Rio Vista council votes to explore annexation talks with California Forever after hours of public comment

The Rio Vista City Council voted unanimously on March 4, 2025, to direct city staff to explore annexation discussions for an undefined portion of land owned by California Forever, the developer behind the proposed 17,500-acre East Solano plan adjacent to Rio Vista. The motion, described by Mayor Edwin Okamura as a step to ensure the city "has a seat at the table," passed 5–0 after a staff presentation and roughly two hours of public comment.

City Manager Christina Miller told the council that the choice before them was policy-level: pursue annexation talks and retain the ability to negotiate project benefits and protections for Rio Vista, or limit engagement and risk having limited control over land use and nearby industrial zoning. "Staff is here to protect and enhance the city," Miller said, describing the multi-step process that would follow any decision to pursue annexation — a strategic-growth valuation, an environmental impact report, updates to the city’s municipal services review and sphere of influence, and LAFCO approval.

The public comment period was lengthy and divided. Business owners and residents such as Patty Dutra Bruce of the Dutra Group urged Option 1, asking the council to protect industrial zoning at the North Waterfront so the company could relocate its headquarters and bring jobs to the city. Supporters argued that engaging could secure infrastructure investments, new jobs and housing that would keep local workers in Solano County.

Opponents voiced environmental and process concerns. County employees and longtime residents warned the council against enabling large-scale farmland conversion, stressing risks to aquifers, vernal pools and threatened species. "We don't have to do this," said Jean McCormick, a third-generation local farmer, urging caution and more information before pursuing annexation.

Councilmembers emphasized the exploratory nature of the decision. Several members said they were skeptical of the scale and speed of California Forever's proposal but said they would rather negotiate terms — including firm water assurances and infrastructure commitments — than be left without leverage. Councilmember Stanish pressed staff on technical questions about timing and staffing for later reviews; staff repeatedly described the process as time- and resource-intensive.

Votes at a glance

- Consent calendar (items 6.1, 6.2, 6.5, 6.7–6.9): approved (roll call recorded, consent motion carried). - Action 6.3 (fire engineer/paramedic job description): approved; current engineer-paramedics to be grandfathered (roll call recorded). - Action 6.6 (waive final reading and adopt Ordinance No. 0112025): adopted on final reading, roll call recorded (4–1; Vice Mayor Donnelly opposed). - Action 7.1 (direction on California Forever): motion to direct staff to explore annexation discussions for "not all, but an undefined portion" of California Forever land — passed unanimously (5–0).

Next steps and context

City staff said any annexation exploration would require several contracted studies and multiple council approvals; LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission) would evaluate municipal services, consistency with general plan updates and other mandatory and discretionary standards before any annexation could occur. Staff noted the timeline would be long and would involve additional opportunities for public input.

The council also instructed staff to include Montezuma Hills buffer considerations in the scope of work. Several councilmembers and speakers said their support for further conversation is contingent on securing clear commitments on water supply and major roadway improvements to handle potential traffic impacts.

The council’s motion does not approve annexation or development; it directs city staff to begin the evaluation and negotiation process and to return with analyses and recommendations for future council action.