September 8, 2026
When CEQA was signed into law by Governor Reagan in 1970, the Vietnam War was raging and the Beatles were still together. More than 50 years later, California has enacted thousands of environmental protections, yet CEQA has never undergone a major structural update.
California now faces serious housing, affordability and infrastructure challenges. CEQA remains a formidable obstacle to building, especially near where people live. Even a meritless lawsuit can delay a project for years, raise costs or derail it altogether.1
CEQA challenges have also been used for purposes unrelated to environmental protection, including leveraging financial settlements or other economic terms.23 Repeat filers face few consequences for meritless claims.4
Decades of data and expert analysis have documented the unpredictability of CEQA litigation and the damage caused by delays, yet comprehensive reform has repeatedly stalled. 5 Proposition 45, on the November 2026 ballot, gives voters an opportunity to enact structural reform.
Proposition 45 applies to “essential projects,” including housing, water systems, clean energy, medical facilities, public safety, broadband, schools and transportation. 6 It does not create new CEQA exemptions, eliminate public participation or transfer land-use authority from cities and counties. Agencies would still decide whether projects are approved, conditioned or denied. 78
Proposition 45 addresses four longstanding problems.
1) Enforceable deadlines for the CEQA process. Environmental impact reports can take two to three years, with few meaningful deadlines.9 Proposition 45 would generally give agencies 30 days to determine whether an application is complete, 365 business days to certify an EIR, 180 business days for a negative or mitigated negative declaration, and 90 business days for an exemption determination. 10 If an agency misses these deadlines, an applicant may request a hearing within 60 days. 11
The measure would also extend a 270-day judicial resolution timeline to all essential projects. The Legislature has previously approved expedited pathways and more than 100 CEQA exemptions, often for favored projects such as sports facilities and government buildings. 12 Proposition 45 would make expedited treatment more broadly available while preserving public comment periods. 13
2) Require courts to enforce CEQA as written. Section 21083.1 of the Public Resources Code directs courts not to impose requirements beyond those explicitly stated in CEQA or its guidelines. 1415
Yet courts have found environmental reviews inadequate based on analytical requirements critics say extend beyond the statute. 16 Courts have also rejected legislative limits on remedies in some cases. 17
Proposition 45 would require environmental impacts for essential projects to be evaluated against “existing laws,” meaning formally adopted standards in effect when the application was submitted. 18 It would also require courts to apply the substantial evidence standard to CEQA challenges involving essential projects, replacing the more petitioner-friendly fair argument standard used for negative declarations. 19 Together, these changes are intended to make CEQA interpretation more predictable. 20
3) Match the remedy to the specific problem. Courts can currently vacate an entire project approval while a CEQA deficiency is corrected, even when the issue involves only one part of the environmental review. 21 Under Proposition 45, a court finding a defective approval could not automatically rescind the entire project. 2223 Instead, the remedy would be limited to the portion affected by the agency’s noncompliance until corrected. 2425 A deficient study would still need to be fixed, but it would not necessarily force years of review and approvals to restart. 2627
4) Apply the reforms to every essential project. 28 Over the past 50 years, the Legislature has enacted more than 100 statutory CEQA exemptions for selected projects, including prisons, professional sports facilities, the Los Angeles Olympics and government buildings.29 Proposition 45 would apply its reforms uniformly to essential projects.
Projects would still have to comply with California environmental laws, while cities and counties would retain authority over local approvals. Public participation would remain in place 30 The same reforms would apply whether the project is a family home, fire station, hospital, water facility or renewable energy infrastructure. 31
The case for CEQA reform has been building for decades. 32 Housing remains a major target of CEQA appeals, while transportation, water and energy infrastructure can be delayed for years by environmental review and litigation. Those delays raise costs for Californians.
Opponents argue Proposition 45 would weaken environmental protections. But it does not create new CEQA exemptions or eliminate environmental review. It establishes deadlines, clearer legal standards and more targeted remedies while preserving protections for air, water, species and natural resources.
California cannot solve its housing, affordability, water, energy and infrastructure challenges without making it easier to build essential projects. Proposition 45 gives voters the opportunity to reform CEQA while maintaining environmental protections, public participation and local decision-making.
1 California, especially anything near where anyone lives. The cost of filing a CEQA lawsuit continues to be nominal, and the act of filing even a meritless lawsuit results in multiyear project delays, which either increase project costs or derail projects altogether. Anyone can file a CEQA lawsuit, even anonymously, for any reason, including to leverage money settlements or other economic terms…… (Holland & Knight_In the Name of the Law_v073026 (2).pdf, Page 6)
2 California, especially anything near where anyone lives. The cost of filing a CEQA lawsuit continues to be nominal, and the act of filing even a meritless lawsuit results in multiyear project delays, which either increase project costs or derail projects altogether. Anyone can file a CEQA lawsuit, even anonymously, for any reason, including to leverage money settlements or other economic terms.…… (Holland & Knight_In the Name of the Law_v073026 (2).pdf, Page 6)
3 increase project costs or derail projects altogether. Anyone can file a CEQA lawsuit, even anonymously, for any reason, including to leverage money settlements or other economic terms.…… (Holland & Knight_In the Name of the Law_v073026 (2).pdf, Page 6)
4 No costs or other consequences are incurred for filing meritless CEQA appeals, even for repeat offenders who file more than a dozen serial lawsuits against the same project. The adverse equity, consumer, environmental and public health costs of CEQA lawsuits are generally not acknowledged in court pleadings, although in recent years pro- housing advocates have begun to file amicus briefs in some CEQA lawsuits. Median home prices were $197,8007 in Los Angeles County when a project was initially approved in 1999; decades of litigation later, homes are still being built, but median home prices have skyrocketed to well (Holland & Knight_In the Name of the Law_v073026 (2).pdf, Page 6)
5 Democratic Party candidates in the 2024 national election. CEQA reform debates are highly politicized because powerful stakeholders exploit CEQA lawsuits and lawsuit threats to leverage economic or environmental settlements and judicial outcomes that cannot otherwise be realized by laws and regulations. Often missing from political debates is how CEQA is applied in practice – including which projects are being sued and how those lawsuits are resolved. For the past decade, we have been filling that gap with actual CEQA litigation information. This report includes 11 years of previously unreported data about the judicial outcomes of CEQA appeals. It (Holland & Knight_In the Name of the Law_v073026 (2).pdf, Page 4)
6 California Proposition 45, Changes to Environmental …
7 Proposition 45, its Implementation, and Its Benefits to Public Agencies
8 Proposition 45, its Implementation, and Its Benefits to Public Agencies
9 frequently than NEPA and other administrative laws. The most detailed, time-consuming and costly form of CEQA compliance, environmental impact reports – which can take two to three years – were found deficient in 23% of the decisions in the current study. “Addenda” to EIRs, which serve as updates to previous EIRs, were upheld in 81.5% of those decisions… (Holland & Knight_In the Name of the Law_v073026 (2).pdf, Page 6)
10 CEQA Reform Qualifies for the Ballot: What to Know About the Building an …
11 CEQA Reform Qualifies for the Ballot: What to Know About the Building an …
12 Powerful Projects Left to Flounder in Uncertainty The Legislature did not show any further appetite for directing the courts on how CEQA should be interpreted, and instead responded to an ongoing but increasingly notorious practice of enacting more than one hundred statutory exemptions from CEQA, either for specific projects (prisons,406 the 1982 LA Olympics407 in their entirety), or for categories of projects (pipelines in public streets less than one mile long408), the adoption of Groundwater Sustainability Plans,409 and the allocation of new housing planning and approval mandates to cities and counties under the Regional Housing Needs Assessment laws.410 (Chap. L. Rev.pdf, Page 96)
13 Proposition 45, its Implementation, and Its Benefits to Public Agencies
14 :1 interpret this division or the state guidelines adopted pursuant to Section 21083 in a manner which imposes procedural or substantive requirements beyond those explicitly stated in this division or in the state guidelines. 368 This statute was cited in two Third District Court of Appeal decisions, including one that noted courts are “constrained to reject” interpretations of CEQA that are “beyond the explicit terms of the act”—even if accepting the interpretation would “arguably afford greater protection to the environment.”369 As noted above, in my experience, the 1993 Session was the last time that the Legislature attempted to (Chap. L. Rev.pdf, Page 87)
15 proceed with a severance remedy, and—more importantly— a clear direction that courts no longer construe CEQA “broadly to protect the environment” but instead avoid construing CEQA “in a manner which imposes procedural or substantive requirements beyond those explicitly stated” in the CEQA statute or guidelines. None of these statutes resulted in any meaningful change to CEQA jurisprudence. CEQA lawsuits are filed in a form of litigation proceeding called a “writ of mandamus””—an old common law term that differs from ordinary civil disputes initiated by a “complaint… (Chap. L. Rev.pdf, Page 88)
16 measures, and proposed alternatives can be challenged. Although the legislature expressly directed courts not to impose any procedural or substantive requirements in a CEQA lawsuit that are not explicitly outlined in CEQA’s statutes and the CEQA guidelines (Pub. Res. Code § 21083.1), courts appear to routinely ignore the statute – a fact that the Little Hoover Commission’s 2024 CEQA report noted required correction. 30 In ruling against agencies, appellate courts appear most willing to find that the agency has provided insufficient “proof of a negative” – the absence of an often-novel contested environmental impact. For example, both (Holland & Knight_In the Name of the Law_v073026 (2).pdf, Page 17)
17 Commission’s 2024 CEQA report noted required correction.30 In ruling against agencies, appellate courts appear most willing to find that the agency has provided insufficient “proof of a negative” – the absence of an often-novel contested environmental impact. For example, both CEQA and the CEQA guidelines require analysis and mitigation for significant project impacts on protected plant and animal species, but the California Supreme Court unexpectedly held a project EIR to be inadequate because it had not sufficiently considered impacts on the juvenile life stage of a protected species – although neither CEQA nor the guidelines require species (Holland & Knight_In the Name of the Law_v073026 (2).pdf, Page 17)
18 CEQA Reform Qualifies for the Ballot: What to Know About the Building an Affordable California Act – Rutan
19 approvals, except under prescribed circumstances.424 The Third Appellate District rejected an express legislative prohibition on CEQA judicial remedy of halting or rescinding a Capitol office building project, unless the project presents an immediate threat to public health and safety, or if the project contains “unforeseen” important cultural or historical artifacts that would be adversely affected by the project’s continuance.425 The Court found that the challenged office project on the state capital had adverse and under-disclosed aesthetic and historic resource impacts and ultimately could not commence construction pending a new and legally compliant EIR process. 426 V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND (Chap. L. Rev.pdf, Page 99)
20 CEQA Reform Qualifies for the Ballot: What to Know About the Building an Affordable California Act – Rutan
21 causes no harm to the environment or public health. The most common remedy in CEQA lawsuits is for a court to vacate— reverse—agency approval of the challenge project pending a redo of the CEQA process. Since CEQA now requires an evaluation of more than 100 topics and sub-topics, appellate courts have found CEQA compliance deficiencies—typically for one part of one study— in nearly half of the CEQA reported appellate court decisions. 44 The majority of Californians—two-thirds statewide and even 70% in the notoriously NIMBY Bay Area—support
22 usually for just one or two sub-parts of that topic. The most common judicial remedy in CEQA lawsuits, however, is not to fix the part of the study that fell short – e.g., by augmenting a traffic study with more recent traffic counts and, if warranted, more traffic mitigation – but to vacate the agency’s approval of the entire project pending unspecified further CEQA compliance steps. Notwithstanding the precedent recently set by the California Supreme Court in the Smart Rail decision discussed above, trial and appellate court judges persist in vacating entire project approvals even for apparently trivial (CEQA Litigation Abuseissuu.pdf, Page 76)
23 derail projects getting 90% of 600 questions correct. The Legislature should extend to all projects – not just donor- and voter- rich projects like the Sacramento Kings arena – CEQA litigation remedy reform that precludes vacating a project approval unless proceeding with the project would cause the type of “irreparable harm” that is normally required for injunctive judicial relief (e.g., project-related pollution could cause a substantial public health risk, or planned construction could damage an irreplaceable tribal resource or cause significant harm to the natural ecology).… (CEQA Litigation Abuseissuu.pdf, Page 76)
24 CEQA Reform Qualifies for the Ballot: What to Know About the Building an Affordable California Act – Rutan
25 CEQA Reform Qualifies for the Ballot: What to Know About the Building an Affordable California Act – Rutan
26 analysis in a process that takes a year or longer. The Legislature’s fix was directing the courts to order “severance” so whatever portion of a project that was not affected by the deficiency could proceed without further delay. 361 One appellate court district steadfastly 356 See CAL. PUB. RES. CODE § 21082.2 (West 2023). 357 Hernandez, In the Name of the Environment I: 2010-2012, supra note 22, at 4. 358 See Citizens for Responsible & Open Gov’t v. City of Grand Terrace, 73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 202, 216 (Ct. App. 2008). 359 See City of Arcadia v. State (Chap. L. Rev.pdf, Page 86)
27 implemented—progress must occur and process must end. Third, match the remedy to the crime: if an agency made a mistake and didn’t study an impact enough, then the appropriate judicial remedy in CEQA—as already prescribed in the CEQA statute itself—is for a judge to require more study and mitigation, without rescinding project approvals and requiring agencies and applicants to re-do the CEQA process for another two years, followed by another six years of litigation after that. Housing delayed in housing denied, and a deficient traffic study shouldn’t result in a six year re-run of CEQA processing. Fourth, and (Chap. L. Rev.pdf, Page 4)
28 followed by another six years of litigation after that. Housing delayed in housing denied, and a deficient traffic study shouldn’t result in a six year re-run of CEQA processing. Fourth, and new for this Study: this author’s plea for the judiciary to return to the norms of administrative law jurisprudence, and cannons of statutory construction, when deciding CEQA cases. Simply: no Legislative reform will be effective without judicial outcome predictability consistent with the Rule of Law. INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………62 I. STUDY BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY …………………………70 II. CEQA V. HOUSING ……………………………………………………….75 A. CEQA v. Apartments …………………………………………79 B. CEQA v. Agency (Chap. L. Rev.pdf, Page 4)
29 While more current examples include three professional sport team facilities (two football stadiums in Los Angeles, both of which remain unbuilt,358 and one Basketball Arena in Sacramento now under construction),359 CEQA’s 45-year history is tarnished by several of these “Buddy Bills” – such as CEQA exemptions for new state prisons backed by the powerful prison guard union,360 CEQA exemptions allowing for other professional sports team projects (e.g., early property condemnation by the San Francisco Giants as they prepared to build their new downtown ballpark),361 and a CEQA exemption covering all activities required for Los Angeles to host the (CEQA Litigation Abuseissuu.pdf, Page 81)
30 California Proposition 45, Changes to Environmental …
31 Proposition 45, its Implementation, and Its Benefits to Public Agencies
32 Proposition 45, its Implementation, and Its Benefits to Public Agencies