Voters reject Prop. 45’s CEQA overhaul, and both sides turn to the Legislature

The Associated Press called the measure Saturday evening, with unofficial returns showing about 56 percent of voters opposed to a California Chamber of Commerce-backed rewrite of the state’s environmental review law.

By Graham Ostrowski

The Associated Press called Proposition 45 on Saturday evening, concluding that California voters had rejected the California Chamber of Commerce’s bid to rewrite the California Environmental Quality Act. The call came at 5:34 p.m., with an estimated 76 percent of the expected vote counted and about 56 percent of voters opposed, the Sacramento Bee reported. Unofficial statewide totals compiled overnight showed 5,533,894 votes, or 55.7 percent, against the measure and 4,396,414 votes, or 44.3 percent, in favor. Counting of remaining ballots continues.

The measure needed a simple majority. It would have amended CEQA to put designated projects — including most housing, transportation, water and health projects — on a faster environmental-review clock and to speed the lawsuits that often follow. The official voter guide said a yes vote would have made certain public and private projects eligible for new review and court procedures and would have reduced the scope of what courts could consider in those challenges. A no vote leaves the existing process in place.

In San Francisco, voters were more firmly opposed than the statewide electorate. The Department of Elections’ Saturday report showed 184,338 votes, or 59.9 percent, against Proposition 45 and 123,274 votes, or 40.1 percent, in favor, with about 15,000 local ballots still to be counted.

What the measure would have changed

Proposition 45, an initiative statute sponsored by the state chamber, would have given public agencies a 365-day deadline to finish environmental review of projects in several categories and would have given courts 270 days to resolve lawsuits challenging those approvals, Inside Climate News reported in its account of the measure. The Sacramento Bee, drawing on the campaign debate, listed the eligible categories as housing; public-health buildings such as hospitals; clean energy; water infrastructure; schools, including higher-education facilities; public-safety work, including wildfire-fuel breaks and vegetation management; transportation; and broadband.

Supporters said those deadlines were needed to build housing, water works, clean-energy projects and other infrastructure at a more predictable cost. Amelia Matier, a spokesperson for Yes on Proposition 45, had told CalMatters that faster, more predictable reviews would let California build housing and infrastructure more cheaply, Inside Climate News reported. The official ballot pamphlet listed the California Children’s Hospital Association, the California Water Association and the California Council for Affordable Housing among the supporters.

The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, in the official summary, estimated “initial costs for state and local governments, likely in the high tens of millions of dollars — potentially exceeding $100 million — annually, partly covered by fees,” with “uncertain, potentially more significant positive or negative longer-term fiscal effects.”

Opponents said the measure would have limited environmental and public review and made it harder to overturn project approvals. The official pamphlet listed the Coalition for Clean Air, California Environmental Voters, Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles and the National Wildlife Federation among the opponents. Woody Little, spokesperson for the No on Proposition 45 campaign, which has said it represents more than 550 labor, health and environmental groups, argued before the election that voters were being offered a “false choice” between affordability and protecting air, water and public health.

One of the sharpest fights was over data centers. Opponents warned that the large computing facilities, already a target of local backlash over noise, electricity demand and water use, could seek the faster track. The measure’s chief lawyer said data centers were not covered and that he would testify in court against any data-center developer who tried to use the law, the Bee reported. Both sides published legal opinions, including analyses that cited the California Legislative Counsel.

Public polling recorded a steep drop in support as that argument spread. The Public Policy Institute of California found backing for the measure falling from 73 percent in July to 46 percent in October, Inside Climate News reported, a slide that left support, as the Bee put it, “slightly below water” in the final weeks.

Both campaigns look to Sacramento

Jennifer Barrera, president and chief executive of the California Chamber of Commerce, said in a statement after the call that the measure had faced “defenders of the broken status quo” who, she said, “would do anything — and say anything — to protect their exclusive leverage over the permitting process for housing, clean energy, water, and public works.”

“This election has come to an end, but the journey is far from over,” Ms. Barrera said. “There’s simply no path forward that doesn’t begin with establishing clear and consistent rules for building the essentials of a prosperous future. 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.”

The No on Proposition 45 campaign called the result “a clear message” against “a broad assault at the ballot box on state law protecting our air, water and natural resources.”

“We were outspent but not outgunned, thanks to a broad bipartisan coalition that understood we can have progress and safeguard our environment at the same time,” Mr. Little said. “We know this fight is not over. We will continue to fight to maintain the integrity of the California Environmental Quality Act in the state Legislature, and work to build a more affordable California.”

The California Democratic Party had endorsed a no vote. The California Republican Party supported the measure. Gov. Gavin Newsom and Gov.-elect Xavier Becerra did not take a side, the Bee reported, and the Republican gubernatorial nominee, Steve Hilton, also stayed quiet on it.

CEQA reform has regularly returned to the Capitol in the form of narrower exemptions or deadline bills for particular kinds of projects. Both campaigns now describe Saturday’s result as the end of this ballot fight and the beginning of another, in committee rooms rather than in the voter guide. The law voters were asked to overhaul remains in effect.