The board voted 3-2 against the measure, effectively shelving the plan for the remainder of the year and delivering a rare public rebuke to the governor’s office, which had been quietly shepherding negotiations over the proposal for months.

Supervisor Mitch Mashburn, who cast one of the deciding votes, said the legislation was being pushed through too quickly and left too many unresolved concerns, particularly around environmental oversight and outreach to labor unions and tribal nations.

“There is work that still has to be done on this legislation,” Mashburn said. “We shouldn’t be doing it because we’re rushed. We do have time.”

Supervisors Cassandra James and Wanda Williams sided with Mashburn, saying they’d prefer to take the issue up again next year rather than rush a decision under legislative deadline pressure.

At the heart of the debate was the proposed Solano Maritime and Manufacturing Act, which would have exempted roughly 1,350 acres along the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta from California’s environmental review law for maritime and manufacturing projects, including any infrastructure tied to shipbuilding. County staff acknowledged the effort had originated from the governor’s office.

Supporters have long argued that a shipyard could generate more than 10,000 jobs and provide a much-needed economic jolt to a region that has struggled in recent years. But Mashburn said the county had been kept largely on the sidelines during negotiations, despite meetings he and James held with representatives from Newsom’s office, the Governor’s Office of Business Development, and California Forever.

“We’re the toddlers in the room and they’re patting us on the head and saying: ‘OK, you’re good. You had a say. We were democratic about it,'” Mashburn said.

Assemblymember Lori Wilson, D-Suisun City, had said for weeks that she would defer to the county’s decision. Following Tuesday’s vote, she confirmed to CalMatters that any legislative path forward this year is now closed.

“The governor can put on his own website language that he supports,” Wilson said. “Absent buy-in from the senator (Christopher Cabaldon) and I, I do not see how the language could be introduced.”

California Forever’s head of public affairs, Jim Wunderman, did not hide his disappointment with the board’s decision.

“There was an opportunity to move something forward that would have mattered for generations, and could really move this county forward in this region,” said Wunderman, former longtime CEO of the Bay Area Council. “They didn’t avail themselves of it, and they punted.”

Roughly 200 people packed the meeting in downtown Fairfield, many wearing pink shirts and buttons identifying them with Solano Together, a grassroots coalition opposed to any California Forever development in the county.

The vote comes on the heels of another setback for the project’s backers. Saronic Technologies Inc., a Texas-based shipbuilder that had reportedly been eyeing Solano County as a possible site, announced it would instead build its new facility in Brownsville, Texas.

The 14-page proposal before supervisors also included measures to fast-track construction permitting and establish a 45-day dispute resolution process overseen by a neutral “special master” appointed through the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation. Provisions addressing labor protections and tribal consultation were added just days before the vote — additions Mashburn said were far from finished.

“The tribes all day have been pinging our folks about their issues with this legislation,” he said.

Wilson and state Sen. Christopher Cabaldon, D-Napa, both phoned into the meeting to reassure supervisors that the legislation was narrowly focused and would not strip the county of local control.

“We are not asking the board today to approve shipyards. We are not asking you to approve a developer. We are not asking you to surrender local control,” Wilson told the board. “We are asking whether Solano County should put itself in a position to be prepared.”

Cabaldon acknowledged supervisors had every right to reject the plan but warned that the Aug. 31 close of the legislative session left little room to revise the bill’s language at this stage.

That left the board facing a familiar dilemma — much like last year, when supervisors were asked to weigh in on last-minute language tied to the shipbuilding proposal.

Nearly three hours of public comment leaned heavily against the measure. Vallejo resident Jeff Deis dismissed the proposal as a “sweetheart deal” for California Forever, pointing to language in the bill describing the site as a “unique deepwater” location.

“The only thing unique about this is the deep pockets of the people that are promoting it and the methods they’re going about it,” Deis said.

Jasmine Westbrook, who identified herself as a fifth-generation Solano County resident, criticized the county for considering reliance on an environmental review from 2008 rather than conducting a fresh, project-specific study.

“Do not put billionaires over your community, your constituents, the environment, and the future of Solano County and the state. Do not set this precedent,” she said.

Several residents also raised concerns about bypassing the county’s voter-approved 1984 orderly growth initiative, which requires public approval for rezoning land. The legislation would have required officials to redesignate a “water dependent industrial” zone at California Forever’s request.

Not everyone opposed the plan. More than a dozen speakers voiced support, largely citing the need for stable, well-paying jobs in the region.

Matt Bailey, director of job seeker services for the Workforce Development Board of Solano County, argued that companies increasingly view the county as unwelcoming to new investment.

“What home-buying-wage jobs are you bringing to this community?” he asked supervisors.

John Kowalski, a union pipefitter and Vacaville resident, said his son lost his job when the Budweiser plant in Fairfield closed earlier this year and now commutes daily to San Jose for work.

“He’s missing out on his daughters’ softball practice, their soccer practice,” Kowalski said. “Please. Listen to Sacramento. Thank you.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post Solano County Board’s Unexpected Vote Sinks California Forever Shipyard Bill for the Year appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

According to a report published by CalMatters reporters Yue Stella Yu and Kate Wolffe, representatives of the company bombarded county staff with emails, phone calls and texts in the final weeks of last year’s legislative session, trying to lock down support for a bill that would speed environmental review for a proposed shipyard tied to the project. Backers said the facility could bring thousands of jobs to Solano County.

The records show that on Sept. 1, 2025, Michael Fortney, California Forever’s director of partnerships, told county staff they needed a decision on the proposal that same day. When the county administrator pointed out there wasn’t even draft legislative language to review yet, Fortney pushed back, accusing the county of dragging its feet and asking, “We don’t understand why this is complicated for you… unless you don’t want these jobs in Solano?”

Fortney has defended the company’s urgency, saying the team worked around the clock because the shipyard represented an economic opportunity that “could have been transformative for the county, and for California.”

But critics say the episode fits a troubling pattern for a company that has drawn skepticism from the start over its secretive land purchases and outsized ambitions. Former Solano County Supervisor Duane Kromm said the constant rush to secure approvals is unreasonable given the scale of what’s being proposed.

“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,'” Kromm said. “You wouldn’t buy a used car with that kind of timeframe.”

The pressure campaign hasn’t let up. In recent weeks, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office has begun circulating a new proposal that would fast-track environmental review for the shipyard project, signaling the debate over California Forever’s tactics is far from settled as the current legislative session winds down.

Elsewhere in California environmental news, the Trump administration’s push to loosen restrictions on logging and road-building in undeveloped stretches of national forest is drawing pushback from state leaders and conservation groups, who warn the move could actually increase wildfire risk rather than reduce it.

The Forest Service’s own data shows that wildfires are more likely to ignite in areas where people have vehicle access, according to reporting from CalMatters’ Rachel Becker. Josh Hicks, director of conservation campaigns for The Wilderness Society, argued that opening up backcountry areas to more roads and development will only mean more potential ignition sources, not fewer.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has defended the proposed rule changes, calling the current restrictions “outdated” and arguing they lock up “tens of millions of forested acres” that could otherwise be treated to improve forest health and cut wildfire danger. The public has until Sept. 21 to weigh in on the proposal.

In the Bay Area, community advocates are sounding the alarm over changes to CalEnviroScreen, the state’s tool for identifying pollution-burdened communities, warning the update could strip vital funding from vulnerable San Francisco neighborhoods.

The screening tool ranks California communities across nearly two dozen environmental, health and demographic measures, and the worst-off quarter of the state qualifies as “disadvantaged,” a designation that unlocks a share of the state’s cap-and-invest revenue. But after the tool’s latest update, neighborhoods including Chinatown, the Tenderloin, SoMa and the Mission no longer rank high enough to qualify, despite what advocates say are persistent environmental and health burdens.

Pratibha Tekkey, director of community organizing for the Tenderloin Housing Clinic, said the rankings fail to capture the reality on the ground. “You can’t just be a scientist looking at data points,” she said. “You have to see who is living there in that community, what kind of health challenges they have, what kind of economic challenges they have.”

And in San Diego, county supervisors voted 3-2 this week to bar federal immigration agencies from using county firearms training facilities. Board Chairperson Terra Lawson-Remer said allowing the county’s ranges to be used in support of the Trump administration’s mass deportation efforts would be “a slap in the face of our residents.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Forever’s Lobbying Push Revealed in Newly Obtained Records appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

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

The post Inside California Forever’s Aggressive Campaign to Fast-Track a New Shipyard appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

California Forever, the billionaire-backed development company behind the proposal, is seeking state legislation that would speed environmental review for a large shipyard and manufacturing project it says could anchor the broader development. The company also wants a path for its land to be brought into Suisun City if county land-use rules block construction.

To press its case, California Forever has enlisted two prominent Democratic figures with deep experience in state environmental law: former Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and former Senate Majority Leader Bob Hertzberg. The developers are arguing that California must move quickly to compete with Texas and other states for a potential shipbuilding tenant.

The company’s pitch now centers on Saronic Technologies Inc., a defense firm that makes autonomous vessels for national security uses and is considering whether to build its next factory in California or Texas. Supporters say a fast-track process is needed to keep the company, and the jobs it could bring, in California.

The latest proposal marks another shift for California Forever, which has spent nearly a decade advancing the idea of a new community in eastern Solano County. The initial vision emphasized a walkable city with homes, bike lanes and neighborhood amenities. Over time, the plan expanded to include a shipbuilding complex and a manufacturing district.

Backers include the state’s influential building trades unions, real estate interests, peace officers and pro-housing advocates. They argue the project could generate major economic growth and, according to a Bay Area economic analysis, eventually support hundreds of thousands of jobs statewide.

Steinberg and Hertzberg said the developers are seeking permission to rely on a 2008 environmental impact report for the shipyard site, cap legal challenges to the project at 270 days and allow Suisun City to annex California Forever-owned land if necessary.

In a letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders, supporters warned that without action, California could lose billions of dollars in investment and tens of thousands of jobs to Texas and other states as soon as this summer.

But the proposal has drawn sharp criticism from local residents, environmental advocates and some lawmakers, who say the public has not been given enough information about a project that would transform large stretches of farmland and sensitive habitat.

State Sen. Christopher Cabaldon, a Napa Democrat whose district includes the area, said a project of this size and location is precisely the kind of development that should undergo a full review under the California Environmental Quality Act.

“A central question for the people of Solano County is: Is this going to be for the community or is this a conversion project that leaves them behind?” Cabaldon said.

Opponents also accuse California Forever of trying to bypass local voters by negotiating with state officials. Since 2018, the company and its affiliates have quietly acquired tens of thousands of acres in Solano County. The project’s backers were not publicly identified until 2023, when they were revealed to include wealthy venture capitalists and technology figures led by Jan Sramek, a former Goldman Sachs trader and real estate developer.

Among the investors is Marc Andreessen, co-founder of the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz. Andreessen also holds investments in Saronic, the defense company considering the Solano County location.

California Forever’s land-buying campaign began through a subsidiary, Flannery Associates, which eventually acquired about 62,000 acres. The secrecy surrounding those purchases created lasting distrust among farmers and residents, some of whom accused the company of using aggressive tactics to pressure landowners to sell.

The company’s original effort depended on winning local support because Solano County has an “orderly growth” policy, adopted by voters in 1984, that requires voter approval before development can occur on certain unincorporated agricultural lands.

In 2024, California Forever introduced the East Solano Plan, which proposed rezoning 17,500 acres for a dense new city that could house up to 400,000 people. The measure was expected to go before county voters, but the company withdrew it after organized opposition, weak polling and a county review that identified gaps in the proposal. Sramek later acknowledged the campaign had likely moved too quickly and said the plan would return to voters in 2026.

Since then, the company has reworked its strategy. The East Solano Plan has been reframed as the Suisun Expansion Plan and the Solano Shipyard. In January 2025, the Suisun City Council directed its city manager to explore annexing nearby land, a process that is now underway but could take years.

Critics say the annexation approach appears designed to avoid the countywide vote required under Solano’s growth rules.

“The annexation and the ship building have been a clear way to work around the need for voter support in Solano County,” said Nate Huntington, a member of Solano Together, a grassroots group formed in response to the land purchases.

Huntington noted that California Forever has not submitted a formal shipyard proposal to the county.

“All of this has been happening in backrooms of Sacramento, and it’s not been publicly available,” he said.

California Forever is now presenting the project to state leaders as a rare chance to attract advanced manufacturing and defense-related shipbuilding to California, along with new housing for workers.

Steinberg and Hertzberg said legislation is being considered but would move forward only after California Forever signs a lease with a manufacturer or shipbuilder. Their proposal would allow the governor to designate construction on the company’s land as an “environmental leadership development project,” a category that accelerates court review of legal challenges. Steinberg authored the 2013 law that created that streamlined process.

California law generally requires public agencies to prepare environmental studies for projects that may significantly affect land, air, water, wildlife or surrounding communities. Rather than initiating a new environmental review for the shipyard, Steinberg and Hertzberg’s approach would rely on a 2008 Solano County report that identified part of the area for water-dependent industrial use. Most of California Forever’s planned 7,500-acre shipyard footprint does not carry that designation.

Steinberg said the older report remains adequate because the site has not substantially changed. Requiring a new report, he said, would add years of delay and could cost California major economic opportunities.

Cabaldon disagreed, saying the current proposal is significantly different from what was considered nearly two decades ago.

“Just the notion that you would just say, ‘We are not going to do any assessments at all and we’ll just rely on this old one’ — that is not consistent with what the public interest is,” he said.

The proposal also calls for housing tied to the jobs that supporters say the shipyard and manufacturing projects would create. Steinberg and Hertzberg said nearby cities and Solano County would have the first opportunity to approve housing. If local governments could not meet the timeline sought by employers, Suisun City could annex adjacent California Forever land as a last resort.

That provision is one of the most controversial pieces of the plan because it could allow development to proceed outside the county’s voter-approved growth process.

“The shipbuilders and manufacturers need certainty on a much faster timeline,” Steinberg said.

Cabaldon questioned whether the housing argument is grounded in realistic job projections, noting that Saronic works in automation. He said there has been no evidence that the project would generate enough ongoing jobs to require housing on the scale California Forever has proposed.

The company gained a major political ally in January when it announced a 40-year agreement with the Napa/Solano Building Trades Council and the Northern California Carpenters Union to use union labor on the development. The deal brought powerful labor organizations into the campaign for state action.

Labor support intensified after a county court in Texas approved substantial tax incentives aimed at attracting Saronic to Brownsville. Saronic has said its search for a new site remains active.

The California Alliance for Jobs, a coalition of construction companies and workers, recently sent letters urging legislative leaders to accelerate approval of the California Forever expansion and shipyard.

“We champed at the bit to go all in to get this project moving, and to get legislation through Sacramento this session,” said Joshua Arce, the alliance’s chief executive.

Suisun City Councilmember Princess Washington, who has consistently opposed the annexation effort, said she believes labor support is being used to pressure officials into approving the project quickly.

“Processes are slow, but they’re done that way through government to ensure that it’s being done correctly, that all parties of interest are being treated fairly, and there’s checks and balances,” Washington said.

California Forever spokesperson Jim Wunderman said in a statement that any shipyard project would follow California environmental and land-use laws. He said county supervisors already approved use of the 2008 environmental document and that legislation would help the project meet prospective employers’ timelines.

Wunderman also said that directing growth through Suisun City is consistent with local preferences for placing new development within existing cities.

California Forever has maintained a steady presence in Sacramento. Since 2024, the company has spent at least $330,000 lobbying the Legislature and governor’s office on bills and related government actions, according to campaign finance records.

Steinberg and Hertzberg said they were hired in April as special counsel rather than lobbyists, meaning they spend less than one-third of their time communicating with public officials.

Jordan Grimes, legislative director for Greenbelt Alliance, said he was disappointed to see Steinberg advocating for the project. The environmental group has supported streamlining reviews for housing but has opposed California Forever’s proposal.

California Forever reported spending $90,000 last year lobbying the governor’s office and the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development, known as GO-Biz, on federal shipbuilding activity and business attraction efforts in California.

GO-Biz spokesperson Willie Rudman said the agency has discussed state incentive programs with Saronic and explained how they work, but does not offer incentive packages to individual companies.

Last fall, GO-Biz helped organize a bid to bring Saronic to Solano County. County staff said during a Board of Supervisors meeting that the agency supported a legislative effort that would override the county’s orderly growth law. Supervisors moved quickly to adjust boundaries for the proposed Solano Shipyard, but Assemblymember Lori Wilson, a Democrat from Suisun City, said there was not enough time left in the legislative session to introduce a bill.

Wilson said the proposal has remained under discussion since then, but that California Forever has not requested action from her office.

Cabaldon said warnings that California could lose the shipyard to Texas are a familiar negotiating tactic in economic development. He said Saronic’s final decision is more likely to be driven by national defense needs than state incentives.

“We have to negotiate with our eyes open,” he said.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Tech Billionaires Turn to Democratic Insiders in Revived Bid to Build Bay Area City appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.