California Forever withdraws initiative after report projects taxpayer burden, environmental concerns

FAIRFIELD – California Forever withdrew a voter initiative to rezone 17,500 acres of agricultural land for an urban development on Monday after preliminary review of the proposal highlighted environmental concerns and projected it would cause nearly $200 million in annual county and agency deficits. 

Solano County Board of Supervisors Chair Mitch Mashburn said in a statement that he had reached an agreement with California Forever CEO Jan Sramek to withdraw the initiative, which would have appeared on the November ballot, and instead the county would conduct a full environmental impact report and negotiate a development agreement as part of the county’s normal process to amend the general plan and zoning code.

“We recognize now that it’s possible to reorder these steps without impacting our ambitious timeline,” Sramek said. “Instead, we will work with the County to prepare the Environmental Impact Report and Development Agreement over the next two years, and then bring the full package back for approval in 2026.”

Mashburn praised Sramek for his willingness to make adjustments in the planning and approval process. He said that for California Forever to “seek a vote on the November 2024 ballot, without a full Environmental Impact Report and a fully negotiated Development Agreement, was a mistake.”

“This politicized the entire project, made it difficult for us and our staff to work with them, and forced everyone in our community to take sides,” Mashburn added.

Solano Together, an organization that formed to oppose the project, released a statement describing California Forever’s withdrawal of the initiative as a win for community members, farmers and local leaders who spoke out against the project.

“California Forever knew the impact of their proposal on traffic, Travis Air Force Base, the environment, agriculture, existing cities, and more.” the statement from Solano Together said. “Instead of taking the time to deeply engage in a transparent process of what their proposal means to the county, they decided to deceive the public to try and get the initiative passed.”

The announcement came days after the county released a report on the initiative that the Board of Supervisors requested last month. The report found that the cost for the county to provide services to the unincorporated city would outstrip the additional revenue generated from the new residents and businesses, leading to annual deficits for the county and the area’s fire district. 

The report estimated that the annual costs for the county to provide services to 50,000 residents as expected in the first stage of development would be $71 million while county revenues from the project would be only $65 million. At its full buildout of 400,000 residents, the report predicted that the county’s service costs would be $634 million while revenue would be $531 million, creating an annual shortfall of $103 million.

The report takes into account property tax revenue based on increased property values related to the development as well as sales tax and other revenue. 

The report states it is possible to cover some of the service costs through the Community Finance Districts, as the initiative proposed, but those funding mechanisms are limited and utilizing that funding for services would reduce funding available to pay bonds for development of the new city’s costly infrastructure.

The county also predicted major funding shortfalls for fire and emergency services provided by the Montezuma Fire Protection District. The report projected a $6.5 million annual deficit for the agency when serving 50,000 residents and an $88.8 million deficit when serving 400,000 residents at full buildout.

The county’s report noted a number of potential environmental impacts, including water quality impacts to the Suisun Marsh, which is located near the southwestern edge of the project site. It also pointed out potential impacts to critical bird migration corridors and plant and animal species that utilize the sensitive vernal pool habitat located throughout the project area. 

The report’s analysis of infrastructure indicated exceptionally high development costs of $6.4 billion to support the first 50,000 residents and $49.1 billion at full buildout. It estimated that $2.2 billion would be needed to improve roads and highways outside the new community in its first phase and $17.6 billion would be needed at full buildout. Without the improvements to sections of highway surrounding the project, it would cause increased accident and mortality rates, high congestion and highway speeds of 35 mph.

The report also emphasized over a decade of detours and high levels of traffic related to construction projects required for the new city. The report noted that the congestion could pose an accessibility threat to Travis Air Force Base by restricting the movement of equipment and materials to and from the base.

Throughout the report, the county noted that much of the information needed to accurately analyze many elements of the project is not available and more comprehensive study is necessary to fully gauge the project's impacts.

Duane Kromm, former county supervisor and member of the Solano County Orderly Growth Committee as well as a member of Solano Together, said that he believes that California Forever was not getting the polling numbers they had hoped for and decided to cut their losses with a different approach. 

Along with their Sramek’s statement about withdrawing the initiative, California Forever included a poll from Impact Research, which surveyed 400 likely voters from July 19 to 21. According to the poll 48% of those surveyed strongly support the initiative with an additional 17% that were somewhat supportive of it.

However, a poll conducted by research group FM3 in early March indicated that 70% of Solano County voters opposed the measure.

Sramek’s statement also noted that 54% of respondents agreed that an environmental impact report should be conducted before making a decision on whether to move forward with the project.

“This creates opportunities to incorporate additional community input,” said Sramek. “And then provide everyone with access to objective analysis, and the full terms of the Development Agreement, including the community benefits.”

According to Kromm, the path to a general plan amendment still requires a decision by Solano County voters because of requirements outlined in the County’s Orderly Growth Initiative, which sunsets in December 2028.

“If Solano County residents want to continue to protect farmland and open space through voter protection we need to all work together to extend the orderly growth initiative before the 2028 expiration,” Kromm said.