Sign this petition

Suisun City is moving forward with the decision to expand its boundaries by annexing over 22,000 acres of unincorporated lands owned by California Forever.

The proposal, made by City Manager Brett Prebula as a way to address the City’s fiscal challenges, is advancing quickly with no opportunities for public input. This action bypasses county planning processes and the orderly growth initiative, a component of the general plan that has been renewed by county voters 3 times over the 40 years it has been in place. The proposed annexation would require extensive infrastructure investment and service extension that would likely increase costs for years to come.

The conversations about annexation were first unveiled at a Suisun City Council meeting in January 2025, when Suisun’s City Manager Bret Prebula proposed annexation as an option for alleviating the City’s structural budget deficit. According to City officials, the city is “looking at a $1.3 million shortfall, or about $1.8 million without an eventual reimbursement agreement with California Forever.”

Solano Together identified a significant overlap between Flannery Associates’ owned parcels, which were included in the East Solano Plan initiative, and the proposed area of expansion presented by the City Manager. At the time, the City denied any talks or intentions to work with California Forever.

However, subsequent actions indicated that Suisun City wants to annex almost the entirety of the failed East Solano Plan’s Initiative, which proposed rezoning of agriculturally-zoned lands to build a new sprawling community of up to 400,000 people.

July 2024: In July 2024, California Forever withdrew its East Solano Plan Initiative (learn more) from the ballot, given a surefire loss. They promised to return in 2026, bringing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and a Development Agreement, but it appears they have found a way to bypass voter approval through the annexation process.

January 2025: The City of Suisun City includes annexation discussions on the agenda, with barely any context or notice to the public. At the meeting, City Manager Brett Prebula presented the idea as a solution to the City’s fiscal problems. The City denies any cooperation with landowners California Forever.

April 15, 2025: Suisun City and Rio Vista vote to pass a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to work collaboratively in exploring the annexation of lands that are currently owned by Flannery Associates—California Forever’s holding. Suisun City Council voted 4-1 for the MOU agreement, the sole dissenting vote being of Councilmember Princess Washington.

June 10, 2025: Suisun City Council voted 4-1 to approve a Reimbursement Agreement (RA) between the City and California Forever and begin work on analyses, negotiations, and additional studies needed for annexation of 22,000 acres of unincorporated grazing land owned by Flannery Associates.

Suisun City is looking to develop far outside its city limits—nearly 10 miles away—even while the County’s Impact Report already shows the enormous infrastructure and service costs that a proposal like the East Solano Plan would bring. The proposed expansion would make Suisun City 10 times larger, extending 7-15 miles from its current boundaries.

Annexation occurs when a city, town, or district attempts to add land to its existing territory. In the wake of mass city expansions in the mid to late 20th century, California decided to rein in rampant sprawl by passing the Cortese Knox Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. Under this Act, the process of annexation must follow 4 major rules:

1. Promote orderly growth,

2. Discourage urban sprawl,

3. Preserve agricultural land, and

4. Encourage efficient public services.

Spheres of influence are assigned by each county’s Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to indicate the probable ultimate physical boundaries and service areas of a city. SOIs are usually larger than, although sometimes contiguous with, a city’s municipal limits.

Decisions about annexation must be reviewed through an independent board of public representatives called the Local Agency Formation Commission, or LAFCO.

Voters would not have a say in annexation decisions, either at the city or county level. Suisun City’s Council, special agencies, and LAFCO would get to decide, bypassing the countywide vote that would be required if development on agricultural land were to be pursued through the County instead.

The Suisun City Council would first have to vote to certify an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the project, then vote to annex the lands. Final approval would go to Solano County’s LAFCO, which includes members of the County Board of Supervisors, city mayors, and appointed members of the public. Through the LAFCO review process, the applicant must submit a map of the area, a plan for services, an environmental review (CEQA), and justification for annexation. LAFCO ultimately holds a final hearing on the application for parties to testify before the agency decides on the application. Within 30 days, any person can petition for a Request for Reconsideration against LAFCO’s determination.

Proponents of annexation tout its ability to alleviate local budget pressure through an expanded tax base and increased tax revenues. However, this logic is largely based on a mid-century model where cities were trying to recapture lost taxpayers who had fled the city for nearby suburbs (Edwards, 2008).

This is not the case for Suisun City or Rio Vista, where they are considering annexation of vacant, undeveloped land for a large-scale speculative development, not annexation of an established existing community that is already dependent on services and amenities of the existing city and have a quantifiable tax base that would alleviate city budget challenges. While the fiscal impact of annexation can vary widely depending on the scenario, one study examining over 300 cities found that cities with higher rates of annexation tended to have higher expenditures per capita and higher municipal taxes (Edwards, 2008).

New territories do not necessarily equate to high economic productivity, particularly when new development is far from existing city facilities and therefore requires significant new infrastructure and expanded services.

Territorial expansion on undeveloped land generates a variety of impacts. In Solano, annexation into undeveloped open spaces and working lands would threaten the delicate ecosystems of the Suisun Marsh, the San Joaquin Delta, and the Jepson Prairie in addition to resulting in severe impacts to the region’s vibrant agricultural economy.

Annexation into agricultural lands also comes at the cost of farmers who have held their properties for generations and who contribute to Solano’s agricultural economy.

With water scarcity already a major issue in the County, water service to new annexed lands would be highly contentious and likely result in reduced capacity for agricultural uses and existing Solano communities. In July 2024, the results of a county-ordered preliminary report on the impacts of California Forever, prepared by an independent consultant*, indicated a suite of problems with the proposed initiative, including:

• 14,000 ACRES of grazing lands destroyed, resulting in "significant impacts on local ecosystems, biodiversity and environmental quality" requiring further study in an Environmental Impact Report.

• Report notes that “there is substantial uncertainty regarding the source and quantity of water supplies that will be used to serve the new community and resulting impacts on other water users in the area.”

• 2.5 BILLION Increase in annual vehicle miles traveled, causing substantial traffic congestion due to road closures, detours, and construction activities that would negatively affect existing businesses in all seven Solano County cities.

• Read more on our Fact Sheet

While the timeline remains unclear, the annexation process is moving forward and may take from 2 to 10 years.

The Solano County Board of Supervisors is calling for a pause on Suisun City’s proposed annexation. Supervisors emphasized the need for regional coordination and expressed concerns about the timeline and process. Supervisor Mitch Mashburn highlighted regional impact concerns: "Think about the construction of a city and the resources that it would take...Think about the economic development that has the potential to be drawn away from the other cities."

The County wants all stakeholders to participate in the upcoming General Plan process, with a summit planned for August 2025

Cities across California are facing structural budget challenges as a result of expanding liabilities and dwindling city revenues. While there are no easy solutions, we can look to nearby examples of Benicia and Lodi, two cities that enacted growth protection measures to effectively channel growth into existing areas of the city and avoid costly expansion. Benicia, often compared to Suisun for its similarities, demonstrated a strong financial standing (while Suisun fell into a recurring deficit) after focusing development on existing urban areas within its city limits and implementing an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) in 2022 to limit sprawl and protect open spaces. Benicia is a practical reminder that infill development not only promotes thriving communities but ensures a healthier environment for all.

Similarly, in the nearby city of Lodi, they required all annexations to be approved by a majority vote. In addition to complementary infill measures, this was able to “redirect growth away from prime agricultural lands…[and resulted in a] city that eventually grew inward with a thriving downtown and not outward into its periphery" (Edwards, 2008).

As Suisun and many other cities in California are facing dual housing and environmental crises, they must implement policies that address these issues in tandem. They are inseparable, and annexation is rarely the answer.

[1] Median Household Income (MHI) in Suisun changed from $71,793 to $97,083 between 2010 and 2023—a 35% increase. Benicia’s MHI changed from $87,018 to $125,040 between 2010 and 2023—a 43% increase.