Fairfield annexation request delayed

By From page A1 | December 11, 2012

FAIRFIELD — Fairfield’s effort to add another 1,044 acres – well over a square mile – to its boundaries for a proposed train station community has hit a speed bump.

The Local Agency Formation Commission met Monday to discuss the annexation request. Fairfield and the U.S. Air Force requested and received a delay until the February 2013 LAFCO meeting.

Fairfield Senior Planner Dave Feinstein and city project consultant Ron Rowland said after the meeting that no big obstacles have arisen. Rather, the Air Force as a matter of procedure must review the recent addition to the annexation request of 100 acres within the Travis Air Force Base fencing, they said.

Solano County asked Fairfield to add the 100 acres of Travis Air Force Base to the annexation application. Otherwise, Rowland said, the 100 acres would form an “island” of rural land surrounded by city land once the annexation is completed.

“From the city’s standpoint, it makes sense, because the vast majority of the base is in the city,” Feinstein said.

The city annexed the bulk of Travis Air Force Base in 1966.

Fairfield and Solano County a few months ago passed an agreement pertaining to the proposed train station annexations. Among the provisions was that no “islands” of unincorporated land would be created where the county would still have to provide services.

Fairfield is annexing land for the train station community in two phases. LAFCO on Oct. 15 approved having Fairfield annex 1,244 acres. The proposed 1,044-acre annexation would bring the total to 2,288 acres.

The train station community is to someday have 6,800 residences, 286 acres of industry, 47 acres of commercial development, a 50-acre Great Park, a 25-acre park with a lake and an elementary school. The centerpiece is to be a train station along the Capitol Corridor route that commuters could use to travel to jobs.

A LAFCO report recommends that the agency board approve the proposed 1,044-acre second-phase annexation. Commissioners are John Saunderson, Fairfield Mayor Harry Price, Dixon Mayor Jack Batchelor and county Supervisors Jim Spering and John Vasquez.

One of LAFCO’s annexation standards is that an area added to a city should see signficant growth within 10 years. Fairfield presented a study using a 20-year time frame. The city in two decades expects 90 percent of the homes to be built, 90 percent of the commercial land developed and 70 percent of the industrial land to be developed.

While these projections don’t fully conform to the 10-year time frame standard, using a 20-year time frame is logical given the large scale of the proposed development, a LAFCO report said.

Monday’s annexation request differed in a key way from the earlier train station community annexation. That Oct. 15 hearing dealt with land that is mostly vacant and owned by the developers. The latest, so-called “core” annexation request includes land with rural businesses ranging from storage to recycling.

Reach Barry Eberling at 427-6929 or [email protected] Follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/beberlingdr.

Barry Eberling

Barry Eberling

Barry Eberling has been a reporter with the Daily Republic since 1987. He covers Solano County government, transportation, growth and the environment. He received his bachelors of art degree from the University of California, Santa Barbara and his masters degree in journalism from the University of California, Berkeley.

Discussion | 2 comments

The Daily Republic does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Please read our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy before commenting.

  • Our Downtown is falling apart...December 11, 2012 - 10:02 pm

    Our City Manager Sean Quinn is literally shoveling money to his developer buddies while our City core is falling apart..Why are we expanding the size of our City with this annexation when our City is barely providing City services with what we already have...As far as i'm concerned this City Manager has as much common sense as a fence post!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CD BrooksDecember 12, 2012 - 8:42 am

    Great, maybe this is a back door for the council to keep the mud off their faces? The overpass should still be a go right? After all, that is the only sensible project proposed out there.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Recent Articles

  • Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • Special Publications »

    Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service (updated 4/30/2015) and Privacy Policy (updated 4/7/2015).
    Copyright (c) 2016 McNaughton Newspapers, Inc., a family-owned local media company that proudly publishes the Daily Republic, Mountain Democrat, Davis Enterprise, Village Life and other community-driven publications.