The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors will officially oppose a ballot measure that would limit reviews under the California Environmental Quality Act. 

County supervisors approved a resolution Tuesday opposing state Proposition 45, saying it would undermine the county’s local authority.

The proposition, which will appear on the Nov. 3 ballot, would limit CEQA environmental reviews to 365 days for construction projects. That would include new development projects, such as infrastructure including roads and bridges, housing, schools, broadband and wildfire mitigation.

The item also would require courts to rule on lawsuits related to environmental review law within 270 days.

Third District Supervisor Joan Hartmann, who brought the item to the board, said she was concerned about the proposition’s costs if it passes and the amount of extra work for county staff.

The county would have no say over the timeframe of projects, and it would likely invite lawsuits, she said.

Hartman added that the state legislature has made efforts to reform CEQA and called for more time to allow the new laws to take effect. She also pointed to the county’s efforts to build more housing throughout the region.

“We’re really moving forward, and the legislature has taken steps to accelerate that work,” Hartmann said. “But this goes too far, weakening the public voice and our ability to identify and prevent lasting harm.”

Fourth District Supervisor Bob Nelson also opposed the proposition, joking that it is not every day that he is on the same side as the Environmental Defense Center, which also objects to the proposal.

Nelson said he believes there needs to be streamlining and reforms to the CEQA but called Proposition 45 bad legislation. He added that the county needs to see what tools it still has if the ballot measure succeeds in November.  

“I think if we’re not prepared, if this hits Jan. 1 (…), we could see some real predatory projects get applied for and be in an approval process in this county that we may not want,” Nelson said.

The supervisors voted 4-0 to oppose Proposition 45, with Steve Lavagnino absent.

Lisa Plowman, director of Planning & Development, said her department has concerns about the broadness of the types of projects allowed. One type of project she highlighted was data centers.

Plowman also expressed concern about how the project would limit the length of public comment periods and reduce the thresholds in the county’s review process.

She added that some of the issues that the proposition tries to fix are covered in other legislation, such as the Permit Streamlining Act.

“While streamlining is not necessarily a terrible thing, we have to be careful (…) in terms of what it is that’s in the proposition and the types of projects that could utilize that,” Plowman said.

Tara Rengifo, a senior attorney for the Environmental Defense Center, urged the board to oppose the proposition during public comment.

Rengifo argued that the proposition is designed to fast-track data centers, while limiting public oversight and accountability.

Additionally, she said the proposition allows developers to sue agencies if they do not move fast enough and allows for building housing developments in areas with a high risk of fire.

She also argued that it would be nearly impossible to fix if approved. The proposition would require a two-thirds vote by the state legislature to amend, according to the proposition.

Furthermore, she criticized the bill for not including renter protections or affordability or inclusionary requirements.

Supporters of the measure assert that CEQA slows the development process through outdated reviews and litigation, and creates more bureaucracy.

They also argue that the cost of numerous reviews increases the cost of new developments, which ultimately gets passed down to taxpayers and consumers.

Because of that, proponents claim that reducing the review period would streamline the process while also keeping the main purpose of the environmental protections in place.

On the other hand, opponents of the proposition claim that it would weaken the law’s ability to protect people and the environment from potentially harmful developments.

The law’s opponents assert that the measure would make it harder to protect communities, lead to costly lawsuits, and largely eliminate their ability to enforce the law.

Furthermore, they claim that the long-term costs would be passed on to agencies and taxpayers. The ballot text states that the cost of the ballot measure could be in the tens of millions of dollars and possibly exceed $100 million annually.

The long-term costs of the ballot measure passing are unknown.