2036.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 2019, the Legislature passed AB 1515 (Friedman, Ch. 269, Stats. 2019) to immunize certain development projects that are in the approval process from being jeopardized in litigation against a community plan update under CEQA. AB 1515 was repealed on January 1, 2025. This bill seeks to reenact AB 1515 until January 1, 2036. The bill is sponsored by Los Angeles City Mayor Karen Bass and supported by the California Apartment Association. The bill is opposed by New Livable California. The bill is an urgency statute. The bill passed the Senate Local Government Committee on a vote of 7 to 0.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Establishes CEQA, which requires a public agency to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and to certify the completion of, an environmental impact report (EIR) 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. (Pub. Res. Code § 21100 et seq.)
2. Provides for enforcement of CEQA through judicial review of CEQA actions taken by public agencies, following an agency’s decision to approve or carry out a project. Requires that challenges alleging that a determination that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment was improper, or alleging that an EIR does not comply with CEQA, be filed in the Superior Court within 30 days of filing of the notice of approval. (Pub. Res. Code § 21167.) Requires courts to give CEQA actions “preference over all other civil actions.” (Pub. Res. Code § 21167.1(a).)
3. Provides that during a challenge to an EIR or a negative declaration for noncompliance with CEQA, responsible agencies are required to act as though the EIR or negative declaration complies with CEQA and continue to process the application for the project under applicable timeframes. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15233; see also Pub. Res. Code § 21167.3.)
4. Provides that a court may require the agency to set aside its CEQA determinations, findings, or decisions; to set aside its determination to approve the project; to suspend specific project activities; to order specific actions needed to comply with CEQA; or to combine these remedies as appropriate. (Pub. Res. Code § 21168.9(a).) Provides that the court’s order must be limited to mandates necessary to achieve compliance with CEQA and may include only those specified project activities in noncompliance with CEQA. (Id. at (b).) States that these provisions do not require the court to exercise its discretion in any particular manner and do not limit the court’s equitable powers. (Id. at (c).)
5. Establishes the Planning and Zoning Law (Gov. Code § 65000 et seq.), which requires cities and counties to prepare, adopt, and amend general plans and elements—including the land use element—of those general plans in accordance with specified requirements. (Gov. Code § 65350.) Additionally requires that a general plan consist of a statement of development policies and include a diagram or diagrams and text setting forth objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals. (Gov. Code § 65302.) Recognizes community plans as valid master land-use planning documents, but does not specifically set forth requirements governing the content and formation of these documents.

Former state law:

1. Prohibited a court from invalidating a development approval that was granted based on a community plan that meets specified criteria, if either of the following applies:
   1. the development project is approved before the court issues a stay in connection with the action or proceeding or an order or writ requiring the challenged environmental impact report or community plan update to be rescinded or set aside; or
   2. the application for the development project is deemed complete, pursuant to Section 65943 of the Government Code, before the court issues a stay, order, or writ described ia). (former Gov. Code § 65458.1)
2. Specified that its provisions did not do either of the following:
   1. affect or alter the obligation for the approval of a development project that is consistent with an approved community plan to comply with CEQA; and
   2. preclude or limit separate CEQA litigation against the approval of a development project that is consistent with an approved community plan. (former Gov. Code § 65458.2)
3. Defined “community plan” for the purposes of 6), above, to mean a plant that meets all of the following:
   1. The plan was adopted by a city, including a charter city, or county for a defined geographic area within its jurisdictional boundaries.
   2. The plan serves as the land use element, pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 65302 of the Government Code, for the area covered by the plan.
   3. The plan has not been updated for more than 10 years before the operative date of this article.
   4. The plan includes two or more transit priority areas, as defined in Section 21099 of the Public Resources Code.
   5. The city or county that adopts the plan has adopted, on or after January 1, 2015, a circulation or mobility element as a part of the general plan.
   6. The city or county that adopts the plan has a housing element that includes housing capacity to sufficiently accommodate regional housing needs projects as set forth in Section 65584.01 of the Government Code.
   7. The city or county that adopts the plan has adopted a vehicle miles traveled threshold of significance for the area covered by the plan in compliance with Section 15064.3 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
   8. The area covered by the plan update is located within an urbanized area, as defined by Section 21071 of the Public Resources Code.
   9. The city or county that adopts the plan has also adopted any required ordinances or regulations related to either of the following:
      1. The designation of very high fire hazard severity zones pursuant to Section 51179.
      2. Flood plain management in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program, pursuant to Part 60 (commencing with Section 60.1) of Subchapter B of Chapter I of Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations. (former Gov. Code § 65458(a))
4. Defined “development project” to mean any project undertaken for the purpose of development. “Development project” includes a project involving the issuance of a permit for construction or reconstruction but not a permit to operate. “Development project” does not include any ministerial projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies. (former Gov. Code § 65458(b).)
5. Defined “update” to mean a comprehensive amendment to a community plan that is intended to bring the community plan up to date with the most current land use policies and that includes amendments to both the plain text and plan land use map, as well as the adoption or amendment of any zoning ordinances necessary to bring zoning into consistency with the community plan. (former Gov. Code § 65458(c).)
6. Repealed this prohibition on January 1, 2025. (former Gov. Code § 65458.3(a).)
7. Provided that the repeal of these provisions does not affect any right or immunity granted to a project. (former Gov. Code § 65458.3(b).)

This bill:

1. Reenacts the prohibition described in the Former state law, above, until January 1, 2036.
2. Changes from the definition of community plan above, that the plan has not been updated for more than 10 years from the date the plan was adopted or last updated, whichever is later, instead of the plan not having been updated for more than 10 years before the operative date of the former law described above.
3. Specifies that the bill’s provisions apply to a development project for which an application had been filed with, and accepted as complete by, the local jurisdiction on or before January 1, 2036.
4. Provides that the Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
   1. CEQA requires that the environmental impacts, if any, of updated community plans be identified and, where feasible, mitigated. The act also guarantees the public an opportunity to review and comment on the environmental impacts of a project and to participate meaningfully in the development of mitigation measures for potentially significant environmental impacts.
   2. In many parts of the state, the city or county general plans cover so much geographic territory that local jurisdictions also adopt community plans that cover parts of that geographic territory. These community plans allow for tailored and responsive land use planning at the neighborhood level.
   3. While most jurisdictions update the land use element of their general plan as part of their general plan update, those with multiple community plan areas update these documents individually, requiring community plans to be reviewed through separate reviews pursuant to the act. In some jurisdictions with multiple community plans, these plans have not been updated in recent years to reflect changing local priorities as well as efforts to improve air quality, reduce climate pollution, increase transit ridership, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and provide more affordable housing.
   4. One significant obstacle to updating these plans is the uncertainty that results if the environmental review document prepared pursuant to the act for the community plan update is challenged in a court. During the litigation process, it is unclear whether the community plan or the update will be in effect, causing developers and planners great uncertainty and potentially delaying all development in that community plan area and affecting the ability to obtain the needed housing intended by the community plan update.
5. States that Legislature finds and declares that the expedited approval of development projects to address the state’s ongoing housing and homelessness crisis and to provide economic opportunities is a matter of statewide concern and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, this article applies to all cities, including charter cities.
6. Provides that this act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are that the state’s ongoing housing and homeless crisis requires the approval of development projects as soon as possible.

COMMENTS

1. Stated need for the bill

The author writes:

SB 611 ensures the timely execution of community development projects by restoring legal protections that prevent court challenges under CEQA from invalidating approved projects. By extending these protections until 2036, SB 611 provides certainty for developers and communities, ensuring that legally permitted projects can proceed even when broader community plans are contested. This bill is particularly critical in cities like Los Angeles, where housing shortages and homelessness remain urgent concerns. The reinstatement of these provisions aligns with California’s broader goals of increasing housing supply and streamlining development. By preventing costly and time-consuming legal battles from halting essential projects, SB 611 supports economic growth, job creation, and the development of sustainable communities.

1. CEQA challenges to community plans

a. CEQA generally

Enacted in 1970, CEQA requires state and local agencies to follow a set protocol to disclose and evaluate the significant environmental impacts of proposed projects and to adopt feasible measures to mitigate those impacts. CEQA itself applies to projects undertaken or requiring approval by public agencies, and, if more than one agency is involved, CEQA requires one of the agencies to be designated as the “lead agency.” The environmental review process required by CEQA consists of: (1) determining if the activity is a project; (2) determining if the project is exempt from CEQA; and (3) performing an initial study to identify the environmental impacts and, depending on the findings, preparing either a Negative Declaration (for projects with no significant impacts), a Mitigated Negative Declaration (for projects with significant impacts but that are revised in some form to avoid or mitigate those impacts), or an EIR (for projects with significant impacts).

An EIR must accurately describe the proposed project, identify and analyze each significant environmental impact expected to result from the proposed project, identify mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to the extent feasible, and evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. Before approving any project that has received environmental review, an agency must make certain findings pertaining to the project’s environmental impact and any associated mitigation measures. If mitigation measures are required or incorporated into a project, the public agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program to ensure compliance with those measures. To enforce the requirements of CEQA, a civil action may be brought under several code sections to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the acts or decisions of a public agency for noncompliance with the act.

“CEQA operates, not by dictating proenvironmental outcomes, but rather by mandating that ‘decision makers and the public’ study the likely environmental effects of contemplated government actions and thus make fully informed decisions regarding those actions. … In other words, CEQA does not care what decision is made as long as it is an informed one.” (Citizens Coalition Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (2018) 26 Cal. App. 5th 561, 577.)

b. CEQA litigation

Unlike other environmental laws specific to air resources, water resources, or the control of toxic substances, there is no statewide bureaucracy charged with enforcement of CEQA. Rather, it is enforced through citizen participation and litigation if necessary. Arguably, this makes the implementation of CEQA more efficient and expeditious than if a state agency were created to administer the law. Thus, CEQA litigation—which occurs at very low rates —could more appropriately be characterized as mere enforcement.

In general, the time period for filing a CEQA action is very short compared to other statutes of limitation. “CEQA provides unusually short statutes of limitations on filing court challenges to the approval of projects under the act.” (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15112(a).) Although the applicable limitations period depends on the type of agency decision, these periods are generally 30 or 35 days. (See id. at (c); Pub. Res. Code § 21167(b)-(e).) If a challenge to an EIR is not commenced within the applicable time period, the project is conclusively presumed to comply with CEQA, unless there is substantial change in circumstances or new information becomes available. (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21166 & 21167.2.)

During a challenge to an EIR or a negative declaration for noncompliance with CEQA, responsible agencies are required to act as though the EIR or negative declaration complies with CEQA and continue to process the application for the project under applicable timeframes. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15233; see also Pub. Res. Code § 21167.3.) If an injunction or stay is granted pending the final determination of the issue of compliance, the responsible agency may only disapprove the project or grant a conditional approval, which constitutes permission to proceed only if the court action results in a final determination that the EIR or negative declaration complies with CEQA. (Pub. Res. Code § 21167.3 (a).) If no injunction or stay is granted pending the final determination of the issue of compliance, the responsible agency must assume that the EIR or negative declaration fully meets the requirements of CEQA; however, an approval granted constitutes permission to proceed with the projects at the applicant’s risk pending the final determination of the action or proceeding. (Id. at (b).) “The evident intent of section 21167.3 is to expedite CEQA review where a lawsuit contesting CEQA documentation is pending by designating one forum for resolution of claims of unlawful documentation and by requiring project review to proceed while the claims are resolved.” (City of Redding v. Shasta County Local Agency Formation Com. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1169, 1181.)

Public Resources Code section 21168.9(a) provides courts with a range of remedies to fashion appropriate solutions to cure CEQA violations: a court may require the agency to set aside its CEQA determinations, findings, or decisions; to set aside its determination to approve the project; to suspend specific project activities; to order specific actions needed to comply with CEQA; or to combine these remedies as appropriate. The court’s order must be limited to mandates necessary to achieve compliance with CEQA and may include only those specified project activities in noncompliance with CEQA. (Id. at (b).) However, these provisions do not require the court to exercise its discretion in any particular manner and do not limit the court’s equitable powers. (Id. at (c).)

Importantly, under these provisions, a court has discretion to allow project activities to proceed pending CEQA compliance. For example, in POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 681, the court ruled that the Air Resources Board violated CEQA in adopting low carbon fuel standards (LCFS) and set aside the regulations embodying those standards. Nevertheless, the court, interpreting section 21168.9, held that “our decision to void the premature approval of the LCFS regulations does not require us to suspend the operation of the regulations.” (Id. at 760.) “Thus, under section 21168.9, subdivision (c), courts retain the inherent equitable power to maintain the status quo pending statutory compliance, which permits them to allow a regulation, ordinance or program to remain in effect.” (Id. at 761.) The court stated that “CEQA should be interpreted in a manner that affords the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language. [Citation.]” (Id. at 762.) The court concluded that suspending the regulations would cause more environmental harm than allowing them to remain in effect, and thus ordered that they remain operative pending corrective action. (Id. at 761-762.)

c. Community plans

The Planning and Zoning Law provides for the comprehensive regulation of zoning and land use. (Gov. Code § 65000 et seq.) The keystone of this framework is the general plan, which has been described as a local government’s “constitution” for development. (Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 540.) A general plan must consist of a statement of development policies and must include a diagram or diagrams and text setting forth objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals. (Gov. Code § 65302.) Cities and counties are required to prepare, adopt, and amend general plans and elements of those general plans in accordance with specified requirements. (Gov. Code § 65350.) A city or county’s land use decisions, including development permitting, must be consistent with the general plan. (See DeVita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 772.) An update to a land use planning document such as a general plan constitutes a “project” that is subject to CEQA. (See Citizens Coalition Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (2018) 26 Cal. App. 5th 561, 578; City of Redlands v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 398, 409.)

After the adoption of a general plan, localities may prepare “specific plans” for the systematic implementation of the general plan for all or part of the area covered by the general plan. (Gov. Code § 65450.) A specific plan must be related to the general plan (Gov. Code § 65451), and must be prepared, adopted, and amended in the same manner as a general plan, except as specified. (Gov. Code § 65453.) Furthermore, a specific plan may not be adopted or amended unless the proposed plan is consistent with the general plan. (Gov. Code § 65454.) CEQA does not apply to residential development projects consistent with a specific plan for which an EIR has been certified after January 1, 1980. (Gov. Code § 65457(a).)

Community plans, although mentioned in various statutes (see e.g., Gov. Code § 57426), do not appear to be creatures of statute. They have been characterized as components of, or means of amending, general plans. (See Citizens Coalition Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (2018) 26 Cal. App. 5th 561, 571 [describing General Plan of the City of Los Angeles and the Hollywood Community Plan as two general plans, in contradistinction to the Vermont/Western Transit Oriented District Specific Plan]; Christward Ministry v. Superior Court (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 180, 197.)

This bill’s findings and declarations state that “[i]n many parts of the state, the city or county general plans cover so much geographic territory that local jurisdictions also adopt community plans that cover parts of that geographic territory. These community plans allow for tailored and responsive land use planning at the neighborhood level.” The bill states that jurisdictions that have multiple community plan areas update their general plan by updating these community plans.

1. This bill seeks to reenact AB 1515 (Friedman, Ch. 269, Stats. 2019)

In 2019, the Legislature passed AB 1515 (Friedman, Ch. 269, Stats. 2019) to immunize certain development projects that are in the approval process from being jeopardized in litigation against a community plan update. The bill does not otherwise provide a safe harbor for such projects: they must still comply with CEQA and will continue to be subject to potential CEQA challenges separate from the litigation against the updated community plan. These provisions were repealed on January 1, 2025.

This bill seeks to reenact AB 1515 until January 1, 2036. This bill the definition of community plan from AB 1515 by providing that the plan has not been updated for more than 10 years from the date the plan was adopted or last updated, whichever is later, instead of the plan not having been updated for more than 10 years before the operative date of AB 1515. Additionally, the bill specifies that its provisions apply to a development project for which an application had been filed with, and accepted as complete by, the local jurisdiction on or before January 1, 2036. The bill states it is an urgency statute and that itis a matter of statewide concern and is not a municipal affair.

1. Statements in support

The California Apartment Association writes in support, stating:

[…] While most jurisdictions update the land use element of their general plan as part of their general plan update, those with multiple community plan areas update these documents individually, requiring community plans to be reviewed through separate reviews under CEQA. One significant obstacle to updating these plans is the uncertainty that results if the environmental review document prepared pursuant to CEQA for the community plan update is challenged in court. During the litigation process, it is unclear whether the community plan or the update will be in effect, causing developers and planners great uncertainty and potentially delaying all development in that community plan area and affecting the ability to obtain the needed housing intended by the community plan update. SB 611 is critical to help ensure that housing is not stopped or slowed because of an inappropriate court challenge. […]

1. Statements in opposition

Livable California writes in opposition, stating:

AB 1515 was intended to temporarily insulate the County of Los Angeles from the damaging effects of having allowed its community plans, plans that supplement the general plan for various portions of the county, to become outdated. It prevented a successful challenge to the EIR for an updated community plan from also invalidating the approvals of projects relying on the updated community plan.

While LC agrees that essentially shutting down development until the EIR for the updated plan passes muster would be draconian, simply extending what was intended to be a temporary waiver of the required consistency for another ten years would only reward continued delay.

LC believes a better approach would be to allow the County to announce its intent to update a community plan. That would trigger a five-year “grace period” for preparation, approval, and possible litigation on the validity of the revised plan. The provisions of §65458 et seq. would apply during that time. With the expiration of the five years, the community plan would be expected to be completed and valid. This would give the County an incentive to complete revisions expeditiously.

SUPPORT

Los Angeles City Mayor Karen Bass (sponsor)

California Apartment Association

OPPOSITION

Livable California

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation: None known.

Prior Legislation: AB 1515 (Friedman, Ch. 269, Stats. 2019) prohibited, until January 1, 2025, a court from invalidating a development approval that was granted based on a community plan that meets specified criteria, if the development was approved or had a complete application prior to the community plan being invalidated.

PRIOR VOTES:

Senate Local Government Committee (Ayes 7, Noes 0)

**************

SENATE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Senator María Elena Durazo, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Planning and zoning: community plans: review under the California Environmental Quality Act

Reenacts, as an urgency measure, provisions of law that prohibit a court from invalidating a development approval that was granted based on a community plan that meets specified criteria, if the development was approved or had a complete application prior to the community plan being invalidated.

Background

Land use planning and permitting. The Planning and Zoning Law requires every county and city to adopt a general plan that sets out planned uses for all of the area covered by the plan. A general plan must include seven mandatory elements, such as a land use element that designates the proposed general distribution, general location, and extent of the uses of land; a housing element that establishes the locations and densities of housing for very low, low, moderate, and above moderate income households; and a circulation element that describes the general location of public infrastructure and facilities for the movement of goods and people.

Cities’ and counties’ major land use decisions—including development permitting—must be consistent with their general plans. In this way, the general plan is a blueprint for future development. The Planning and Zoning Law also establishes a planning agency in each city and county, which may be a separate planning commission, administrative body, or the legislative body of the city or county itself.

Local agencies may also adopt specific plans—also known as community plans—that provide for the systematic implementation of a general plan in a particular area. Specific plans are an optional way to provide for the implementation of the general plan for all or a portion of a community. Specific plans are often appropriate for larger infill development opportunities: they allow a community to determine the mix of uses, densities and development standards that are suitable to the site or sites that may include multiple zoning designations, but that may not be applicable to the jurisdiction as a whole.

Environmental review. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the state and local governments to study and mitigate, to the extent feasible, the environmental impacts of proposed projects. An agency that proposes to undertake a project that may have a significant impact on the environment must prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to study the impacts and identify measures to mitigate those impacts. An EIR may be required at many levels of planning, including the adoption of a general plan, a specific plan, or zoning ordinance, or for an individual development project. CEQA also allows agencies to adopt a programmatic EIR, which is a more comprehensive EIR developed up front that can be used as the basis for more streamlined “tiered” EIRs for individual projects.

Some projects are exempt from CEQA review, through either a statutory exemption created by the Legislature or a categorical exemption created by the Secretary of Natural Resources because a given type of project does not usually have a significant effect on the environment. Other projects are subject to CEQA but will not have a significant effect on the environment; in these cases, the agency responsible for environmental review issues a negative declaration.

Judicial review under CEQA. CEQA provides for judicial review of CEQA actions taken by public agencies, following the agency's decision to carry out or approve the project. Challenges alleging improper determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment, or alleging an EIR doesn't comply with CEQA, must be filed in the Superior Court within 30 days of filing of the notice of approval. If a court finds that a project didn’t comply with CEQA, it must order the approving agency to do one of the following:

• Void some or all of the CEQA decision, determination, or finding;
• Suspend any or all specific project activities that could result in an adverse environmental change, until the public agency has taken any actions needed to bring the determination, finding, or decision into compliance with CEQA; or
• Take specific action to bring the determination, finding, or decision into compliance with CEQA.

City of Los Angeles Community Plans. The City of Los Angeles’s Land Use Element of its general plan comprises 34 Community Plans that contain the guiding goals and principles for how each plan area should grow. Currently, 28 of those 34 plans are at least 10 years old, and the oldest is the Chatsworth-Porter Ranch Plan, which was last updated in 1993. In 2017, the city council directed the Los Angeles Department of City Planning to update Los Angeles’s Land Use Element by 2024. However, the COVID-19 pandemic paused these updates and the city only recently resumed updating them. The City is in the process of updating its community plans citywide. 14 plans are currently in the process of being updated, three of which are in the final phase of adoption.

AB 1515 (Friedman, 2019). Major land use changes can be controversial and are often litigated under CEQA. Responding to concerns that litigation during the update process could create uncertainty over whether the old community plan or the updated plan would be in effect, the Legislature enacted AB 1515 (Friedman, 2019), which prohibited a court from invalidating a development approval that was granted based on a community plan that meets specified criteria, if the development was approved or had a complete application prior to the community plan being invalidated. The purpose of this measure was to allow development to proceed during the litigation process over updated community plans without fear that a court would halt projects in progress.

AB 1515 sunset on January 1, 2025. City of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass wants the Legislature to reestablish the limits on invalidating approved projects that were enacted by AB 1515.

Proposed Law

Senate Bill 611 reenacts AB 1515’s provisions with certain technical changes. Specifically, SB 611 prohibits a court from invalidating, reviewing, voiding, or setting aside a development approval that was granted based on a community plan that meets specified criteria on the basis of noncompliance with CEQA, if either of the following occurs:

• The development is approved before the court issues a stay, order, or writ that requires the challenged EIR or community plan update to be rescinded or set aside; or
• The application for the development project is deemed complete under the Permit Streamlining Act before the court issues a stay, order, or writ that requires the challenged EIR or community plan update to be rescinded or set aside.

The bill applies notwithstanding the duties CEQA imposes on a court to issue a stay, order, or writ if a project does not comply with CEQA.

For a development to qualify for the bill’s prohibition, the community plan underlying the development approval must meet all of the following conditions:

• The plan was adopted by a city, including a charter city, or county for a defined geographic area within its jurisdictional boundaries;
• The plan serves as the land use element for the area covered by the plan;
• The plan has not been updated for more than 10 years from the date the plan was adopted or last updated, whichever is later;
• The plan includes two or more transit priority areas;
• The city or county that adopts the plan has adopted, on or after January 1, 2015, a circulation or mobility element as a part of the general plan;
• The city or county that adopts the plan has a housing element that includes housing capacity to sufficiently accommodate its regional housing needs allocation;
• The city or county that adopts the plan has adopted a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) threshold of significance for the area that presumes that projects in the area have a less than significant transportation impact, consistent with state regulations;
• The area covered by the plan update is located within an urbanized area, as defined in existing law; and
• The city or county that adopts the plan has also adopted any required ordinances or regulations related to the designation of very high fire hazard severity zones and floodplains.

AB 1515 defines a community plan update to include both the community plan itself and any zoning ordinances necessary to bring the zoning into consistency with the community plan.

The bill provides that it does not:

• Affect or alter the obligation for the approval of a development project that is consistent with an approved community plan to comply with CEQA; or
• Limit an action to challenge the approval of a development project that is consistent with an approved community plan.

SB 611 applies its provisions to a development project commenced on or before January 1, 2036, states that it is an urgency statute, and includes findings and declarations to support its purposes.

Comments

1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “SB 611 ensures the timely execution of community development projects by restoring legal protections that prevent court challenges under the CEQA from invalidating approved projects. By extending these protections until 2036, SB 611 provides certainty for developers and communities, ensuring that legally permitted projects can proceed even when broader community plans are contested. This bill is particularly critical in cities like Los Angeles, where housing shortages and homelessness remain urgent concerns. The reinstatement of these provisions aligns with California’s broader goals of increasing housing supply and streamlining development.”

2. Wait a minute… CEQA can be a double-edged sword: it provides opportunities for both legitimate challenges to developments that will harm the environment and for less scrupulous actors to delay projects they don’t like for completely unrelated reasons. Delays in project approval can be costly, and operating based off of out-of-date land use plans can have environmental consequences as well. For example, the CEQA regulations in place at the time many community plans in Los Angeles were adopted encouraged suburban development because city streets already have slower moving traffic than suburban arterials, but the regulations in force today encourage infill opportunities because development in urban areas results in fewer VMT.

To mitigate these issues and to allow development to proceed as the City of Los Angeles updates its community plans, SB 611 provides protection for some development approvals from being invalidated. The potential consequences of this are limited: as written, SB 611 does not apply to ministerial projects, and any other project approvals that require discretionary review—which applies to most projects—would still have to go through a separate project-level CEQA analysis. Furthermore, SB 611 does not prevent a court from issuing an injunction that prevents the community plan from being used if the court thinks there is a real risk that the plan will result in environmental harm. On balance, the cost of delaying development may outweigh the relatively small potential unmitigated environmental impacts.

3. What happened? AB 1515 was in place for five years: from January 1, 2020 until January 1, 2025. Shortly after AB 1515 became effective, the COVID-19 pandemic occurred in March 2020, and the city temporarily paused updates to its community plans. In January 2025, the first community plan update since the pandemic became operative, covering Downtown. The City also updated the Hollywood community plan in January 2025. Because no community plans had been updated until recently, the City was unaware that AB 1515 had sunset.

4. Go big or go home. SB 611 defines community plan in a narrow manner that means the City of Los Angeles is likely the only city or county in the state that will benefit from the bill. However, other local governments use similar planning approaches: for example, the City of San Diego adopts a standalone land use element for its general plan (and therefore doesn’t meet the requirements of the bill) but also has 52 community plans that cover the entire city and provide a more detailed vision for how each of the community planning areas should develop. Furthermore, cities and counties across California also may need the certainty that SB 611 can provide for developers to ensure that housing and other development serving community needs proceeds apace. They all adopt general plans, including housing elements, that are the foundation for development, but remain vulnerable to challenge. The Committee may wish to consider whether SB 611 should apply more broadly to other cities and counties or to other types of planning documents.

5. Charter city. The California Constitution allows cities that adopt charters to control their own “municipal affairs.” In all other matters, charter cities must follow the general, statewide laws. Because the Constitution doesn’t define municipal affairs, the courts determine whether a topic is a municipal affair or whether it’s an issue of statewide concern. SB 611 says that its statutory provisions apply to charter cities. However, it does not include findings and declarations supporting this statement. The Committee may wish to consider amending SB 611 to include a justification for the application of the bill to charter cities.

6. Coming and going. The Senate Rules Committee has ordered a double referral of SB 611: first to the Committee on Local Government to address issues of local land use permitting, and then to the Committee on Judiciary.

7. Urgent! As an urgency statute, SB 611 must be approved by a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature. Regular legislation takes effect on January 1 following its passage, but urgency bills take effect as soon as they are passed, signed, and chaptered.

Support and Opposition

(3/28/2025)

Support: City of Los Angeles (Sponsor)
California Apartment Association

California Association of Realtors

Opposition: None Submitted

-- END --