{"id":507678,"date":"2026-10-25T18:14:08","date_gmt":"2026-10-25T18:14:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/507678\/"},"modified":"2026-10-25T18:14:08","modified_gmt":"2026-10-25T18:14:08","slug":"buzzin-at-the-ballot-box-proposition-45-expediting-californias-environmental-review-process-the-state-hornet","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/507678\/","title":{"rendered":"Buzzin\u2019 at the Ballot Box: Proposition 45, expediting California\u2019s environmental review process \u2013 The State Hornet"},"content":{"rendered":"

One of the 14 measures Californians will be voting on this year is Proposition 45<\/a>, which would create an optional expedited environmental review process for certain projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The measure would allow eligible projects, including most housing, transportation, water, healthcare and clean energy projects, to follow tighter timelines for environmental review, permits and legal challenges. Supporters say the changes could help projects move more quickly, while opponents argue they could limit environmental review and public participation.<\/p>\n

RELATED: Buzzin\u2019 at the ballot box: Proposition 39 would add new voter ID requirements in California<\/a><\/p>\n

How it works and what it costs<\/p>\n

Proposition 45 will create more binding time limits for state and local governments to do CEQA and permit reviews and for courts to resolve legal challenges.<\/p>\n

The measure would require government agencies to specify all information that must be included in a project application before it\u2019s submitted. Environmental impact assessments would be based on the laws and standards in place when the application is filed.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Applicants could also propose one project alternative to reduce environmental impacts for the agency to consider, rather than requiring government agencies to propose multiple project alternatives. Additionally, agencies and applicants would be required to consult with formally recognized California native tribes.<\/p>\n

Courts would be allowed to halt only a part of affected projects, rather than the whole project, in a case where environmental review failed to comply with CEQA.<\/p>\n

During the CEQA process, Proposition 45 would limit how long the agency can accept comments from the public about projects by setting a maximum number of days.\u00a0 The current law has a minimum set of days which could be extended by agencies discretion, according to the Secretary of State\u2019s<\/a> voter guide.<\/p>\n

According to the Legislative Analyst\u2019s Office, the initial costs of this measure could potentially exceed $100 million annually,<\/a> in order to implement new project review and court procedures.<\/p>\n

\u201cFees paid by project applicants and people filing lawsuits would partly cover these costs,\u201d The Legislative Analyst\u2019s office stated.<\/a><\/p>\n

The measure\u2019s long-term fiscal effects are uncertain.<\/p>\n

Supporters remarks<\/p>\n

Supporters argue<\/a> that the state\u2019s environmental review law is outdated and slows development through litigation and bureaucratic challenges. They argue that these delays ultimately increase projects costs, and trickle down to taxpayers. Leading the support on this measure are the California Republican Party<\/a>, California Chamber of Commerce<\/a>, the California Building Industry Association<\/a> and the California Council for Affordable Housing<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Opposers remarks\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n

Opponents argue<\/a> that this measure would eliminate environmental safeguards, weaken California\u2019s environmental review law and undermine the public\u2019s ability to participate in project approvals. They argue that the lengthy processes are necessary in order for communities and agencies to understand project developments. Leading the opposition campaign are the California Democratic Party<\/a>, National Wildlife Federation<\/a>, California Environmental Voters<\/a> and State Building and Construction Trades Council of California<\/a>. According to the Planning and Conservation League,<\/a> this measure \u201cdramatically shifts the balance of power away from cities and communities to project developers.\u201d<\/p>\n

What a \u201cYES\u201d vote means<\/p>\n

A \u201cYES\u201d vote on this measure would allow eligible projects to opt into an expedited environmental review process and court challenge procedures. Those projects would be subject to tighter timelines. It would allow courts to stop part of a project based on the CEQA review, rather than stopping the whole project, allowing the agency to fix the problem.<\/p>\n

What a \u201cNO\u201d vote means<\/p>\n

A \u201cNO\u201d vote on this measure would reject the proposed changes, leaving the existing environmental review and court challenge procedures in place.<\/p>\n

The Sacramento State Connection<\/p>\n

Sacramento State\u2019s proposed Capital Campus<\/a> could offer a local example of Proposition 45\u2019s potential effects. If portions of the development qualified for expedited review, the measure could shorten environmental review and approval timelines.\u00a0<\/p>\n

It could also limit public comment periods and change environmental review procedures. Education facilities are included under the types of projects eligible to use Proposition 45\u2019s new procedures; the Capital Campus project\u2019s specific eligibility has not been established.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Voters can register for The Nov. 3rd election through the conditional voter registration<\/a>, and check their registration status through the California Secretary of State\u2019s website<\/a>. Find your polling location here<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"One of the 14 measures Californians will be voting on this year is Proposition 45, which would create…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":507679,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[32],"tags":[121,123,122],"class_list":["post-507678","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-sacramento","tag-sacramento","tag-sacramento-headlines","tag-sacramento-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/507678","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=507678"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/507678\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/507679"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=507678"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=507678"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=507678"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}