A ballot measure that would have changed California environmental review process for construction has been rejected by voters, AP projects.
The measure, Proposition 45, would have made amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, the landmark 1970 state law requiring agencies to evaluate a project’s potential impacts to the environment and to public health.
“This strong rejection of Prop. 45 shows that Californians are willing to fight to keep our air and water clean,” said Aruna Prabhala, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, which opposed the measure. “When we can’t rely on the federal government to protect our communities and the environment, we need strong state laws to keep us safe. I hope developers heard us loud and clear. We’re not interested in giving polluting projects a free pass.”
Jennifer Barrera, CEO of the California Chamber of Commerce, released a statement acknowledging the measure’s defeat.
“This election has come to an end, but the journey is far from over. There’s simply no path forward that doesn’t begin with establishing clear and consistent rules for building the essentials of a prosperous future,” Barrera said. “We will continue to advocate for reform that’s both comprehensive and consequential, and we will hold elected officials accountable for whether they take action that makes a difference.”
If approved, the measure would have created new environmental review procedures for projects defined as “essential,” according to the state’s official voter guide. Essential projects could include housing, clean energy, health facilities such as clinics and medical offices, police and fire stations, and education facilities along with energy and transportation projects.
Prop. 45 would have also tightened time limits for agencies to conduct CEQA review, public comment periods and how courts would review challenges to projects.
“Endless delays, red tape, and frivolous lawsuits make life more expensive and block the projects Californians need—driving up costs for housing, electricity, and water; wasting taxpayer dollars; worsening wildfire risk; increasing traffic; overcrowding schools; and delaying hospital and infrastructure upgrades,” supporters said in the voter guide.
Along with the state Chamber of Commerce, supporters of Prop. 45 included the chambers of commerce in dozens of cities, the California Water Association, the state Republican Party and Democratic Assemblymember Buffy Wicks of Oakland.
Meanwhile, opponents of Prop. 45 argued the measure would weaken the state’s environmental protections and would limit public input on projects.
“Proposition 45 limits both the environmental review of major new development projects and the public’s right to be heard. Prop. 45 lets projects move forward with far less scrutiny of their harms to air, water and public health,” opponents said in the voter guide.
Opponents included the state Democratic Party, environmental groups including the Sierra Club and labor groups including the California Federation of Labor Unions and the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California.
Prop. 45 caused a split among advocates seeking additional homebuilding to alleviate the state’s affordability crisis. While major for-profit and non-profit housing developers backed Prop. 45, pro-housing groups such as California YIMBY and YIMBY Action were neutral.
The measure was also opposed by housing advocates at East Bay for Everyone and the Greenbelt Alliance, amid concerns about sprawl.