Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board asks staff to send Suisun City a letter raising county plan‑consistency concerns about large annexation proposal
Summary
After an urgency item, the board authorized a staff letter asking Suisun City to pause or coordinate further on an extensive annexation/reimbursement agreement related to a California Forever proposal; supervisors emphasized county general‑plan coordination and a planned regional summit.
The Solano County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday voted 5–0 to authorize county staff to send a letter to the Suisun City Council expressing county concerns about a reimbursement agreement and a proposed large annexation the city is considering with a landowner group called California Forever.
What the board asked staff to do: The letter instructs county staff to state the county’s concerns about general‑plan consistency, to request that city actions align with the regional planning discussions the board had previously directed (the “4C” mayors-and-supervisors forum and a planned general‑plan summit), and to urge coordination with the county before the city proceeds with annexation steps. The motion passed by vote of 5–0.
Background: County staff said they first reviewed California Forever’s earlier withdrawn initiative and then later learned Suisun City had placed a reimbursement-agreement item on its city council agenda for the same landowner’s proposal. According to staff documents the board reviewed, the proposed annexation would add roughly 22,873 acres to Suisun City — including the core area previously proposed by California Forever — and include contiguous zones such as (in staff materials) the Lambie Industrial Park and other parcels. County staff characterized the expansion as an unusually large annexation that would substantially change land-use designations in eastern Solano County.
County position and rationale: County presenters told the board the matter is premature to advance without county‑regional coordination because the county is preparing a general‑plan update and because changes of the scale shown in the city packet would have regional infrastructure and environmental implications. The board emphasized that this request is not a permanent prohibition; supervisors said they seek a coordinated approach and want the planned 4C summit to be the forum for substantive regional discussion.
Public comment and city response: Suisun City officials and the city’s mayor and vice mayor addressed the board to say the city is conducting public outreach and the reimbursement agreement only pays for studies the city needs to do before any annexation or development decisions. Suisun’s mayor told supervisors the city has held meetings with stakeholders and urged the board to allow the city to continue its analysis. Representatives for California Forever and counsel also spoke and described the reimbursement agreement as routine and not a guarantee of any entitlement.
Next steps: County staff said they will send the letter to Suisun City and publish it as part of this meeting’s record. Supervisors asked staff to return with additional coordination steps and to prepare for the broader regional general‑plan dialogue the board previously requested.
End note: The motion was framed as a request for coordination and to protect county general‑plan responsibilities rather than a legal challenge to annexation authority; county staff and supervisors made clear they welcome collaborative discussions but want to preserve the county’s planning role and ensure an inter‑jurisdictional review of large land‑use changes.
