Your guide to Proposition 45: Faster CEQA review for housing and infrastructure

As Californians grapple with sky-high housing and utility costs, Proposition 45 seeks to overhaul the law often blamed for delaying construction and driving up its cost: the California Environmental Quality Act.

Supporters say the measure will speed up environmental review for certain projects, from affordable apartments to hospitals, cutting costly delays and passing those savings on to consumers. Opponents argue the proposal weakens environmental protections, stifles community input and could fast-track projects like data centers and freeways.

California

Voter guide to the 2026 California general election

California’s general election takes place on Novemer 3. Learn about L.A.’s city and county races as well races for state office.

Oct. 1, 2026

California’s landmark environmental law, known as CEQA, requires state and local agencies to consider the environmental effects of many proposed projects before approving them. If a project could cause significant environmental harm that can’t easily be avoided, it undergoes a more detailed environmental review that examines its potential impacts and alternatives. The public has opportunities to weigh in during the process.

Proposition 45 arrives about a year after California lawmakers passed significant changes to CEQA. Most housing in already developed areas, for example, is now exempt from environmental review.

Proposition 45 creates a new process for reviewing projects deemed “essential” — most housing, transportation, water, health, wildfire mitigation, educational facility, internet access and clean energy projects. (There are notable exceptions, including nuclear energy, high-speed rail, jails and Delta conveyance facilities.) Applicants have the option to use the new or existing process.

Proposition 45 would impose stricter deadlines on environmental reviews, permits and court challenges for those who choose it. For instance, agencies would have 365 business days to complete an environmental impact report and could face a lawsuit if they miss that deadline. Courts generally would have to rule on lawsuits related to the law within 270 days.

Agencies would have to spell out application requirements up-front and could not make repeated requests for more information or project changes. Environmental impacts would be judged under the laws and standards in place when an application is submitted. Applicants could propose a single project alternative for review, rather than requiring agencies to develop and evaluate several.

The measure caps public comment periods, while current law only sets minimum lengths. It also limits what courts may consider in CEQA lawsuits and, if a court finds that an agency violated the law, it could halt only the affected portion of a project while the issue is fixed.

The state Legislature can amend the measure only with a two-thirds supermajority vote, and any changes would need to further the initiative.

Fundraising data will be updated regularly until the election.

The measure is sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce and backed by a coalition of more than 150 business, clean energy, housing, social justice and healthcare groups. Supporters include the California Council for Affordable Housing, Large-Scale Solar Assn., California Children’s Hospital Assn., United Contractors, National Diversity Coalition and dozens of local chambers of commerce.

Opposing the proposal are more than 300 environmental, housing, civil rights, health, labor, climate, faith and party organizations. Among them are the National Wildlife Federation, California Democratic Party, American Nurses Assn.-California, American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, California Federation of Labor Unions and numerous land trusts.

The two sides disagree sharply over what the changes to the law would mean in practice.

Dan Dunmoyer, president and chief executive of the California Building Industry Assn., a trade group supporting the measure, said the state is the slowest in the nation when it comes to reaching a conclusion about whether projects can be built. Per Dunmoyer, it’s one of the top two reasons housing here is so pricey.

Supporters point to accumulating interest on loans, shelling out for litigation and rising costs for materials.

Dunmoyer believes the measure would make the review process faster and easier. He estimated it will reduce the cost of building single family homes by $75,000 a pop.

“We think … it will allow us to provide more housing of all types, not just for sale, but for rent and legally defined affordable housing, even homeless shelters, more quickly than under the current environmental review process,” he said, “and we think that’s beneficial to Californians who very much want a place to call home.”

Proponents of the measure characterize the effort as procedural: It will firm up timelines, but projects still will be reviewed. But those fighting it, as well as some legal experts, say the 41-page proposal essentially guts CEQA for projects that qualify.

Aruna Prabhala, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, a conservation group opposing the measure, said it would eliminate the need to analyze a project’s specific impacts, such as how it affects people living nearby. Instead, the process would become a “checklist” to see if the project complies with existing environmental laws.

The measure also states it “should be interpreted and implemented to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and realization of, essential projects.” Prabhala and others believe it flips the purpose of CEQA to approve projects, rather than protect the environment.

“So much of what’s in the initiative mirrors what we’re seeing from the federal level and the Trump administration from rolling back environmental review, from really limiting public participation,” she said. “For not only failing to enforce protections for our air and water quality, but making it that much harder for agencies to do that.”