Proposition 45 Explained: How California’s Ballot Measure Could Reshape CEQA

California voters’ November ballot includes Proposition 45 (Prop 45), a measure that would make major changes to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including placing strict limitations on timeframes. The measure arrives just one year after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill (AB 130) and Senate Bill 131 (SB 131),  which brought the biggest changes to CEQA since the signing of the landmark nearly 56 years ago. Prop 45 would go even further by giving applicants a choice for a new procedural framework that could affect a project from initial application through environmental review, and litigation.

Which Projects Would Be Eligible?

Proposition 45 applies to a broad group of public and private projects defined as “essential projects,” including:

• Housing
• Water systems, excluding delta conveyance facilities
• Clean energy, excluding nuclear power
• Health facilities, clinics, and medical office buildings
• Fire and law enforcement stations
• Wildfire risk reduction projects
• Broadband internet access
• Education facilities
• Transportation projects, excluding high-speed rail

Applicants could elect to use none, some, or all the measure’s procedures. If an applicant chooses to use any Prop 45 provision, they would also be subject to the measure’s tribal consultation requirements and, where applicable, prevailing wage and skilled-and-trained workforce requirements.

Prop 45 Snapshot

Applicability

Prop 45 applies to applications and approvals for essential projects by public agencies. This includes, for example, a private applicant submitting a land use application to a city or county acting as the CEQA lead agency. Prop. 45 also defines “applicant” broadly to include a public agency that proposes an essential project, meaning the measure can apply where a public agency is both the project proponent and CEQA lead agency.

For public-agency projects, implementation may be less straightforward. Prop. 45 defines an “applicant” to include a public agency proposing its own essential project, so the measure can apply when the project proponent and CEQA lead agency are the same entity. However, many agency-initiated projects do not involve a conventional application or application-completeness process. Because several of Prop. 45’s environmental-review deadlines run from the date an essential project application is determined or deemed complete, it is not clear how those deadlines would be triggered for an agency-sponsored project that does not involve a conventional application. Agencies may need to establish procedures for addressing this issue.

More Front-Loaded Process

Prop. 45 would require lead agencies to identify application requirements upfront and would limit their ability to request additional information during subsequent completeness reviews. If an agency does not make a completeness determination within 30 days, the application would be deemed complete.

The measure also would tie the environmental standards used for review to those in place when the application, or in some circumstances a preapplication, is submitted. This would eliminate the risk that requirements shift during a lengthy review.

Deadlines Would Carry More Weight

CEQA already includes statutory timelines, but they can be extended. Prop 45 would make deadlines strict, with consequences for meeting them. An environmental impact report (EIR) process would need to be completed in 365 business days (approximately 17 months), while negative declarations (NDs) and mitigated negative declarations (MNDs) must finish 180 business days (approximately 8 months). Certain exemption and prior-review determinations would need to be completed in 90 business days (approximately 4 months).

Any extension of these deadlines would require the applicant’s approval. If an agency misses a deadline without an approved extension, the applicant could request a meeting or hearing requiring the agency to complete or assemble the available environmental review documentation and approve or deny the project within 60 days. If the agency still fails to act, the applicant could seek judicial enforcement of the deadline.

Scoping, Alternatives and Public Review Would Change

An applicant may elect to use the “preliminary scoping process” whereby the applicant provides written notice to the lead agency describing the proposed essential project in sufficient detail to inform the lead agency and the public of the anticipated features of the project. The lead agency and applicant must participate in at least two meetings for the purpose of discussing the essential project, potential alternatives, and identifying potentially impacted resource areas. The lead agency must post the applicant’s written notice on its website. The applicant may also elect to hold a public meeting or workshop, but is not required to do so. The preliminary scoping process must be completed within 60 calendar days after the lead agency receives the written notice.

CEQA requires that an EIR evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives capable of avoiding or reducing significant effects. Under Prop 45, an applicant that completes the measure’s preliminary scoping process would develop one proposed alternative for analysis. The EIR would analyze the proposed essential project, the applicant’s proposed alternative, and the no-project alternative. No additional alternatives would be required, although the applicant could elect to propose additional alternatives.

Public review periods also would become fixed. Draft EIRs would receive 45 calendar days of review, while NDs and MNDs and other environmental documents requiring public circulation under state law would receive 20 calendar days. Neither the agency nor applicant could extend those periods; only a court of competent jurisdiction could do so. Prop. 45 also would limit the administrative record to written and electronic comments submitted during the designated public review period and oral testimony provided at noticed and recorded public hearings, with narrow exceptions for certain later comments that could not have been raised during the public review period because of significant project changes or new information that was not and could not have been known during that period.

New Process for Tribal Consultation

Prop. 45 would narrow CEQA tribal consultation for essential projects to federally recognized tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area. Current CEQA also allows consultation with non-federally recognized California tribes included on the Native American Heritage Commission’s contact list. Prop. 45 would also establish an early screening process before an application is deemed complete, including records searches and an opportunity for tribes to meet and confer with the lead agency and applicant. This early screening would be separate from formal tribal consultation and would not pause the application-completeness or other Prop. 45 timelines. Prop. 45 would require meaningful, good-faith consultation, including sharing relevant technical information and iterative discussions regarding mitigation, before project approval. Written avoidance and mitigation measures agreed to by the consulting tribe, lead agency, and applicant. Agreed-upon avoidance and mitigation measures would become enforceable conditions of approval. Importantly, Prop. 45 does not establish a deadline for completing tribal consultation, and expressly provides that the measure’s accelerated project-review timelines do not alter the duration of consultation. As a result, tribal consultation could affect an agency’s ability to meet the otherwise applicable approval timelines.

Limits on Judicial Review

A CEQA court challenge to a Prop 45-eligible project would need to be filed within 30 calendar days after the filing of a notice of determination or notice of exemption. Trial and appellate proceedings would be required to be completed within 270 calendar days, with a court permitted to extend it up to 90 additional calendar days.

The measure also would narrow portions of the administrative record and the scope of judicial review. If a court finds a CEQA violation, it could stop only the affected part,  phase, or activity of a project while the issue is corrected rather than setting aside the entire project approval. The measure also limits certain subsequent CEQA challenges once the underlying project approval has completed review.

What Could This Mean for Our Clients?

Prop. 45 would streamline the process for eligible projects, but it would not eliminate the need for environmental review. Projects would still need the appropriate CEQA document and supporting technical analyses, disclosure of environmental impacts, mitigation where required, tribal consultation, public review, and other applicable permits and approvals. What would change substantially is the time and process available to complete that work. The measure would place greater emphasis on early project definition, technical studies, agency coordination, and QA/QC so that environmental review can be completed within the new procedural requirements and deadlines.

ESA’s Environmental Planning Practice team members are tracking this proposition closely and will provide an update in November. In the meantime, please reach out to Practice Leader Meredith Parkin with any questions.