Proposition 45: CEQA and Streamlined Processing of Essential Projects

September 22, 2026

Jason S. Retterer, Managing Partner, Land Use Principal

The State of California November ballot includes several propositions for voters to consider. Among them, Proposition 45, the Building an Affordable California Act (Prop 45), stands out because it proposes changes to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).[i] The initiative seeks to streamline the permitting process for designated “essential projects” by amending certain CEQA provisions.

Although CEQA reforms are frequently debated and enacted through the State Legislature, CEQA-related voter-sponsored initiatives rarely appear as statewide ballot measures. CEQA itself is a complex and specialized law that is intertwined with other regulations, and most CEQA reforms have been accomplished by the State Legislature.

The provisions of Prop 45 apply only to projects designated as “essential,” including housing, clean energy, public health, broadband internet access, education facility, and transportation projects. Essential projects will be eligible, at the applicant’s option, for a streamlined processing track as well as narrowed opportunities for project opposition. The law will not apply to any projects that do not fall into the category of essential projects.

For applications processed as essential projects, some of the amendments to CEQA and the application process are as follows –

Requires government agencies to specify all information required for an application.
Provides for application completeness review based on “existing laws” in place at the application submittal (i.e., vesting).
Limits comments that can be included in the “administrative record,” thereby limiting the ability of project opponents to file a lawsuit.
Requires only one project alternative, to be proposed by the applicant, if an alternatives analysis is required.
Requires tribal consultation only with tribes recognized by federal law.
Allows a portion or component of a larger project that qualifies as an essential project to be processed pursuant to the amended laws.
Establishes a narrower scope for court review.

In order to fully understand how Prop 45 will impact development projects, public agencies, stakeholders, and applicants, it’s important to understand the complex set of existing, interrelated laws and regulations regarding development project applications such as local planning policies, zoning codes, the Permit Streamlining Act, the Brown Act, and CEQA.

The Permit Streamlining Act (PSA)[ii] is a state law that requires cities and counties to –

Provide an application submittal requirement checklist.
Within 30 days of submittal of an application (and requisite fee), review and make a determination of application completeness.
If an application is incomplete, provide a “exhaustive” list of incomplete items limited to items from the application checklist.
Within 30 days of application completeness, determine the level of CEQA review (exemption, negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or EIR).
Complete environmental review, pursuant to CEQA deadlines, which vary depending on the type of project and the type of public agencies approving the project, within –
- 180 days from an application being deemed complete to complete a negative declaration.
- 365 days from an application being deemed complete to complete an environmental impact report (EIR).
Make a decision (approval or denial) within –
- 60 days from a determination of exemption.
- 60 days from the adoption of a negative declaration.
- 180 days from the certification of an EIR (90 days for a housing project and 60 days for a housing project meeting affordability conditions).
- 60 days from receipt of a complete application for ministerial projects.

Under the PSA, if the public agency does not provide a written determination of application completeness within 30 days, the application is deemed complete as an operation of law. However, application “completeness” is not the same as “approval.” The PSA does not allow applicants, cities, or counties to skirt public hearing and notice requirements. If the permit requires this, in order to push for permit approval, an applicant must take actions to ensure compliance with public hearing and notice requirements. An applicant may file a petition for a writ of mandate in superior court to order a public agency or official to perform a legally required, ministerial act under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1085.

With applications processed as Prop 45 essential projects, the above deadlines still apply, but to force a public hearing, an applicant is required only to submit a written request, rather than a writ of mandate.

What are essential projects?

Essential projects include housing, clean energy, public health, broadband internet access, education facility, and transportation projects. However, essential projects do not include nuclear power, oil and gas facilities, Delta conveyance, detention facilities, or high-speed rail.

How would Prop 45 affect public agencies?

To the extent public agencies are adhering to PSA deadlines and processing applications in a streamlined manner, Prop 45 may not affect their application process. However, if a public agency is not in compliance with timelines, an applicant may request in writing a hearing on the project, and the public agency must complete environmental review documentation and hold the hearing within 60 days of the written request. If there is a planning director or planning commission, then within 30 days of receiving the written request from the applicant, the public agency must schedule a meeting of the planning director or planning commission to provide a recommendation on the project.

Public agencies would have increased cover due to the narrowed scope of judicial review for court challenges. For example, although pubic agencies would still be required to comply with the public participation process timelines, court review of any challenges to the public participation process would be limited to “arbitrary and capricious” noncompliance resulting in “prejudicial error.”

How would Prop 45 affect project opposition?

When a development project is subject to CEQA, the public agency decision makers are obligated to consider the environmental impacts, if any, of the project. Project opponents may file a lawsuit on the basis that the public agency’s CEQA analysis is inadequate. However, any lawsuit filed may only raise CEQA violation claims that a project opponent raised in oral or written comments as set forth in the administrative record for the project.

Prop 45 limits the ability of project opponents to take legal action by limiting the public comment period and allowing comments to be included in the administrative record only if they are provided within certain time frames. Currently, a project opponent can submit oral and written comments after the designated public comment periods expired and up until the time an agency’s decision-making body makes a final decision on the project.

Project opponents who wish to have their comments included in the administrative record would need to ensure that their comments are submitted within the proposed comment periods – 20 days for a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration (MND) and 45 days for an EIR. For CEQA determinations with no required comment period, such as a determination of exemption, project opponents would need to submit comments at least 48 hours prior to a public hearing or noticed decision, so any comments made during the public hearing would not be included in the administrative record.

For court challenges based on CEQA or the public participation process, the scope of court review will be narrowed. The court would need to determine whether an approval is based on “substantial evidence” for challenges based on CEQA compliance and whether noncompliance in the public participation process is “arbitrary and capricious,” resulting in “prejudicial error,” for challenges to the public participation process.

How would Prop 45 affect applicants?

As noted above, if a public agency is already adhering to PSA timelines, then projects processed under Prop 45 may not see any difference in processing timelines. However, to the extent that there are delays in processing an application, environmental review, or the public hearing process, applicants with projects requiring a public hearing will be able to submit a written request, rather than file for a writ of mandate, to compel the public agency to complete any required environmental review documentation and have the public hearing.

Because Prop 45 requires that applications be considered based on the laws in existence at the time of application submittal, there is some protection for applicants from changing requirements in a way that could mandate denial of a project.

In addition, for EIRs, then the required analysis of project alternatives must include only one alternative, to be proposed by the project applicant, thereby streamlining the EIR preparation.

What does not change with Prop 45?

Notwithstanding the amendments proposed by Prop 45, a great deal of California laws pertaining to the permitting of projects remain the same.

For projects not defined as “essential” or not processed as essential projects at the applicant’s option, the permit process remains the same.
Prop 45 does not take away the authority of public agencies to approve or disapprove projects.
The lead agency’s discretion to determine significance thresholds or mitigation measures with respect to the preparation of environmental analysis does not change with Prop 45.
The statute of limitations for filing lawsuit challenging a project based on CEQA does not change.
There are no changes proposed to state and federal clean air, clean water, and environmental protection laws, including the Endangered Species Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the federal Toxic Substances Control Act, the federal Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the federal Environmental Quality Improvement Act, the California Global Warming Solutions Act, the California Coastal Act, and the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

What is CEQA?

CEQA was enacted in 1970 to provide a process for environmental analysis and documentation for development projects requiring review by a public agency decision makers. It is codified in California Public Resources Code Division 13 (sections 21000 to 21189). CEQA implementation is guided by the CEQA Guidelines, which are the administrative regulations that comprise the California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6 Chapter 3). Additionally, over the years, case law precedent as a result of civil action as shaped how CEQA is interpreted and implemented.

What projects are subject to CEQA?

A project is subject to CEQA if it is “discretionary,” meaning that a public agency retains the discretion to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the project. If a permit is issued when the permit requirements are satisfied, and there is no discretionary decision to be made, then the project is considered to be “ministerial” and not subject to CEQA.

A discretionary project may still be subject to a categorical exemption under CEQA as well as streamlined environmental review based on previous environmental analysis.

For a full list of the California November ballot measures please go to Qualified Statewide Ballot Measures | California Secretary of State. For more information or assistance with development projects, permit applications, land use issues, and environmental law, please contact our land use department.

[i] California Public Resources Code sections 21000 – 21189

[ii] California Government Code section 65920, et seq.