[Note from BenIndy: The Daily Republic reported this morning that the minor updates to the Travis Air Force Base’s Land Use Compatibility Plan, which will be on the agenda at Thursday’s commission meeting, may not impact the CA Forever development. That said, this conversation has brought to our attention how land use around TAFB is regulated, which in turn raised some serious questions about how much of the proposed new community will be in built in restricted zones where schools, hospitals, nursing homes, care centers, and more are prohibited. Read more below.]

Commission to review land-use plan changes for Travis, Rio Vista

Daily Republic, by Todd R. Hansen, July 9, 2024

As the Daily Republic reports above, the updates proposed in the draft TAFB land-use compatibility plan, do not place any additional restrictions on CA Forever’s proposed development.

However,  the adopted LUCP map from 2015 (Fig. 1, page 13) and the 2024 draft map (Fig. 1, page 8) may show significant pre-existing and continuing restrictions on part of the land California Forever intends to develop for its new city.

Specifically – albeit speculatively, as disclaimed below – an earnest attempt at overlaying the LUCP map and a map of Flannery Associates’ current holdings, with a dashed outline of the projected new community’s boundaries, may be showing us that about half of the new community could be in an area designated  by the 2015 and 2024 LUCP maps as Zone C.

Zone C is shown to have have more frequent and foreseeable air traffic.

Schools, nursing homes, day care centers, libraries, and hospitals are prohibited in Zone C.

Additionally, it stands to reason that if schools and nursing homes are prohibited in Zone C, presumably due to noise and air pollution, perhaps parks and similar services for children and residents over 55 shouldn’t be built in Zone C either.

So, will schools and hospitals, and perhaps parks as well, only be built in the eastern half of CA Forever’s planned community?

If so, what are the implications for equitable access, emergency support and services, and more?

Will wealthier residents pay more to live closer to essential services and nonessential amenities in this walkable city?

OK, now let’s talk about this messy map.

The graphic below is a gif that shows two publicly available maps overlaid: the big map with the purple in the middle is the draft 2024 LUCP map (which is substantively the same as the 2014 adopted map; see links above if you’d like to check). The small map was produced by Solano County to show Flannery’s current holdings, with purchased parcels shown as yellow squares.

The dashed-line shape in the center of the yellow-squared parcel map shows the location of California Forever’s projected new city.

Now let’s adjust the transparency to see if we can get a sense of the overlap.

Disclaimer: This gif was cobbled together using publicly available maps and data available in the 2024 and 2015 LUCPs, and maps of the Flannery holdings developed by Solano County. Please be aware the nice folks at BenIndy are amateurs when it comes to graphical design. We used Canva to overlay the maps, doing our best to align key landmarks, and adjusted the transparency of one map to give an impression of the impacted areas. This image is for exploratory and speculative purposes only, is possibly inaccurate, and should not be shared without also sharing this disclaimer. via GIPHY.

In a move that surprised approximately no one, the Solano County Board of Supervisors has ordered California Forever to produce a report on its East Solano Plan initiative within 30 days, to be delivered on or about July 23.

The public comment period was respectful and measured, with a few impassioned pleas from both sides but no rowdy behavior.

Several commenters made recommendations regarding the nature of the report, although many complained that 30 days was insufficient time to complete the task.

Vice-Chair Wanda Williams and Supervisor Monica Brown also made comment regarding the report’s contents before the board voted unanimously in support of the motion.

A running tally of public comment indicated roughly equal representation for the East Solano Plan’s supporters and opposition activists. However, many of those commenting in support of the East Solano Plan appeared to be employees of California Forever as they either wore shirts emblazoned with campaign imagery or disclosed their affiliation to and financial stake in the project’s success in comment.

It was an overall positive meeting with much to consider. More coming when it is available.