By Austin Gage
Contributing Writer
SACRAMENTO — In November, California voters will decide on Proposition 45, also known as the “Building an Affordable California Act or the Expedited Environmental Review Process for Certain Projects Initiative.
Editor’s Note: This is one in a series of articles on state propositions on the November ballot to help inform voters.
If approved, the initiative would change the environmental review process established under the California Environmental Quality Act (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.
Under CEQA, a lead agency is the “public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project.” A responsible agency is a “public agency which proposes to carry out or approve a project, for which a lead agency is preparing or has prepared an environmental impact report or negative declaration.”
The Committee to Build an Affordable California is leading the Yes on Proposition 45 campaign. Supporters include Assemblywoman 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,” said Jennifer Barrera, president and CEO of the California Chamber of Commerce. “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,”
Supporters argue that accelerating the review process would reduce costs and help address the state’s housing shortage. They contend that each year of delay forces Californians to wait longer and pay more for essential projects.
Backers say the initiative would lower housing and infrastructure costs by expediting environmental reviews while preserving existing environmental and community protections.
“Prop. 45 modernizes California’s project approval process by establishing clear, enforceable timelines and creating a faster, more predictable process for resolving legal challenges,” said Jenna Abbott, executive director of the California Council for Affordable Housing.
“Prop. 45 won’t solve every challenge contributing to California’s housing crisis, but it addresses one of the biggest: a broken project approval process that drives up costs, delays essential projects and leaves Californians paying the price,” Abbott added.
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,” Miguel Miguel, director of Sierra Club California, said. “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.”
Opponents have specifically raised concerns about potential exposure to air pollution, water pollution and toxic chemicals.
Proposition 45 would calculate permitting and environmental review deadlines in business days rather than calendar days. To accelerate the process, lead agencies would be required to issue permit decisions when environmental reviews are completed instead of afterward. If an agency missed a deadline, the applicant could grant additional time or request a final agency hearing.
The measure also would allow applicants to challenge adverse agency decisions in court and require those cases to be resolved within 270 days.
For qualifying projects, it would limit public comment periods to 45 days and allow applicants to propose a single alternative for consideration in an environmental impact report.
Proposition 45 also would establish new tribal consultation requirements. Qualifying projects would first be screened to identify potentially affected federally recognized tribes, followed by formal consultation when required.
Any measures approved to protect tribal cultural resources would be legally enforceable, and project approval would depend on the lead agency completing the consultation process in good faith.
According to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, eligible applicants could choose between the proposition’s new procedures and the existing review process. 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.
Austin Gage writes for California Black Media.
