Election 2026 · State of California

Proposition 45: Faster environmental review for some projects

Published September 29, 2026 · Updated October 2, 2026

Proposition 45 would change the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for projects it defines as "essential," including most housing, transportation, water and health projects. Project applicants could choose tighter deadlines for environmental review, permits and lawsuits, a narrower review of alternatives, and court challenges that could stop only the part of a project that failed review rather than the whole project.

Summary by CityHallPass, not the official text or legal advice. The official text controls: California Official Voter Information Guide: Proposition 45.

What would Proposition 45 cost?

The Legislative Analyst estimates initial state and local costs likely in the high tens of millions of dollars a year, possibly over $100 million, partly covered by fees on applicants and people who file lawsuits. Longer-term effects are uncertain and could be larger, either positive (lower project costs, more tax revenue) or negative (costs of responding to environmental harm).

What it means for the City of LA

The City of Los Angeles is the lead agency for environmental review of many projects it approves, so the new deadlines would bind City departments such as City Planning when an applicant for an eligible project opts in: 365 business days to decide on an environmental impact report, 180 for a negative declaration, 90 for other reviews. Lawsuits over those approvals would have to finish within 270 days. The measure declares that the state occupies the field for these projects. The Legislative Analyst expects initial local costs and uncertain longer-term effects, and does not estimate them for the City.

The details

The question on your ballot

Amends California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to expedite environmental review for certain projects (including most housing, transportation, water, and health projects) by setting deadlines to complete environmental review and resolve lawsuits challenging project approvals. Fiscal Impact: Initial costs for state and local governments, likely in the high tens of millions of dollars—potentially exceeding $100 million—annually, partly covered by fees. Uncertain, potentially more significant positive or negative longer-term fiscal effects. Supporters: California Children’s Hospital Association; California Water Association; California Council for Affordable Housing Opponents: Coalition for Clean Air; CA Environmental Voters; Physicians for Social Responsibility, LA; National Wildlife Federation

What would change

Applicants for eligible projects can choose to use the new rules, use some of them, or stay with current law (text, Sec. 21015; Legislative Analyst).

Eligible projects. Housing (including mixed-use buildings, shelters, supportive, student and senior housing, and office-to-housing conversions); water systems, not including Delta conveyance; clean energy, not including nuclear; health facilities, clinics and medical office buildings; fire, police and sheriff’s stations; wildfire risk reduction; broadband internet access; education facilities; and transportation, not including high-speed rail (Legislative Analyst, Figure 1; text, Sec. 21028). Jails and new oil or natural gas production facilities are excluded (text, Sec. 21028(m)).

What it keeps. The text says it “does not diminish the authority of any public agency to approve or disapprove an essential project” and “does not exempt any essential project from environmental review” (text, Sec. 21014).

What it means for the City of Los Angeles

• Deadlines on City departments. When the City is the lead agency for an eligible project whose applicant opts in, it would face the 365, 180 and 90 business-day deadlines, and an applicant could demand a hearing before the City’s “highest-ranking decisionmaking body” if a deadline is missed (text, Secs. 21018 and 21020). The deadlines apply to “all public agencies” and to applications deemed complete after the measure takes effect; pending applications may be withdrawn and resubmitted under the new rules (text, Sec. 21014).
• State control. The measure declares streamlining these projects “a matter of statewide concern” and says the state “hereby occupies the field” in their review and approval (text, Sec. 21030). We found no official analysis of how it would interact with the City Charter.
• Costs and fees. The Legislative Analyst expects state and local costs in the high tens of millions of dollars a year at first, partly covered by fees on applicants and on people who file lawsuits (Legislative Analyst). The text lets agencies charge applicants fees to cover review costs (text, Sec. 21014(j)). The Analyst does not estimate the City’s share.
• Recent state exemptions. The Legislature passed a series of CEQA exemptions for housing and infrastructure in 2025, the Sacramento Bee reported (Sacramento Bee via Yahoo). Proposition 45 lets applicants combine its rules with other streamlining laws and applies certain labor rules from that 2025 law, AB 130 (text, Sec. 21015).
• Southern California donors on both sides. The Building Industry Association of Southern California’s issues PAC gave $900,000 in support. Operating Engineers Local 12 gave $1,000,000 and Southern California Pipe Trades District Council 16 gave $472,434 in opposition (Cal-Access, committee 1353866; Cal-Access, committee 1479255).

How it got on the ballot

Proposition 45 is a citizen initiative, number 2000 on the Secretary of State’s list (Attorney General file 25-0023A1), titled the “Building an Affordable California Act.” The proponent is Kurt R. Oneto, who is also the proponent of Propositions 41 and 42 (Secretary of State, eligible measures; text, Sec. 21010). The Daily News editorial board and the argument against both say the California Chamber of Commerce developed it (Daily News; argument against).

• Dec. 26, 2025: The Attorney General issued the circulating title and summary (Secretary of State).
• Feb. 6, 2026: Backers reported 25% of the 546,651 valid signatures needed (Secretary of State).
• Feb. 2026: Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) endorsed it, the Sacramento Bee reported (Sacramento Bee via Yahoo).
• June 16, 2026: It became eligible after the county signature sample (Secretary of State).
• September 2026: Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed SB 954, a bill by Sen. Catherine Blakespear to narrow a 2025 CEQA exemption for advanced manufacturing. Blakespear and other lawmakers then spoke against Proposition 45, the Sacramento Bee reported (Sacramento Bee via Yahoo).

The Yes committee paid PCI Campaigns $13,429,449.75 (including petition work) and Target Enterprises $8,000,000 (Cal-Access, committee 1484853).

What each side says

In the state voter guide. Arguments are the opinions of their authors and are not checked for accuracy by any official agency (arguments and rebuttals).

Argument for, signed by Ann-Louise Kuhns (California Children’s Hospital Association), Jennifer Capitolo (California Water Association) and Jenna Abbott (California Council on Affordable Housing) (argument in favor):

• “Permitting delays add more than $75,000 to the cost of a new home.”
• It sets “enforceable timelines,” bases decisions on the rules in place when an application is filed, and speeds up legal challenges.
• “Prop. 45 does not exempt a single project from environmental review,” and “cities and counties retain full authority to approve or deny projects.”

The opponents’ rebuttal, signed by Chris Tarver (American Nurses Association, California), Vanessa Forsythe (California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice) and Martha Arguello (Physicians for Social Responsibility, Los Angeles), says it “doesn’t require a single project to lower your rent, your mortgage, or your utility bills” and is “Funded by gas and electric utilities and corporate PACs” (rebuttal).

Argument against, signed by Joe Lyou (Coalition for Clean Air), Jennifer Clary (Clean Water Action) and Matt Abularach-Macias (California Environmental Voters) (argument against):

• It “limits both the environmental review of major new development projects and the public’s right to be heard.”
• It “reduces public agency requirements to consider public comments.”
• It “was written by the California Chamber of Commerce and financed by gas and electric utilities and corporate PACs.”

The supporters’ rebuttal, signed by Ann-Louise Kuhns, former State Fire Marshal Ruben Grijalva and Robert Rivinius (Family Business Association of California), says it “does not eliminate a single environmental law” and that residents keep the right “to provide public comments, oppose projects, and sue to stop projects” (rebuttal).

Outside the guide.

• California Chamber of Commerce President Jennifer Barrera: “Prop. 45 is a change in government process, not environmental protection” (Sacramento Bee via Yahoo).
• Sen. Catherine Blakespear: “We are actually working in the Legislature to promote what we want, and this just goes way too far” (Sacramento Bee via Yahoo).
• Data centers. The Data Center Coalition told the Sacramento Bee that data centers “are not eligible for Prop. 45’s streamlining.” An attorney for the No campaign said they fall under the “broadband internet access” category, which the text says includes projects “incidental to” or that “enable” retail internet service (Sacramento Bee via MSN; Sacramento Bee via MSN, Sept. 28).
• A Holland & Knight study promoted by the Yes campaign found nearly two-thirds of CEQA lawsuits over 11 years targeted infill development, the Sacramento Bee reported (Sacramento Bee via Yahoo).

Checking the main claims against official records.

Who supports and opposes it

Supporters

• California Children’s Hospital Association, California Water Association, California Council for Affordable Housing, American Clean Power California, California LULAC, NAACP California/Hawaii State Conference, California Taxpayers Association, Environmental Policy Innovation Center, Family Business Association of California and former State Fire Marshal Ruben Grijalva (argument in favor and rebuttal).
• California Chamber of Commerce and the California Hospital Association (Bakersfield Californian via Yahoo; Sacramento Bee via MSN).
• California Building Industry Association and California Association of Realtors, as donors (Cal-Access, committee 1484853).
• Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (Sacramento Bee via Yahoo).
• California Republican Party (CAGOP endorsements).
• The National Association of Home Builders reported $75,000 in independent spending for it (Cal-Access raw data).

Opponents

• Coalition for Clean Air, California Environmental Voters, Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles and National Wildlife Federation (official ballot label); Clean Water Action, California Communities Against Toxics, California Environmental Justice Alliance, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice and the American Nurses Association California (arguments).
• California Democratic Party (Inland Valley News; Sacramento Bee via MSN).
• State Building and Construction Trades Council of California (Sacramento Bee via MSN; Cal-Access, committee 1492264), and construction unions including the Laborers, Iron Workers, Operating Engineers Local 12 and pipe trades councils, as donors (Cal-Access, committee 1479255).
• Sierra Club, Greenbelt Alliance and the Center for Biological Diversity (Bakersfield Californian via Yahoo).
• Sen. Catherine Blakespear and other legislators (Sacramento Bee via Yahoo).

Editorial boards.

• Yes: the Southern California News Group, in the Daily News and Orange County Register (Daily News; Orange County Register), the San Diego Union-Tribune (San Diego Union-Tribune) and the Bakersfield Californian (Bakersfield Californian; copy via Yahoo).
• We found no LA Times editorial board position as of Sept. 30, 2026.

Money for and against

Source: campaign statements of committees 1484853, 1353866, 1492264, 1479255 and 1493079, read from the Cal-Access raw data export dated Sept. 30, 2026; combined totals are our calculations. The Yes on 45 committee also reported loans; its unpaid bills were $4,073,874.50 on Sept. 19. The CBIA committee’s statements begin with the period from Oct. 20, 2024. The Secretary of State’s compiled totals ran only through Aug. 2 when checked on Sept. 30.

Who is giving

Method: every itemized contribution on the committees’ Form 460 statements plus late contribution reports through Sept. 29, from the Cal-Access raw data export, analyzed by CityHallPass.

For: Yes on 45 (ID 1484853). 49 donors gave $24,310,331 including late reports. Building a Better California gave $10,000,000 (41.1%). The building industry gave $7,900,000 (32.5%): $5,650,000 through the CBIA’s Proposition 45 committee and $2,250,000 directly. Other donors: California Association of Realtors ($1,500,000), CA Business PAC of the California Chamber of Commerce ($1,350,000), California Resources Corporation ($500,000), the California Hospitals Committee on Issues ($500,000), PG&E’s issues PAC ($500,000), Brookfield Residential ($300,000), California Water Service ($300,000), the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation ($250,000) and a Prologis-sponsored committee ($250,000). 99.5% came from donors with California addresses (Cal-Access, committee 1484853).

For: CBIA committee (ID 1353866). 63 donors gave $8,875,403.08 including late reports, nearly all home builders: Lennar ($1,598,920 across two filer entries), the Building Industry Association of Southern California’s issues PAC ($900,000), Five Point ($750,000), KB Home ($707,363), RMV Community Development ($350,000), Tri Pointe ($311,630), Toll Brothers ($301,241) and D.R. Horton ($261,150). 17.7% came from donors with out-of-state addresses. It passed $6,595,000 to Yes on 45, including forgiven loans (Cal-Access, committee 1353866).

Against.

• Committee 1492264: 22 donors gave $14,607,166.60. Clean and Healthy California, sponsored by environmental organizations, gave $7,078,075 (48.5%). Wendy Schmidt gave $5,000,000 (34.2%). State Building and Construction Trades Council committees gave $1,999,857.25, and the Iron Workers’ PAC $500,000 (Cal-Access, committee 1492264).
• Committee 1479255: 18 donors gave $5,390,241, all construction unions and labor-management funds, led by the California State Council of Laborers ($1,535,000), the Iron Workers District Council ($1,000,000) and Operating Engineers Local 12 ($1,000,000) (Cal-Access, committee 1479255).
• Committee 1493079: $1,500,000 from committee 1492264, $600,000 from the Center for Biological Diversity and $209,271.39 from Earthjustice, through Sept. 28 (Cal-Access, committee 1493079).

Where committee donors get their money (Cal-Access raw data):

• Building a Better California: all of its itemized contributions came from individuals; see our Proposition 41 page.
• CA Business PAC (Cal-Access): $2,152,953.04 in itemized receipts since late 2024, led by Sutter Health ($1,000,000), CRC Services ($500,000) and PG&E ($250,000).
• Clean and Healthy California (Cal-Access): had $17.6 million on hand at the end of 2024 and reported $598 in contributions since, so its money was raised before the period we examined. It was earlier named Campaign for a Safe and Healthy California.

Outside spending

Independent expenditures naming Proposition 45 on Form 496 through Sept. 29 (Cal-Access raw data):

• Supporting: National Association of Home Builders, $75,000 (digital advertising, Sept. 28); Reform California with Carl DeMaio, $5,500.
• Opposing: none reported.

Independent analysis

• Legislative Analyst. Initial state and local costs “likely would be in the high tens of millions of dollars annually, potentially exceeding $100 million annually,” partly covered by fees. Longer term, faster projects could lower project costs and raise property tax revenue, while approvals of projects with negative environmental impacts could raise costs. Changes to court review “could mean fewer people will sue in the future” (analysis).
• Sacramento Bee. Judges “would have to largely give deference to a government agency’s decision to approve a project, provided the agency can show that decision was supported by substantial evidence” (Sacramento Bee via MSN).

If it passes

• When it starts. An initiative statute takes effect on the fifth day after the Secretary of State files the statement of the vote (Art. II, Sec. 10). It then applies “to all pending and future” reviews of eligible projects, and its court rules apply to lawsuits already pending (text, Secs. 21026 and 21033).
• Changes. The Legislature can amend it only by a two-thirds vote of each house, and only in ways that further its purposes, after the bill has been public for 12 business days (text, Sec. 21034).
• Frozen references. Other state laws it cites are read as they stood on Dec. 31, 2025 (text, Sec. 21031).
• Legal questions. Whether data centers qualify as broadband projects is disputed (Sacramento Bee via MSN). We found no lawsuit against the measure as of Sept. 30, 2026.

Key moments

We found no televised debate on Proposition 45 as of Sept. 30, 2026.

• Early poll (July 2026). PPIC found 73% support for a description of the measure, before it had a ballot label, KMPH and the Sacramento Bee reported (KMPH via MSN; Sacramento Bee via Yahoo). With the ballot label in September, support was 49% (PPIC).
• Data center dispute (August 2026). See What each side says (Sacramento Bee via MSN; Sacramento Bee via MSN, Sept. 28).
• SB 954 veto (September 2026). See How it got on the ballot.

Polls

Source: PPIC Statewide Survey, September 2026. PPIC read respondents the ballot title and label. Latino likely voters (55%) and those earning $40,000 to $99,999 (56%) were among the most supportive. PPIC’s July survey, which asked about a description rather than the ballot label, found 73% yes, 24% no (KMPH via MSN).