Californians vote to keep environmental protections, even with the red tape

Voters on Saturday rejected a measure that would have weakened California’s landmark environmental law by fast-tracking reviews for some projects.

With about 76% of votes counted, voters rejected Prop. 45 by 55.7% to 44.3%.

The vote maintains the status quo under the state’s Environmental Quality Act, which since 1970 has required public agencies to review project developments that could have harmful environmental impacts, and mitigate those harms.

“Californians have sent a clear message to corporate developers, utilities and data center builders that they will not stand for a broad assault at the ballot box on state law protecting our air, water and natural resources,” No on 45’s Woody Little said. “We were outspent but not outgunned.”

Supporters had said the changes would reduce building costs. The California Chamber of Commerce sponsored Proposition 45, the Building an Affordable California Act, which would limit the length of environmental reviews for projects deemed “essential” to 365 business days and require courts to resolve litigation in 270 calendar days. Those projects include housing, water, broadband and transit developments.

Proponents said the savings from building more quickly would pass to consumers and spent $41 million campaigning for the measure. The Building a Better California political action committee was the largest donor, giving $10 million to the campaign. The organization is funded partly by current and former Google executives Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt. Two of the largest investor-owned utilities, Pacific Gas & Electric Company and Southern California Edison, together donated $4.4 million.

Environmental groups argued the measure would go too far in weakening a law meant to protect people from environmental harms. Opponents, including a coalition of environmental, health and union organizations, spent $30 million trying to stop it. Wendy Schmidt, a Democratic philanthropist, was the largest donor, giving $10 million to the campaign. The political action committee Clean and Healthy California Sponsored by Environmental Organizations contributed $7 million.

The California Democratic Party opposed the measure. The California Republican Party supported it, while county Republican groups were split.

Deborah Sivas, an environmental law professor at Stanford University, said Prop. 45 would radically change current law. It would shift power “away from local governments and to developers by giving them some new tools … and limiting what courts can do in terms of reviewing decisions that agencies and local governments make,” she said.

CEQA and housing

California’s environmental review law, signed in 1970, requires agencies to assess the environmental impacts of developments and help mitigate them.

Over decades, developers have raised concerns about the process, arguing litigation and bureaucracy slow down construction.

State legislators have tried to fix the problem by passing laws that exempt or streamline certain projects from environmental review. In 2025, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed laws that exempt many urban housing projects from the full review process.

But some supporters of Prop. 45, including the California Building Industry Association and the California Council for Affordable Housing, say those changes don’t go far enough.

“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 write the measure. “We need quicker, at scale, affordable housing.”

Supporters say Prop. 45 would help California redevelop large, unused sites like malls and parking lots into housing and make it easier to build away from urban areas.

Pro-housing groups, public agencies divided 

Pro-housing and local government groups usually support CEQA reform, but Prop. 45 has divided many of them.

Housing advocates in the Bay Area, including East Bay for Everyone and the Greenbelt Alliance, oppose the measure. Other Yes in My Backyard groups are neutral, including Abundant Housing Los Angeles and both California YIMBY and YIMBY Action — the movement’s two flagship advocacy groups.

The split between pro-housing groups lies in whether California should keep building outward onto undeveloped land or promote construction in urban centers. Some supporters, including Oakland Democratic Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, have said the state needs all types of housing.

Others say building away from urban centers would make it harder to address 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 in a blog post explaining the group’s neutral stance on Prop. 45.

Public agencies and local governments that could benefit from the building rules were also divided.

The California Municipal Utilities Association opposes the measure. But most other groups representing local governments, including the League of California Cities and California State Association of Counties, remained neutral.

Financial impacts for Prop. 45

Prop. 45 supporters argued that streamlining development would make life more affordable for Californians, but the long-term financial benefits are unclear.

An analysis by Blue Sky Consulting Group, commissioned by the California Chamber of Commerce, estimated the measure would produce $1.5 billion in savings and additional revenues for public agencies over 10 years that would reduce overall housing costs.

But the measure would initially cost local governments and public agencies more as they adjust to the measure’s rules, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, a nonpartisan adviser to the Legislature.