Solano Supervisors order study of California Forever proposal at contentious meeting

FAIRFIELD – The Solano County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to order an impact report on the East Solano Plan, also known as California Forever, at a packed meeting on Tuesday afternoon.

The controversial plan to build a new city in rural land between Fairfield and Rio Vista was subject to intense scrutiny during the meeting, which was packed to capacity with hundreds of speakers, both for and against the project. Supervisor Mitch Mashburn said it was the first time the county ever had a meeting of its size. 

A billionaire-backed group advocating for the plan collected more than 20,000 signatures to place zoning changes for the proposed city on the November ballot, but the supervisors first must approve it. The supervisors opted to order the impact report over approving it outright or placing it on November’s ballot without alteration.

The impact report will provide voters with more details about the fiscal, logistical and environmental impacts of the proposal, which would rezone 17,500 acres of open space and farmland in East Solano County to allow the development of a community of up to 400,000 people and nearly double the current county population.

Members of the public who wished to speak at the meeting formed a long line at the Solano County Administration Center hours before the meeting began. The front of the line was saturated with people wearing green T-shirts that said “Yes to East Solano Plan – Jobs, Homes, Opportunity for all.”

California Forever set up three pop-up booths outside the Administration Center and handed out information about the project and tickets for free food from a nearby taco truck.

Opponents to the project appeared to outnumber those in favor, and included members of environmental groups like the Audubon Society, Solano Together and the Solano County Orderly Growth Committee. While waiting to enter the building they displayed signs that said “Flannery will get you nowhere,” “California 4Never,” and illustrations of species like the western burrowing owl and the vernal pool fairy shrimp that they say would be harmed by the project.

Project opponent Areanna Deloney expressed concern that the money project proponents are pouring into the campaign will overwhelm the voices of the opposition. “It's just new age modern colonialism,” she said. “This is not going to benefit me and my people, especially in the low income.”

Project supporter Mariam Khugiani, a realtor who said she sold property to California Forever founder and CEO Jan Sramek and has become good friends with Sramek and his wife, compared California Forever's planned city to the Southern California city of Irvine.

“I'm here because I'm supporting Jan Sramek,” Khugiani said. “I lived in Irvine for two years. That's a brand new city also. So this is how it started. And I loved living in Irvine.”

But the founding of Irvine began a bit differently from the California Forever plan, which has established no anchoring business or institution to support a new population. 

The Irvine Company had already begun to offer small parcels of the Irvine Ranch for development when the University of California requested 1,000 acres of land for a new campus in 1959. The university and the Irvine Company then collaborated to build an adjacent city of 50,000 people, which was completed in 1970. In 1971, community residents voted to incorporate a substantially larger city. Since that time the population has expanded to more than 300,000.

At the outset of the meeting, all of the supervisors expressed a preference for ordering a report on what County Administrator Bill Emien said may be one of the biggest entitlement requests in the history of California.

Supervisor Erin Hannigan, who represents Vallejo, expressed concern that the new community would pull growth opportunities and resources away from other cities, specifically Vallejo, which she described as “obviously having its challenges.” 

She requested that the impact report include an analysis of that aspect of the proposed project. “I think we have to be realistic about those impacts,” Hannigan said. “They're kind of glossed over in the conversations that I've been overhearing, and it's a big concern of mine.”

Supervisor John Vasquez, who represents Vacaville and Dixon, said that staff has already been looking at those impacts. “I just want the public to know that we haven't just been sitting here waiting for this day, that the work has already proceeded and has been going on for a number of months.”

The impact report will be presented to the board at the July 23 meeting.

During public comment, Aaron Hannigan, who described himself as a business owner and plumbing contractor, cited new homes, new businesses and new jobs as his reasons for supporting the project. “Sometimes change is a hard thing to accept, especially a change to this magnitude,” he said. “But I'm here to say that a change for the better is what Solano County deserves.”

Glen Holstein said that he conducted wildlife surveys and that losing that proposed land to development would be one of the greatest losses to biodiversity and nature that he’s ever seen. “One thing that amazed me was to go out to East Solano County and see the farmers and ranchers how they had made a living and lived on the land,” he said. “And yet, animals and plants that had disappeared elsewhere in California were viable on their landscape.” 

Sramek himself was among the speakers and argued that the project would create opportunity. “This state was founded on the idea that the people who came here if they worked hard, could one day achieve that pie of the California Dream,” he said. “Let's make good on that promise and bring back the California Dream.”

Serena Salgado, a Suisun resident since 2004, said she is opposed to California Forever and quoted her 11-year-old son, who said, “Mom, why don't we just start and fix what we already have here, starting with the schools?” 

She asked what would stop California Forever from bringing in their tech investors and people from their team from taking the newly created jobs first. “There is zero trust in this company,” she said. “If you start with lies, you're going to end with lies.”

A June 24 letter from California Forever to the Solano County Board of Supervisors promises to create “at least 15,000 jobs paying 125% of Solano’s average wage by the time the new community reaches 50,000 residents.” It also promises to build entirely outside of prime farmlands and ecological habitat, and offers a commitment to invest $200 million in Solano County’s downtowns at a milestone of 50,000 residents, and $800 million by full build-out.

But Supervisor Wanda Williams, who represents Fairfield and Suisun City, said that those promises wouldn’t have the force of law. “My understanding in talking with our legal counsel is that these guarantees, we cannot enforce,” she said. “We would have to depend upon California Forever and this initiative to actually make sure that they do it themselves."