California voters will decide the fate of Proposition 45, a measure that plans to impose stricter deadlines on the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA, on Nov. 3.
The proponents of the measure are seeking to establish a new 365-day limit on CEQA’s environmental reviews to help speed up projects developers deem essential, such as roads, schools, housing, wildfire prevention and clean energy. In addition, lawsuits related to environmental review would be required to finalize a decision within a 270-day limit.
If passed, the proposition would mark a significant adjustment to the long-established law signed by Former Gov. Ronald Reagan in 1970, which allows CEQA to review public agencies’ environmental plans before, during and after a construction project.
What are proponents and opponents saying?
Supporters, including the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Council for Affordable Housing, encourage a vote for this proposition because it will stimulate cheaper development of necessary infrastructure by requiring cutoff dates.
Supporters believe that this legislation is not at the expense of the environment, according to Yes on Prop 45.
Key opposers, including the Sierra Club and the Clean Air Coalition, claim that a vote against this proposition will allow CEQA to continue protecting the environment properly. Critics believe the shortened timeline could lead to poor infrastructure planning.
“Voting ‘no’ on Prop 45 keeps strong protections in place for our public health, land, water, oceans, and wildlife habitat,” the Sierra Club wrote in their statement against Proposition 45.
Poor infrastructure planning would lead to long-term environmental consequences by accelerating reviews and could be more expensive for taxpayers, according to No on Prop 45.
Why should students pay attention to Proposition 45?
Proposition 45 is a statewide measure, which means it could impact Cal Poly and other Cal State infrastructure, off-campus housing and future homes, according to the voter guide. Therefore, the proposal could affect CEQA’s ability to implement environmental mitigations, including wildfire and carbon emissions, for on-campus buildings.
Proposition 45’s focus on public infrastructure could lead to expedited construction of new buildings on campus. However, opponents question CEQA’s ability to complete their review process within the new timeline.
Some experts sympathize with Proposition 45’s desires to stop CEQA delays.
“It is true that compliance with CEQA has become more complex, but environmental issues have become more complex,” said Brian Tetley, a Cal Poly lecturer with land use development and CEQA compliance expertise.
However, Tetley said the vague language of Proposition 45 is concerning.
“As a broad category, it doesn’t say affordable housing,” Tetley said. “It says ‘housing,’ written in large.”
Tetley explains more housing, in general, would ultimately be a negative for our environment and require more review.
Geoffrey Andrew Fricker, an associate professor of geography at Cal Poly, said it is also unclear how the proposition could impact building data centers as it becomes more common infrastructure.
“It’s such a big unknown going forward,” Fricker said. “And we’re still not 100% sure on their environmental impacts.”
For students like music senior, Vanessa Rivera, the environmental cost is worrying.
“I feel like they should give it more time to know the environmental effects of an infrastructure” Rivera said.
Proposition 45 supporters say the measure can help speed up the development of more affordable housing and may expedite construction across San Luis Obispo.
“I think it’s sort of a big thing that there’s way too many students and not enough facilities, especially housing,” said Christo Rakowski, a theater arts senior.
However, Rakowski is not entirely willing to sacrifice the environment in exchange for expediency.
“I don’t know if cutting back on environmental assessment is the best way to reduce the length of project timelines,” he said.
As voters on campus and across the state work to decide which way to vote, Fricker suggested they take note of the recent trend towards gutting environmental regulations.
“The students should think about what’s going to matter to them and their futures,” Fricker said.