California Forever Seeks Last-Minute Legislative Relief to Move Forward with Solano County Development

At the brink of the August session, California Forever—backed by Silicon Valley investors—is urging state lawmakers to grant a legislative lifeline that could transform a 17,500‑acre parcel in Solano County, roughly equidistant between San Francisco and Sacramento. The proposal envisions a shipyard, a cluster of industrial facilities, and workforce housing for up to 400,000 residents.

The developers’ request calls for emergency action that would trim portions of California’s environmental review process and establish a neutral arbitration mechanism for tax‑sharing disputes. They seek a 270‑day timeline for the shipyard’s environmental review, the use of a 2008 impact report for that component, and binding arbitration if cities and counties cannot agree on how to divide tax revenue. According to the developers, the changes would reduce uncertainty and give businesses confidence that the project can move forward.

Supporters argue that the revised process could attract high‑wage manufacturing and shipbuilding jobs while addressing the state’s long‑standing housing shortage. They point to the potential for thousands of jobs and the creation of workforce housing for those workers.

Opposition has coalesced around a coalition called Solano Forever, which includes local residents, city leaders, and environmental groups. In a statement, the coalition urged Governor Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders to reject the proposed changes, saying that “advancing these proposals at the last minute would be extraordinarily harmful to Solano County communities and the environment.” The group also called for a full legislative process and greater transparency.

California Forever has enlisted former state lawmakers Bob Hertzberg, a former Speaker of the Assembly, and Darrell Steinberg, a former President Pro Tem of the Senate and former mayor of Sacramento, to advocate for the project. In interviews, the two former lawmakers said they believe the project is a statewide issue that could help fill California’s housing and job gaps.

The developers have also highlighted that the project would not proceed without commitments from major employers. Saronic Technologies, a company that had been considering the California Forever site, ultimately chose to build a factory in Brownsville, Texas, citing the lack of legislative support.

The project’s size has drawn scrutiny. The developers say the site is five times the size of Manhattan and would include a shipyard and industrial facilities. They emphasize that the goal is not to build a massive new city but to create enough housing to support one or two major employers.

Environmental concerns remain significant. Critics point to potential impacts on local water supplies, land use, and marshlands. The lack of local voter approval is also a point of contention; a ballot measure for the project was removed from the 2024 ballot.

The developers’ plan includes a budget‑trailer bill that would expedite the process, but such bills bypass the usual vetting and take effect as soon as the governor signs them. The legislative session’s short timeline raises questions about whether the public will have sufficient time to review the proposal.

The debate over California Forever reflects broader tensions in California between large‑scale development projects and local community interests. While the developers emphasize economic growth and job creation, opponents stress the need for environmental safeguards and community input.

As the legislative session closes, the outcome of California Forever’s request remains uncertain. The state’s lawmakers will need to weigh the potential economic benefits against the environmental and community concerns that have already sparked organized opposition.

The next steps for the project will depend on whether any legislative action is taken before the session ends. If lawmakers approve the proposed changes, the developers would still need to secure commitments from major employers and complete the environmental review process.

For now, California Forever’s future hangs in the balance as state officials consider the trade‑offs between rapid development and the protections that have long governed California’s growth.