Newly obtained public records reveal that California Forever has repeatedly pressured Solano County officials to fast-track state legislation supporting its proposed shipyard — and the company is turning up the heat again as this year’s legislative session winds down.
Last September, Solano County supervisors faced a last-minute decision at their final meeting before the legislative session closed. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office had signed off on a proposal to expedite approval of a new shipyard along the county’s waterfront, but board members had only received the draft text hours earlier. After a brief recess and an hour of public comment, Supervisor Wanda Williams asked if she could propose changes to the language.
“I don’t think we got time. We got 10 minutes,” then-Board Chair Mitch Mashburn replied, pointing to the clock.
The shipyard is the latest addition to a sprawling development pitch from California Forever, the company backed by tech billionaires and led by Czech-born entrepreneur Jan Sramek. Since 2018, the company has quietly spent roughly $1 billion buying up nearly 70,000 acres in Solano County — more than a tenth of the county’s land. Sramek originally envisioned a walkable city of 400,000 residents, later expanding the plan to include a major manufacturing hub and an advanced shipyard. The project has faced sustained opposition from residents wary of the company’s secretive land purchases, its contentious dealings with local farmers, and concerns about environmental damage.
Records obtained by CalMatters show that supervisors’ vote came after two weeks of intense lobbying from California Forever representatives, who pushed county staff to back legislation they hadn’t even seen, accused them of stalling, and warned that delays could cost the region 10,000 jobs and billions in economic activity. Ultimately, supervisors voted to support a bill they’d barely had time to review, reasoning that doing so was the only way to retain any influence over a project they feared Sacramento would approve regardless.
“As much as I have to throw up in my mouth a little bit and swallow that… I have to say that yes, I want us to be able to have a voice,” Mashburn said before casting his vote.
The episode illustrates a pattern: California Forever using the promise of jobs and investment to push local leaders into fast decisions. Now, with only weeks left in this year’s session, the company is applying similar pressure once more.
**Urgency, again**
Michael Fortney, California Forever’s director of partnerships, defended last year’s aggressive timeline, pointing to Solano County’s unemployment rate — the highest in the Bay Area — and the recent departures of major employers like Budweiser and Valero. “We were tireless because of what was at stake: an economic opportunity that could have been transformative for the county, and for California,” he said. Fortney and other company representatives declined interview requests, providing written responses instead.
Critics argue the company’s insistence on speed is designed to overwhelm public officials rather than allow for careful review. “For something of this size, it’s absurd to push in front of anybody and say, ‘We need your yes vote or your no vote right now,'” said Duane Kromm, a former county supervisor and longtime critic of the project. “You wouldn’t buy a used car with that kind of timeframe.”
Four of the five current supervisors declined to discuss the episode. Board Chair Monica Brown said she wanted to preserve her ability to vote on future matters involving the company but noted that little has changed since she publicly criticized California Forever in 2024, when it abandoned an earlier ballot measure to rezone its land. “This has been stressful not only to those of us up on the dais but our workers,” she said at the time. “How dare you come in here with your arrogance. You didn’t even listen. There is a process.”
County spokesperson Matthew Davis said in a statement that while advocacy for development proposals isn’t unusual, “the level and urgency of the advocacy surrounding this legislative proposal were not typical of the county’s experience.”
California Forever appears close to getting what it sought last fall. According to a source involved in the negotiations, Newsom’s office recently began circulating draft legislation that would streamline environmental review for the shipyard project, following weeks of closed-door talks with the company, county officials and state lawmakers.
But the shipyard is no longer the only ask. California Forever is now pushing the state to also expedite its planned advanced manufacturing hub — envisioned to house everything from AI hardware production to aerospace and defense work — along with faster approval for its proposed new city, which the company says is needed to house the workforce those industries would require.
“Since the September 2025 meeting, it has become clear that employers require a broader set of benefits to come to Solano County, including paid-for infrastructure and guarantees of long-term availability of attainable homes. The shipyard alone cannot provide those,” said Jim Wunderman, the company’s head of public affairs and former CEO of the Bay Area Council.
If an agreement comes together, County Administrator Ian Goldberg said supervisors will likely get another chance to weigh in — at their final meeting before the legislative session ends next week.
**A race against the clock**
The pressure campaign traces back to late August 2025, when state officials learned that Saronic Technologies Inc., a defense startup with major U.S. Navy contracts, was considering Solano County for a $3.2 billion shipyard. The company worried California’s environmental review process would derail the timeline.
Sramek told county staff in an Aug. 29 email that the only fix was special legislation to expedite environmental clearance before the session ended Sept. 12. He proposed relying on a 2008 environmental impact report that had designated part of the county’s waterfront for industrial use, rather than commissioning a fresh review — a process he said could take up to five years. State law generally requires new environmental studies for projects that could significantly affect the environment, and while lawmakers have increasingly fast-tracked housing developments in recent years, they have rarely done so for industrial projects.
Over the following two weeks, California Forever ramped up outreach through emails, calls and texts. On Sept. 1, Fortney told county staff they needed to decide that same day whether to support the concept, claiming the governor’s office, state Sen. Christopher Cabaldon, Assemblymember Lori Wilson and several supervisors were already on board. “We want to be very clear that the fate of 10,000+ jobs is solely in your hands,” he wrote.
But there was no actual legislative language for staff to review, then-County Administrator Bill Emlen responded. “This is not the way to make public policy.”
Fortney pushed back, accusing county staff of dragging their feet. “We don’t understand why this is complicated for you when it wasn’t complicated for everyone listed above — unless you don’t want these jobs in Solano?” he wrote, later adding that if the county lost the investment, “the responsibility will be on you.”
On Sept. 3, Sramek finally sent staff a draft proposal — and announced he’d be at the county office within three hours to discuss it, arguing that shipyard revenue alone could close the county’s $44 million budget gap. Goldberg, then assistant county administrator, declined the meeting, saying staff needed time to properly evaluate the language.
**The pressure continues**
That same day, both Wilson and Cabaldon declined to introduce legislation, saying more time was needed to refine the proposal. California Forever didn’t back off. The company launched a text poll of likely voters asking whether they supported legislation for a shipyard that would bring “billions of dollars of investments and over 10,000 permanent jobs” to the county. Results published by the Fairfield Daily Republic showed 55% of 342 early respondents in favor, 22% opposed and 22% undecided.
Fortney cited the poll in an email to at least one supervisor, claiming “overwhelming support” for the project. He told CalMatters last week that he pressed hard because “when 10,000 jobs are at stake, I think everyone in this community should give 150% until the clock runs out.”
By Sept. 8, county staff and the governor’s office had reached agreement on revised language, though staff told the company’s lobbyist they weren’t fully satisfied with it. That night, Cabaldon proposed amendments more favorable to the county. The next day, supervisors — several expressing frustration at being rushed — voted to support the amended legislation less than two hours after seeing the final language. Mashburn said the deal preserved the county’s authority to require environmental studies and permits in certain areas.
California Forever ultimately concluded the amendments were too restrictive. “The legislation as voted on would not have attracted any shipbuilders,” Wunderman said.
Kromm characterized the company’s approach as coercive: “If you don’t do what we want you to do, we are going to blast you publicly about (how) you are not supportive of jobs and the economic health of Solano County.” Suisun City Councilmember Princess Washington, an opponent of her city’s plan to annex California Forever land, said the tactic tends to work. “The one rushing the decision has the advantage,” she said.
**A divided region**
Not everyone views the urgency as a problem. Suisun City Manager Bret Prebula sees it as exactly what his struggling city needs. Squeezed into just 4 square miles by marshland, Fairfield and Travis Air Force Base, Suisun City has long teetered near insolvency despite relying on infill development, state redevelopment funds and sales tax revenue.
Prebula reached out to California Forever in January 2025 with a plan: allow Suisun City to annex more than 22,000 acres of the company’s unincorporated farmland, a move now underway as the Suisun Expansion Plan. The arrangement would let California Forever pursue its projects without needing approval from county voters who have shown skepticism toward the company.
In exchange, California Forever agreed to pay the city $10 million in “public benefits” funding — about a third of its annual operating budget — plus reimbursement for costs tied to studying the annexation, according to a June 2025 agreement between the two parties. The company would pay $3.5 million once an environmental impact report is completed and another $6.5 million if the annexation wins approval.
Prebula argues the deal could eventually bring significant tax revenue to the city, though he acknowledges it may take years given the state’s environmental rules and the lengthy annexation process. “My city is an example of how bureaucracy and politics can stop a city from thriving on its own,” he told CalMatters.
Not all neighboring communities share his enthusiasm. Rio Vista, located just half a mile from the proposed expansion’s eastern edge, has pushed its own competing annexation proposal — twice — despite concerns about traffic and environmental impact, hoping to gain some say over what gets built nearby. California Forever accused the Rio Vista city manager of going “rogue” and undermining Suisun City’s plans.
“Rio Vista is the most impacted city,” Mayor Edwin Okamura told CalMatters. “Yet we don’t have any control over that project. (That) seems ludicrous.” Wunderman dismissed those concerns, saying the company has met with Rio Vista officials “dozens of times” and signed an agreement with the city last December covering development within and around its boundaries.
**”This cannot wait until next year”**
State officials appear close to finalizing a new deal to expedite California Forever’s shipyard. According to a source involved in the talks, the draft proposal from Newsom’s office would allow the project to rely on the 2008 environmental report covering 1,305 acres designated for water-dependent industrial use. Because much of that land includes marshland unsuitable for construction, the legislation would let county officials redraw the boundaries of the industrial zone — as long as the total acreage stays within the original limit.
The proposal would also cap legal challenges to the shipyard at 270 days and require state and local agencies to act on permits within set timeframes, some as short as 90 days, with permit disputes resolved within 45 days.
Asked about the governor’s involvement, Newsom spokesperson Tara Gallegos said his office doesn’t typically comment on individual projects but added, “He’s pro-jobs and pro-building housing. There’s really not much mystery here.” Newsom has longstanding ties to Silicon Valley dating to his tenure as San Francisco mayor, and tech figures — including Laurene Powell Jobs, an early California Forever investor — were major donors during his 2021 recall fight and could be key allies if he pursues a presidential run.
The renewed push comes a month after Saronic announced it would build its shipyard in Texas instead of Solano County, a decision California Forever blamed on state lawmakers’ inaction. The company called the loss a “wake-up call that inaction and political gridlock have real costs for all Californians.”
Days later, the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development released a memo touting Solano County as a “world-class industrial site,” citing a Bay Area Council analysis that projected California Forever’s manufacturing hub and shipyard could generate 530,000 jobs statewide and billions in annual tax revenue.
This year, California Forever has ramped up its lobbying operation, hiring former legislative leaders Darrell Steinberg and Bob Hertzberg as special counsel. County records show at least 25 meetings between county staff and California Forever or state economic development officials since December 2025. The company reported spending $150,000 on lobbying between January and July 2026 — a figure that doesn’t include Steinberg and Hertzberg’s compensation or other consultant fees.
Emails show California Forever also tried unsuccessfully to get a standard policy bill introduced before February’s legislative deadline, at times asking county staff to serve as go-betweens with lawmakers. Legislators declined even to introduce a placeholder bill.
In recent weeks, Newsom’s office has convened multiple private meetings involving county leaders, Cabaldon, Wilson, state economic development officials and California Forever. According to Cabaldon, the shipyard is the one piece of the puzzle most parties can agree on. “We’ve insisted both years to focus on the shipbuilding opportunity, to the extent that there is one,” he said, adding that decisions on annexation should remain with the city and the regional agency that oversees growth boundaries.
Still, California Forever is pressing the state to also fast-track its manufacturing hub and housing plans, warning that focusing solely on the shipyard “is a guarantee that these employment centers are approved on paper but never get built.”
“This cannot wait until next year,” the company said in a statement. “Passing this legislation in this legislative session is how California and Solano County demonstrate — not just claim — that we are open for business.”
Even as lawmakers negotiate a narrower deal centered on the shipyard, California Forever continues promoting its broader vision. Last month, Sramek said on a podcast that the company likely will open waitlists by early 2027 for people interested in buying or renting property in the still-unapproved city. Meanwhile, Hertzberg told KCRA 3 that the state’s role is intentionally limited. “We’re just looking at a handful of the impediments that slow up the process at the state level and give the power to the local level to make all those decisions,” he said. “They could say, ‘You know what, we don’t agree.’ Fine.”
Original source: CalMatters
