Commentary
On Your November Ballot: Prop 45 Would Speed Up Environmental and Public Project Reviews
OAKLAND POST — The Committee to Build an Affordable California is leading the Yes on Proposition 45campaign. Supporters include Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland); the Agricultural Council of California; American Clean Power California; the California Building Industry Association; the California Chamber of Commerce; the California Council for Affordable Housing; the Housing Action Coalition; and Reform California.
In November, California voters will decide on Proposition (Prop) 45, also known as the “Building an Affordable California Act” or the Expedited Environmental Review Process for Certain Projects Initiative.
If approved, the initiative would change the environmental review process established under the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA. Enacted in 1970, CEQA requires state and local agencies to identify and disclose the potential environmental effects of projects they propose to carry out, fund or approve. Agencies must also consider feasible alternatives and measures to avoid or reduce significant environmental harm. The law generally applies to projects that require discretionary government approval and could cause a direct or indirect physical change to the environment.
The Committee to Build an Affordable California is leading the Yes on Proposition 45campaign. Supporters include Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland); the Agricultural Council of California; American Clean Power California; the California Building Industry Association; the California Chamber of Commerce; the California Council for Affordable Housing; the Housing Action Coalition; and Reform California.
“Californians have too long paid the price for bureaucratic red tape and delays, and they’re ready for solutions. Voters are eager to modernize the project approval process so we can build what we need, bring costs down, and make California more affordable. We can protect the environment and good-paying jobs while delivering the essential projects California urgently needs,” said Jennifer Barrera, president and CEO of the California Chamber of Commerce.
Supporters argue that accelerating the review process would reduce costs and help address the state’s housing shortage.
People Over Polluters is leading the No on Proposition 45 campaign. Other opponents include the California Democratic Party, the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, the California Public Interest Research Group, Clean Water Action, Clean and Healthy California, the National Parks Conservation Association and Sierra Club California.
Opponents argue that the measure would sacrifice environmental protections and public oversight in the interest of speed. They contend that Proposition 45 could make it easier for polluting or environmentally harmful projects to adversely affect communities. They also emphasize the importance of maintaining existing review and public comment periods, as well as the public’s ability to challenge project approvals in court.
“We know that what they are really trying to do is eliminate a lot of the environmental safeguards that have existed for a long time. People have to read long technical documents to get a better understanding of whether a project is right or wrong for their community. It takes time for us to do discovery and have conversations with neighbors. Our input needs to be valued,” Miguel Miguel, director of Sierra Club California, said.
Prop 45 would also establish new tribal consultation requirements. Qualifying projects would first be screened to identify potentially affected federally recognized tribes, followed by formal consultation when required.
According to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), the measure would tighten deadlines for environmental reviews, permits and court challenges while changing what courts may consider in related lawsuits.
A “yes” vote supports creating new review and court-challenge procedures for certain public and private projects, including tighter environmental review deadlines and limits on the scope of judicial review.
A “no” vote supports retaining the existing project-review and court-challenge procedures.
