All posts by BenIndy

California Forever Inc., Fairfield CA, Flannery Associates, Solano County CA, Solano County Orderly Growth Committee, Solano County Water Agency, Solano Together, Travis Air Force Base, Vallejo CA

Solano Together responds to California Forever’s Released Map and Ballot Initiative

[Note from BenIndy: Please bear with us for posting more than usual but Solano Together has responded to the initiative and map released by California Forever and it’s worth your time to see what they have to say. Once again, you can check out California Forever’s full, 83-page initiative text HERE. Sign up to learn more about Solano Together HERE. Images shown below are not original to the Solano Together news release and were added by BenIndy.]

Click the image to enlarge. A map of where California Forever plans on putting its new city in Solano County, right between Travis Air Force Base and Rio Vista. | California Forever / Handout via SFGate.

Solano Together, released January 17, 2024

SUISUN CITY – The Solano Together coalition strongly opposes California Forever’s plans for a sprawling new development in rural Solano County announced this Wednesday. After years of secrecy, months of public controversy, and four months of rushed community engagement, Flannery Associates shared initial glimpses of their new proposed community in Southeastern Solano County.

For Solano Together, the details revealed today did not come as a surprise: California Forever continues to be a senseless sprawl development in a remote, undeveloped part of Solano County. These types of projects divert much needed public and private resources away from cities and residents, leaving existing infrastructure to degrade and residents to suffer.

Flannery Associates are going for the “christmas tree” approach for the proposal, trying to sprinkle financial benefits to specific interest groups around the County in a way that distracts from the negative impact of the proposal on water, county resources, traffic, and taxpayers in existing cities.

Jobs: We’ve seen countless development proposals adopted by cities around the region with promises for jobs, only later to go back to ask for modifications in the proposal based on a change in market conditions. And we also know from experience that nearby cities are often in direct competition for companies and services that do want to locate in an area. Vallejo, Fairfield and Vacaville have all invested significant resources in attracting new jobs to their community. Flannery’s incentives to lure those jobs away from the population centers of the county to this new development will only harm our communities and reduce opportunities for existing residents. Based on this track record, the idea of 15,000 new jobs in this area is an empty promise.

Taxpayer Money: The plan purports to be a new approach to development, but its physical location—far away from jobs, services, and infrastructure—points to more of the same, investing scarce public funds in expanding infrastructure rather than investing in improvements for long-time residents. Flannery Associates’ proposal spins their small investment in infrastructure upgrades, such as roads and water pipes, as a huge benefit to the community, when the project relies on millions of dollars of public investment for new roads, sewer and water, and schools, funds that will need to be diverted from other priorities.

Solano Together members waved signs at the California Forever Benicia Town Hall on December 18, 2023. | BenIndy.

What Solano Together Coalition supporters are saying:

“Buying up farmland at low prices and rezoning for housing development has been a quick way to make a buck for decades in California. The plans we’ve seen fly in the face of decades of thoughtful planning and action that was first set into motion to protect Solano’s cherished agricultural industries. Developing highly productive ranch lands into urban uses cannot be undone. We cannot continue to allow developers to put food security, long-term sustainability, and livelihoods on the line in exchange for short-term profits.”—Solano Farm Bureau.

“California Forever has no real plans for public transportation or transit. This development is going to clog our streets, highways, and bridges. It will make our climate worse by paving over farmlands—all while making Solano residents pay the cost”—Duane Kromm, member of the Orderly Growth Committee and former Solano County Board Supervisor.

“California Forever’s proposed plans are a detriment to wildlife, native plant life, and water resources that our ecology and communities depend on. We need to protect Solano County’s open space now and for the future. You don’t need to be an environmentalist to ask: ‘What sort of world are we going to leave our future generations?’”—Princess Washington, Mayor Pro-Tem of Suisun City & Chair of the Sierra Club of Solano County.

“Sprawling developments such as California Forever don’t just permanently destroy nature, habitat for wildlife, and farm and ranchland. These developments also divert much needed public and private resources away from cities and residents. Instead of abandoning our existing cities for something shiny and new, we believe the truly visionary approach would be to make transformative investments in them, improving the lives for both current and future residents.”—Sadie Wilson, Director of Planning and Research at Greenbelt Alliance.

“Flannery Associates’ plans to take surface water from the Sacramento River and/or pump groundwater from the Solano subbasin to support a whole new city would further stress critical water resources in Solano County and the Delta, and threaten to undo recent progress made to manage water resources sustainably and responsibly for future generations.”—Osha Meserve, Lawyer specializing in water and environmental impacts.

“I see nothing in the plans that protects Travis Air Force Base. California Forever’s promises mean nothing if Travis is forced to close due to housing encroachment, glare from 10,000 acres of solar farms, and noise complaints from new residents where sheep now graze. In fact, they aren’t building a city, they’re sprawling housing over 18,000 acres without legally creating a city. That could very well endanger Travis’ mission.”—Catherine Moy, Mayor of Fairfield

Solano Together’s top priorities are to drive growth, development, and economic investment into the county’s existing cities and protect the invaluable agricultural and environmental resources that are central to our community and industries. California Forever fails to do that by doubling down on a pattern of sprawl development that endangers the livelihoods of the agricultural community and taxes Solano’s crucial natural resources such as water, land, habitats, and ecosystems.

BenIndy.

Learn more about Solano Together here. For more information, contact: Daniela Ades, dades@greenbelt.org, 1-415-792-9226

California Forever Inc., Fairfield CA, Flannery Associates, Solano County CA, Solano County Orderly Growth Committee, Solano County Water Agency, Solano Together, Travis Air Force Base, Vallejo CA

First map of proposed utopian California city in Solano County is released

[Note from BenIndy: Lots to look at and start unpacking here. First, we have our first map of the new town proposed by California Forever (see headline image) and a population goal for the first wave of new settler-occupiers – 50,000 (with room to expand to 400,000). Second, we now know what the ballot initiative will be called and how many signatures will be required to put it on the ballot: getting the East Solano Homes, Jones, And Clean Energy Initiative on the November ballot will require 13,000 signatures from Solano voters. Third,  they’re launching with a plan to offer $400 million to Solano residents to help with down payments on homes in this new city. Not mentioned in this article are the $200 million California Forever is planning to invest in Solano cities (including Benicia) to revitalize downtown areas, and a laundry list of various “guarantee” initiatives, including the Solano Jobs Guarantee, Green Solano Guarantee, Water Guarantee, Transportation Guarantee, Schools  Guarantee, Smart Growth Guarantee, Taxpayer Guarantee … Phew. Check out the full, 83-page initiative text HERE.]

Click the image to enlarge. A map of where California Forever plans on putting its new city in Solano County, right between Travis Air Force Base and Rio Vista. | California Forever / Handout via SFGate.

SFGate, by Katie Dowd, January 17, 2024

The new proposed city in Solano County finally has a map. Along with the map, California Forever, the group backing the project, is promising a utopia of affordable homes, world-leading technology and efficient public transit.

On Wednesday, California Forever said it is officially filing the East Solano Homes, Jobs, and Clean Energy Initiative with the Solano County Registrar of Voters. [Emph. added by BenIndy.] If the group can secure more than 13,000 signatures from Solano County voters, the measure will go before voters this November.

The group has been criticized for its secrecy. Last year, news broke that a shadowy group called Flannery Associates was buying up tens of thousands of acres of land in rural Solano County. Within a decade, they’d quietly become the biggest landowner in the county. Local politicians demanded an investigation into the group amid concerns it was a national security threat to have an unnamed landowner snatching up plots near Travis Air Force Base.

In August, a group of tech billionaires was revealed as the backers of the land grab. Among them are philanthropist Laurene Powell Jobs, LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman and venture capitalist Marc Andreessen. They launched the California Forever name at that time, installing former Goldman Sachs trader Jan Sramek as its CEO.

Farmland and wind farms in the background in rural Solano County. | Godofredo A. Vásquez / AP.

Since then, California Forever has done a PR blitz in Solano County, sending out thousands of surveys to residents, holding town halls and opening offices in several towns. The ambitious plan has been met with skepticism, especially around concerns that traffic congestion is already a constant problem on Interstate 80 between Fairfield and Dixon. The city is being planned to start with 50,000 residents but eventually could accommodate 400,000. The map shows the new city would be nestled between Travis Air Force Base and Rio Vista.

“This is a pipe dream,” said Democratic U.S. Rep. John Garamendi, who was furious with backers for their secrecy about property close to a U.S. Air Force base. He said the proposed development, which he also was briefed on, makes no sense “in the middle of areas surrounded by wind farms, gas fields, endangered species, no water, no sanitation system and no road system let alone a highway system.”

California Forever’s initiative boldly claims the new city will be “one of the most sustainable communities in the world.” Its 18,600 acres will include 4,000 acres of “parks, trails, urban ecological habitat, community gardens, and other types of open space.” Neighborhoods will be grouped around schools, shops and restaurants, with an emphasis on walkability. Previous renderings released by the group show Manhattan-like row houses and Mediterranean-style vistas.

People find seats as they get more information on the new California Forever proposed development off Highway 12 near Rio Vista during a town hall meeting on Thursday. | Chris Riley / Times-Herald.

California Forever said it will be distributing $400 million to Solano County residents who need help making a down payment, with priority given to “working families, teachers, nurses, police and firefighters and construction workers.” Its promotional materials do not yet list how much homes will cost.

Likely in direct response to the many fears about an unknown group surrounding Travis AFB, the plan also says it will designate a “Travis Security Zone” that doubles the “buffer” around the base from about 8,000 acres to 15,000 acres.

If the measure goes to Solano County voters in November, California Forever needs them to overturn protections put in place in 1984 to keep agricultural land from being turned into urban space. If approved, the plan would then undergo two years of environmental review.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

More about California Forever on the Benicia Independent:

Benicia, Benicia City Council, Benicia Economic Development, Benicia General Plan, Benicia's Budget Crisis, East Fifth Gateway, Elizabeth Patterson

Elizabeth Patterson: Blaming “stagnant population growth” for our budget crisis is wrong…and risky

Elizabeth Patterson, Benicia Mayor 2007–2020.

Stephen Golub submits many interesting and important writings in the BenIndy, the local newspaper, blogs and so forth.  His insights are helpful.

But I am disappointed about his statement about “stagnant population growth” as one of the reasons for the city’s budget woes.

It seems he has unintentionally been captured by the influence of “development machine” (which happens to be the title of a 25-year-old University of California book on developers and their practices).  A casual reference to “stagnant population growth” does not make population growth itself a legitimate path to economic prosperity.  For just a few examples, this EPA report titled “How Small Towns and Cities Can Use Local Assets to Rebuild Their Economies: Lessons from Successful Places” highlights what small cities can do for economic health with a stable population.

It is true that we need to provide for housing, and I like the idea of tasteful additions of duplexes, ADUs and multifamily units as infill development.  But, of course, it is the developers who build – not the cities – and developers have shown their true intentions when they have the chance to build expensive housing instead of affordable or middle-cost housing.  They go for the higher profit.  We are told they have to do this because of the fees, time to process and so forth.

But a recent incident in San Jose demonstrates that this is false.  In this case, the developers were approved with entitlements for high-density residential and mixed-use.  Perfect.  But when they learned that San Jose may have been late in approving its housing element, what did the developers do?  They resubmitted their plans under the “builders’ remedy” for high-end single family units and condos.  

Anyone read The Ox-Bow Incident?  You should.  It would teach you about what the “market can bear” the intentions of the commercial class – in this case, the railroads.  And yes, we are being railroaded into building anything, anywhere, no matter what.

So, back to Stephen’s piece.  The population growth issue is being used by the city in support of sprawl development out by Lake Herman Road.  Now back up a second and think about population growth and the need to develop outside of the city’s urban footprint.  If it were true that we must have population growth to thrive, when does it stop?  We just keep having population growth to the end of time?  Of course not.  This is a failed concept and people should stop saying that we must approve development inconsistent with the city’s General Plan due to stagnant population growth (General Plans regard the constitution of land use development and fealty to them is the law, not a choice).

To be clear, Stephen does not say he supports sprawl development.  He doesn’t.  In fact, he supports the East Fifth Gateway mixed-use plan. It’s a good plan and needs city initiatives to encourage development. But he does use the “stagnant population” theme, which is troubling.

I suggest that we dig deeper into this concept of population growth and connect the dots of congested roads, long lines at National Parks, food shortages and pollution.  There is a connection.  It is not likely that we will solve problems like these by having more people.

And lastly, population growth is projected to begin to decline near the end of the century.  This is certainly true in the US and California.  We could wind up with lots of empty residential development just like we are seeing with the over-built, retail commercial development that we were warned about years ago.

What then, is the answer?

Consider economic development with the increasing need for manufacturing that is green, more local shopping at smaller, more community-based stores, not to mention the arts and entertainment. Our aging population  will need services and housing accommodations over the next 25 years.

Thoughtful development with these needs in mind will create a place that people want to visit, shop in and work in.  This is not a pie-in-the-sky idea, but it does take hard work and we, the people, need to do our part and help with city revenues for our infrastructure.  And maybe with less stress the city council and staff can focus on the future so clearly described in the General Plan.

Elizabeth Patterson

Biofuels, Biofuelwatch, Contra Costa County, Marathon Petroleum, Phillips 66

Biofuelwatch alleges Contra Costa officials obstructed public participation in Phillips 66 Biofuels Refinery Project hearing

The Martinez Marathon Refinery. | Marathon Petroleum Corp.
The Phillips 66 San Francisco Refinery in Rodeo. | Dreamyshade / Wikimedia CC BY-SA 4.0.

Biofuelwatch, sent to BenIndy January 17, 2024

The saga of the repurposing of two of the refineries in the San Francisco Bay Area to manufacturing liquid biofuels from high deforestation risk commodities like soy took another anti-democratic twist this week. Local authorities sped through a hearing on January 16, 2024 on the revised environmental review of the massive Phillips 66 biofuel refinery project in the unincorporated community of Rodeo on the northern shores of the Bay, rushing to keep the $1 billion investment moving forward while taking measures to curtail public participation in the process.

As background, in May 2022 the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors had previously hosted back to back hearings on both the Phillips 66 biofuel refinery project in Rodeo and the Marathon-Neste joint venture biofuel refinery project in Martinez. That day-long session of hearings was held only because community, environmental and climate justice organizations had appealed the County Planning Commission approvals of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental reviews of the refinery conversion projects earlier that year.

On that day in early May 2022 the Contra Costa County Supervisors unanimously denied the appeals and wholeheartedly green lighted both of the biofuel refinery projects. Following those decisions by local elected officials, the Center for Biological Diversity, in partnership with Communities for a Better Environment, and with the legal and technical expertise of the Stanford Environmental Law Clinic, filed parallel lawsuits challenging the simultaneous approval of the environmental review of both unprecedented refinery conversion projects. The court case on the Marathon/Neste joint venture at the Martinez refinery resulted in a partial decision exposing flaws with the environmental review, focusing singularly on the flawed odor management plan, an unsatisfactory result for climate justice advocates. That lawsuit has already been sent on to the state appeals court, and will be heard in the coming year.

The Phillips 66 refinery in Rodeo has been getting lucrative incentives for making biofuels even though the environmental review of the project was found deficient by a judge.  | Uncredited image from Biofuelwatch post.

However, in the case of the Phillips 66 biofuel refinery project, the same judge ruled that the original environmental review of the biofuels project was illegal and had failed to address serious questions of cumulative impacts, while embarking on the illegal tactic of piecemealing — the illegal breaking up of the entirety of a project into discrete pieces, thus averting the legally required review of the project as a whole.

This court ruling prompted county authorities to rush forward with a Draft Revised Environmental Impact Report, which was released and opened to public comment in the autumn of 2023. Biofuelwatch reported extensively on the dynamics around this public comment period in our previous post Court Orders, Refinery Fires and Deforestation Drivers: California Push for Liquid Biofuels Ignores Red Flag Warnings.

Despite being presented with more evidence about the dangers of characterizing the conversion of the more than century old Phillips 66 Rodeo refinery to making biofuels as a climate solution, the county proceeded with great haste to finalize the revised environmental review during the holiday. Precisely four weeks after the close in early December 2023 of written public comment on the draft the county announced the January 16 public hearing to approve the final revised version.

The newest final version of the project review once again roundly dismissed all the evidence and information provided by community members and the organizations that engaged on the public comment. Despite the requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act to assess how new information can influence the veracity of the entirety of the environmental review, the county discarded new factual information provided in the public comment that in essence further substantiated the record of evidence that had resulted in the court of law ruling that the original environmental review was illegal in the first place.

Neither the Board of Supervisors nor County Staff expressed any sort of contrition nor leadership self reflection when faced with the fact that they had previously rubber stamped an environmental review that the court had later found deficient.

Kerry Guerin is an attorney with Communities for a Better Environment who attended the January 2024 hearing on the Phillips 66 project.. | Uncredited image from Biofuelwatch post.

Of the evidence presented to the county by community members regarding the safety concerns with the processing of feedstocks like soy was the existence of the most recent draft of what is known as a Flare Minimization Plan (FMP), presented by Phillips 66 on an annual basis for the Rodeo refinery to the local Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The FMP is an annual requirement, the review of which is buried in the opaque processes of BAAQMD staff and not easily accessible to the public. The late 2023 version of the FMP for the Phillips 66 Rodeo refinery apparently still remains confidential. However, the 2022 ‘nonconfidential’ version of the FMP was shared with Biofuelwatch.

Remarkably, despite the fact that Phillips 66 has been making liquid biofuels at their Rodeo refinery since April 2021, more than a year before receiving final approval for their project from the County in May 2022, an anomaly that the court saw as being relevant to the illegal piecemealing of the environmental review of the project, their most recent ‘nonconfidential’ version of their Flare Minimization Plan from October 2022 does not even mention biofuels. As a matter of fact, scrutiny of the 2022 FMP document reveals absolutely no mention of the refinery conversion project at all.

In essence, Phillips 66 has received lucrative Low Carbon Fuel Standard credits from the California Air Resources Board for producing ‘renewable diesel’ from feedstocks like soy and canola with a hydrogen intensive ‘hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids’ hydro cracker technology at their Rodeo refinery, but the most recent publicly available version of the FMP for that same refinery regulated by the local air district BAAQMD does not even mention the words biofuels, renewable diesel, hydrotreated vegetable oils, HEFA, soy, canola, animal tallow or any of the terms that are directly associated with making these products. As far as the BAAQMD supervised Phillips 66 Rodeo Refinery Flare Minimization Plan goes the biofuel project apparently does not even exist.

Notably absent from the recent county supervisors hearing on the revised environmental review were any representatives from BAAQMD, neither to provide comment or to be available to answer questions from decision makers, once again raising questions about to what extent the local air district is fulfilling their responsibility to implement regulatory activities within the context of current and future operations.

This incongruence of biofuel production not even existing in a recent Phillips 66 FMP was brushed aside by county authorities, who also appeared completely unconcerned about the recent devastating fire at the Marathon-Neste biofuel refinery in Martinez. At the same time, the County was obligated in their documentation to recognize that there exist numerous ‘significant and unavoidable environmental impacts‘ from the project. Those impacts were dismissed because of the economic significance of the refinery project.

Tyson Bagley is the United Steelworkers Health and Safety Representative for the Phillips 66 Rodeo refinery who attended the January 2024 hearing and spoke in strong support of the Phillips 66 biofuels project. | Uncredited image from Biofuelwatch post.

Notably, and not surprisingly, labor organizations representing workers at the Phillips 66 refinery came out in strong force in support of approval of the project, celebrating the opportunity to keep the refinery operating into the foreseeable future to make ‘renewable’ fuels with ‘renewable’ feedstocks to provide the state with the ‘low carbon’ energy sources that are central to aspirations to achieve ‘decarbonization.’

Adding a particularly grotesque dynamic of inequity to the proceedings was the manner in which the local authorities conducted the review hearing.

After having spent two hours celebrating the legacy of Dr Martin Luther King, Jr in commemoration of the treasured annual federal holiday, the Board of Supervisors reconvened to hear the agenda item on the Phillips 66 biofuel refinery environmental review. Remarkably, after an abbreviated 15 minute staff presentation that reasserted the urgency of approving the project again, the chair of the Board stated that public comment would be restricted to 1 minute. Though the audience in attendance was predominantly labor and company representatives in Phillips 66 uniform, there were hoots of disbelief from advocates that instead of the traditional 3 minute time allowed for public comment at most public hearings, in this instance an individual speaker would get only one minute. That an individual public comment on an issue of such magnitude and technical complexity would be limited to 1 minute is unheard of with such a small audience.

That the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors would come out of a ceremony dedicated to elevating the legacy of Dr Martin Luther King, Jr to immediately open an agenda item on the permitting of a controversial polluting industrial facility owned and operated by a company worth ~$60 billion dollars, and with a long legacy of conflict with affected communities, and tell concerned community members that their time to address the board would be abbreviated in this manner was roundly seen as outrageous — to put it in polite terms.

Even county staff knew, after all they had done to ram the project through, that limiting public comment at the hearing was simply a ‘very bad look.’ The clear obstruction of the public right to meaningful participation that was manifested by the limitation on public comment at the hearing on the Phillips 66 biofuels project clearly accentuates the corporate impunity facilitated by the irregular and industry friendly governance of not only the biofuel refinery issue specifically but of the energy sector in the state more broadly.

It made no difference to the acquiescent and beholden to industry Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, who rapidly moved to approve the Phillips 66 project with a unanimous 5-0 vote.

Contact Gary Hughes (garyhughes.bfw@gmail.com), who is the Americas Program Coordinator with Biofuelwatch, with inquiries.