1 Beavers, Esther
From:[email protected]
Sent:Tuesday, December 3, 2024 4:42 PM
To:Beavers, Esther
Subject:FW: City Council 12/3 Meeting Item M.3 Comments Attachments:24_08_29_Comment ltr on DEIR-Signed.pdf
From: Bezek, James M.
Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 4:32 PM
To: [email protected]; Gassaway, David
Cc: Emlen, Bill F. ; Curry, Bernadette S. ; Hernandez, Jessie ; Calder, Allan M.
Subject: City Council 12/3 Meeting Item M.3 Comments
Mayor Moy and Honorable Councilmembers:
The County would like to commend the City on its eƯorts to update its General Plan and appreciates the eƯorts put forward for a comprehensive document. While the County in general supports the City’s eƯorts and looks to be a good partner for the community, the County does take exception to the City’s plans for Hale Ranch. Please see attached previous comments sent during the request for comment period and additionally, the County’s specific concerns in regards to Hale Ranch are as follows:
Misalignment with Suisun Valley Strategic Plan
1. Inconsistency with Strategic Plan Goals:
o The Suisun Valley Strategic Plan prioritizes agriculture and agritourism uses that directly benefit the Suisun Valley Agricultural Area.
o Annexation for industrial or non-agricultural uses contradicts the Plan’s vision and undermines its purpose.
2. Threat to Agricultural Sustainability:
o The property’s Class 1 and 2 soils are vital to the region’s agricultural productivity. o Annexation risks eroding the County’s ability to sustain and grow the wine and agritourism industries in the Suisun Valley.
Impact on Regional Agricultural Identity
3. Loss of Agricultural Land:
o Conversion of 100 acres of high-value agricultural land disrupts the Suisun Valley’s agricultural character and economy.
o The Hale Ranch property plays an essential role in preserving the region’s identity as an agricultural hub.
4. Negative Precedent:
o Annexation could set a precedent for further non-agricultural development, accelerating urban sprawl and undermining agricultural preservation eƯorts.
Policy Conflicts and Community Investments
5. Contradiction with Measure T:
o Measure T was established to protect high-value agricultural land in unincorporated areas. o Annexation directly conflicts with this voter-supported initiative and its intent to limit urban encroachment.
6. Undermines County Commitments:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
2 o The County has invested significant resources in building consensus for the Suisun Valley Strategic Plan.
o Annexation disregards these eƯorts and risks diminishing community trust.
Premature Decision-Making
7. InsuƯicient Analysis:
o A Municipal Service Review by LAFCO has not been conducted to evaluate the governmental services required for the proposed annexation.
o Without comprehensive analysis, annexation risks poor planning and inadequate resource allocation.
8. Lack of Collaboration:
o The City of Fairfield has not suƯiciently engaged with the County to ensure annexation aligns with regional goals.
o Discussions on agricultural mitigation and land use compatibility must occur before any annexation decision.
Economic and Environmental Concerns
9. Economic Disruption:
o Shifting the property away from agricultural uses could harm the local economy by reducing agritourism and agricultural outputs.
o Industrial uses are unlikely to yield comparable economic or community benefits and the potential of warehousing/logistics uses directly impact the agricultural character of the area and generally lead to low-paying jobs that fail to provide sustainable economic boosts to the community.
10. Environmental Impacts:
o Conversion to industrial uses may lead to environmental degradation, including loss of fertile soils, increased traƯic, and reduced open space.
o Protecting agricultural land aligns with regional sustainability goals and climate resilience eƯorts.
Call to Action
11. Protect Suisun Valley’s Future:
o Hale Ranch should remain in productive agriculture or be developed for agritourism uses that directly serve Suisun Valley’s agricultural area.
o Collaborative planning between the County and City of Fairfield is essential to safeguard the region’s long-term interests.
These points collectively argue that annexation is inconsistent with established policies, economically and environmentally detrimental, and undermines regional agricultural identity and community goals.
We thank you for your consideration of these concerns and are open to future dialog.
Thank you,
James Bezek, AIA
Department of Resource Management - Director
(707) 784-6062 (direct)
(707) 784-6765 (department)
[email protected]