California Forever hired two Democratic power brokers — and their specific Sacramento ask is now on record. The Suisun City stakes just changed again.

In late May 2026, the Suisun City Council voted to sell seven downtown waterfront parcels to California Forever for approximately $1.14 million. California Forever is the Silicon Valley-backed development group that has accumulated more than 50,000 acres of eastern Solano County farmland over the past several years. The purchase covers a few blocks near the waterfront. The project behind it is a different scale entirely.

The bigger bet: 22,873 acres and a city of 400,000

California Forever is pursuing a proposal to annex approximately 22,873 acres of its eastern Solano land into Suisun City — land that sits adjacent to Travis Air Force Base. The plan envisions new neighborhoods, commercial areas, open space, and roughly 1,400 acres of industrial park, with a buffer zone protecting Travis AFB operations. About a quarter of the annexed acreage would be set aside for that buffer. The proposed population at full build-out: 400,000 people — which would make this one of the largest proposed city expansions in California’s modern history.

How the money works

Under the agreement the city has signed, California Forever pays an initial $400,000, with a $10 million payment contingent on LAFCO — the county’s Local Agency Formation Commission — ultimately approving the annexation. The downtown property purchase is a separate transaction, framed by California Forever as investment in the existing waterfront independent of the larger annexation talks.

When this actually becomes housing

An Environmental Impact Report is currently being prepared, with completion expected by end of 2026. After that, the LAFCO process takes an estimated six to 18 months. A best-case scenario puts the earliest construction start at late 2027 or 2028. This is not a near-term housing supply story for Solano County. It is a long-horizon land use story — the kind that moves land values slowly, then suddenly.

Community reaction: divided

The public opinion picture is contested — and two polls that ran simultaneously in early 2026 tell very different stories. An FM3 Research poll of 400 Suisun City residents, commissioned by the Greenbelt Alliance (which opposes the project), found 58 percent opposed to the expansion. A Fulcrum Strategy Group poll of 800 likely Solano County voters, commissioned by California Forever itself, found 51 percent initially in support, rising to 59 percent after a brief description of the project was provided. Both polls were reported in mid-April 2026 by the Press Democrat and the Daily Republic. The gap reflects different geographies (Suisun City voters versus the broader county electorate), different sample sizes, different question framing, and opposing commissioning parties. A poll that rises after "more information" is provided also raises questions about the framing of that information. Neither number should be taken at face value — but together they confirm that this project is genuinely contested. Activists have called for a direct public vote on the expansion plan, while some waterfront business owners see the California Forever investment as long-overdue economic activity in an underbuilt downtown.

What changed since May: LAFCO pumps the brakes

Two developments since the downtown parcel sale have complicated the road forward. Solano County's LAFCO — which must approve any annexation petition — has asked Suisun City to pause its process while the county updates its own General Plan. The county board is not supportive of the California Forever project, and LAFCO is composed of county-appointed members; a pause request at this stage signals the environmental and regulatory tracks are not running in parallel as smoothly as proponents hoped. Separately, Rio Vista's mayor publicly broke with Suisun City's approach in May 2026, arguing that California Forever's annexation should have been directed to Rio Vista instead. Inter-city politics are now a live variable in the LAFCO calculus. The draft EIR — which received 616 pages of public comment from 38 individuals and organizations raising concerns about water supply, traffic, and regional biodiversity — has not been released for final public review as of early June 2026.

One political question resolved: the recall didn't make the ballot

After the council voted to explore the California Forever annexation, opponents organized a recall campaign targeting all five Suisun City council members — Mayor Alma Hernandez and the four colleagues who backed the process. Recall notices were served in mid-2025, giving organizers 160 days to collect the signatures needed to force a ballot election. By the February 17, 2026 deadline, no signatures had been submitted. Organizers acknowledged they came up "a few hundred signatures short of our goal." The council remains intact as of mid-2026. Whatever one thinks of the project, that removes one near-term variable: the elected officials who entered the annexation agreement are the ones who will carry it — or kill it — through the rest of this process.

What it means for Solano real estate right now

For buyers and owners in Solano County, there are two timescales to track. In the near term, this project has no direct effect on supply or prices — the EIR isn’t finished, LAFCO hasn’t acted, and no home will be framed for years. But for investors evaluating land or long-hold properties in eastern Solano — especially near the proposed annexation area or Travis AFB — the context has shifted. Land pricing eventually catches up to approved development expectations. The time to understand that geography is before the LAFCO vote, not after.

One more Solano data point: in late May, the Vallejo City Council unanimously approved increasing the unit count at the Fairview at Northgate mixed-use development — anchored by an incoming Costco at Admiral Callaghan Lane — from 178 to 245 homes. The Costco ribbon-cutting is expected this fall; home construction starts 2027.

The EIR isn’t done. LAFCO hasn’t voted. But money is already moving — and now so are lobbyists.

June 2026: California Forever takes the fight to Sacramento

The most significant new development in this story has nothing to do with Suisun City’s planning department or the LAFCO review track. According to the Sierra Club Redwood Chapter — which opposes the project — and a June 2026 opinion column in the Daily Republic, California Forever’s lobbyists are working in Sacramento to secure a CEQA exemption covering an estimated 19,000 of the 22,873 acres in the Suisun City annexation footprint. The most likely mechanism, critics say: a last-minute budget rider bill, using the same approach that created CEQA exemptions for advanced manufacturing projects in 2025. Opposition groups also warn the proposed legislation could remove both Solano County’s and LAFCO’s authority to make decisions on the annexation.

Both reporting sources are organized opponents of the project — read their framing accordingly. But the fact that California Forever’s lobbyists are active in Sacramento is documented, and the structural logic is real: a March 2026 analysis by California City News, headlined "Did Suisun City Just Create a Loophole for the ‘California Forever’ Project?", traced how the Suisun City annexation path already moves the project from county jurisdiction to city jurisdiction — bypassing the Solano County voter approval that current county law would otherwise require. If the Sacramento legislation passes, the multi-year EIR timeline and the LAFCO opposition-controlled board become irrelevant. If it fails before the state budget deadline, the existing track is still the path — with all the same obstacles.

Meanwhile, the project itself advanced earlier in 2026. California Forever filed a final, more-than-250-page annexation application to Suisun City on October 3, 2025 — including a fire protection plan and proposed amendments to Suisun City’s general plan — and the Suisun City Council approved a further reimbursement agreement with California Forever in early 2026, despite explicit pushback from Solano County officials. Activists separately filed to place an advisory vote on the November 2026 ballot asking Solano County voters to weigh in on the expansion plan.

Late June 2026: California Forever hires Democratic power brokers — and the specific ask is on the record

On June 25, 2026, CalMatters and Capital Radio / PBS KVIE reported that California Forever has placed two of Sacramento’s most prominent Democratic dealmakers on its payroll as special counsel: Darrell Steinberg, the former Senate President Pro Tem, close Newsom ally, and former Sacramento mayor — and Bob Hertzberg, the former Assembly Speaker. Both had been involved informally before being officially brought onto the payroll.

For the first time, California Forever’s specific legislative requests are publicly on the record, stated directly by Steinberg and Hertzberg to CalMatters. The company wants Sacramento to do three specific things: (1) allow the project to use an existing 18-year-old environmental impact report for the Mare Island shipyard area, rather than completing a new full CEQA review; (2) cap any legal challenges to the project at 270 days, via a designation as an "environmental leadership development project" — a mechanism Steinberg himself wrote into state law in 2013; and (3) authorize Suisun City to proceed with annexing California Forever’s land if the city approves it. The budget-rider theory floated by opposition groups does not appear to be the primary mechanism: the Steinberg 2013 statute can be invoked independently of the budget process.

The project’s pitch has continued to evolve. What began as a proposal for a walkable residential city with cottages and bike lanes has expanded to include large-scale shipbuilding — timed to federal investment in American maritime capacity and Congressman Garamendi’s SHIPS Act — and now includes a significant manufacturing hub component as well. The shipbuilding angle appears central to the Sacramento strategy: connecting the project to federal economic priorities provides political cover that a residential development alone never could.

June 29: Newsom signs the budget — no California Forever provision included

Governor Newsom signed the 2026-27 California state budget on June 29, 2026 — one day after the CalMatters story broke about the lobbyist hiring. No California Forever provision appeared in the signed budget or its trailer bills. The specific legislative vehicles the team was working toward — a governor designation as an ‘environmental leadership development project,’ authorization for Suisun City’s annexation, and reuse of an 18-year-old EIR — were not attached to the budget. The immediate Sacramento window closed without a deal.

July 2026: The condition, the Texas threat, and what’s next

As of July 2, 2026, the Sacramento push continues — but with a significant condition. Steinberg and Hertzberg have stated they will push for legislation only after California Forever first secures a signed lease with a manufacturer or shipbuilder. That lease has not been announced publicly. On June 25, California Forever also added two former Newsom administration aides to its team, deepening its Sacramento influence network beyond Steinberg and Hertzberg.

The urgency behind the push has sharpened with a concrete competitive threat. Saronic Technologies — a drone-ship defense company with more than $400 million in Navy contracts, backed in part by Marc Andreessen (whose firm also invested in California Forever) — is reportedly being offered $3.2 billion in Texas incentives to build its shipyard in Brownsville rather than Solano County. A trades and labor coalition has written to Newsom and legislative leaders requesting state tax incentives to compete with Texas. California Forever’s pitch has now explicitly reframed: this is less about a residential city and more about not losing strategic manufacturing capacity to another state.

Saronic has formally named the California site ’Port Alpha’ — a facility the company envisions producing autonomous vessels more than 1,000 feet long, with production potentially beginning as early as 2028. The company’s engagement with the California location goes beyond lobbying: Bay Nature reported in June 2026 that Saronic brought Suisun City’s mayor and city manager to tour its Louisiana facilities — and had both officials sign non-disclosure agreements about the trip before it took place. The NDA requirement signals that Saronic treats its site-selection deliberations as commercially sensitive. An in-person trip by top Suisun City officials, under NDA, to Saronic’s existing facilities is the most concrete evidence to date that California is a live option for the company — not merely a negotiating chip against Texas.

Meanwhile, Solano County’s LAFCO — still controlled by county appointees who have opposed the project — has invited Suisun City to participate in a county General Plan summit scheduled for August 2026. Whether Suisun City participates, and what that summit produces, is the next local milestone to watch. The EIR and LAFCO tracks are running on a very different timeline than the Sacramento lobbying effort.

July 8, 2026: Suisun City receives EIR briefing — public comment window approaching

At the July 8, 2026 Suisun City Council meeting, officials received a status update on the environmental impact report for California Forever’s proposed annexation. The Press Democrat reported the EIR is nearing completion. California Forever CEO Jan Sramek had previously said the document would exceed 12,000 pages — one of the largest EIRs ever prepared for a California annexation. Once the draft EIR is released, it enters a mandatory 60-day public comment period, after which Suisun City will respond to comments and schedule public hearings before the LAFCO process can formally advance. No public release date has been announced.

My read for clients: the Sacramento team is now larger, the urgency is real, and the Texas threat gives California Forever a political argument that residential development alone could never make. But the condition — sign a lease first, legislation follows — means the next catalyst is a Saronic-or-equivalent deal announcement, not a Sacramento vote. Nothing about that changes the near-term Solano County real estate picture for buyers and sellers today. For anyone evaluating land or a long-hold position in eastern Solano — especially near Travis AFB or within the annexation footprint — this is still the conversation to have before the outcome is known, not after. Call me and I’ll walk through what each scenario means for the specific property you’re looking at.

July 16, 2026: Saronic picks Texas — the shipbuilding anchor is gone

On July 16, 2026, Saronic Technologies formally announced the Port of Brownsville, Texas as the site for its $3.2 billion Port Alpha shipyard — ending its California site evaluation after a 17-state search. Cameron County approved $211 million in tax abatements (a 95% abatement over 20 years), and the deal is projected to create more than 10,000 direct jobs. Construction at Port Alpha is slated to begin in 2026, with operations starting in 2028.

California Forever and the trades and labor coalition issued a joint statement that read in part: ’Out of 17 states, California had easily the best site and was one of two finalists for the 10,000 job opportunity, but local and state government leaders did not pass the legislation in time.’ The coalition is calling for Sacramento to pass a summer legislative trailer bill.

Easily the best site. One of two finalists. Still lost — because the legislation wasn’t ready.

The residential annexation track — EIR, LAFCO, Suisun City council — continues on its own timeline. Saronic’s Texas announcement doesn’t directly change where that process stands. But the political argument that made Sacramento pay attention (lose this to Texas) is harder to make without a named tenant. California Forever says it is continuing to pursue other shipbuilding and manufacturing tenants for the industrial acreage.

My read for clients: Saronic choosing Texas is a done fact, not a threat anymore. The near-term Solano County market — buying, selling, pricing — is not changed by this. But for anyone evaluating land or a long-hold position in eastern Solano, the scenario analysis is different today than it was a week ago. The next catalyst for the Sacramento track is either a new signed-tenant announcement or a trailer bill — neither runs on a real estate calendar. Call me and I’ll give you a straight read on what it means for the specific parcel you’re looking at.