September 25, 2026
Among the slew of propositions on your ballot this fall will be Prop. 45, which would change how the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies to certain housing, transportation, water, health, wildfire, education and clean-energy projects.
Among other changes, the measure establishes firm deadlines for environmental reviews and court challenges, including a 365-business-day limit for completing an environmental impact report and a 270- day target for resolving legal challenges. Because time is money, this could be seen as a good thing.
At first glance, the measure might seem like a gift to developers: build, build, build, with fewer impediments. And there are legitimate concerns. It would limit some public-comment periods, narrow the alternatives agencies must consider, and reduce the scope of evidence courts can consider in certain CEQA lawsuits. Critics reasonably worry that faster approvals could come at the expense of clean air, clean water and meaningful community participation.
But California’s current system has a cost, too. Every additional month or year spent securing approvals means additional financing, labor, material and administrative expenses that are ultimately passed on to the consumer in the form of higher rents and home prices.
A development process that makes it unnecessarily difficult and expensive to add housing, schools, hospitals, roads and other needed facilities works against the very affordability problem California is trying to solve.
Environmental safeguards remain essential, and there’s a legitimate concern that Prop. 45 would compromise some of those protections, but safeguards should not become an excuse for an approval roadmap that takes years to navigate.
Prop. 45 does not eliminate environmental review. It attempts to make the process more predictable and impose consequences when agencies and courts fail to meet deadlines.
California’s development approval process is broken, and Prop. 45 is not an argument against environmental protection; it is an argument for a system that works better.
In short, we’re tired of the expensive and elephantine government approval process that contributes to the local high cost of living. Unfortunately, many of our area cities lack adequate staff to keep up with the faster building pace demanded by Prop. 45. This is a real concern.
This measure is not a perfect solution, and any cost savings that might accrue to the builder aren’t guaranteed to be passed through to the consumer. It is, however, a reasonable attempt to fix a system that badly needs fixing.