One of the most vexing initiatives on the November ballot is touted by supporters as a long-awaited revision of California’s 56-year-old bedrock environmental law, including changes promoted to speed housing construction and other key projects.
But many opponents are concerned about the potential lasting impacts on California’s environment, as well as tighter limits on public say over proposed development, fearing the changes would serve as a “smokescreen” for industry.
Proposition 45, which seeks to overhaul the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, would trim regulations and streamline approval processes for many building projects. It is sponsored by the pro-business California Chamber of Commerce.
Greenbelt Alliance
Homes in southeast Santa Rosa on the outskirts of Taylor Mountain Regional Park (Greenbelt Alliance)
Construction continues on the playground adjacent to the Casa Roseland affordable housing project in Santa Rosa on Wednesday, March 18, 2026. (Christopher Chung/The Press Democrat)
Train riders exit a southbound train at the Petaluma North SMART station where construction is ongoing for the Meridian affordable housing development at Corona Road in Petaluma Thursday, May 7, 2026. (Beth Schlanker / The Press Democrat)
Chad Surmick / The Press Democrat
The Pullman Lofts at West 9th Street and Wilson continue to wrap up construction Feb. 13, 2023. (Chad Surmick / The Press Democrat)
Chad Surmick / The Press Democrat file
Development plans for the Chanate property began with a neighborhood meeting in Santa Rosa, Monday, Oct. 2, 2023. (Chad Surmick / The Press Democrat file)
Chad Surmick / The Press Democrat file
Development plans for the Chanate property began with a neighborhood meeting in Santa Rosa, Monday, Oct. 2, 2023. (Chad Surmick / The Press Democrat file)
Greenbelt Alliance
Farmland sits outside the southeastern boundary of Santa Rosa off Petaluma Hill Road. (Greenbelt Alliance)
Show Caption
Greenbelt Alliance
1 of 7
Homes in southeast Santa Rosa on the outskirts of Taylor Mountain Regional Park (Greenbelt Alliance)
The measure, tied to raft of changes contained in a 41-page proposal, would set a 365-day limit on environmental studies for a wide range of construction, including housing subdivisions, healthcare facilities, solar and wind farms, some reservoirs and desalination plants. It would require courts to rule on CEQA challenges within 270 days.
CEQA is one of the state’s most consequential environmental laws, requiring close study and input on projects with potential to harm such things as human health, air and water quality, and wildlife habitat, or add to traffic, noise and greenhouse gas emissions.
But it has generated perennial debate among lawmakers and become a major target for critics, who say it is too heavy handed and enables endless court fights that can delay or sink even the most merited projects.
Environmental groups, as well as various housing and worker advocacy groups, say Prop. 45 is not the fix it purports to be, seeking to bypass the state Legislature, which has stopped short of major CEQA reforms, to deliver a major regulatory overhaul for developers.
Developers stress need for reform
Those supporting the measure say CEQA has been used to block many developments that would serve local communities, including new housing, green energy and water projects.
It has been endorsed by business groups, including the Bay Area Council and California Business Roundtable; green energy organizations such as the California Wind Energy Association and Large-Scale Solar Association; and several housing groups, including the California Council for Affordable Housing.
Supporters have raised more than $45 million as of Oct. 20, according to the state campaign finance records. Top donors include committees linked to the California Building Industry Association and the California Association of Realtors.
The Yes on 45 campaign has been steered in part by Building a Better California, an advocacy group and political action committee funded by Silicon Valley heavyweights including Google co-founder Sergey Brin and venture capitalist John Doerr. Brin has contributed $102 million so far to the group for its spending on the November election. Most of its spending has been funneled into fighting the proposed one-time tax on billionaires, Proposition 40, and two countermeasures Propositions 41 and 42, which contain provisions to void the wealth tax if passed.
Locally, it’s unclear how much support Prop. 45 has garnered, as some pro-development and housing advocacy groups — including leading Santa Rosa-based nonprofit Generation Housing — say they have not taken a stance on it.
Santa Rosa resident Adrian Covert, a key local voice in the housing policy debate, who is senior vice president of public policy at Bay Area Council, noted Sonoma County’s difficulties grappling with “a housing affordability crisis, an aging population and ongoing wildfire risk.” He contends Prop. 45 would help the county make progress on all three, reducing delays to many projects, and making California more competitive for job creation while improving services needed in high-cost areas like the North Bay.
Adrian Covert
“Proposition 45 creates common sense limits on the ability of litigants to create costly delays to the new housing, water supply, clean energy, wildfire risk reduction, public safety, and healthcare infrastructure Sonoma County needs,” Covert said. “Sacramento politicians have for years been granting these ‘shot clocks’ to shiny new sports arenas and other favored projects. Real, job-creating infrastructure that benefits Sonoma County residents should be able to use those ‘shot clocks’ too.”
Recent state legislative efforts to help streamline approval processes for some housing projects have already helped on that front, according to local elected leaders. Cities and counties have also come under greater pressure from the state to meet housing targets, with stepped-up numbers and steeper penalties for places that don’t comply.
Still, many of those municipalities have also seen residents, if not representatives, rebel against the top-down housing mandates, preferring local control. Sonoma County was at the forefront decades ago in establishing voter-approved urban growth boundaries for all of its cities to limit sprawl and protect open spaces and agricultural lands.
A large housing subdivision called the University District, is north of Rohnert Park Expressway and west of Petaluma Hill Road, in Rohnert Park on Thursday, April 30, 2026. (Christopher Chung / The Press Democrat)
Cotati City Manager Damien O’Bid cited Cotati’s growth boundary and the city’s participation in the countywide Habitat Conservation Plan as evidence of the region’s ongoing commitment to smarter growth that avoids impacts to “potentially important habitat areas.”
Could Prop. 45 preempt those urban growth boundaries for particular projects?
O’Bid did not give an explicit answer, but suggested that Cotati’s growth boundary would stand.
The city only reviews projects that are inside city limits, he said, although it is possible to receive a development application outside city limits but within the urban growth boundary as part of an annexation request.
“However, if there was a development application outside of our UGB that was requesting annexation into the city, our voter-approved growth boundary, as well as our planning documents, would not permit this and the city would deny the application,” he said.
Who opposes Proposition 45?
Dozens of environmental groups have lined up against Prop. 45, including the American Lung Association and Sierra Club California, the California Democratic Party, the League of Women Voters of California and the California Federation of Labor Unions.
Opponents as of Oct. 20 have raised more than $30 million, including from philanthropist Wendy Schmidt, wife of former Google CEO Eric Schmidt; several labor unions and environmental groups; and environmental PAC Clean and Healthy California.
Two prominent local voices weighing in against Prop. 45 are Rep. Jared Huffman, D- San Rafael, and Sierra Club Sonoma Group Chair Shirley Johnson.
Johnson told The Press Democrat that Proposition 45 is written to give authority for developers to prevail over conflicting laws, “raising concerns about its interaction with environmental protections involving clean air, clean water, endangered species, and other important environmental safeguards.” She cited projects such as luxury housing in high-risk fire areas, data centers, dams, forest clear-cutting and freeway expansions.
“It is more important than ever for California to defend the laws that protect our public health, air, land, water, oceans, and wildlife,” Johnson said.
She contrasted the measure with one she and the Sierra Club support, Prop. 1, which seeks voter approval for $11.25 billion in bonds funding to fund various affordable housing programs, the larger share being dedicated to construction. The Sierra Club supports programs focused on urban infill and higher-density housing while protecting open spaces, she said.
Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District
The 17-acre urban farm operated by Tierra Vegetables on the east end of Airport Boulevard north of Santa Rosa. The Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District purchased the property as open space in 2000, and Tierra Vegetables won a bid to farm the property under lease. (Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District)
Other opponents, such as the grassroots organizing group Indivisible Sonoma, cited concerns that the measure could make it simpler to advance controversial projects like data centers and avoid in-depth public review, noting nationwide bipartisan public opposition to the latter.
Jordan Grimes, legislative director at Greenbelt Alliance, called Proposition 45 a “smokescreen” designed to fast-track many kinds of projects that would otherwise face extensive review under CEQA. That could include energy-intensive developments like data centers, he said.
An aerial view of a 33 megawatt data center, bottom left, with closed-loop cooling system, amid warehouses on Oct. 20, 2025, in Vernon, California. (Mario Tama/Getty Images North America/TNS)
CEQA currently favors local control, requiring the developer to take responsibility for the burden of proof finding any potential for harm. Grimes said if approved, Proposition 45 would flip this standard: Developers would be able to sue a city or county which denies a project, he said, forcing municipalities to defend a project’s denial at taxpayer expense, or fold and give way to the developer.
“This is polluting industry using people’s righteous fury over housing costs,” Grimes said.
He added the governor and state legislature already passed bill packages in 2025 and this year to improve housing development and cut regulatory timelines and review processes. In his opinion, the proposition is designed to go around legislators, who he said would never approve such broad provisions.
“There are things in this measure that, if they were tweaked a little bit … I could totally get behind,” Grimes said. “But there’s no reason the Legislature can’t do that. The people driving this know the legislature is not interested in harming the people of California.”
Staff Writer Natalie Hanson can be reached at natalie.hanson@pressdemocrat.com. Staff Writer Martin Espinoza can be reached at martin.espinoza@pressdemocrat.com.