Southern California voters will weigh in on a measure that could significantly alter how California handles environmental review for major construction projects, a change supporters say would speed up housing and infrastructure development while critics warn could gut decades of environmental protections.
Proposition 45, known as the Building an Affordable California Act, asks voters to amend the California Environmental Quality Act — the state’s foundational environmental review law in place since 1970 — by imposing strict timelines on reviews and lawsuits tied to certain “essential” projects, including housing, water systems, broadband expansion and transit.
Under the measure, environmental reviews for qualifying projects would be capped at 365 business days, and courts would be required to resolve related litigation within 270 calendar days. Backers argue that locking in these deadlines would cut through years of delay and reduce the cost of building in California, savings they say would eventually reach everyday consumers.
The measure was sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce and has drawn roughly $41 million in campaign support. The largest single contribution, $10 million, came from the Building a Better California political action committee, which counts Google figures Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt among its funders. Two major utility companies, Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison, together put in $4.4 million.
On the other side, a coalition of environmental, health and labor organizations has raised about $30 million to defeat the initiative, arguing it would strip away safeguards meant to protect communities from pollution and environmental harm. Philanthropist Wendy Schmidt, a Democratic donor, contributed $10 million to the opposition effort, while the Clean and Healthy California Sponsored by Environmental Organizations PAC gave $7 million.
Politically, the measure has split along familiar lines, with the California Democratic Party opposing it and the state Republican Party in favor — though local GOP chapters are divided.
Deborah Sivas, who teaches environmental law at Stanford University, said the ballot measure would mark a dramatic departure from how environmental oversight currently works in California. She said it would hand developers new leverage while curbing the authority of courts and local governments to scrutinize agency decisions.
For decades, developers have complained that CEQA’s review process, along with the lawsuits it often triggers, has made housing construction slower and more expensive. State lawmakers have already taken steps to address those complaints, including legislation signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2025 that exempted many urban infill housing projects from full environmental review.
Still, some Prop. 45 supporters — among them the California Building Industry Association and the California Council for Affordable Housing — argue those reforms don’t go nearly far enough to meet the state’s housing needs.
“It’s an important piece of the puzzle, but (that type of housing) does not produce quickly or at scale,” said Jennifer Hernandez, an attorney who helped draft the measure. “We need quicker, at scale, affordable housing.”
Supporters contend Prop. 45 would also open the door to converting underused sites such as shuttered malls and sprawling parking lots into new housing, while easing restrictions on development outside dense urban cores.
That last point has created an unusual rift among pro-housing advocates who typically back efforts to loosen CEQA rules. Bay Area organizations including East Bay for Everyone and the Greenbelt Alliance oppose the measure, while groups such as Abundant Housing Los Angeles, California YIMBY and YIMBY Action have opted to stay neutral.
The disagreement largely centers on whether California should continue expanding development into undeveloped land or focus growth within existing urban areas. Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, an Oakland Democrat, has argued the state needs every kind of housing it can get. Others worry that development farther from city centers would undercut efforts to fight climate change.
“We believe we can (and must) solve the housing and climate crises simultaneously. That means building communities with denser housing and alternatives to automobile dependence,” wrote Max Dubler of California YIMBY, explaining the organization’s decision to remain neutral on the initiative.
Local governments and public agencies that stand to benefit from faster permitting are similarly split. The California Municipal Utilities Association has come out against the measure, while larger groups representing cities and counties — including the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties — have taken no official position.
The financial case for Prop. 45 remains uncertain. An analysis commissioned by the California Chamber of Commerce and conducted by Blue Sky Consulting Group projected that the measure could generate $1.5 billion in savings and added revenue for public agencies over a decade, ultimately helping lower housing costs statewide.
However, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office cautioned that local governments and public agencies would likely face higher costs in the short term as they adjust to the new rules and compressed timelines the measure would impose.
Original source: CalMatters
