San Francisco and California Ballot Backstory · Why is this on my ballot?
Prop 45: summary
Modifies Environmental Review for Certain Projects
Mark your own choices here. You may bring this sheet into the voting booth.
A YES vote means
For "essential" projects (including most housing, transportation, water, health), sets review and lawsuit deadlines; limits required alternatives and court evidence and orders. Optional for applicants.
A NO vote means
Current CEQA rules stay. Detailed environmental reports (when needed) must consider multiple alternatives. Courts can stop a whole project if CEQA was not followed correctly.
Both ovals are empty on purpose. The choice is yours.
If it fails
Nothing changes if it fails
If Prop 45 fails, the current environmental review rules stay. The Legislative Analyst (LAO) says agencies now study a project's effects on the environment before they approve it. People can sue if they think the agency broke the rules.
Why it’s on the ballot now
A state law called the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires an agency to consider how a project might harm the environment before approving it.
Agencies must seek and consider public comments, with a minimum comment period but no maximum. For eligible projects whose applicants choose the new procedures, the measure would cap comment periods and limit tribal consultation to federally recognized tribes.
People can sue if they think an agency did not follow CEQA. If the court agrees, it can stop the whole project and require the agency to fix the problem.
Most projects need no detailed environmental impact report, and some housing near transit is exempt. Many also need other permits, and agencies can repeatedly ask for more information or changes.
The measure's findings, which argue for it, say California's system for approving essential projects is "too slow, too bureaucratic, and too costly" and that delays raise the "cost of living."
The money
The Legislative Analyst says initial state and local costs would likely reach the high tens of millions of dollars a year, potentially over $100 million, partly covered by fees. Longer-term effects, positive or negative, are uncertain but could be larger. See the money chart for the latest filed totals.
Needs a simple majority (50% + 1) to pass Some measures need 55% or two-thirds of votes to pass. This one needs only a simple majority.Who bears the cost
State and local governments, including state courts
The LAO estimates state and local costs, including courts, likely in the high tens of millions of dollars a year at first, maybe over $100 million. It says some costs could later decline, for example if fewer people sue.
Project applicants and people who file lawsuits
The LAO says fees paid by project applicants and by people who file lawsuits would cover some of these costs. Applicants could choose the new procedures or the existing ones.
The strongest case for and against
Strongest case for
Supporters listed on the ballot label include the California Children's Hospital Association, the California Water Association and the California Council for Affordable Housing. They say delays, red tape and "frivolous lawsuits" block needed projects and raise the cost of living. Supporters argue Prop 45 sets "enforceable timelines" and a faster, more predictable process for legal challenges. They say permitting delays add more than $75,000 to the cost of a new home, and that Prop 45 "will help lower rents and mortgages." They argue it helps lower electricity costs and helps keep projects on time and on budget. Supporters say it "does not exempt a single project from environmental review." They say cities and counties keep "full authority to approve or deny projects," and "residents keep a meaningful voice."
Strongest case against
Opponents listed on the ballot label include the Coalition for Clean Air, CA Environmental Voters, Physicians for Social Responsibility, LA and the National Wildlife Federation. They say Prop 45 limits environmental review of major new projects and "the public's right to be heard." Opponents argue it reduces agencies' duty to consider public comments, which they say often expose "potential contamination of air and water." They say weaker review means more pollution near homes and schools, and more asthma. Opponents argue it does not require any project to lower rents, mortgages or utility bills. They say it gives developers new rights to challenge cities and counties, while making it harder for project opponents to successfully challenge an agency's decision. They argue that when polluters don't clean up, taxpayers and ratepayers pay.