Proposition 45: Changes to Environmental Review Process for Certain Projects Initiative

Environmental review in California has no clock, and finishing it buys no certainty. An agency can take years to review a housing project or a solar farm, and once it's finally approved a single lawsuit can void it and send everyone back to the start. The only guaranteed winner is whoever wanted nothing built.

Prop 45 puts the process on deadlines for essential projects (https://growsf.org/voter-guide/san-francisco-voter-guide-november-2026-election/measures/prop-45/legal-text/#prop-45-projects-covered): housing, water, clean energy, clinics, schools, broadband, and transit. Agencies get 30 days to deem an application complete, 90 business days to rule on an exemption, and 365 business days to finish an environmental report (https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2025/250480.pdf), and an applicant can force a decision (https://growsf.org/voter-guide/san-francisco-voter-guide-november-2026-election/measures/prop-45/legal-text/#prop-45-missed-deadline) when an agency blows a deadline. Lawsuits must finish, appeals included, within 270 days, and a court can halt the piece of a project that breaks the law but can no longer kill the whole thing (https://growsf.org/voter-guide/san-francisco-voter-guide-november-2026-election/measures/prop-45/legal-text/#prop-45-remedies).

Nothing is exempted; every project still completes environmental review under the same laws (https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2025/250480.pdf). The Sierra Club objects (https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_45,_Expedited_Environmental_Review_Process_for_Certain_Projects_Initiative_%282026%29) that narrowing what opponents can sue over weakens enforcement, and that is the real trade: Prop 45 moves power from whoever can afford a lawsuit to whoever follows the written rules. We think that is the right trade, applicants can choose whether to use the faster process (https://growsf.org/voter-guide/san-francisco-voter-guide-november-2026-election/measures/prop-45/legal-text/#prop-45-optional), and the Legislature can amend it by a two-thirds vote (https://growsf.org/voter-guide/san-francisco-voter-guide-november-2026-election/measures/prop-45/legal-text/#prop-45-amendments), which most initiatives never allow. The costs land where they should, too: the Legislative Analyst's Office expects (https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2025/250480.pdf) start-up costs for private projects to be covered by applicant fees and reimbursements, and likely long-term net savings for government from the reduced workload.

The Legislature proved the logic in 2025 when it exempted most infill housing from CEQA (https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/06/30/governor-newsom-signs-into-law-groundbreaking-reforms-to-build-more-housing-affordability/). Prop 45 extends the same logic to the rest of what California is short of. Delay is a policy choice, and you pay for it in rent, energy bills, and water rates. Vote yes.

Source (https://growsf.org/voter-guide/san-francisco-voter-guide-november-2026-election#prop-45)

Yes on Prop 45: Reduce Housing Costs by Cutting Red Tape

Reduces regulation and combats frivolous lawsuits that have increased the cost of housing projects. California’s environmental review law (CEQA) has been weaponized to block and delay housing, adding years and millions of dollars to every project.  Prop 45 is the first time voters have ever been handed the chance to reform CEQA at the ballot box.

Source (https://www.reformcalifornia.org/voter-guides/san-diego)

YES on Prop. 45

Few things have impeded rational housing policy in the state more than the California Environmental Quality Act. It slows down development which, in turn, limits housing supply, increasing the cost of living. Far from being a tool to address legitimate environment concerns, it has been used more frequently as leverage by labor organizations to exact favorable labor agreements. While CEQA reform to prevent excessive delays is necessary, Proposition 45 is not perfect since it carves out only certain projects for reform and locks in costly labor agreements. It also creates opportunities for government to pick winners and losers.

Vote YES on 45.

Source (https://www.hjta.org/2026votingguide#Ballot-Measure-Recommendations)

Proposition 45: Modifies Environmental Review for Certain Projects – YES. Proposition 45 creates faster procedures for projects it defines as essential, including most housing, transportation, water, health, clean-energy, school, broadband, and wildfire-mitigation projects. Supporters argue that delays and litigation increase costs and prevent urgently needed projects from being built. That is real: Black Californians and other communities of color pay when affordable homes never break ground, clinics never open, transit remains unreliable, and clean-energy or water projects stall. Opponents also raise serious concerns. The measure limits the range of project alternatives, narrows court review, caps public-comment periods, and requires consultation only with federally recognized tribes rather than all affected California Native communities. Our support is not a blank check. Speed without justice is not progress. Implementation must begin community engagement early, provide meaningful language access, consult all affected tribal communities, enforce civil-rights and environmental-health protections, prevent displacement, monitor cumulative pollution burdens, and ensure local workers and diverse businesses share in the economic opportunity. We will continue to oppose any projects that try to take advantage of the intent of this measure and abuse the process.

Source (https://cahinaacp.org/our-vote-our-voice-where-we-stand-on-every-2026-ballot-measure)

Proposition 45: Modifies Environmental Review for Certain Projects. Initiative Statute
C.A.R. Position:  FOR [SUPPORT]This measure would implement reform to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by speeding up environmental review under CEQA for most housing, transportation, water, health, and clean energy projects. It puts agencies on deadlines, trims the requirement to study endless project alternatives, and limits how long opponents have to sue and what a court can order.

Source (https://www.car.org/en/advocacy/legislation/stategovernmentaffairs/Ballot-Measures)

CalChamber not only strongly supports Proposition 45, the Building an Affordable California Act, but led the effort to qualify the measure for the November ballot. Prop 45 will streamline the process for building the essential projects California needs – such as housing, clean energy and water, and vital infrastructure – to ensure the state’s prosperity for future generations. Editorial boards of the Orange County Register, San Diego Union-Tribune and Bakersfield Californian have endorsed Prop 45.

Political leaders on both sides of California’s political spectrum have for years argued the “landmark” California Environmental Quality Act (https://oag.ca.gov/environment/ceqa) has become a well-intentioned mess that delays and halts necessary projects. Each year, lawmakers carve out narrow CEQA exemptions to jumpstart housing and other projects, but the law remains the main impediment to construction.

Serious reformers call for a far-reaching reform rather than a piecemeal approach where the new exemptions always come with strings attached. California voters will finally have a chance to approve a broad revamping of CEQA if they approve Proposition 45 (https://yesonprop45.com/?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=24230162147&gbraid=0AAAABERV53DPhse1uF6kJe9gSwNKQkjnn&gclid=Cj0KCQjwh4TVBhCWARIsAG0czmoolxoIXHVW50jx8Fg8UEWwoKIObh-uv0AC-B4mfP7yt_31Pl2Q8uoaAiL4EALw_wcB), which was developed by the California Chamber of Commerce.

Despite claims by opponents (https://www.noprop45ca.com/get-the-facts?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=24181535415&gbraid=0AAAABEh2tjegTvJRnKULDVxAsudB3h5RV&gclid=Cj0KCQjwh4TVBhCWARIsAG0czmqIH_J4cEgkiSg8QVsqgJGk_KtWNj31ICRl8y2ShzhVZ9KarZi3AT0aAqDyEALw_wcB), Prop. 45 does not gut a law that requires local agencies to assess the environmental impacts of major projects. Instead, it tweaks the law in sensible and fair-minded ways that provide quicker approval timelines, reduce meritless lawsuits and limit open-ended demands by local agencies.

CEQA applies to any project that requires a discretionary approval. The agency often requires developers to provide an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (https://abundanthousingla.org/what-is-ceqa-why-it-needs-to-be-reformed-part-i/). CEQA allows virtually anyone to sue the approving agency by arguing the environmental analysis was inadequate. This comes on top of the myriad other local and state approvals.

It’s easy to see how this open-ended process (https://www.hklaw.com/en/case-studies/getting-in-its-own-way-behind-californias-ceqa-curtain) is abused. Unions threaten lawsuits to secure wage concessions. Angry neighbors will do so, also. No-growth groups have mastered the art of delaying, stopping and adding costs to new projects. Nearly half of CEQA lawsuits are filed against public projects. The lawsuits often target environmentally friendly projects, infill housing and transit.

Prop. 45 streamlines CEQA for projects it deems “essential” — housing, water systems, clean energy, health facilities, fire and police stations, forest clearing, education facilities and many transportation projects. Per the Legislative Analyst’s Office (https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=45&year=2026), it allows a developer to demand a hearing if an agency doesn’t meet its one-year EIR deadline. It requires agencies to specify all the information they need upfront rather than continually moving the goalposts.

The initiative (https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=45&year=2026) stops agencies from constantly revising their review standards. It limits timeframes for public comments. It narrows court review so that lawsuits can only halt the part of the project under review rather than the entire project. It sets reasonable parameters on CEQA review rather than allowing the process to drag on for years.

Opponents point to the “high tens of millions of dollars” (https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=45&year=2026) it will cost governments to comply with the rewritten rules, but every new regulation or revamping of an old one will require governments to spend money to implement the new procedures. It’s a small sum in the scheme of California budgets and could yield long-term fiscal benefits if it truly succeeds in streamlining more projects.

Opponents also complain about a loss of “local control,” (https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/local-control-is-a-fancy-term-for-big-government/) but CEQA is a state law and the locals have abused it to obstruct important projects. The initiative’s proper goal is to reduce red tape from all levels of government.

Some opponents argue the state’s previous CEQA exemption laws already fix the problems, but that’s clearly not the case. Narrowly crafted CEQA exemptions have not resulted in significant new building because they don’t go far enough.

We suspect most opponents of Prop. 45 and CEQA reform in general simply don’t want to give up any tools for obstructing projects they don’t like. But after decades of them abusing CEQA for their own ends, it’s time to streamline the CEQA process.

Vote “yes” on Proposition 45.

Source (https://www.dailynews.com/2026/09/09/endorsement-yes-on-prop-45-to-reform-ceqa/)

Reduces Time Requirements to Complete Project Environmental Reviews

SD Taxpayers supports Proposition 45, which would set enforceable deadlines for environmental review under CEQA and allow a deficient portion of a review document to be corrected without setting aside an entire project approval. The measure changes how projects are reviewed rather than the environmental standards they must meet, and with nearly half of all CEQA lawsuits targeting taxpayer-funded projects, the Legislative Analyst's Office expects net savings for state and local government over the long term.

Source (https://sdtaxpayers.org/policy-reports-main/2026/9/2/taxpayers-supports-proposition-45-building-an-affordable-california-act)

Tames CEQA costs for housing construction

Source (https://svgop.com/s/SVGOP-2026-Gen-Election-Endorsements.pdf)

This measure would limit the environmental review process for new building projects across the state and restrict the timelines for public comment to 45 days. While we certainly believe that environmental reviews have been disingenuously leveraged by NIMBYs in the past to subvert much needed green energy and housing projects (looking at you, Berkeley), there is nothing in this measure that would prioritize the stuff we need and protect people from being railroaded by data centers and fossil fuel projects. Without those specifics, it’s hard to believe that this measure won’t chip away at necessary environmental protections. Both the Sierra Club and the Building Trades are urging “no” votes, and when those two see eye to eye on something, we should all pay attention. Vote No.

Source (https://www.theleaguesf.org/#Prop45)

Makes changes to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations, including establishing deadlines for public agencies to complete environmental review and limiting public agencies’ existing requirement to consider a range of project alternatives to reduce environmental impacts.
Caring For Creation: Vision, Hope, and Justice states: “Neither economic growth that ignores environmental cost nor conservation of nature that ignores human cost is sustainable” p. 8.

Changes the California Environmental Quality Act by imposing deadlines and expediting environmental review and litigation for certain projects while limiting some alternatives and procedures currently available under CEQA. CADC opposes Prop. 45 because the committee was concerned that accelerating review and restricting alternatives could weaken meaningful environmental protections. Members also noted opposition from organizations and leaders concerned with health, water, air and housing and expressed concern about the measure's heavy financial backing from a small number of wealthy technology-sector supporters.

CADC 認同多個健康、水質及空氣的團體的擔心，這個提案縮短環境審查期限，並削弱重要的環境保障，因此反對提案 45。

Source (https://www.sfcadc.org/11_2026_propositions)

California absolutely needs CEQA reform. It should be easier to build housing, clean energy, transit, and bike infrastructure. But that's not what Proposition 45 does.

Instead, Prop 45 gives highway expansions a faster environmental review process by limiting alternatives, shortening timelines, and making lawsuits harder. Meanwhile, many of the transportation projects we actually need, including High Speed Rail, train stations, and many bike and pedestrian projects, don't receive the same benefit because they aren't covered by the measure's narrow transportation language.

So the projects that increase driving get streamlined...

...while many projects that reduce driving don't.

Streets For All supports reforming CEQA to make good projects easier to build while maintaining meaningful environmental review for projects that expand highways and increase driving and emissions. We’ve sponsored bills aimed at tackling CEQA for those good projects, like electric rail and pedestrian malls. But we want to make sure it stays in place for the bad projects.

That's why we oppose Proposition 45.

Source (https://www.streetsforall.org/2026)

Prop 45 - Modifies Environmental Review for Certain Projects

Endorsement: NO on Proposition 45

Initial costs to implement Proposition 45 would potentially exceed $100 million annually. The overall effect of the measure depends on how the procedural changes impact the number of eligible projects. More questions than answers remain. No bueno. While “streamlining” typically translates to less overall costs. Nothing supersedes “doing things the right way.”

We like some of what’s in here, but this seems like a ham-handed attempt to bypass CEQA. The aspects of CEQA that might require reform should be addressed directly.  This is how we end up with a patch-work of confusing and conflicting policies.

Vote NO on Proposition 45

Source (https://www.connectedsf.com/2026-voter-guide#prop-45)

Guts environmental protection laws in order to enable data centers and other development

Source (https://www.sfgreenparty.org/endorsements/123-november-2026-endorsements)

California Church IMPACT recommends a NO vote

This proposition would expedite permitting for projects subject to California’s environmental review process. As summarized by Ballotpedia:

The initiative would amend the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Permit Streamlining Act, shortening review timelines for a defined set of essential projects — housing, water systems (excluding Delta conveyance), clean energy, medical facilities, public safety infrastructure (excluding jails/prisons), broadband, education, and transportation (excluding high-speed rail).

Agencies would have 30 days to determine whether an application is complete — covering environmental review, permitting, and court proceedings. If no determination is made in that window, the application is automatically deemed complete, even when local general plan or zoning changes are required. This 30-day rule applies to both lead agencies (principally responsible for approval) and responsible agencies (other public agencies with a role in the process).

A key provision requires that Native American tribes have input on any project affecting their interests, lands, sacred sites, or quality of life — before the matter goes to the public. The general public, by contrast, would have only 30 business days to weigh in on projects affecting their homes, farms, and businesses.

The initiative would also shift timelines from calendar days to business days, require lead agencies to issue permit decisions simultaneously with environmental review rather than after, and let applicants either grant agencies more time on missed deadlines or request a hearing. It would authorize court challenges to adverse decisions, with a 270-day resolution requirement (extendable by 90 days).

The central concern is the shortened review and public comment windows. California Church IMPACT has direct experience with how complex these reviews can be — reaching a compromise that satisfies both environmental law and community concerns often takes months of hearings and public input.

Anyone who’s engaged with a proposed housing development, industrial expansion, or similar project knows citizens need real time to understand what’s proposed, ask about mitigation, and weigh the impact on their lives.

Beyond the expected opposition from environmental and public interest groups, it’s notable that the State Building and Construction Trades Council also opposes this measure — despite standing to benefit from faster construction timelines. Their president stated that the measure would weaken environmental standards and shut the public out of adequate response time, a striking objection given the group’s own financial interest in the outcome.

Through our long-standing work with California Forward, we’ve come to understand that California’s regulatory framework is a tangle of laws — often in conflict with federal standards and sometimes with each other. No one disputes that cleanup is needed, but this isn’t the way to do it. Decades of work went into making California one of the safest states environmentally; this measure, as Building Trades itself has noted, risks undoing much of that progress. With AI data centers expanding rapidly, this is a poor time to reduce communities’ capacity to evaluate their impact. We cannot support weakening environmental protections to ease the path for builders.

Source (https://churchimpact.org/index.php/2026/09/08/proposition-45-expedited-environmental-review-process-for-certain-projects-initiative/)

Endorsement: NO on Proposition 45

Initial costs to implement Proposition 45 would potentially exceed $100 million annually. The overall effect of the measure depends on how the procedural changes impact the number of eligible projects. More questions than answers remain. No bueno. While “streamlining” typically translates to less overall costs. Nothing supersedes “doing things the right way.”

We like some of what’s in here, but this seems like a ham-handed attempt to bypass CEQA. The aspects of CEQA that might require reform should be addressed directly. This is how we end up with a patch-work of confusing and conflicting policies.

Vote NO on Proposition 45

VOTE NO ON PROP 45 The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) — which has been in place since 1970 — creates standard requirements around the public disclosure of the environmental impact of state and local development projects. These environmental review disclosures are required for any project that uses public funding or requires governmental approval, and are intended to provide communities with the information and time to mitigate the damage from projects that have been evaluated to have negative impacts on the local environment. CEQA is a powerful tool, and is sometimes the only tool, for communities to limit the pollution from projects, such as warehouses, power plants, pipelines, and data centers. Proposition 45 would shift power from the public to developers by establishing an expedited, 30-day deadline for the environmental review process and requiring quicker action and approval for projects designated as essential. It would also reduce current requirements for public review, including considerations of building options that would have negative environmental impacts, and reduce the time window and project delay options available through court review.

For advocates working at the intersection of environmental protection and climate-smart growth, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (https://www.greenbelt.org/land-use-planning-dictionary/california-environmental-quality-act/) has long been a source of both pride and frustration. While it has been a critical tool to protect our natural and working lands, its procedural delays have often been used to stall projects essential to a low-carbon future: dense infill (https://www.greenbelt.org/land-use-planning-dictionary/infill-development/) housing and transit-oriented development (https://www.greenbelt.org/land-use-planning-dictionary/transit-oriented-development/) in our existing communities.

In July 2025, however, at the urging of Governor Newsom, the California legislature passed some of the most impactful changes to CEQA (https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/ceqa-reform-explainer/) since its inception. Taken together, the two bills (AB 130 and SB 131) provide robust statutory CEQA exemptions for infill housing and housing element rezonings, require the state to map infill areas where exemptions would apply, and narrow the scope of the administrative record, helping to curtail anti-housing litigation.

Read my Op-Ed on the East Bay Times on why Prop 45 is a ruse handing shortcuts to polluters disguised as relief. (https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2026/09/12/opinion-vote-no-prop-45-would-take-away-our-best-defense-against-corporate-polluters/amp/)

Despite these monumental changes that address the barriers to critical infill development, California’s business lobby and sprawl developers were left unsatisfied. Now, they are proposing a ballot initiative that would make far more radical changes to the law. After gathering enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot, this is now called Proposition 45.

While the rhetoric of the measure (initially called Building an Affordable California Act, or BACA (https://advocacy.calchamber.com/2025/12/17/calchambers-ceqa-reform-boosting-californias-economy-and-state-budget/)) seems to be aligned with urbanist goals and those of the broader abundance and affordability movements, the actual policy details and mechanics of the initiative—and the progress we’ve already achieved in the legislature (https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/2025-legislative-priorities/) last year—suggest that the costs it brings far outweigh any potential benefits.

Below, we outline seven reasons why the measure should be rejected (click to read more):

1. Major Reforms Have Already Been Enacted

For years, a primary objective for California’s urbanists was to stop the abuse of environmental law against projects that genuinely help the environment: dense, transit-oriented housing.
In a landmark shift for the state, that goal has largely been realized. Following years of advocacy by urbanists, the legislature passed a clean statutory CEQA exemption for infill housing. AB 130, which Greenbelt Alliance was proud to support (https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/ceqa-reform-ca/), is already being utilized across California, allowing builders to move forward with climate-friendly housing in high-opportunity areas like Palo Alto or Beverly Hills without the threat of being endlessly delayed by the environmental review process. While there is room for technical refinements, the fundamental issue at hand—the misuse of environmental laws to delay environmentally-friendly housing projects—has largely been addressed.

2. Everything is “Essential”

As the saying goes, “the devil is in the details”, and that’s certainly true for the BACA initiative. While modest on the surface, BACA creates a completely new set of rules for what it calls “essential” projects. So what, exactly, is an “essential project”?

The list is incredibly broad. Under Article 2, Section 21013, “essential projects” include housing, water, transportation, clean energy, transmission, broadband, and healthcare infrastructure. In practice, this definition encompasses a wide range of large-scale developments. For example, new freeways and existing freeway expansions would qualify as “essential transportation” projects; large greenfield sprawl developments would be treated as “essential” housing projects; and new dams and reservoirs would qualify as “essential” water projects. The definition even includes all “related and ancillary infrastructure,” meaning that highway interchanges, utility extensions, and water pipelines that enable sprawl developments also receive streamlined approval. All of these are enormous projects in terms of size and scale, with major potential environmental impacts. Yet, just like an apartment building in an urban area, under BACA, they would qualify for a significantly truncated review process.

In effect, this new CEQA process mirrors the fundamental flaw of its predecessor. While the old system failed to exempt low or no-impact projects from excessive review, the new one errs in the opposite direction, fast-tracking high-risk developments with significant potential for harm.

3. All Timelines Are Not Created Equal

The BACA initiative imposes strict timelines for this new class of projects that it deems “essential”: the environmental review process can take no more than one year. On the surface, a one-year limit on an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) seems reasonable. And for certain projects, like an apartment building on a parking lot in downtown San Francisco, or a townhome development in an LA suburb, it would be.

However, the measure’s definition of “essential” includes highways, dams, large-scale subdivisions, and other major projects. The environmental review required for projects at this scale cannot be done in a single year. Surveying hundreds if not thousands (or even tens of thousands) of acres of undisturbed and undeveloped land for species nesting patterns and habitat, water pollution impacts, and other environmental concerns physically cannot be accomplished within the timeframe laid out in the initiative. By forcing these projects into such a condensed timeline, we will be creating a system that overlooks genuine environmental harm in favor of speed.

For projects with unambiguous environmental benefits, such as housing developments within already urbanized areas, such speed makes sense. Many of the project types considered by this measure do not have the same clear, unambiguous benefits.

4. Restrictive Alternatives

One of CEQA’s most critical tools for preventing environmental harm is its alternative analysis provision, which allows for the identification of better project locations and designs. Currently, CEQA requires agencies to analyze a “reasonable range of alternatives” that could reduce environmental impacts, including different sites, reduced intensity options, and designs that avoid sensitive resources. This is how agencies can say, “this housing should be built downtown on a parking lot instead of on farmland,” or “this highway expansion has an alternative transit solution.”

BACA restricts this to just three options: the proposed project, one alternative designed by the applicant themselves (which doesn’t even need to be at a different location), and “no project.” The applicant’s alternative can be a slightly modified version of their original proposal on the same site. This eliminates the core mechanism for steering projects away from environmentally sensitive locations toward more appropriate sites, exactly the tool needed to prevent sprawl, protect open space, and ensure development happens in the right places.

5. The Evidentiary Standard

Maybe the most radical change incorporated in the ballot measure is to CEQA’s standard of review. Right now, CEQA allows a lead agency (generally a city or county) to use its own discretion to explore project alternatives and negotiate environmental mitigations. BACA proposes to eliminate this by requiring that environmental impacts only be found significant if they violate objective, quantifiable standards already in existing law when the project was proposed, which doesn’t sound inherently unreasonable! 

However, the measure doesn’t actually require jurisdictions to adopt such standards; instead, it exploits their absence. If numerical thresholds don’t already exist for resources like oak woodlands, groundwater, or wildlife corridors, impacts to them essentially can’t be found significant regardless of severity. A genuine objective standards approach would mandate jurisdictions adopt protective thresholds and update them as science improves. This measure rewards weak standards, freezes them at application date, and prevents improvements based on new knowledge.

6. Ballot Box Permanence

Finally, one of the greatest flaws of the measure is its rigidity. Should it pass, BACA would require a 2/3rds vote of the legislature to amend.

California has a long, storied history with ballot box governance, where initiatives become impossible to adjust as new problems arise. The 2/3rds requirement virtually guarantees the law could never be changed, regardless of what issues may arise. An unchangeable measure, with foreseeable negative impacts for the state, may have lasting consequences for generations.

Some of the project types included in this measure, such as clean energy or transmission infrastructure, may benefit from the types of streamlining being considered if careful, targeted changes were made. Rather than a broad, clunky initiative that will be extremely difficult to change, we should advocate for those reforms through the legislative cleanup process already underway.

7. The Costs Are Just Too High

California faces converging affordability crises: insurers fleeing the state, utility rates climbing, and municipal budgets straining under unsustainable costs. All of these issues stem from the same source: decades of sprawling outward, often into fire-prone areas, leaving us with infrastructure we cannot afford to maintain and risks we cannot afford to insure.

BACA will accelerate these failures by trading short-term speed for permanent costs. By gutting CEQA’s alternatives analysis—the primary tool for steering projects away from costly, high-risk locations—this limits agencies to the developer’s preferred site, one alternative the developer designs themselves, and “no project.” It freezes environmental standards at the date of application, rewarding jurisdictions with weak protections. And it requires agencies to approve permits within strict timelines regardless of fiscal consequences, because most cities lack the quantitative standards BACA requires to find fiscal impacts “significant.”

The result: even if we build some things faster today, we’ll be paying the tab forever. Even more homes in fire zones will continue to destabilize our insurance markets. More infrastructure extensions will push up our utility rates. More sprawling subdivisions that generate less revenue than they cost to maintain will ensure even higher taxes. BACA promises affordability through speed but delivers the opposite: cheaper to build, but financially ruinous to sustain.

At a time when people are struggling to make ends meet, and when the federal government is doing all it can to roll back our environmental protections, the last thing we need is to double down on the failed policies we have tried for decades and know do not work.

Proposition 45 will hurt the environment and your wallet.

Greenbelt Alliance strongly opposes Proposition 45 and urges voters to vote NO on 45 this November.

Source (https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/ceqa-baca-initiative/)

Recommends to vote "No"

NO on Proposition 45: This measure to amend CEQA (the environmental-review law that’s used to try to lever more affordable housing out of developers, but sometimes leads to such long review processes that developers give up) elicited a range of opinions from our members,. It’s supported mainly by developers and opposed mainly by affordable-housing advocates. What tipped us against it was a provision that would require a two-thirds popular vote to amend it—higher than to pass it in the first place. This is a bad smell and we rejected this attempt to make it harder for Californians to make further changes down the line.

Source (https://indivisiblesf.org/endorsements)

MODIFIES ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS

The League of Women Voters of California has always recognized the need for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) mandated environmental reviews of projects to create new housing, education, health, and public safety facilities, plus clean energy, transportation, and water projects to determine potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures to reduce adverse impacts.

At the same time, the League is aware that CEQA has been used to delay, if not completely derail, large projects. The League has supported some streamlining of CEQA requirements. But the process overhaul of CEQA proposed by Prop 45 goes too far.

Prop 45 is a long, very detailed statute that would significantly modify CEQA for specified “essential projects” to enforce strict timelines, constrain public participation with unreasonable timelines, eliminate key environmental analyses, and more. It addresses potentially very large-scale infrastructure projects, and their subsidiary components with the same time constraints as smaller “essential projects,” increasing the probability of rushed studies, incomplete analyses, lack of feasible alternatives, poor interagency coordination, less public participation, and decisions that are done in haste to meet the required timelines without considering the full consequences of the proposed “essential project.”

Statutory exemptions and expedited processes are in place, some of which the League supported, making Proposition 45 unnecessary and flawed with this prescriptive process and inflated promises. Further Prop 45 reduces opportunity for public engagement. Finally, voters are being asked to pass this long, detailed statute in a ballot initiative. Making changes or adjustments to this law would be difficult: legislative amendments would require a two-thirds vote of each house and would have to be consistent with and further the purposes of the measure; broader changes would have to go back to the voters.

Source (https://lwvc.org/ballot-recommendations)

NO ON PROP 45: Weakens Environmental Protections (CEQA)

Severely weakens protections against pollution and environmental impacts caused by new housing, transportation, and other projects.

Source (https://www.repsf.org/blog/repsf-voter-guide-nov-2026)

Vote No Prop 45:

Weakens Environmental Review

Weakens union leverage and limits community power over harmful projects.

Source (https://www.udw.org/vote#ballot)

Prop 45 is an initiative statute backed by the California Chamber of Commerce that makes sweeping changes to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Prop 45 creates a fast-track version of CEQA for a broad range of “essential” projects, including housing, transportation, energy, water, healthcare, schools, broadband, and public-safety infrastructure. Prop 45 instead applies broad deregulation across many kinds of private and public projects, concentrating this power in the hands of developers themselves. We recommend a No vote.