This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.
Last September, at their final meeting before the legislative session ended, Solano County supervisors were pressed to endorse state legislation — right away.
Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office had blessed a legislative proposal to fast-track a new shipyard along the Northern California county’s waterfront, and supervisors needed to decide if they would support it. But the board had just received the draft language hours before, so, after a 15-minute break to read the documents and an hour of public commentary, Supervisor Wanda Williams asked whether she could suggest changes.
“I don’t think we got time. We got 10 minutes,” said then-Board Chair Mitch Mashburn, gesturing toward the clock.
The shipyard was a pitch by California Forever, the tech billionaire-backed brainchild of a Czech-born entrepreneur named Jan Sramek. Since it began quietly purchasing Solano County land in 2018, the company has spent $1 billion acquiring nearly 70,000 acres — more than 10% of the county.
Initially, Sramek pitched the idea of building a dense, walkable city of 400,000 people with good-paying local jobs. Later, he added to the proposal a significant manufacturing hub and a state-of-the-art shipyard. From the start, local residents put up a fight: many were distrustful of the group’s secretive beginnings, antagonistic relationship with farmers, and possible risks the project posed to the environment.
The supervisors’ vote followed two weeks of aggressive lobbying by California Forever representatives, who pressured county staff to support state legislation they had not seen, accused them of delaying the process and said they’d be responsible for the loss of 10,000 potential jobs and billions of dollars in revenue, according to email and text exchanges obtained by CalMatters.
In the end, supervisors supported a last-minute bill they had barely read so they could at least have a say in the development they believed Sacramento might force down their throat within days.
“As much as I have to throw up in my mouth a little bit and swallow that, and I’m sorry to use that analogy for everybody, I have to say that yes, I want us to be able to have a voice,” said Mashburn, before voting in favor.
The records offer a glimpse into how California Forever has leveraged the prospect of economic development to pressure local officials into supporting its legislative agenda, often against a tight timeline.
Now, in the final weeks of this year’s legislative session, California Forever is again pushing for quick action.
Urgent legislation, again
California Forever’s Director of Partnerships Michael Fortney defended last year’s urgency, saying that the region’s high unemployment rate — the highest in the Bay Area — and a series of departures of major employers such as Budweiser and Valero, “were not reasons to move slower.”
“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 representatives declined to be interviewed for this story, instead sending written responses to CalMatters’ questions.
Opponents of California Forever argue that the project’s constant rush for approvals gives project leaders the ability to steamroll public officials.
“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 Solano County supervisor between 1999 and 2007 and critic of California Forever.
“You wouldn’t buy a used car with that kind of timeframe.”
Four of the five county supervisors declined to comment on last year’s push by California Forever. Board Chair Monica Brown said she didn’t want to jeopardize her ability to vote on future items related to California Forever, but said little had changed since she addressed the company in 2024 when the company dropped its proposed ballot measure to change the land’s zoning.
“This has been stressful not only to those of us up on the dais but (to) our workers,” she says in a video of the remarks. “How dare you come in here with your arrogance. You didn’t even listen. There is a process.”
In a statement, county spokesperson Matthew Davis told CalMatters that “while advocacy for project proposals is common, the level and urgency of the advocacy surrounding this legislative proposal were not typical of the county’s experience.”
California Forever is now close to getting what it wanted last September.
Newsom’s office began circulating a legislative proposal last week that would streamline environmental review of the shipyard development, according to a source directly involved with the negotiations who has reviewed the language. The move comes after weeks of private meetings with California Forever, county leaders and state representatives.
But California Forever says the shipyard isn’t enough anymore. It’s now asking the state to help fast-track its proposed advanced manufacturing hub, which could house industries from AI hardware to aerospace and defense, and also expedite building the new city, which the company argues is vital to accommodate the workers the industrial projects would bring.
“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 business association Bay Area Council, by email.
If a deal does come together, Solano County Administrator Ian Goldberg said he expects county supervisors will be able to weigh in again — next week, in their last meeting before the end of the legislative session.
A race against time
In late August 2025, state officials learned that Saronic Technologies Inc., a defense start-up with several lucrative U.S. Navy contracts, was planning a visit to Solano County. The company had just picked the county as a finalist for its $3.2 billion shipyard project, but worried that California’s stringent environmental regulations would stall the development.
The only solution was special legislation to speed up environmental review for the project before the legislative session wrapped on Sept. 12, Sramek said in an Aug. 29 email to Solano County staff.
He wanted the project to rely on a 2008 environmental impact report which designated some of the county’s waterfront for “water-dependent industrial usage,” instead of commissioning a new report for the shipyard, which he said could take up to five years. State law requires those reports for any project that might significantly harm the environment. In recent years, the Legislature has increasingly approved expedited permitting for housing, but not for industrial development.
Over the next two weeks, California Forever representatives mounted a multi-front campaign, including emails, phone calls and texts, to pressure county officials to support legislation.
On Sept. 1, 2025, Fortney sent an email to county staff saying they had to decide whether to support the legislative idea that very day. The governor’s office, Sen. Christopher Cabaldon and Assemblymember Lori Wilson, both Democrats who represent the region, and several county supervisors would all be on board if county staff said yes, he said.
“We want to be very clear that the fate of 10,000+ jobs is solely in your hands,” Fortney wrote to county staff.
But there was no proposal language for staff to evaluate, Bill Emlen, then the county administrator, responded. “This is not the way to make public policy.”
Fortney in turn accused county staff of slowwalking the process and presenting “excuse after excuse.” He stressed that the county would be free to approve or deny developments in the shipyard area under the proposal.
“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?” Fortney said. “Staff being the sole party in Solano County that’s delaying this is starting to create serious risk that this is why we run out of time to pass this and lose the opportunity.”
Later that night, Fortney again pressed Emlen in an email. “If you fail to timely do so and the county loses the opportunity for a $3bn investment and 10,000+ jobs, even though 27 local leaders and labor have already backed this in the last 3 days, the responsibility will be on you.”
On the morning of Sept. 3, 2025, Sramek sent county staff a draft proposal for the first time and announced he would be at the county office in less than three hours to discuss it. County staff should want to meet, he argued, because the revenue from the shipyard alone would single-handedly plug the county’s $44 million budget hole. He accused them of ignoring calls from California Forever and “running out the clock.”
Goldberg, then-assistant county administrator, refused to meet.
“As you will appreciate, our staff must dedicate time this morning to carefully review and evaluate the language,” Goldberg said in response.
Not letting up
The same day, Wilson and Cabaldon both declined to introduce legislation, citing the need for more time to flesh out the idea. But California Forever didn’t stop working toward a deal.
The group sent out a text poll that day to likely voters, asking them whether the county was heading in the right direction, what their biggest concern was, and whether they would support legislation to allow a new shipyard project, which would “bring billions of dollars of investments and over 10,000 permanent jobs to our county.” The special legislation was needed “to meet national security standards and break ground in 2026.”
Fifty-five percent of the 342 poll’s early respondents said yes, about 22 percent said no, and another 22% were unsure, according to results published in the Fairfield Daily Republic.
Following the poll, Fortney emailed at least one county supervisor: “As you’ve seen through the polling, there is overwhelming support for this in Solano County. Nearing 60% of voters here want this, with only about 20% opposed, a margin of 3:1.”
In an email to CalMatters last week, Fortney said he continued to push because “when 10,000 jobs are at stake, I think everyone in this community should give 150% until the clock runs out.”
On Sept. 8, 2025, county staff finally reached an agreement with California Forever and the governor’s office on a revised draft proposal, even though they told the company’s lobbyist they were “not totally enthused” with the language. That evening, Cabaldon proposed amendments to the legislation that were more favorable to the county.
During a board meeting the following day, several county supervisors said they felt rushed into making a decision despite many unaddressed concerns. They reluctantly voted to support the legislation less than two hours after reading it for the first time, with Cabaldon’s last-minute amendments. The final product preserved the county’s ability to require environmental studies and permits for certain areas of the project, Mashburn told fellow supervisors.
Ultimately, California Forever deemed the amendments too restrictive.
“The legislation as voted on would not have attracted any shipbuilders,” Wunderman said in an email last week.
Kromm said the group was “threatening” county officials. “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,” he said.
Princess Washington, a councilmember from Suisun City who opposes that city’s plan to annex California Forever land for development, said rushing can be an effective tactic.
“The one rushing the decision has the advantage,” she said.
Local governments are divided
Urgency is just what Suisun City Manager Bret Prebula believes his city needs.
The 4-square-mile city, boxed in by marshes, the city of Fairfield and Travis Air Force Base, has struggled for decades to stay solvent. City leaders have banked on infill projects, state redevelopment funds and sales taxes to raise revenue, but it has always seemed one step from bankruptcy.
The only solution, Prebula said, is to expand. So in January 2025, he called California Forever.
The two hatched a bold plan: Let Suisun City annex the company’s more than 22,000 acres of unincorporated county farmland into the city boundaries. The proposal — now going through the process as the Suisun Expansion Plan — would offer California Forever a path to build its projects without requiring approval from skeptical county voters.
In turn, California Forever has promised to pay the city $10 million in “public benefits” funding — roughly a third of the city’s annual operating budget, on top of reimbursing the city for costs of exploring the annexation, according to a June 2025 agreement the company signed with the city. The company would pay $3.5 million once the city completes a report assessing the environmental impact of the annexation and another $6.5 million if the annexation is approved.
Prebula said the deal would also bring the city millions of dollars in tax revenue if and when the land is developed. But Suisun City could wait years for that due to the state’s strict environmental regulations and the drawn-out annexation process, Prebula said.
“My city is an example of how bureaucracy and politics can stop a city from thriving on its own,” he told CalMatters.
While Prebula views California Forever as a golden opportunity for his city, leaders in neighboring Rio Vista feel squeezed just half a mile from the eastern border of Suisun City’s proposed expansion.
After Suisun City began exploring the annexation, Rio Vista leaders said they felt compelled to make a rival, “last-ditch” pitch — twice — to annex the land themselves, despite concerns about the project’s impact on traffic and the environment, to have some control over the development.
In response, California Forever said the city manager was running “rogue” and attempting to damage Suisun City’s plans.
“Rio Vista is the most impacted city,” Rio Vista Mayor Edwin Okamura told CalMatters. “Yet we don’t have any control over that project. (That) seems ludicrous.”
Wunderman dismissed Okamura’s concerns, arguing the company met “dozens of times” with Rio Vista officials, who “have many avenues” to weigh in through the regional annexation process, which allows room for public comment. The company also signed an agreement with the city last December to develop the land within and around city boundaries.
‘This cannot wait until next year’
State leaders may soon reach a new deal to help fast-track California Forever’s shipyard development.
The draft proposal from Newsom’s office would allow California Forever to rely on the 2008 environmental impact report, which designated 1,305 acres along the Delta shore for water-dependent industrial usage, for its shipyard, according to the source directly involved in the negotiations.
But since the area includes marshland unfit for development, the legislation would also allow county officials to reshape the water-dependent industrial zone to accommodate the shipbuilder’s needs, as long as the total acreage does not exceed 1,305 acres.
The proposal would also restrict any legal challenges to the shipyard project to 270 days and require state and local agencies to approve or deny development permits within a certain time period, some within 90 days. Any disputes over permits would have to be resolved within 45 days, according to the source.
When asked about the governor’s involvement in the project, Newsom spokesperson Tara Gallegos said the governor’s office doesn’t “usually comment on specific projects,” but added: “He’s pro-jobs and pro-building housing. There’s really not much mystery here.”
The governor also has deep ties to Silicon Valley dating to his time as the mayor of San Francisco in the 2000s. Titans in the tech sector — including Steve Jobs’ widow Laurene Powell Jobs, an early investor in California Forever — gave generously to his effort to fend off a recall in 2021, and would likely be allies in an anticipated presidential run.
Learn more about legislators mentioned in this story.
The proposed deal comes a month after Saronic announced it would start its shipbuilding project in Texas instead of Solano County, which California Forever blamed on state lawmakers’ lack of legislative action. The loss should serve as a “wake-up call that inaction and political gridlock have real costs for all Californians,” California Forever said in a statement urging state leaders to pass legislation this year.
A week later, the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (Go-Biz) touted Solano County as a “world-class industrial site” in a memo. It said that California Forever’s proposed advanced manufacturing hub and shipyard would together create 530,000 jobs statewide and contribute $4 billion annually in state revenue and $3 billion annually to local governments, citing an analysis by the Bay Area Council, a supporter of the project.
This year, California Forever spent months lobbying state officials and hired former Democratic legislative leaders Darrell Steinberg and Bob Hertzberg as “special counsel.” Solano County’s records show their staff have had at least 25 meetings with California Forever and/or Go-Biz about the shipbuilding proposal since December 2025.
The company reported spending $150,000 on lobbying between January and July 2026, a sum that does not include Steinberg and Hertzberg’s salaries, or other consultants’ fees.
Emails CalMatters obtained show California Forever did try to introduce a regular policy bill before the Legislature’s bill introduction deadline in February, at times asking the county to act as an intermediary with state legislators, but legislators declined to take up even a “spot bill,” to signal future intent.
In recent weeks, Newsom’s office has called multiple private meetings with county leaders, Cabaldon, Wilson, Go-Biz and California Forever, sources familiar with the discussion told CalMatters. The shipyard streamlining is the piece everyone can get behind, according to Cabaldon.
“We’ve insisted both years to focus on the shipbuilding opportunity, to the extent that there is one,” he said. Decisions about annexation would be left to the city and the local commission that oversees urban growth.
But California Forever wants the state to also help expedite its advanced manufacturing and proposed annexation for housing, arguing that drawing the line at the shipyard without guaranteeing worker housing for prospective employers “is a guarantee that these employment centers are approved on paper but never get built.”
“This cannot wait until next year,” a statement issued by California Forever read. “Passing this legislation in this legislative session is how California and Solano County demonstrate — not just claim — that we are open for business.”
As lawmakers hash out the details of a limited proposal mostly focused on the shipyard, California Forever has not stopped pitching its vision of a city on a hill.
On a podcast last month, Sramek said the group would likely open waiting lists at the end of 2026 or early next year for people who want to buy or rent property in the yet-to-be-approved city.
During a recent interview with KCRA 3, Hertzberg emphasized that the state’s intervention is 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.”
