Modifies Environmental Review for Certain Projects

How it works

1. What kind of measure this is and how it reached the ballot: Proposition 45 is a citizen initiative statute, not a constitutional amendment and not a legislative referral. The voter guide prints it as put on the ballot by petition signatures. An initiated state statute in California needs valid signatures equal to 5 percent of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election, which was 546,651 signatures for this ballot, and needs a simple majority of votes to pass. The Institute of Governmental Studies records that the measure began as initiative 25-0023, filed by proponent Kurt Oneto with the Attorney General's Office on October 21, 2025, that it was cleared for signature gathering on December 26, 2025, that supporters submitted signatures in April 2026, and that the Secretary of State reported in June 2026 that the minimum signature requirement had been met. Ballotpedia gives the same sequence with dates: the Secretary of State reported on February 9, 2026 that the campaign had collected 25 percent of the required signatures; the Committee to Build an Affordable California submitted 942,967 signatures on April 27, 2026; and on June 16, 2026 the Secretary of State reported that at least 652,788 signatures had been determined valid through the random sample count. Ballotpedia also records that sponsors hired PCI Campaigns, Inc., Florida Petition Management LLC, Voter Direct Inc., Plain Dan Solutions Inc., JBPM and LLC, and that 9,998,963 dollars was spent to collect the 546,651 valid signatures required, a cost of 18.29 dollars per required signature.^S12S14S21
2. The structure the measure adds: the text of the proposed law adds Chapter 1.5, commencing with Section 21010, to Division 13 of the Public Resources Code, which is the division that contains CEQA. The chapter is titled the Building an Affordable California Act and is organized into eight articles covering title and findings, application of the chapter, initial screening and tribal consultation and completeness, review of completed applications, the preliminary scoping process and streamlined alternatives analysis, judicial review, definitions, and construction of the chapter with general provisions. Section 21013 states that the chapter applies only to essential housing projects, essential clean energy projects, essential water projects, essential public health projects, essential public safety projects, essential broadband internet access projects, essential education facility projects and essential transportation projects. Section 21030 declares the streamlining of review and approval of essential projects to be a matter of statewide concern and states that the state occupies the field in the area of review and approval of essential projects.^S7S12
3. Which projects are eligible: the Legislative Analyst's Figure 1 lists housing; water system, not including Delta conveyance facilities; clean energy, not including nuclear power; health facility, clinic and medical office building; fire, police and sheriff's stations; wildfire risk reduction; broadband internet access; education facility; and transportation, not including high-speed rail. The definitions article fills this in. Essential housing projects include residential units, mixed use development, transitional housing, emergency shelters and supportive housing, farmworker housing, group living accommodations, student housing, senior housing units, a subdivision or common interest development of residential units or unimproved residential lots, and conversion of an existing commercial building to residential use. Essential clean energy projects include renewable and sustainable generation and storage such as solar, wind, geothermal and qualifying fuel cells, clean hydrogen not derived from fossil fuel feedstock, microgrids, carbon dioxide capture, transport and storage for permanent isolation, and transmission or distribution components identified in an approved transmission planning process. Essential public health projects are medical treatment facilities, defined as a health facility, a clinic, or a medical office building. Essential public safety projects are first responder facilities and wildfire risk reduction projects, which include replacing, hardening or undergrounding electric utility lines, roads and infrastructure, vegetation management, fuel reduction, home hardening, fuel breaks and access roads. Essential water projects cover public water systems, systems that provide water to a public water system, and systems within the state's Water Resilience Portfolio. Essential broadband internet access projects are projects providing mass market retail wire, wireless or radio service to transmit and receive data with substantially all internet endpoints. Essential transportation projects are projects described in Article XIX of the California Constitution and electric vehicle charging and refueling infrastructure. The measure also states what is excluded: nuclear generation; high-speed train projects and their corridors or usable segments; Delta conveyance facilities; a jail or other detention facility and any project involving development of a new oil or natural gas production facility; first responder facilities owned, operated or leased by the United States government and facilities used as an immigration detention facility or a state prison. Most essential project categories must comply with the labor requirements described in Section 21183.5, and essential housing projects carry additional wage and labor provisions, including that the prevailing wage provisions of Section 65913.4 of the Government Code apply only to buildings over 85 feet in height.^S3S7S12S20
4. The applicant chooses, and pending applications can move over: the chapter does not diminish the authority of any public agency to approve or disapprove an essential project, and it states that no outcome on a proposed essential project is preordained by it. It does not exempt any essential project from environmental review under CEQA or any other law, and it applies to all public agencies. An applicant may elect to use none, some or all of the chapter's provisions, in combination with or as an alternative to other land use and environmental review laws, and no applicant is required to use it. Where a conflict exists between the chapter and another law, the chapter controls, but it does not abrogate an existing statutory or categorical exemption. An essential project application that was submitted before the effective date and has not received final approval may be withdrawn and resubmitted after that date and then reviewed under the chapter, and an essential housing project that does so does not lose vested rights or benefits acquired under the Subdivision Map Act, the Housing Accountability Act, the Builder's Remedy or the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. An application that was already deemed or determined complete keeps that status and is not subject to another completeness review. Nothing in the chapter prevents a public agency from charging an applicant a fee, consistent with Articles XIII A and XIII C of the California Constitution, to cover the governmental costs of processing and reviewing an essential project application.^S7S12
5. Completeness and the review deadlines: when a public agency receives an initial application for an essential project it must make a written finding on completeness and notify the applicant within 30 days, and the application is deemed complete if the agency does not act in that time. An incomplete finding must come with an exhaustive written corrections list, and the applicant has 90 days to respond; later rounds are limited to items on that list. A finding of incompleteness can be appealed, with a final written determination within 60 days, after which the application is deemed complete, and the applicant may bring a civil action within 90 days of an adverse final determination. A local agency acting as lead agency must decide within 30 days of completeness which timeline applies, then must make a final determination whether to certify an environmental impact report no later than 365 days after completeness, whether to adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration no later than 180 days after completeness, and for all other environmental review documentation must make a final determination of exemption or prior evaluation within 90 days after completeness. A public agency that is not a local agency has the same deadlines. The deadlines can be extended on the applicant's written request. If an agency misses a deadline, the applicant may request a meeting or hearing, which must be held within 60 days, at which the agency must make a final written determination on the environmental documentation and approve or disapprove the project, and the applicant may sue within 90 days of a failure, a denial or the imposition of unlawful conditions. Where the lead agency is also the applicant, it may extend a deadline by written notice posted on its website and included in the administrative record. The measure defines day, as used in the two sections that set the environmental review deadlines, to mean any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or state holiday, and as a calendar day everywhere else in the chapter. Other public agency actions that an essential project needs, such as a permit or a land use change, must be decided concurrently with the lead agency's environmental determination, or within 90 days of completeness for an agency that was not the lead agency, with a 45 day hearing path when a deadline is missed.^S3S7S11S12
6. Public comment and how impacts are judged: public comment periods become maximums. A public agency must circulate an environmental review document for 20 days for a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration or other document requiring circulation, and for 45 days for a draft environmental impact report or a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report. A comment period cannot be tolled or extended except by a court of competent jurisdiction, and if a hearing is continued the agency must close the comment period and cannot reopen it. Only comments received during those periods, electronic and written comments received at least 48 hours before a hearing or noticed decision when no comment period applies, comments on issues that could not have been raised earlier because of significant changes or new information, and oral testimony at a noticed and recorded public hearing are included in the administrative record. All other public comments are to be disregarded and excluded from the record, while a lead agency's or applicant's responses to included comments, and an applicant's answers to agency questions or demonstrations of compliance, are included without qualification. A public agency must identify, evaluate, determine significance and mitigate impacts based on compliance with existing laws, and an applicant may elect to vest into the thresholds of significance that the agency had published, adopted or routinely used on the date the preapplication or application was filed. An applicant may waive either or both of those provisions. The Legislative Analyst describes the change as assessing impacts under the laws and standards in place when the application is submitted, where current law lets an agency consider new information and revise its review standards while preparing the report.^S3S7S11
7. Scoping and the single alternative: an applicant may, but is not required to, use a preliminary scoping process. The applicant gives the lead agency written notice describing the project's location, size and boundaries, principal components and purpose, general type of land use or infrastructure, known resource areas and anticipated permits, and providing an email address for public comments. The lead agency posts the notice on its website and engages in at least two meetings with the applicant about the project, potential alternatives and potentially affected resource areas, and keeps a record of meeting summaries. The process must finish within 60 days of the notice. Public input during scoping is recorded by the applicant but the applicant is not required to respond to it, and an applicant may hold optional public meetings or workshops. The applicant then develops one proposed alternative, which must be compatible with the project's fundamental purpose and, to the extent practicable, with local zoning and land use policies, and which does not need to be on a different site. Within 15 days after the scoping process closes the applicant transmits descriptions of the project, the single alternative and the no project alternative, and the lead agency certifies within 15 days whether the requirements were met, or certifies by taking no action. An environmental impact report for a project that complies with this article analyzes only the proposed essential project, the applicant's proposed alternative and the no project alternative, and all additional alternatives are unnecessary and cannot be required. The Legislative Analyst describes this as allowing the applicant to develop only one project alternative where current law requires the agency, not the applicant, to develop and consider multiple alternatives that could reduce environmental impacts. An applicant may still propose additional alternatives at its own discretion, and the lead agency keeps discretion to approve the project, approve the alternative, or select the no project alternative.^S3S7S11S12
8. Tribal consultation: an early screening and consultation process applies to tribal cultural resources. The measure defines a consulting tribe as a tribe on the most recent list published under the federal Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project, and it provides that California Native American tribe, as used in the referenced sections of CEQA and in this chapter, means consulting tribe when the project is an essential project. The Legislative Analyst describes the change as requiring the agency and applicant to consult only with California native tribes formally recognized by the federal government, where current law requires consultation with a wider range of tribes. The applicant provides project information and existing studies and maps, the lead agency completes a records search of the Sacred Lands File, the California Historical Resources Information System and its own records within 20 days, and then invites consulting tribes to meet and confer. A tribe that does not respond within 30 days moves the process to tribal consultation. During consultation the lead agency must share reasonably requested technical information and engage in iterative discussions about mitigation measures before any draft environmental document is published, and tribal traditional knowledge provided by a consulting tribe must be incorporated in identification, treatment and protection measures. Information about tribal cultural resources and tribal traditional knowledge stays confidential and cannot go into the administrative record without the tribe's permission. Avoidance and preservation in place must be considered when the consulting tribe requests it, and where avoidance is not feasible the agency must document the basis with substantial evidence and consider culturally appropriate mitigation. A lead agency may approve an essential project only if tribal consultation has concluded in good faith, any agreed mitigation is included as an enforceable project condition, and the required findings on avoidance are documented.^S3S7S12
9. How courts would review a challenge: a lawsuit to attack, review, set aside, void or annul a public agency's approval or authorization of an essential project on the ground that it did not comply with CEQA must be commenced within 30 days of the date the agency files a notice of determination or notice of exemption, and must be completed within 270 days including original and appellate proceedings, following the judicial streamlining procedures that apply to environmental leadership development projects. The court may extend that deadline once by up to 90 days at its own discretion, and no other extension is allowed without the written consent of the plaintiff or petitioner, the public agency and the applicant. A petitioner's claims are limited to whether the agency complied with objective existing laws, defined as involving no personal or subjective judgment and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available to the applicant and the public before the application was submitted, and the court determines only whether the approval is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. The whole administrative record consists only of documents the agency was required to send or distribute to the public or post publicly, plus the comments and responses described above. If the court finds that the approval is not supported by substantial evidence, it must issue a writ explaining the deficiency with specificity and identifying the affected part, phase or activity, and the remedy is limited to prohibiting commencement of the noncomplying part, phase or activity until the noncompliance is corrected. The court may not order a public agency to rescind its approval or authorization. Parts of the project outside the deficiency are not subject to the writ and cannot be challenged further in that proceeding, and no further challenge to implementation through completion of construction may be filed if the approval was not challenged, was challenged and upheld, or the agency has filed a return to the writ that the court accepted. Minor modifications that do not create new significant impacts or substantially worsen identified impacts cannot be challenged. On a showing by clear and convincing evidence that a project would have a specific adverse impact on public safety with no feasible way to mitigate or avoid it, a court may order that construction or completion of the particular project component be halted or prohibited by temporary injunction. The Legislative Analyst summarizes the changes as reducing the scope of what a court can consider, preventing the court from stopping the whole project, and creating a time limit for courts to resolve legal challenges.^S3S7S11S12
10. Fiscal effects the Legislative Analyst identifies: during the first several years the measure likely would increase costs for the state and local governments, including state courts, likely in the high tens of millions of dollars annually and potentially exceeding 100 million dollars annually. Those costs would come from developing new guidelines and standards for reviewing eligible projects' environmental impacts, meeting tighter time limits and addressing court challenges, and fees paid by project applicants and people filing lawsuits would cover some of them. After the initial period some costs could continue while others likely decline, because the changes to how courts review CEQA lawsuits could mean fewer people sue in the future. In the longer term the fiscal effect is uncertain but could be more substantial than the near term effect. To the degree the changes lead to eligible public projects being built more quickly, state and local governments likely would have lower project costs, and if more projects are completed overall it could increase tax revenues such as property taxes. To the degree the changes lead to approval of projects with negative environmental impacts that would not otherwise have occurred, government agencies could face higher costs to respond to those impacts. CalMatters reports that a study by Blue Sky Consulting Group, commissioned by the California Chamber of Commerce, estimates 1.5 billion dollars in combined savings and additional revenues for state and local governments and other public agencies. That estimate is the sponsor's study, not the Legislative Analyst's estimate.^S1S2S3S11
11. Construction of the chapter, effective date, amendment and the defense clause: the chapter states that it is the policy of the people of California that it be interpreted and implemented to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and realization of, essential projects, and that courts should not interpret CEQA or the state CEQA Guidelines to impose procedural or substantive requirements beyond those explicitly stated. References in the chapter to state statutes and regulations codified outside it refer to those laws as they existed on December 31, 2025, regardless of later amendment, repeal, sunset or expiration, with the reference to Section 218.9 of the Labor Code fixed at January 1, 2026. The provisions are severable. The chapter takes effect as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 10 of Article II of the California Constitution and applies on that effective date to all pending and future public agency and judicial review processes for all essential projects. The Legislature may amend the chapter only by a statute passed in each house by rollcall vote with two thirds of the membership concurring, consistent with and furthering its purposes, and the bill must be printed, distributed and published on the internet in final form for at least 12 business days before passage. The act must be liberally construed. A conflicting measures clause provides that if another measure on the review or approval of essential projects appears on the same statewide ballot, the other measure is deemed to be in conflict, and if this measure receives more affirmative votes its provisions prevail in their entirety and the other measure or measures are null and void. A legal defense section provides that if the act is challenged and both the Governor and the Attorney General refuse to defend it to the fullest extent possible, the Attorney General must appoint independent counsel to defend it, with a continuous appropriation from the General Fund for the cost of that counsel.^S7

Fiscal impact

Initial costs for state and local governments, including state courts, likely in the high tens of millions of dollars annually and potentially exceeding 100 million dollars annually, to implement the new project review and court challenge procedures for eligible projects, with fees paid by project applicants and people filing lawsuits partly covering those costs.

In the longer term the effect is uncertain but potentially more significant in either direction: faster construction of eligible public projects would likely lower state and local project costs and could raise revenues such as property taxes if more projects are completed, while approval of projects with negative environmental impacts that would not otherwise have occurred could raise government costs to respond to those impacts.^S1S2S3

How it could affect your household

Tradeoffs

• Speed and certainty against public input and court remedies: the measure sets binding deadlines, allows an applicant to develop a single project alternative, makes comment periods maximums of 20 days for a negative or mitigated negative declaration and 45 days for a draft environmental impact report, excludes late comments from the administrative record, requires challenges to be filed within 30 days and resolved within 270 days, limits review to objective existing laws and substantial evidence, and limits the remedy to stopping the noncomplying part of a project rather than setting aside the approval. Supporters state that the measure keeps community input, that residents keep the right to comment, oppose projects and sue, and that cities and counties retain full authority to approve or deny. Opponents state that the measure limits environmental review and the public's right to be heard, that it gives developers new rights to challenge cities and counties while making it harder for project opponents to succeed, and that it reduces public agency requirements to consider comments that often expose contamination of air and water. The Legislative Analyst describes the same provisions neutrally as limiting how long an agency can accept comments, reducing the scope of what a court can consider and preventing a court from stopping the whole project.^S2S3S5S7S12
• Where discretion sits between the applicant and the agency: an applicant may elect to use none, some or all of the chapter, may choose the scoping process and develop the single alternative, may elect to vest into the thresholds of significance that existed when it applied, and may waive parts of the impact determination provisions. The agency must state all application requirements before submission, cannot repeatedly request new information or project changes, and must judge impacts under the laws in place at submission. The measure states that it does not diminish the authority of a public agency to approve or disapprove an essential project and that no outcome is preordained, that it does not exempt any project from environmental review, and that it does not eliminate a lead agency's discretion to set a threshold of significance or choose mitigation. Supporters state that the measure protects agencies in their decisions and does not override planning or zoning laws. Opponents state that it puts power in the hands of project proponents and limits local authority to require consideration of alternatives. CalMatters reports that for public agencies the change is two sided: an agency could lose discretion when it reviews someone else's project and gain speed and certainty when it builds its own.^S5S7S11S12
• Environmental outcomes and what remains unsettled: the measure keeps CEQA in place for essential projects and does not repeal other environmental laws, and its findings list the federal and state clean air, clean water, endangered species, drinking water, toxics, coastal and climate laws that it states it maintains. The Legislative Analyst states that to the degree the new procedures lead to approval of projects with negative environmental impacts that would not otherwise have occurred, government agencies could face higher costs to respond, and describes that possibility as uncertain and potentially significant. Opponents state that weaker review means more pollution near homes and schools and that taxpayers end up paying to clean up contamination. A separate unresolved question is whether the broadband internet access category covers data centers: the measure names nuclear power, high-speed rail, Delta conveyance, jails and new oil and gas production facilities as excluded but does not name data centers, the Yes campaign says data centers do not fit the definition, other attorneys and law professors say many could, and reporting records that the question may be decided in court.^S3S5S7S12S16
• Costs to governments against claimed savings: the Legislative Analyst estimates initial state and local costs in the high tens of millions of dollars annually, potentially exceeding 100 million dollars annually, partly covered by fees paid by project applicants and people filing lawsuits, with some costs declining over time as fewer lawsuits are filed, and with the longer term effect uncertain but potentially more significant in either direction. CalMatters reports that a study commissioned by the California Chamber of Commerce, prepared by Blue Sky Consulting Group, estimates 1.5 billion dollars in combined savings and additional revenues for state and local governments and other public agencies, and reports that an attorney who often represents environmental groups in CEQA cases says the savings are not guaranteed. The measure contains no requirement that faster approvals result in lower housing or utility costs, which is a point both the opponents' argument and the Legislative Analyst's neutral description make clear: the analysis ties the fiscal effect to how many eligible projects get built and what their environmental impacts are, not to any pass through of savings.^S3S5S11
• Who is funding each side: the Secretary of State's compiled totals through October 6, 2026 report 40,056,350 dollars in contributions to committees formed to support the measure and 18,905,427 dollars to committees formed to oppose it. On the support side the Fair Political Practices Commission's top 10 contributors list, last modified October 14, 2026, is led by Building a Better California at 10,000,000 dollars, whose top donors the Commission records as Sergey Brin and L. John Doerr, III, followed by the California Building Industry Association Issues Committee Supporting Proposition 45 at 6,600,000 dollars, CA Business PAC at 3,400,000 dollars, BRIDGE Issues PAC funded by PG&E Corporation at 2,300,000 dollars, the California Building Industry Association at 2,250,000 dollars and Edison International and affiliated entities at 2,000,000 dollars. On the opposition side the same list is led by Wendy Schmidt at 10,000,000 dollars, followed by Clean and Healthy California at 7,112,925 dollars and the Members' Voice of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California at 2,007,790.57 dollars. Ballotpedia reports 70,027,382.66 dollars in total contributions to the support committees and 15,076,148.52 dollars to the opposition committees through September 19, 2026, and CalMatters reports 41.8 million dollars in support and 21.2 million dollars in opposition from Secretary of State data updated October 9, 2026 with no reported independent expenditures on either side. KQED displays 45.3 million dollars in support and 30.0 million dollars in opposition as of October 9, 2026. The measure's sponsor is the California Chamber of Commerce, and the support money comes mainly from business, building industry and utility interests while the opposition money comes from an individual donor, environmental organizations and building trades unions, an alignment CalMatters and the Los Angeles Times both describe.^{S8S9S11S12S13S15S18}
• Endorsements and polling, reported as endorsements and polling: the voter guide lists supporters as the California Children's Hospital Association, the California Water Association and the California Council for Affordable Housing and opponents as the Coalition for Clean Air, CA Environmental Voters, Physicians for Social Responsibility, LA and the National Wildlife Federation. CalMatters records support from the California Republican Party, the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Hospital Association, the California Primary Care Association, the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, LULAC, the California Building Industry Association, the California Business Roundtable, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and others, opposition from the California Democratic Party, the California Labor Federation, the California Nurses Association, the Sierra Club, Clean Water Action and others, and media endorsements from The San Diego Union-Tribune, The Orange County Register and The Sacramento Bee with no current media opponents. Ballotpedia records a Public Policy Institute of California poll of 1,103 likely voters conducted September 4 to 10, 2026 with 49.0 percent support, 46.0 percent opposition and 5.0 percent undecided and a margin of error of plus or minus 3.8 percent, and an earlier institute poll of 1,003 likely voters conducted June 29 to July 6, 2026 with 73.0 percent support, 24.0 percent opposition and 4.0 percent undecided. These are reported poll results, not predictions of the outcome.^{S4S6S10S12S13S15}

Sources

1. Proposition 45 Official Title and Summary (Official Voter Information Guide, November 3, 2026) California Secretary of State Accessed 2026-10-17
2. Proposition 45 Analysis by the Legislative Analyst (Official Voter Information Guide, November 3, 2026) California Secretary of State and Legislative Analyst's Office Accessed 2026-10-17
3. Proposition 45 [Ballot], Propositions on the November 3, 2026 Ballot Legislative Analyst's Office Accessed 2026-10-17
4. Proposition 45 summary page (Official Voter Information Guide, November 3, 2026) California Secretary of State Accessed 2026-10-17
5. Proposition 45 Arguments and Rebuttals (Official Voter Information Guide, November 3, 2026) California Secretary of State Accessed 2026-10-17
6. Quick Reference Guide – Proposition 45 (Official Voter Information Guide, November 3, 2026) California Secretary of State Accessed 2026-10-17
7. Proposition 45 Text of Proposed Laws, Official Voter Information Guide (the Building an Affordable California Act, adding Chapter 1.5, commencing with Section 21010, to Division 13 of the Public Resources Code) California Secretary of State Accessed 2026-10-17
8. Proposition 45 – Modifies Environmental Review for Certain Projects. Initiative Statute., 2026 Ballot Measure Contribution Totals California Secretary of State (Cal-Access) Accessed 2026-10-17
9. Top 10 Contributors List, November 2026 General Election (last modified October 14, 2026) California Fair Political Practices Commission Accessed 2026-10-17
10. CA voter guide: Prop. 45 on speeding environmental reviews, CalMatters California Voter Guide 2026 CalMatters Accessed 2026-10-17
11. Prop 45 explained: CEQA overhaul could shift who holds power over building (by Alejandra Reyes-Velarde, published October 9, 2026) CalMatters Accessed 2026-10-17
12. California Proposition 45, Changes to Environmental Review Process for Certain Projects Initiative (2026) Ballotpedia Accessed 2026-10-17
13. 2026 California Voter Guide: Proposition 45 (fundraising figures updated October 9, 2026) KQED Accessed 2026-10-17
14. Proposition 45: Environmental Review, California Ballot Proposition Guides, November 3, 2026 General Election Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California, Berkeley Accessed 2026-10-17
15. Your guide to Proposition 45: Faster CEQA review for housing and infrastructure (by Lila Seidman, published October 1, 2026) Los Angeles Times Accessed 2026-10-17
16. California's Prop. 45 aims to speed construction projects. Opponents say data centers will benefit (by Lila Seidman, published October 14, 2026) Los Angeles Times Accessed 2026-10-17
17. Proposition 45: What to know about the environmental review measure (by Erin Stone, published October 6, 2026, updated October 16, 2026) LAist Accessed 2026-10-17
18. Proposition 45 campaign finance detail, CalMatters 2026 Voter Guide (contributor and outside spending data from the California Secretary of State, updated October 9, 2026) CalMatters Accessed 2026-10-17
19. 2026 General Election explainer: Proposition 45, Speed up environmental reviews for housing and infrastructure (published September 23, 2026, updated October 16, 2026) KPBS Public Media Accessed 2026-10-17
20. Proposition 45 print version of the Official Voter Information Guide: Title and Summary, Analysis by the Legislative Analyst with Figure 1 listing the types of projects eligible to use the new procedures, and Text of Proposed Laws California Secretary of State Accessed 2026-10-17
21. Qualified Statewide Ballot Measures (November 3, 2026 General Election list) California Secretary of State Accessed 2026-10-17