top of page
  • Writer's pictureLagoon Valley Conservancy

November 18, 2014 Request to Vacaville City Council to Deny Development

Updated: Mar 16, 2019

18 November 2014

City of Vacaville

Attention: Honorable Mayor and City Council

650 Merchant Street

Vacaville, California 95688

Re: Agenda Item No. 8A -Public Hearing Regarding the Lower Lagoon Valley Planned Development and Design Guidelines | November 2014 and Request to Deny Resolution of the City Council of the City of Vacaville Approving the Same.

Dear Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers,

The Lagoon Valley Conservancy is adamantly opposed to the proposed development of Lower Lagoon Valley and respectfully requests that the Resolution to approve the above referenced Agenda item be postponed until there has been adequate time for public review and comment.

As a part of the settlement agreement between the Developers, the City of Vacaville, and Friends of Lagoon Valley, members of the Friends of Lagoon Valley and certain interested parties were to be notified of any pending updates, revisions, or changes to the settlement agreement. Further, in accordance with City of Vacaville Code and to provide transparency and greater public notification, this project should be noticed at the site with a billboard. To date, no such notification has been received nor posted regarding the proposed adoption of the Lower Lagoon Valley Planned Development and Design Guidelines (“Plan”).

Regardless, it would be irresponsible to adopt the Plan, as it is based on an obsolete Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) that is nearly a decade old.

Since the 2005 adoption of the EIR, there has been a mortgage crisis, real estate meltdown, a significant drought, job sector changes, school closures with bussing issues, changes in the ability to provide public safety, and multiple development projects within the City of Vacaville and the surrounding area, not covered by the EIR, that would have a negative impact on the proposed development. Further, the City of Vacaville has an abundance of empty commercial property. The outdated EIR does not adequately address any of these significant issues.

Further, elements of the EIR are obsolete in their entirety. For example, as it is written and approved, middle school children would attend school at Dover or Sullivan Middle School in the Fairfield/ Suisun School District. Both of those schools have been closed as middle schools. Elementary School children are slated to attend Elm School (now closed) or Orchard School (not realistic for those who must also get their children to middle school in the opposite direction in the next town over). To date, a resolution between the two school districts has not been accomplished.

A cursory review of the proposed plan has highlighted several oversights. Namely, the project has hinged on the approval of the Army Corp of Engineers. To date the approval has not been granted. In addition, the plan has language that provides for an alternative other than the golf course. Per the Settlement Agreement, the golf course is an integral part of the approved project. An alternative would be considered a deviation from the agreement and would thus be considered a new project item subject to public and environmental review.

In closing, the proposed project should be denied as it is based on an obsolete EIR. It does not adequately address issues of public safety, traffic, market feasibility, environmental impacts in providing a reliable water source in this time of drought, or public services such as access to schools or public transportation. Thank you.


Robert Haran


9 views0 comments


bottom of page