SFist, by Jay Barman, September 25, 2023

Confirming fears by planning experts that the billionaire group behind an imagined, utopian city built on arid agricultural land in Solano County will be retrograde in concept, visionary developer Jan Sramek said as much in an interview with KQED today.

Sramek went on KQED’s Forum Monday along with Fairfield mayor and original critic of the project Catherine Moy, and Chronicle writer J.K. Dineen. And he spent much of the broadcast defending the idea that this new city is something that Bay Area and Solano County residents will want, and that it will be “affordable by design.” Sramek also revealed a few key bits of new information, including the fact that the group doesn’t intend to quickly try to get the city incorporated — though this could be all talk.

“This could remain in unincorporated Solano County for a long time,” Sramek said. “We think government is fine as it is in Solano County. The county does a great job of running the county … And then at some point, it would be a decision of the voters in this new community whether they want to incorporate.”

Sramek also said that the majority of the first homes built would be row houses, perhaps built by small-scale firms, and made to be affordable for middle-class families.

“We think that there’s so much wisdom in how we built cities and towns over the last hundreds of thousands of years [sic] in some places. And so from the beginning, we’ve believed that you go back to go forward… The plans that people put forward will be very inspired by those great old American neighborhoods that someone who was born 100 years ago will recognize… We want to build a city of yesterday,” Sramek says.

He suggests that row houses “are some of the most under-appreciated types of types of buildings,” and can be built “much more cheaply” than dense, mid-rise condo complexes, at least so long as the land is cheap enough. But is that really true?

Fairfield Mayor Catherine Moy said that the secretiveness with which the group behind the project, Flannery Associates — or maybe now known by the project name as California Forever — conducted themselves for years hasn’t won them any friends in local government. Moy also suggests that “there’s something else going on here,” given that the group has plans to develop 60,000 acres, or a space twice as large as Fairfield itself, which has over 120,000 residents.

And, Moy adds, “There are other areas that this group could develop in and do a lot of good for humanity, including our downtown. Putting a city in an area that is 98% [agricultural] is not a good idea. We are running out of [agricultural] land. We don’t need to develop it.”

Sramek insists that, despite so much out-migration from California in recent years, he’s “gone out and found a group of people who want to double down in California, who believe in the state, who believe in the optimism and the dynamism, and who want to use their resources to build something great in California.”

But doesn’t this all sound a bit like Disney’s Celebration, Florida?

The Chronicle’s urban design critic John King has already critiqued the early rollout of the California Forever proposal, even though it contains no concrete plans.

“Besides the utter lack of specificity in terms of what the conversation will actually be about, here’s the most insulting aspect of California Forever 1.0: It claims to be the natural outgrowth of Bay Area planning tradition,” King writes. “It does this by exhuming a pair of pre-1970 government documents… and says, ‘Let’s dust off those plans, and breathe new life into them’… Or maybe not: Among other things, the 1960 plan calls for a new bridge from San Francisco to Sausalito by way of Angel Island. Plus new suburbs in West Marin and filling in up to 325 miles of the existing bay for development purposes.”

It was about unhindered sprawl, in other words, and did not focus on urban centers and existing transit corridors. “It’s so sad and disappointing,” said Greenbelt Alliance executive director Amanda Brown-Stevens, speaking to the Chronicle. “They’re looking to the past, all the failed approaches that put us in this situation, and doubling down.”

This and more stories on the Flannery land grab: https://beniciaindependent.com/tags/flannery-associates/

[Note from BenIndy: There is no shortage of coverage regarding Flannery Associates’ strides (and stumbles) since the group announced, finally, its grand vision for eastern Solano County. The BenIndy is focusing on making sure local responses reach your inboxes (vs. broad coverage), but there are some great articles linked below so you can continue exploring on your own. One item of note – Flannery says they’re “working collaboratively with county officials and a team of experts” in this next, slightly less secret phase.  Our first question is this: which county officials? Our second and third questions: who is in this team of experts, and which disciplines, special interests and agendas do they represent? There are some clues on the californiaforever.com website that we hope to dig into soon.]

What survey results reveal about effort to build new city on Solano Co. farmland

The firm that purchased nearly $1 billion worth of Solano County farmland is sharing its vision to build a city and how some people feel about it. | Video from ABC7 Bay Area.

ABC7 Bay Area News,  by Stephanie Sierra, October 11, 2023

The investment firm that’s purchased nearly $1 billion worth of Solano County farmland is sharing its vision to build a city and how some people feel about it.

After years of speculation as to what Flannery Associates would do with more than 55,000 acres acquired since 2018, the I-Team got an exclusive first look at how some constituents feel about it change coming to the county.

According to the firm, over the past two years, residents have been surveyed and interviewed about a wide range of topics – including proposed ballot measures discussing things like clean energy, sustainable infrastructure and affordable housing.

The following data comes from two scientific polls conducted in July and August this summer that combined contacted around 1,400 residents via landline, cell phone, or online in multiple languages.

The key findings from the July poll show voters are dissatisfied with the direction of Solano County and with the direction of things in their area. According to those surveyed, 39% said they’re mixed, 29% said they believe the county is headed in the wrong direction, only 21% said the county is headed in the right direction, 11% of others don’t know.

The survey also found voters are worried about affordability for the next generation. An overwhelming 81% of parents say they believe most kids in the county will not be able to afford to live in their current neighborhood when they grow up. Only 13% said they will and 6% said they don’t know.

Among other things, voters indicated the county needs big changes to bring in more jobs, revenue, and improve quality of life. And when it comes to the issues most important when voting for county officials — crime, homelessness, and cost of housing topped the list.

While the survey results show an overwhelming level of support for change, local officials say they still have concerns.

“I just don’t think building a city the way they intend to is feasible,” Catherine Moy, the mayor of Fairfield told ABC7 on Sunday. “Lack of water, infrastructure, plus how will it be powered?”

Flannery says eastern Solano County would maintain significant agricultural operations. But, the firm says they’re interested in exploring new models that would combine solar farms with agriculture by having sheep graze under the solar panels.

“That’s a problem or it could be a problem with the Air Base because of the reflection, but there are new solar panels that you can use on bases and some do,” said Moy.

“We know that PG&E does not have the power grid to hold up a new city, they can’t even open up some of our new car dealerships.”

The August poll found Solano County voters are more likely to support a project that brings in good permanent jobs, protects the environment, and delivers revenue for safety and education.

According to the firm, the polls have a margin of error of approximately 3.5% to 4% in 95 out of 100 cases. The firm added their project would protect and support Travis Air Force Base – respecting the county’s general plan and the area that has a security buffer to protect operations around the base.

The survey also revealed potential future projects that received support from those surveyed – including a new trade school, shortened commutes with reduced traffic congestion, millions of new olive trees and a new oak forest. Plus, thousands of acres of projects that restore ecological habitats and help keep the Delta and the Bay healthy and resilient against climate change.

Flannery says they’re working collaboratively with county officials and a team of experts who are committed to solving northern California’s most important challenges.

This and four more stories on the Flannery land grab: https://beniciaindependent.com/tags/flannery-associates/

Elsewhere:

• Billionaires want to build a new city in Solano County. Here’s what we locals want | San Francisco Chronicle, 2023
• Congressman says firm’s proposed city near Travis AFB poses ‘serious threat’ to US security | ABC7 Bay Area News, September 6, 2023
• ‘California Forever’ website touts the city tech billionaires are trying to build | The Verge, September 3, 2023

Solano County Administrator responds to California Forever Purchases

Vallejo Times-Herald, by Nick McConnell, September 6, 2023

The Solano County Administrator’s Office responded with a Wednesday news release concerning the purchase of over 50,000 acres of Solano County farmland near Travis Air Force Base by California Forever, the parent company of Flannery Associates.

The release identifies the administrator’s office as “the government agency with land use authority over this region.” Solano County has been in communication with state and federal representatives about the extent of Flannery holdings since 2018.

“Communications with Flannery have been limited despite the county’s efforts to understand their intentions for the use of the land they had been acquiring,” according to the release.

The county has informed Flannery since it started making the purchases that the land acquired is limited to agricultural use under the current regulations.

“To be clear,” the release reads, “if the recent reports in the media are true, along with the assertions made on California Forever’s website, the concept of creating a new urban center in Solano County raises some complex issues.”

According to the administrator’s office, urban development in that area would need to be put to a vote on the ballot and be approved by a majority of Solano County voters.

“For decades, Solano County residents have consistently decided at the ballot box that preservation of agricultural land is a priority,” the administrator’s office said.

A cornerstone of land use policy in Solano County has been the protection of Travis Air Force Base from any encroachment that could threaten the base.

The release notes that Solano County has not yet received any project information or proposals from the company at this time.

We will continue to keep the community informed as new information becomes available,” the release said. “It is the County’s hope to have frank discussions with California Forever regarding Solano County’s long-standing land use policies and their expressed vision.”

This and four more stories on the Flannery land grab: https://beniciaindependent.com/tags/flannery-associates/

Flannery’s elevator pitch…

San Francisco Chronicle, by John King, Sep. 1, 2023

OK, this is something new — an elevator pitch for a whole new city.

That’s apparently what a cadre of Silicon Valley investors naming itself California Forever seeks to build on 55,000 acres in southeast Solano County: an Eden of walkable neighborhoods swathed in farmland and natural spaces, an oasis of sustainable energy and water conservation.

But the website launched Thursday by California Forever offers no real details, such as the projected population or precise location. Instead, there are renderings of cuddly townscapes and soothing talk of building “a remarkable place for Solano residents.” Oh, and an earnest promise to “begin the phase of our work that matters most: our conversation with you.”

Let the eye-rolling commence.

It’s impossible to critique the vision of the investors, because what was unfurled is so innocuous as to be an insult. The images are as placid as a video aimed at infants; just this side of cartoonish, depicting clusters of vaguely sized storybook homes hugging a terrain that looks more like Italy’s Cinque Terre than the wind-battered ranges of Solano County.

The website also refers to how this will be a center of “economic opportunity” and “new employers.” Great! But only two of the 12 renderings show people at work, including one where three men install solar panels while the sun sets in the west. Let’s hope they’re being paid overtime.

A spokesperson for California Forever said Friday there’s no secret plan behind those remedies: “We’ll hear what the county wants and what the people are interested in,” explained Brian Brokaw. “The specifics will emerge.”

Besides the utter lack of specificity in terms of what the conversation will actually be about, here’s the most insulting aspect of California Forever 1.0: It claims to be the natural outgrowth of Bay Area planning tradition.

It does this by exhuming a pair of pre-1970 government documents, including the federal government’s “Future Development of the San Francisco Bay Area, 1960-2020,” and says, “Let’s dust off those plans, and breathe new life into them.”

Or maybe not: Among other things, the 1960 plan calls for a new bridge from San Francisco to Sausalito by way of Angel Island. Plus new suburbs in West Marin and filling in up to 325 miles of the existing bay for development purposes.

“It’s so sad and disappointing,” is how the California Forever mindset was described Friday by Amanda Brown-Stevens, executive director of Greenbelt Alliance. The nonprofit has worked for decades to protect farmland and natural landscapes while steering needed growth into existing communities.

Yes, you can make the argument that environmental regulations have been applied in extreme and cynical ways — thwarting the construction of new housing that would have helped prevent the region from becoming a two-tier society where many people can’t afford to live in the communities where they grew up. But to turn back the clock without saying so, just pledging to build “a remarkable place,” is disingenuous and disheartening.

“They’re looking to the past, all the failed approaches that put us in this situation, and doubling down,” Brown-Stevens said.

The lone upside to the elevator pitch is that the people involved are legitimate, with deep pockets and Bay Area roots. The investors include Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn, and Laurene Powell Jobs (the only woman among the 10 investors listed on the website, by the way). The consultants have track records in San Francisco and the region. This isn’t a fly-by-night land grab.

But the way to introduce yourself isn’t with soft-focus renderings and rhetoric and the assurance that California Forever’s top executive has a golden retriever named Bruce.

The Bay Area needs housing and jobs. It also needs honest approaches to making this happen. Let’s hope when California Forever 2.0 launches, there is less fluff and more facts.