Davisite logo
Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

<

>

Update on Suisun City’s Council Meeting on Expanding City Boundaries and Exploring Land Annexation

SolanoMap

By Nate Huntington
Solano Together Coalition Member

Thank you to those who showed up last week at the Suisun City Council meeting to voice your concerns about the discussion on expanding city boundaries and exploring land annexation.  

In Short: Last Tuesday, January 21, the Suisun City Council voted 4-1 to “provide direction to staff to explore strategic opportunities for expanding Suisun City’s boundaries and advancing the goals outlined in the Resiliency Plan.”

Right before the meeting, Solano Together sent out an action alert urging supporters to attend and voice their concern for the lack of government transparency and the intention to expand boundaries into parcels in the Sphere of Influence—defined as a boundary that shows the probable future service area and physical boundaries of a local agency. We also had representatives in attendance for public comment.



Read below for a meeting recap and next steps from Solano Together.

See more reports about this meeting on local press:

Meeting Recap

During the discussion of the agenda item “Building Resilience and Expanding Opportunities”, City Manager Bret Prebula presented the case that for Suisun City to meet its economic growth goals and be more resilient to the ebbs and flows of economic downturns and upturns, the City needs to look at expanding its boundaries.

Dozens of residents showed up to follow the meeting and provide public comments. There were mixed comments in the crowd, with many bringing up their concerns about the agenda item and the lack of transparency. Ultimately, the Council voted to give the City Manager authority to explore options for annexation.

Solano Together created this map using publicly available information to show the potential implications of this proposal. The hashed images show parcels owned by Flannery Associates overlaid with the City’s Sphere of Influence.

While there is a clear overlap, Suisun City Mayor Alma Hernandez repeatedly denied any connection between the item for discussion and California Forever. If Suisun City were to annex lands and work with California Forever, that would give these developers a dangerous foothold for bypassing County law to develop.

What Happens Next

Regardless, Suisun City deserves a real solution to their financial troubles, not a false promise that would likely result in more traffic on Highway 12, costlier services for existing residents, more expensive infrastructure maintenance, encroachment on Travis Air Force Base, and loss of agricultural lands. We urge the Suisun City Council to conduct this process with transparency and accountability for the benefit of the community.

Solano Together is committed to uphold one of our core values: “Demand Transparency from Flannery Associates and Decision Makers.” We will continue to follow this issue closely to demand transparency from Solano County decision makers and to hold our elected officials accountable by informing the public with relevant and timely information as Suisun City explores the possibility of annexation. 

Some things we expect in this process are:

  • Ensure that future agenda items accurately reflect the content of the discussion and the decisions that the Council will vote on, especially around major decisions such as annexing land.

  • A map generated by the City of Suisun City, its Sphere of Influence, and Flannery Associates’ land-holdings.

  • A clear outline of the process of Suisun City annexing land, including the importance of LAFCo, Solano County, and other “partners” in that process.

https://www.solanotogether.org

Posted by

davisite

on

in

, , ,
Davisite logo

Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.

Comments

7 responses to “Update on Suisun City’s Council Meeting on Expanding City Boundaries and Exploring Land Annexation”

  1. Ron O

    I guess it’s too much to expect the governor and attorney general to weigh-in against this. Is this type of sprawl they had in mind, regarding their push for housing in a state with a declining population?

    Reply
  2. Alan C. Miller

    RO, the answer is in the depth of the pockets of those proposing, and the influence that billion$ have on politicians

    Reply
  3. KYE

    I’m new to these articles. Why is a Solano County organization posting on a Davis centric website about a land annexation and development in Suisun City? Not that I have a problem with it…it’s mildly interesting. But I’m just curious what the connection to Davis is.
    I remember almost 25 years ago going out to Suisun City for my first time by my development partner to look at some newly and fairly inexpensive built town homes as something to consider for future projects. It’s a good for a mix of medium density product to be included in with single family detached homes for a master planned community.
    Ron O. Well most of what was passed to push for new housing generally focuses on INFILL development. I’m not aware of any state mandate that can force a city to annex land to meet housing goals. Most “builder’s remedy” and other incentives that get density bonuses and mistrial approvals are for only INFILL projects. However, infill development isn’t easy so it’s not surprise that the push for new housing will force some communities to expand their city limits for future development. As for the state mandates themselves? As they say in real estate, it’s all about: location, location, location. Meaning that the mandates are region specific. So if an area isn’t growing or projected to grow; then it’s not going to be forced to plan for as many homes then area that are growing.

    Reply
  4. Colin Walsh

    KYE – The property owned by the Flannery Partners is at the north end of 113 and extends to Suisun City. It’s about 30 miles from Davis. The California Forever City project would be a large new City in the general Davis area. It is a regional topic.

    Reply
  5. Ron O

    ” (To) Ron O. Well most of what was passed to push for new housing generally focuses on INFILL development. I’m not aware of any state mandate that can force a city to annex land to meet housing goals.”
    I’m referring to what’s ACTUALLY occurring, such as the continuing expansion (footprint) of every city in the region – including Davis. One of the biggest tragedies is occurring right now, between Vacaville and Fairfield. And no doubt, some of those cities will be “counting” the new houses on what used to be open space as part of their RHNA targets from the state.
    Also, some are “hopefully” claiming that Measure J is under direct threat as a result of the state’s mandates. Do you read the Davis Vanguard?
    “Most “builder’s remedy” and other incentives that get density bonuses and mistrial approvals are for only INFILL projects. However, infill development isn’t easy so it’s not surprise that the push for new housing will force some communities to expand their city limits for future development”.
    And yet, you just said that the state can’t “force” sprawl. Which is it, in your view? And for that matter, isn’t sprawl ultimately included within city limits as “infill”? (It will be interesting to see if any of the proposed developments result in the “builder’s remedy” – regardless of what’s presented to voters via Measure J.
    “As for the state mandates themselves? As they say in real estate, it’s all about: location, location, location. Meaning that the mandates are region specific. So if an area isn’t growing or projected to grow; then it’s not going to be forced to plan for as many homes then area that are growing.”
    The reason that a given region is growing is BECAUSE of the pursuit of growth and development. California hasn’t even been growing for the past few years. As such, what we have in this region is largely due to people “escaping” from environmentally-superior living arrangements (e.g., existing housing in the Bay Area – where public transportation exists, air conditioners aren’t needed, etc.).
    “Why is a Solano County organization posting on a Davis centric website about a land annexation and development in Suisun City? Not that I have a problem with it…it’s mildly interesting. But I’m just curious what the connection to Davis is.”
    Right – probably “no connection”, unless you happen to travel on I-80 at some point. Or are concerned about loss of farmland/open space, climate change, etc.
    Honestly, I get the feeling from your abbreviated ID (as well as your comments) that you’re not putting forth “real” comments or questions.

    Reply
  6. Keith Y Echols

    Ron:
    What do you mean “real” comments. My comments are as real (and educated) as they get here.
    You’re dancing around my statement about the state not being able to force peripheral development. Fine; would you like me to refine my statement? The sate (as far as I know) can not DIRECTLY force a city to annex land for development. Will the state’s mandates INDIRECTLY force peripheral development? To some degree yes. But I’m not sure what your point is.
    “Also, some are “hopefully” claiming that Measure J is under direct threat as a result of the state’s mandates. Do you read the Davis Vanguard?”
    Yes, you know I do. You’re god dmn right I hope Measure J gets abolished. It allows the rabble, riffraff, the hoi polloi, the unwashed masses to have a direct say in things they don’t understand. As for the state? They’re probably not going to directly overturn something like Measure J…unless it can be show to DIRECTLY inhibit the planning and development of housing deemed required by the RHNA. So if enough projects get shotdown or reduced (like people complaining about 5 stories for UMall redevelopment project) or shootdown trackside….yeah…maybe Measure J gets shot down….but it goes down if the people let it get shot down.
    “California hasn’t even been growing for the past few years.”
    You’re deliberately avoiding my original point which was REGIONS of California are growing. The Sacramento Metro area grew by about 83K people between 2021-2025. Job growth continued too. So your “California isn’t growing” statements are pointless within the context of this discussion.
    “unless you happen to travel on I-80 at some point. Or are concerned about loss of farmland/open space, climate change, etc.”
    Have you driven over there or looked at a map? That’s not farmland. Open space…..uh okay….it’s right next to a freakin military base. Those people are going to live somewhere; they’re not going to magically go away. Those industries will end up in Vacaville or the Sac metro area. I 80 is going to be busy one way or the other.

    Reply
  7. Ron O

    Keith E – Thanks for the response, didn’t know it was you from your initial comment. (It sounded like something from a closeted developer.) In any case, it’s good to see you commenting on the Davisite.
    Regarding “direct” vs. “indirect” forcing of peripheral development, I’m not seeing what the practical difference is (and it seems that neither did you, in either of your comments). Of course, the state isn’t going to be able to force peripheral development in much of the Bay Area or elsewhere near the coast, and yet those areas are the “real” target areas of the state. So it will be interesting (as in “amusing”) to see what happens, as the “forced infill” doesn’t pencil out.
    Regarding which “regions” are growing, it seems like you’re the one missing the point: The regions which grow are the same ones that PURSUE growth and development. In other words, they are “choosing” to do so. As a side note, those are often the same areas that “suck”, to put it nicely. In contrast, you don’t see Tiburon or anywhere in Marin pursuing a lot of development, for example.
    For that matter, this is also part of the reason that Davis doesn’t suck as much as just about every other city in the region.
    I believe that the land that they want to build a sprawling oasis/neverland on is technically ranchland, not necessarily farmland. Either way, the existing use is far-less impactful than having yet another city suddenly appearing in the region, adding more traffic, etc.
    Neither you nor I know if the businesses that would (supposedly) locate there even exist, let alone where these imaginary businesses would end up. But for sure, they wouldn’t benefit you or me (or just about anyone else reading this). Again, assuming they even exist.
    Regarding the “unwashed masses”, I take it that you think that those who serve on city councils and state government are consummate professionals, regarding land use? And not corrupt, ignorant politicians?
    I assume that you realize that (in addition to California not growing), the birthrate for the entire nation is well-below replacement levels. So basically, we’re shuffling passengers on the Titanic, so to speak. Or on a more-optimistic note, perhaps we’re finally achieving a stable population – which is the ultimately the only choice we actually have. So thank goodness for young people, as they seem to have realized that not having as many kids provides personal, societal, and environmental benefits.

    Reply

Leave a reply to Alan C. Miller Cancel reply