###

In an effort to close the gaps that prevent the city’s homeless community from accessing immediate shelter, the City of Eureka is pursuing new housing alternatives, including a city-sanctioned encampment.

At last night’s meeting, the council looked at several encampment setups in California and Oregon — ranging from strictly regulated city-run facilities to self-governed communities that more closely resemble a commune — to get a better sense of what would work here in Eureka. The council received the report, but did not take any formal action on the item.

The renewed push for emergency shelter options comes nearly one year after the city council rejected a controversial proposal that would have increased penalties for some people living in unauthorized homeless encampments. That proposal drew sharp criticism from homeless advocates who argued that it would cause undue harm to unhoused community members and create additional barriers to housing and supportive services. As a result, the council tossed the ordinance and instead formed an ad hoc committee to explore strategies to expand the city’s options for emergency shelter.

That ad-hoc committee includes council members Renee Contreras-DeLoach and G. Mario Fernandez, Eureka City Manager Miles Slattery, Managing Mental Health Clinician Jacob Rosen, CAPE Project Manager Jeff Davis and Chief Building Official Brendan Reilly.

During a presentation on that committee’s work at last night’s meeting, Contreras-DeLoach said city staff looked at two city-sanctioned “alternative shelters” in Portland, Oregon, including the Multnomah Safe Rest Village and Weidler Village, as well as Dignity Village, a membership-based community that calls itself “a radical experiment to end homelessness.” Staff also took online tours of a city-sanctioned encampment in San Rafael and The Grove in Sacramento, a 50-unit tiny cabin community for transitional-age youth.

Contreras-DeLoach acknowledged that there are “advantages and disadvantages” to each setup. Looking specifically at the Portland sites, she noted that the city-run Multnomah Village is made up of identical cube-like units (similar to the Betty Kwan Chinn Homeless Foundation’s Bayside Village) and is “very, very meticulously maintained” with tight security. Dignity Village, on the other hand, has more of an artsy, commune-type feel.

“It’s considered democratically self-administered, self-governed and self-operated,” Contreras-DeLoach said, referring to Dignity Village. Looking at an aerial view of the site, she pointed out piles of people’s belongings and garbage. “They did say to staff that … this community has had quite a few fire calls. …. You can see that there’s some safety concerns with how this one’s being operated.”

“I think there’s probably a happy medium between the two,” she added. “Studies have shown people do better and they heal better when there’s more of a sense of community, and we know that that’s often through environmental design and planning.”

Contreras-DeLoach also went over some of the different structure types that were used in each encampment, which range from fully-assembled one-room units to double units with a kitchenette and bathroom facilities, which exceed $20,000 per bedroom. 

Contreras-DeLoach noted that a locally made and eco-friendly option could be sourced through Building Lives By Building Structure (BLBS), a Hoopa Valley-based hempcrete business. “They’re built like a home … and, price-wise, they come in at about the same price point,” she said, referring to the $20,000 per unit figure. However, she acknowledged that BLBS does not yet operate at the scale required for, say, a 25-unit tiny house village.

An example of a Conestoga Hut. | Screenshot.

The structures she was most interested in were Conestoga Huts, insulated, hard-shelled structures that are built kind of like a hoop house with a flat, plywood base that’s elevated off the ground. They’re used in tiny house villages and encampments throughout Oregon, but they’re not as common here in California because they’re considered tents and are subject to different zoning laws than other tiny house structures, Contreras-DeLoach said.

“One of the issues that we have in an encampment situation is that the tents have to be ADA accessible … which, in some ways, sounds almost counterintuitive because we’re talking about people that, right now, are stuck in bushes and potentially gutters and doorways. It seems like anything would be an improvement,” she said. “[These are] sturdy, non-flammable, insulated [and] safe, [with a] locking door and window, which solves a myriad issues.”

The biggest selling point for the Conestoga Hut is perhaps the price. A fully assembled unit costs around $4,500, and an unassembled unit is closer to $2,500.

“My takeaway from all of this [research] is that this is doable,” Contreras-DeLoach said at the end of her presentation. “After going through this and really looking at it, I’m like, ‘This is something that we can really do. This is an option for us to get people off the streets and in a more stable situation.’ These aren’t intended for long-term [use], but they could last for a really long time.”

Councilmember Leslie Castellano asked if the ad hoc committee had spoken with any specific entities or individuals willing to host an authorized encampment or tiny house village and, if so, where it would be located. She also asked about potential funding opportunities. Contreras-DeLoach said the ad hoc committee had spoken to a few faith-based organizations and private individuals about setting up Conestoga Huts, but couldn’t say who. 

Slattery noted that staff applied for “a private donation from an entity south of here” and said the city is focusing its efforts on a 40-unit village at a property owned by the Betty Kwan Chinn Homeless Foundation at Second and A streets.

“We’ve looked into the PLHA [Permanent Local Housing Allocation] for funding to have that site prepped,” he continued. “We have a layout designed for that site, and that layout has been proposed to both the private donor as well as the organization that we’re seeking a donation from. We got really good news today: Our staff had spoken to that organization, and based on those conversations, we’re optimistic, but we won’t know until we hear back.”

Contreras-DeLoach | Screenshot

Contreras-DeLoach added that the faith-based organizations and private donors wouldn’t be able to host anything large-scale. “These would be much smaller,” she said, adding that the churches would have to expand their designation as an “institution” with the state to include welfare. “There’s multiple churches that are interested in having anywhere from two to five. So again, that’s not very many, but it’s what they feel like they can manage.”

Speaking to the design of some of the encampments in the presentation, Councilmember Kati Moulton emphasized that a colorful and even potentially cluttered space doesn’t mean it isn’t clean or poses liability risks. “There is room for both health and humanity.”

“I was at the Raven Project for many years, and if you’ve ever been inside that house, it is absolutely covered in artwork and memorabilia,” Moulton said. “It’s got a garden that’s thriving [and] it’s got a kitchen that’s really active. There’s lots of color, and the people who come in there to get services often end up employed there … and they all kind of leave their mark on the place.”

Mayor Kim Bergel expressed her appreciation for the in-depth report, but said she was disappointed that the ad hoc committee hadn’t done more to nail down a location for the encampment.

Bergel | Screenshot

“We’ve been having this conversation for 10 years,” she said. “When we shut down the camping ordinance, my understanding was … that [the committee] was going to bring back locations, people to manage the situation and how to keep people indoors. And I do appreciate that you did a lot of work on this, but it feels like we’re still in the same place. We still don’t have a location. … We don’t have any idea about how these things are going to be funded and who’s going to run it.”

Contreras-DeLoach said she didn’t feel it would be appropriate for her to make a recommendation to the council, given that many of the details hadn’t been worked out. 

“I can say, here are the grants that they’re applying for, here are the sites that we’re looking at, here are potential investors,” she said. “I don’t know how far everybody got in the process before, but I think that some of it is just waiting on us.”

Bergel continued to voice her concerns, noting that she had to call the city’s non-emergency line twice last week because tourists were being yelled at in Old Town. On top of that, Bergel said she was tired of seeing people throw “all their stuff all over the place” at Madaket Plaza.

“You guys know me. It’s not that I don’t care about people, but I can understand how some people are afraid, and we’ve got to come up with some ideas,” she continued. “We are hitting the rock, but things aren’t changing. … The people that I see sitting out in front of Free Meal in all kinds of filth … I don’t see how we’re being compassionate by allowing those kinds of behaviors. … It’s been a problem, but it’s more of a problem now.”

Moulton took the opportunity to reiterate a statistic Contreras-Deloach had shared earlier in the presentation: Uplift Eureka has successfully rehoused 259 people since 2018, and its Homeless Prevention Program has assisted 87 others. Moulton asked Uplift’s manager, Jeff Davis, how many of the 259 people rehoused ended up back on the streets. 

“In the ballpark of 80 [or] 85% success rate of folks that are still housed today, which is extremely high, and I think that goes to show our dedication,” Davis told the council. “When we work with folks in our Rapid Rehousing Program, we are working with folks who have the highest need and the highest level of vulnerability. If we had 100% success rate, we wouldn’t be helping the right people. We wouldn’t be helping the folks who need it the most.”

After some additional discussion, the council agreed to accept the report but didn’t take any further action on the item.

###

Want more city council coverage? Check back tomorrow!

###

PREVIOUSLY

• City of Eureka is Trying Very Hard to Evict the Owner of Humboldt Bay Social Club, Saying She Hasn’t Paid Rent in a Year and a Half

###

The City of Eureka’s ongoing attempt to evict the owner/operator of Humboldt Bay Social Club got an assist in U.S. Bankruptcy Court today as Judge William J. Lafferty dismissed the owner’s latest Chapter 11 filing, citing a “complete failure to comply with court orders.”

Humboldt Bay Social Club — a restaurant/bar and event venue with outdoor seating and onsite vacation rentals — is located at the Samoa Air Field, which is owned by the City of Eureka. Nicole Fryer purchased the business in July 2024 as the sole member of a limited liability company called Zephyr Hospitality, through which she rents the property. The city says Fryer owes roughly 18 months’ worth of rent and a total of more than $60,000. 

Fryer, meanwhile, says she’s trying to stabilize and continue operating the business after a series of setbacks. In court filings she says the business is generating $18,000 per month in revenue, and on April 1 the city received a cashier’s check from Zephyr Hospitality for $2,650, roughly one month’s rent.

But the city has been trying to evict her for months. On December 2, Eureka’s attorneys filed an eviction lawsuit (known as action for unlawful detainer) in Humboldt County Superior Court. The court later ruled in the city’s favor, awarding Eureka its back rent and granting the city permission to repossess the property.

However, six days before that ruling came down, Fryer had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, which triggered an automatic stay on eviction for the duration of the bankruptcy proceedings. But Fryer, representing herself, had submitted an incomplete petition, according to the court records. She later filed a motion for an extension, saying she needed time to hire an attorney and gather “complete and accurate financial information.” The court granted the extension, but she failed to meet the next deadline and that case was dismissed.

She filed a second Chapter 11 petition early last month. The City of Eureka argues that Fryer is simply trying to stymie its eviction efforts with this second bankruptcy filing, and it has asked the court to lift the automatic stay so it can proceed with that eviction.

In bankruptcy proceedings, small businesses such as Zephyr Hospitality are legally required to hire an attorney, but Fryer has yet to do so. She appeared at today’s hearing via Zoom, which earned a rebuke from Judge Lafferty.

“You have no authority to be here,” he told Fryer. “As I think I’ve told this debtor more than once, you have to prosecute Chapter 11 through a lawyer.”

“I understand that, Your Honor,” Fryer replied. “I’m actively working to secure counsel as we speak. I request a short amount of time to do so.”

“It’s a little late for that,” he replied.

Also appearing via Zoom were Eureka Deputy City Attorney Gregory M. Holtz and a pair of federal trustees, one serving as an impartial administrator and the other assigned as a mediator, of sorts, to help restructure debts and allow the debtor to keep their business, if all goes as planned.

That’s not the case here. One of the trustees appearing today pointed out that Fryer failed to show up for the initial court-scheduled interview and was also a no-show at the initial meeting of creditors. He said the U.S. Trustees Office has no objection to dismissal of the case.

Judge Lafferty, citing Fryer’s failure to comply with court orders, said he didn’t have much choice except to dismiss the case, though both Eureka’s attorney and the trustees asked him to leave it open for administrative purposes. The city needs the case to remain open while it pursues relief from the stay that’s holding up eviction proceedings. Holtz also indicated that the city may try to prove that Fryer’s multiple bankruptcy filings were part of a scheme to delay, hinder or defraud creditors. 

The trustees also asked for the case to remain open for the purposes of discovery. They intend to investigate Zephyr/Fryer’s financial affairs and conduct. (One noted that an outside attorney appears to have improperly helped in the preparation of Fryer’s submitted materials.)

When Judge Lafferty announced his intention to dismiss the case, Fryer looked crestfallen. 

“I just want to stabilize this business,” she said, “and I’m just trying to fully comply with this court.”

Judge Lafferty cut her off. “You know, you can say that, but you’re not [complying], okay? I don’t know how else to say it,” he said. “I’m not trying to be flip or funny, but just, you know, this is a serious business. And it simply isn’t being prosecuted the way it needs to be.”

With that, he dismissed the case, leaving it open for administrative purposes. Fryer has been ordered to provide documents to U.S. Department of Justice’s Trustee Office by April 13 and to appear at an examination by that office on April 20. 

An email sent to Fryer this morning seeking comment for this story had not received a response by the time of publication.

Press release from the Humboldt-Del Norte Film Commission:

The Humboldt-Del Norte Film Commission has been named a finalist for Film Commission of the Year (City/Region) at the 2026 Global Production Awards 2026, taking place during the Cannes Film Festival this May.

Presented by Screen International, the Global Production Awards recognize outstanding and sustainable work across film and television production, locations, and studios worldwide. This year’s shortlist includes major global companies like Netflix, HBO, and NBCUniversal, placing Humboldt-Del Norte alongside top-tier international markets.

“This is a big moment, not just for our office, but for rural California,” said Cassandra Hesseltine, Film Commissioner for Humboldt and Del Norte counties. “When you invest in keeping projects here, you’re not just supporting Hollywood, you’re supporting communities like ours, creating jobs, and building long-term economic resilience across the state.”

The recognition comes during a landmark year for the region and for California’s film industry overall. The Commission was recently named 2026 Nonprofit of the Year for California Assembly District 2, and supported the production of One Battle After Another, directed by Paul Thomas Anderson and starring Leonardo DiCaprio, a California-filmed project that went on to win Best Picture at the Academy Awards.

Filmed in part across Humboldt County, the production generated millions in economic impact, supported hundreds of local jobs, and demonstrated the value of investing in California-based production at a time when the state is actively working to expand and strengthen its film and television tax credit program.

As California continues to compete globally for film and television production, Humboldt-Del Norte has emerged as a model for how smaller regions can deliver high-impact results through collaboration, responsiveness, and strong industry relationships.

The Humboldt-Del Norte Film Commission serves as the official liaison for productions across both counties, providing permitting support, location resources, and local crew and vendor connections, while also advancing film tourism and workforce development in Northern California.

Winners of the Global Production Awards will be announced on May 18, 2026, in Cannes, France.

Garcia.

Ed. note: At least one other candidate, Jason McCutcheon, has signed up to run for this seat, which will be on the November ballot.

###

Press release from Victor Garcia for City Council, Ward One:

Victor E. Garcia Jr., local community organizer and commissioner on the Humboldt County Human Rights Commission, today announced the endorsement of three local elected officials in his campaign for the open Eureka City Council 1st Ward seat.

Endorsing Garcia are Councilmember Leslie Castellano (Ward 1), Councilmember G. Mario Fernandez (Ward 3), and Supervisor Natalie Arroyo (Fourth District).

“Victor has the vision and knowledge to help build a successful Eureka. It doesn’t take long to figure out how difficult life can be behind the Redwood Curtain; though, with Victor’s experience and insight and expertise of public processes, adding him to our city’s leadership would help build a more prosperous Eureka.”

— G. Mario Fernandez, Eureka City Councilmember, Ward 3

Garcia is running on a platform that addresses five interconnected challenges facing Eureka: a behavioral health crisis, lack of healthcare access, housing instability and tenants’ rights, food resiliency, and shrinking state and federal support. He has proposed creating a Rent Board to protect tenants, pursuing an elected Community Healthcare District to reduce the need for residents to travel hours for basic care, and investing in local food production through backyard gardens, gleaning campaigns, and partnerships with local farmers, ranchers, and the fishing industry.

For people experiencing homelessness, Garcia supports safe parking programs, tiny home villages, and embedding mental health professionals alongside community ambassadors. He has emphasized cross-agency collaboration as a strategy for stretching public dollars further during a period of reduced federal and state funding.

“This campaign is about presenting an attainable vision for Eureka and a movement that enables our neighbors to shape its future. Humboldt is full of creative, artistic, resilient, intelligent people, and we will harness their energy to create the future we deserve.”

— Victor E. Garcia Jr., candidate, Eureka City Council 1st Ward

Garcia is a public employee, community organizer, and proud Ward One resident. From watching his mother run a small business for 27 years to organizing progressive victories across California, Victor has spent his life learning how to make systems work for people. He is a member of Operating Engineers Local 3, Vice Chair of the Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee, and a dedicated advocate for a better Eureka. He grew up in the San Fernando Valley and earned a B.A. in Political Science from the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Campaign Kickoff Event

• Saturday, April 11, 2:30–4:30 p.m.
• Synapsis, 1675 Union St., Eureka (across from Caltrans)

Food provided. Children welcome.

To learn more, RSVP for the launch event, or get involved, visit Victor4Eureka.com or email info@victor4eureka.com.

Biography

Victor Garcia is a proud Eureka resident who has made Humboldt County his forever home. He lives in Ward One with his partner of ten years, three beloved pets, and his parents, who reside just a mile down the road. To Victor, Ward One is home, and its future is personal.

Growing up in the San Fernando Valley, Victor experienced firsthand what it means to build something from the ground up. His mother owned and operated a travel agency for 27 years, working seven days a week for much of that time. That upbringing gave him a front-row seat to the sacrifices small business owners make each and every day.

As a public employee in local government, Victor’s professional experiences inform his civic life. He is grounded in the belief that government can do better and should work for the people it serves. His experience navigating municipal government from the inside gives him a practical understanding of how city institutions function and how to get things done for residents.

Over the past ten years, Victor has organized for progressive causes and candidates across California. He got his start in politics as Co-Chair of UC Santa Barbara for Bernie in 2015. Working alongside a coalition of students and community stakeholders, his efforts helped register over 10,000 students to vote ahead of the 2016 primary. He later served as Statewide Volunteer Coordinator for Delaine Eastin for Governor and most recently helped defeat Measure F right here in Eureka.

Victor is deeply embedded in the civic life of the region. He currently serves on the Humboldt County Human Rights Commission and is a proud member of Operating Engineers Local 3. He is also active in the Democratic Party as Vice Chair of the county central committee and a delegate to the California Democratic Party. He earned his B.A. in Political Science from UC Santa Barbara in 2017.

When he is not engaged in the community, Victor can be found tending his garden, at one of Humboldt’s beautiful beaches with a good book, or cooking and baking for friends and family.

PREVIOUSLY

• Eureka Police Announce Arrest of Man Suspected of Smashing Glass Doors Around Town Last Night, Including at EPD Headquarters

From the Eureka Police Department:

On April 7th, 2026, at approximately 8:50 p.m., Officers with the Eureka Police Department (EPD) responded to the vicinity of 4th St and E St for a report of a male subject hitting windows and throwing rocks at financial institutions. 

Officers quickly arrived in the area and located the male suspect, identified as Bruce Snow, 34 years old of Eureka, holding a rock and a blue Sharpie pen while approaching a bank. Officers located similar rocks near other damaged financial institutions. The rocks had the banks’ names written on them in blue Sharpie and appeared to have been used to break the windows. 

Snow was taken into custody for felony vandalism, public intoxication, possession of drug paraphernalia, and violating the terms of his probation. This is the second time Snow has been involved in felony vandalism under similar circumstances. See the excerpt from previous press release located below.  

Eureka, CA — On the night of October 29 and into the early morning hours of October 30, 2025, Eureka Police Department (EPD) patrol officers responded to a series of ten vandalism incidents across the north end of the city. An individual was reported to be shattering multiple glass doors at several businesses, including the front doors of the Eureka Police Department Headquarters and the Humboldt Bay Fire Headquarters. 

During the investigation, and with assistance from victim businesses, officers identified and located the suspect near 4th and A Streets. The suspect, 34-year-old Bruce William Snow, was arrested and booked into jail for multiple counts of felony vandalism and probation violations. 

Anyone with information related to this incident is encouraged to contact the Eureka Police Department Criminal Investigation Unit at 707-441-4300.

###

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

###

Gov. Gavin Newsom is advancing a plan that could funnel hundreds of millions in road dollars to a struggling oil refinery — pitching it as a cleaner jet fuel initiative. The credit, drawn from funds voters designated for highways and local streets, could also raise gas prices for most drivers.

UC Berkeley economists warn it could raise California gas prices. And while the plan is pitched as a climate measure, the analysis finds it could cut emissions at more than 10 times the cost economists consider effective, one of the authors told CalMatters.

The proposal is expected to receive a final legislative hearing on Thursday. It has drawn backing from lawmakers and labor groups, who say it preserves jobs at facilities like the Rodeo refinery in Contra Costa County and helps the state achieve its climate goals.

But the plan has drawn criticism from an unlikely mix of voices: oil industry representatives, the Legislature’s nonpartisan analyst — who is urging lawmakers to reject the proposal — and environmentalists who argue California is underfunding cleaner, more effective alternatives like mass transit.

Phillips 66 leads the subsidy line

The governor’s four-page proposal is a straightforward mechanism granting a tax credit to producers in a small corner of the jet fuel market — with potentially far-reaching implications for most drivers.

Only two companies currently produce state-certified jet biofuel and also owe diesel excise tax in California — the conditions required to claim the credit, said

Andrew March, a Department of Finance budget analyst. Of those, only Phillips 66 has publicly confirmed it would qualify for the credit. The company spent $1.25 billion converting its Rodeo refinery in Contra Costa County from traditional petroleum refining to biofuels.

Jets do not run on gasoline; they run on a fuel refined from petroleum by oil companies that also produce gasoline for cars and diesel for trucks. Because jet fuel requires less processing than gasoline or diesel, it is generally cheaper to produce. But sustainable aviation fuel, made from products like used cooking grease and animal fat, costs significantly more, roughly twice the price of conventional jet fuel, due to the expense of converting refineries and processing organic materials.

Under the proposal, producers would earn credits for selling the fuel here and use those credits to offset the diesel taxes they owe.

The formula for credits isn’t flat — the cleaner the fuel, the bigger the credit, ranging from $1 to $2 per gallon.

The state estimates that Newsom’s proposal could cost between $165 million and $300 million, but California’s nonpartisan legislative analyst warns that figure could be far higher. That’s because the tax credit is so high that it could incentivize companies outside California to acquire California companies with diesel tax liabilities, said Helen Kerstein, who evaluates climate programs for the Legislative Analyst’s Office. A major California refiner like Chevron could also buy a renewable fuel company elsewhere and ship the fuel here, she said.

If more companies claim the credit than expected, diesel tax revenues could fall more sharply — driving the program’s cost higher than anticipated. In February, a team of UC Berkeley economists estimated the proposal could cause diesel tax receipts to fall by as much as 75%.

“They’re going to incentivize a whole lot more sustainable aviation fuel than they’re planning,” Aaron Smith, a Berkeley economist who co-authored the report, told CalMatters. “That is going to be a huge hit to the state’s diesel tax receipts, and so it’s going to be a huge hole in the budget.”

March, the budget analyst, disputed Smith’s findings, saying it assumes an 8-to-10-fold surge in sustainable aviation fuel flowing into California. Other states that have passed similar credits haven’t experienced such growth, he said. The program is designed to grow over time, as more companies begin producing sustainable aviation fuel and become eligible, March said.

One refinery’s bet

Last year, Assemblymember Anamarie Ávila Farías and a dozen colleagues toured the Rodeo refinery, which sits along the shores of the San Pablo Bay, in the Concord Democrat’s district. What they learned alarmed them, Ávila Farías said.

Phillips 66 officials told lawmakers that due to the loss of federal incentives — and because California’s own low carbon fuel program wasn’t generating enough revenue — projects like the refinery conversion were struggling, she said.

Phillips 66 lobbied the Governor’s office directly near the end of 2025. Newsom included the tax credit in his budget proposal. Ávila Farías and 40 of her colleagues joined in a “bipartisan” push for the measure.

“In 2026, these facilities are on the brink of closure,” Ávila Farías said in written responses to CalMatters questions.

Phillips 66 declined to answer basic questions about the proposal it lobbied to help shape: whether the Rodeo facility is profitable, whether it faces closure without the credit or how much it expects to claim if the credit is approved. Neither the governor’s office nor the company would say what role it played in shaping the proposal.

In 2025, the company made $4.4 billion in profits. The Houston-based company’s renewable fuels segment, which is anchored by the Rodeo complex, lost $380 million in 2025, worse than the $198 million loss it posted the year before, according to the company’s annual report.

Disclosures filed with the California Secretary of State show Phillips 66 lobbied the Governor’s Office directly on a “proposed sustainable aviation fuel incentive package” in the last three months of the year — after the legislative session had concluded but budget planning for the next year is typically underway. An earlier disclosure specifically referenced ‘diesel excise taxes’ alongside the fuels incentive package.

Phillips 66 was a member of the Western States Petroleum Association, the state’s main oil lobby, until the end of last year. The association has not taken an official position on the tax credit, though its chief lobbyist has urged lawmakers to stay focused on keeping California’s traditional petroleum refineries open.

Phillips 66 has been a significant contributor to state campaigns through 2024, donating a total of more than $1.1 million to legislators, according to the CalMatters Digital Democracy database. Since 2024, the company has continued to fund legislative campaigns, including those of Ávila Farías, Secretary of State data shows.

For workers at the Rodeo plant, the stakes are high. Joe Jawad, president of United Steelworkers Local 326, represents roughly 250 workers there, many from families who have worked the refinery for generations. In total, the refinery employs more than 400 workers.

“If this incentive passes, it’s my understanding this place stays here for years to come,” Jawad said. “That’s what we’re looking for.”

But the transition has concerned local environmental justice advocates. Community organizer Daphney Saviotti-Orozco, who grew up in the unincorporated community of Rodeo, a few blocks from the refinery, worries biofuels could still pollute local air quality with methane, nitrogen oxides and fine particulate matter.

“There’ll be more pressure to make even more,” she said.

A hit to California’s highways and byways

California has long protected fuel tax money for roads. Newsom’s proposal could drain those funds.

In hearings, lawmakers have specifically raised concern about the use of road dollars for green jet fuel.

“We don’t have sustainable funding for our transportation system,” said Lori Wilson, a Democrat from Suisun City, who chairs the Assembly transportation committee, speaking at a March 11 hearing. “It does give me cause for concern.”

The state constitution protects gas and diesel excise taxes: they must fund highways, local streets and transit infrastructure. Voters reinforced that mandate in 2010, when they passed Proposition 22, which barred the state from borrowing or redirecting those funds.

Newsom’s proposal wouldn’t technically violate the rules, but the proposal would have a similar impact, said Kerstein, of the legislative analyst’s office.

“Every dollar that goes to this credit is one fewer dollar that goes to local streets and roads, and the state highway system,” Kerstein said. “That’s the trade-off.”

March disputed the framing, saying there were other sources of money for transportation funds.

“The projected impact on road repairs is not a dollar for dollar trade,” he wrote.

The credit would pull money from three programs: Caltrans highway maintenance, local street and road funding and competitive freight grants. California’s roads are already starved for cash.

Current funding only covers about 61% of projected highway needs, according to Caltrans, while more drivers switching to electric vehicles are likely to shrink gas tax revenue. Local streets and roads face a $74 billion funding gap, according to a survey from the California State Association of Counties, which advocates for local jurisdictions.

“We definitely need road repairs, but we can’t miss this chance on jet fuel,” Ávila Farías wrote. “We must do both.”

A costly climate fix

But the plan’s primary beneficiary isn’t the climate; it’s a refinery whose parent company lost hundreds of millions on renewable fuels last year. And while supporters say the jet fuel credit would cut carbon emissions, critics say it could do so at a steep cost.

The plan would cost $1,000 to $2,700 per ton of emissions reduced — more than 10 times what economists consider a cost-effective way to cut climate pollution, according to the Berkeley analysis.

That’s because California is already getting most of the climate benefits from renewable fuels — also made from plant and animal materials — through its low carbon fuel standard, a program that pushes producers to make what they sell here progressively cleaner. Many of those fuels today go into diesel trucks.

Berkeley’s report contends that the credit would mainly shift the same limited supply of used cooking oil, animal fats and other raw materials into jet fuel instead of replacing fossil fuels.

March said the state has invested in similarly-priced and more expensive policies in the past in order to boost emerging technologies. “Public investment does what private capital won’t,” March said.

Matthew Botill, a division chief with the California Air Resources Board, said boosting sustainable aviation fuel is critical because demand for jet fuel is expected to grow and state policies aim to cut fuel use in trucking by shifting to electric vehicles.

Without stronger incentives for sustainable aviation fuel, petroleum use in aviation will rise as more people fly, undermining the state’s climate goals, Botill said at a March 11 hearing.

But by diverting renewable diesel from trucks, producers could drive gas and diesel prices up by 10 to 15 cents per gallon, according to Smith and the Berkeley economists – pushing trucks back toward petroleum and making the fuel mix dirtier and more expensive to clean up.

“Markets chase the subsidies,” said Danny Cullenward, an energy policy researcher who agreed with the Berkeley findings. “You make a very attractive subsidy, and people say, ‘Well, I’d rather be delivering that thing.’”

Environmentalists say the state would be better off investing in proven, emission-cutting solutions like electric cars and trucks and mass transit.

“We’re not funding the low-hanging fruit,” said Christina Scaringe, California climate policy director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “There’s just a very basic argument that we don’t have a lot of money.”

March, the state budget analyst, told CalMatters that predictions about the governor’s biofuel proposal’s impact on gas prices are “highly uncertain.”

Lawmakers, including Ávila Farías, have compared jet biofuel to solar or wind power in their early stages arguing California “must act boldly now,” to support sustainable aviation fuel.

Smith is skeptical sustainable aviation fuel will ever get cheap enough to stand on its own. And the economics have only worsened since the U.S. began strikes on Iran in late February, sending fuel prices sharply higher.

Before the conflict, conventional jet fuel ran about $2.50 a gallon, according to Argus Media – which also tracked sustainable fuel’s cost at more than twice that — $5.48. Since the strikes on Iran, both have climbed. At west coast airports this week, Globalair.com reports the price of sustainable fuel has reached $10.20.

“You need a lot of government support to make it work,” Smith said. “I just don’t ever see that happening.”

Two years after Humboldt county voters passed a raft of sales tax measures, Fortuna’s decided it wants in on the action.

The Fortuna City Council unanimously decided last night to add a measure to the November 2026 ballot asking voters to pass a 0.75% sales tax on purchases made within city limits. Its specificities are under discussion.

The city is under immense financial pressure. Revenue is declining; costs are rising. Revenue hasn’t kept pace with inflation, nor has it risen incrementally year-over-year. Fortuna is earning about $500,000 less in sales tax and TOT revenue every year than it was in 2020, and annual liability insurance is also $500,000 more. City staff estimated that the city has lost $1.8 million in purchasing power over the last six years, forcing them to halt hiring police officers and go into a deficit. If enacted, the sales tax would contribute that much to the city’s budget every year, cancelling the losses out. 

Fortuna hired private consulting firm EMC Research to survey Fortuna residents to find out how they’d feel about the tax, and how they feel about the city as a whole. Out of the 200 people surveyed, 64% thought the city needed more money — many even brought up the city’s money woes unprompted — but 57% said they generally opposed tax increases. Those surveyed were split on the proposed sales tax: 46% said they were in favor, 51% said they weren’t. Sharing more information about the fiscal hole the city is in influenced that to a slight “yes” majority; giving them the other oppositional viewpoint flip-flopped those results. A representative from the firm pointed out that the study had a 7% margin of error, so the measure’s passage will be a crapshoot come November. 

In 2024, an identical measure in Fortuna failed with 42% of the vote. 

The obvious conflict between wanting more city services — but not wanting to pay more sales tax — vexed some of the council members. One public commenter, Fortuna resident Orville Garrison, said that it was “disappointing” and “somewhat depressing” that so many Fortunans wanted and expected city services, but weren’t willing to pay for them. 

Mayor pro tem Tami Trent pointed out that the proposed tax hike is the same as Eureka’s sales tax. 

“We need to support our own city and our own services,” she said. “We’re just asking for the same as you pay there. Nothing more.”