Proposition 45: What California’s November Ballot Measure Could Mean for CEQA Review
This alert is informational only; Meyers Nave takes no position for or against Prop 45.
On November 3, 2026, California voters will vote on Proposition 45, the Building an Affordable California Act, which would create a new, expedited CEQA review and litigation fast-track for eligible “essential projects.” If approved by a majority of voters, this proposition will take effect shortly after the election (on the fifth day after the Secretary of State files the statement of the vote for the election) and would apply immediately to existing agency proceedings and court cases, not just new ones.
Because Proposition 45 could affect project schedules, agency procedures, public participation, environmental analysis, and CEQA litigation, it is relevant to both public agencies and private applicants. This alert summarizes some of the provisions that may have the greatest practical significance.
Background
CEQA requires public agencies to identify, disclose, and mitigate environmental impacts before approving discretionary projects, preparing a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) where impacts may be significant. After approval, opponents may sue over an agency’s CEQA compliance, and courts currently have broad discretion to set aside an entire project while the agency corrects the deficiency.
Key Provisions of Proposition 45
Prop 45 would establish a new CEQA and permitting framework for specified “essential projects,” including broadly defined housing, water, clean energy, public health, public safety, wildfire mitigation, broadband internet access, and transportation projects. The measure does not create a blanket CEQA exemption for those projects. Instead, it establishes different review procedures, deadlines, and judicial-review standards. An applicant with an eligible project could elect to utilize none, some, or all of the new processes and review standards.
New deadlines for application processing and environmental review
Among other deadlines, Prop 45 would provide:
- 30 days for an agency to determine whether the project requires an EIR, a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration (ND/MND), or another form of environmental review
- 365 business days for an agency to make a final determination whether to certify an EIR.
- 180 business days for an agency to make a final determination whether to adopt an ND/MND.
- 90 business days for an exemption or certain other specified environmental-review determinations.
The environmental-review deadlines may be extended at the applicant’s written request.
If an agency misses one of the applicable environmental-review deadlines, the applicant may request a meeting or hearing. Within 60 days of that request, the agency generally must complete the available environmental review, hold the required meeting or hearing, and make a final determination on the available environmental documentation and whether to approve or disapprove the project.
Changes to the review process for eligible projects:
- Agencies will need to specify all required application information upfront
- Altered scope of impact analysis to focus exclusively on compliance with laws and standards in place at the time the project application is submitted
- Shift alternatives analysis to a single applicant-developed alternative if the applicant complies with an optional preliminary scoping process
- Tribal consultation requirements with federally-recognized tribes only, not California Native American tribes (as required by AB 52)
- Cap public comment periods at 45 days for EIRs and 20 days for ND/MNDs, extendable only by the court
Changes to judicial review:
- Courts must resolve CEQA lawsuits on eligible projects within 270 days with one 90-day extension at the court’s discretion
- CEQA claims limited to allegations of noncompliance with “objective existing standards” and courts reviewing such challenges will be limited to determining whether approval was supported by substantial evidence
- Challenges based on failure to follow the measure’s public participation procedures would be subject to a different arbitrary-and-capricious/prejudicial-error standard
- Courts will only be permitted to stay the noncompliant portion of a project while the agency corrects the deficiency, and may not rescind the project approval entirely
What the Nonpartisan Analysis Says
The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) projects near-term costs for state and local governments potentially exceeding $100 million annually to implement new standards and procedures. Longer-term fiscal effects are uncertain — the LAO notes possible savings from faster project delivery and fewer lawsuits, offset by potential costs if streamlined review leads to unaddressed environmental impacts.
Why This Matters
- Public agencies: Proposition 45 could require changes to application-completeness procedures, environmental-review schedules, public-comment procedures, administrative-record practices, and litigation strategy for eligible projects. Agencies may also need to assess whether existing staffing, consultant contracts, and internal review procedures can accommodate the new deadlines.
- Developers and applicants: Applicants with potentially eligible projects would need to determine whether a project qualifies as an “essential project” and whether to use some or all of Proposition 45’s procedures. The decision could affect environmental-review scope, alternatives analysis, project scheduling, public participation, and potential litigation exposure.
- Projects already in process: The measure contains specific provisions addressing pending applications, including applications submitted before the measure’s effective date and applications that are determined or deemed complete after the effective date. The applicability of the new procedures therefore may depend on the status of a particular project when the measure takes effect.
Learn More
Questions?
If you are evaluating a project that may qualify as an “essential project,” or have questions about how Proposition 45 could affect an existing CEQA review or potential litigation, don’t hesitate to reach out to your Meyers Nave attorney or our Land Use & Environmental Law practice group.
This alert is informational only and does not constitute legal advice. Election outcomes and subsequent implementing guidance may affect the accuracy of the information above.