Remote Surveillance Trailer in Rio Vista, CA

A 3.1-magnitude earthquake shook Friday, April 4, in Northern California, the U.S. Geological Survey reported.

The 15-mile deep quake hit eight miles from Rio Vista at 8:37 a.m., according to the USGS.

Seventeen people from as far away as Pacifica and Fremont reported feeling the tremor to the agency.

Rio Vista is about a 45-mile drive southwest from Sacramento. It had a population of 10,000 as of 2023.

Magnitude measures the energy released at the source of the earthquake, the U.S. Geological Survey says. It replaces the old Richter scale.

Quakes between 2.5 and 5.4 magnitude are often felt but rarely cause much damage, according to Michigan Tech. Quakes below 2.5 magnitude are seldom felt by most people.

Earthquakes’ sudden, rapid shaking can cause fires, tsunamis, landslides or avalanches. They can happen anywhere, but they’re most common in Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, Puerto Rico and Washington, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

If an earthquake strikes, it’s best to protect yourself right away. Here are tips from experts:

The best way to protect yourself during an earthquake is to drop, cover and hold on, officials say.

“Wherever you are, drop down to your hands and knees and hold onto something sturdy,” officials say. “If you’re using a wheelchair or walker with a seat, make sure your wheels are locked and remain seated until the shaking stops.”

Be sure to cover your head and neck with your arms, and crawl under a sturdy table if possible. If no shelter is available, crawl to an interior wall away from windows.

Once under a table, officials say you should hold on with one hand and be ready to move with it.

“There can be serious hazards after an earthquake, such as damage to the building, leaking gas and water lines, or downed power lines,” officials say. “Expect aftershocks to follow the main shock of an earthquake. Be ready to Drop, Cover, and Hold On if you feel an aftershock.”

Read Next

North Carolina

March 14, 2025 7:04 AM

(Beth LaBerge/KQED)

On Tuesday, the Rio Vista City Council voted unanimously to explore annexing some of the land owned by a subsidiary of California Forever, making it the second neighbor to consider expanding its boundaries in the wake of the company’s proposal to build a city from scratch on nearby farmland.

In January, Suisun City’s council took a similar action to consider annexing land surrounding its borders. Although the directive didn’t specifically mention California Forever, a large portion of unincorporated land to the east of the city is owned by the company’s subsidiary, Flannery Associates.

“This decision is about just getting to the table,” Rio Vista Mayor Edwin Okamura said shortly before Tuesday’s vote. “Many of us were content waiting for further studies on the original impacts of the California Forever project before weighing in. Suisun’s bold move requires Rio Vista to take steps to protect our interests.”

The council directed staff to start the lengthy process of determining how much land the city could annex, the process for annexation, and how such a move might impact its budget. Included in that process is a request to explore expansion while still maintaining Rio Vista’s character as “a quaint river town.”

At just 6.6 square miles and 4 square miles, respectively, Rio Vista and neighboring Suisun City are the county’s two smallest cities. Lisa Duke, who was recently appointed to the city council, said she wants to protect the 700-acre open space buffer between Rio Vista and the proposed city.

“I wanted to live in a small rural town surrounded by open space, and that’s why I’m here,” she said. “I’m not happy about the position that I’m in tonight, but I was appointed to make the best decisions possible for Rio Vista and the community.”

Last year, California Forever, a company backed by a cadre of Silicon Valley billionaires, introduced the East Solano Plan. The ambitious ballot measure asked Solano County voters for permission to build a new city that would eventually support some 400,000 new residents, bring “well-paid” jobs to Solano and improve the county’s worn-down infrastructure. In the years leading up to the company’s announcement, its subsidiary quietly bought more than 60,000 acres of farmland, making it the largest private landowner in the county.

Company executives were prepared to present the plan to voters in November but pulled the ballot measure a few months before the election, instead promising to publish an environmental impact report and a development agreement before bringing the measure back to voters in 2026.

Since then, officials in neighboring cities have been slowly warming up to negotiating with California Forever.

During a Jan. 21 meeting, Suisun City officials directed City Manager Bret Prebula to study whether expanding the city’s limits could broaden its tax base to bolster its dwindling revenues. During public comment, opponents of the East Solano Plan cited concerns about a lack of transparency in the council and agenda, not mentioning California Forever or acknowledging at the outset that this move would require talking to the company’s representatives.

“This isn’t about Suisun City trying to do a land grab,” Prebula told KQED. “It’s about us doing it for our own survival and for the future for our residents.”

Shortly after the meeting, Fairfield Mayor Catherine Moy and other city officials announced they wanted to work with California Forever to bring defense tech companies to their city.

In a statement to KQED, California Forever spokesperson Julia Blystone said the company is “committed to working with all stakeholders to build a stronger Solano County.” If the company receives an invitation to explore annexations from Rio Vista or Suisun City, Blystone said it would “be open to a conversation.”

Neither city has specified how much land it would annex or how the move, if ultimately approved, would impact the company’s proposed East Solano Plan. The land is currently within Solano County’s jurisdiction, but a spokesperson for the county did not return a request for comment.

In a report detailing Rio Vista’s options for annexation, staff said potential benefits could include broadening the city’s tax base, improving infrastructure and retaining the ability to negotiate with California Forever to ensure the East Solano Plan benefits Rio Vista.

During her presentation to the council, City Manager Kristina Miller reminded the public that annexation would “take years to complete” and that anywhere in the process, the city could choose to move in an alternative direction.

A majority of the more than two dozen residents who spoke during public comment encouraged the council to explore annexation, with some speaking in favor of the East Solano Plan’s promises to bring jobs and housing to the county. Sandy Roth, a resident of the city since 2022 who lives in the Trilogy at Rio Vista retirement community, said when she arrived, she said many of the people who do work on her property travel from outside the city.

“There’s not housing for people who do the jobs here in town,” she said. “So we think it’s very important that we at least have a seat at the table to change things here.”

Other residents were frustrated that the city’s general plan could change with a potential annexation and that the council was considering working with California Forever after its subsidiary pursued a bitter antitrust lawsuit against local farmers who refused to sell their land. The company settled that suit with a majority of the farmers in September.

Sarah Soroken, a local resident and opponent of the East Solano Plan, said she was concerned about the farmland and open space the proposed new city might consume.

“I oppose exploring annexation and development of our county’s farmland due to the reality that this will put into process a motion that will cause us to lose so much that we can never get back,” she said. “We could develop smarter within city boundaries with existing infrastructure.”

Okamura said he would prefer if the city focused on infill development before expanding outwards. But he worried that if Rio Vista decided to do nothing, both California Forever’s proposed new city and Suisun City could grow to reach Rio Vista’s border, potentially depriving the city of its own growth, economic development opportunities and open space.

“In the most aggressive scenario, their project could reach us and pin us between the river and the development,” he said. “That does not necessarily mean that [annexation is] what we need to do, it just means that we’re studying the options that are available.”

Prebula said he wants to work with Rio Vista officials as both cities navigate their positions in shaping the East Solano Plan.

“It almost seems like a natural path that we would help each other out along the way — we’re the two smallest cities,” he said. “The region benefits broadly if we’re walking together.”

The Rio Vista city council voted unanimously this week to explore annexation talks with California Forever.

RIO VISTA, Calif. — Another Solano County city is entering the conversation about a potential partnership with the proposed new city, California Forever.

It’s an undeniable shift in Solano County from a majority wanting nothing to do with proposed California Forever to now slowly city-by-city conversations happening over if there's some benefits to be had. The latest to have that discussion is Rio Vista.

City council voted unanimously to move to direct staff to explore the annexation discussions Tuesday night after two hours of discussion.

“We need to have an ongoing conversation with California Forever about how we can maintain our image and work together with them so we can build a partnership," said one resident named Art.

“I mistrust their negotiations. I’ve heard too much about what they’ve done with the farmers, I don’t feel like they negotiate in good faith," said another resident named Susanne.

The city of Rio Vista gave its city manager permission to explore annexation of an undefined amount — but not all — of California Forever’s land.

The billionaire-backed proposed new city sits right next to Rio Vista.

According to the staff report, this discussion was had after Suisun City started pursuing annexation plans that could include California Forever and Fairfield also expressed interest in talks.

Mayor Edwin Okamura addressed next steps.

“As we’re moving forward, you have to understand too that it’s not us necessarily the ones sitting in front of a professional developer that has been doing this for 50 years. We are going to be hiring — and that is part of the process — hiring professionals giving us advice that are on our side and our city attorney will get the proper attorneys,” said Okamura.

But after the excitement settled from Tuesday night's city council meeting, residents ABC10 spoke with say they want Rio Vista to keep its small town charm.

Trinity Edens loves that kids can walk down and see her at Richard’s Ice Cream Shop.

“The conversations are good so people can be informed, but I love this small town. I fell in love with it that’s why I moved here and I want to see it stay a small town,” said Edens.

City councilmembers and the city manager addressed the benefits of entering into talks with California Forever, like making sure their small city doesn’t get left out when it comes to talking about traffic impacts and water.

Marilyn Pinnow has lived in Rio Vista for almost a year now.

“On the one hand you can’t fight development forever, but on the other hand you can do something sensible. It’s got to be sensible not overwhelming,” said Pinnow.

California Forever tells ABC10:

“We are committed to working with all stakeholders to build a stronger Solano County. When we receive an invitation to explore annexation from Rio Vista, we look forward to having a conversation.”

WATCH MORE ON ABC10: Suisun City eyes expansion, causing concern over potential partnership with California Forever

Related Articles

ABC10: Watch, Download, Read

1 / 11

While the choice may not have been one that Rio Vista Councilmembers wanted to have to make, City Manager Kristina Miller made the council’s options abundantly clear regarding controversial development firm California Forever moving forward.

“I am asking if we should have a seat at the table so that, for lack of a better word, we are not on the menu,” she said during Tuesday’s council meeting, where the elected city leaders ultimately voted 5-0 to negotiate with California Forever regarding annexation.

California Forever, Solano County’s largest landowner, owns 500 acres of property already included in Rio Vista’s City limits, and has previously expressed a willingness to invest in and revitalize the small Sacramento Delta community. The firm pulled a ballot initiative last year that would have seen them build a medium density, walkable community on unincorporated land at the intersection of Highways 12 and 113 with an eventual population of 400,000 or more.

Miller said the agenda item was largely spurred by interest in California Forever from other cities in the county, including annexation interest from Suisun City and economic interest from Fairfield. Miller expressed skepticism about the firm and its potential impacts on the community, but warned that development around the city is inevitable, and participating in the process could at least see Rio Vista helping to shape the outcome.

“Staff do not like the idea of California Forever circumventing the Solano County Orderly Growth Committee,” Miller said.

Mayor Edwin Okamura framed the issue the same way as Miller, noting that the city can be either “at the table” or “on the menu.” He noted Governor Gavin Newsom’s acknowledgement that the state is about 3.2 million homes deep in a housing crisis.

“I have always been very consistent about prioritizing infill in Rio Vista before prioritizing large scale annexation projects,” Okamura said.

Councilmember Rick Dolk said he acknowledges the city is less vibrant than it once was and needs to grow, but doesn’t find California Forever “workable.” Still, because California Forever is a billion-dollar landowner with multiple cash-strapped communities in its crosshairs, the city needs to negotiate to even be able to take a “defensive” posture.

“I don’t encourage much of what they’re saying because I think it’s too much, too quick,” he said.

Councilmember Lisa Duke agreed, noting that Suisun City’s interest in annexation increased the need to negotiate soon.

“Sitting on our hands, for lack of a better word, and hoping that California Forever goes away would be unrealistic,” Duke said.

Councilmember Walt Stanish said there are positives and negatives in the situation with California Forever, whose ballot initiative he opposed one year ago this month. Now with no set plans to take the issue back to the voters, he said, the city needs to represent itself in discussions.

“To be a realist, I think we need to be at the table,” Stanish said.

Vice Mayor Sarah Donnelly said her kids are not returning to the community because of what it lacks. She said she believes the city needs to work with California Forever, as a rising tide lifts all boats.

Donnelly said the city needs to look into the company’s investors, who she believes may have anti-democratic philosophies and be connected with the network state project.

Miller said the potential benefits and drawbacks of the project are considerable, as the company’s ambitions are large and its landholdings in the area are vast. Rio Vista and Suisun City struggle to keep up in the Solano County economy as attracting employers is more difficult for the smaller communities.

Rio Vista and Suisun City also generate less property tax than other Solano County cities, she said.

“They suffer through and struggle with a lot of the same issues we do in Rio Vista,” Miller said of Suisun City.

More intensive zoning uses, a reduction in small town character, air quality, noise, aesthetic, water use and population impacts are all possible, Miller said. However, the project could bring development agreement upsides, she said, as well as property tax and sales tax increases, and many or all of those downsides may be inevitable whether Rio Vista negotiates or not.

Miller said she is uncertain from a fiscal standpoint how much makes sense to annex at this time, and she was thus not asking the council to annex yet. If the city chooses to annex any portion of California Forever’s property, there will be much more room for public comment through the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) process.

The vast majority of public commenters spoke in favor of negotiating with California Forever, particularly of those who attended the meeting in person rather than on Zoom.

Executive Chairman of The Dutra Group Bill Dutra said his company would potentially be willing to move its headquarters back to Rio Vista from its current location in San Rafael if the community can fix issues related to housing, schools and other concerns. Dutra spoke in favor of negotiating with California Forever, as his company would need about 160 homes in the area to consider a move back. Dutra grew up in Rio Vista and said he believes the town’s community is rich.

“We feel that this river town has great potential,” Dutra said. “We believe in the great water access.”

Cora De La Rosa said she is a retired nurse who moved to the community in 2018. She called for advancement through a partnership with California Forever because she would like to see more jobs, particularly in the healthcare sector. Brian Spradling, owner of Spradling Construction and Hap’s Taps, as well as President of the Rio Vista Downtown Association, spoke strongly in favor of negotiating with the organization. Spradling said his business has had to reach outside the community just to sustain itself, and despite hearing for years that something would be done to energize the waterfront, it still hasn’t happened.

“My daughter is 28 years old.” he said. “She’s never seen anything in her life that had been to that complexity to revitalize our downtown.”

Jeannie McCormack and Al Medvitz, who own a ranch outside Rio Vista, said the city should not negotiate with California Forever. The duo are neighbors of ranchers who settled lawsuits with California Forever over alleged price fixing.

“I am just staggered by this that we are sitting here taking this seriously,” McCormack said.

Yet another city in Solano County is poised to consider exploring annexation in relation to lands currently owned by controversial developer California Forever.

This time, the Rio Vista City Council is being asked for policy direction for staff in regard to California Forever in light of Suisun City and Fairfield’s “interest in annexation,” a staff report states.

The Rio Vista City Council will meet Tuesday at 6 p.m. in the council chambers at City Hall, One Main Street.

In January, Suisun City leaders directed the city manager there to explore annexation opportunities with regard to lands owned by California Forever and developer Buzz Oates. Calling a “new avenue in the efforts to protect Suisun City’s economic future,” the process will involve discussions stakeholders and regional organizations including county officials, and Travis Air Force Base, the city noted.

In Fairfield, city leaders have insisted annexation isn’t on the table for Fairfield at this time but the debate has heated up after California Forever rebuffed an apparent request from the city to discuss economic development opportunities, citing Mayor Catherine Moy’s vehement criticism of California Forever’s proposals.

In a report to the Rio Vista City Council, City Manager Kristina Miller says staff needs direction on what steps to take next in light of interest developing in Suisun and Fairfield, Specifically the staff needs to know the level and extent of involvement to take in discussions, “understanding that any development that occurs in Suisun City will likely have impacts in Rio Vista.”

California Forever (East Solano Plan) is proposing to build a new walkable medium density community in southeastern Solano County adjacent to the city of Rio Vista. The project map proposes 17,500-acre community which the developers claim would create an economic engine supporting good paying jobs, where people can live close to where they work, and thereby reduce traffic and air quality impacts. The plain was met with strong opposition with criticism that range from traffic impacts to lack of water supply, fire danger and restrictions mandated by the county’s Orderly Growth Ordinance, which limits new development to being within cities.

Noting the decision by Suisun City to explore annexation and the fact that the California Forever project at full buildout would be home to a population of some 400,000 people, Miller’s report noted that they had “previously met with California Forever regarding a memorandum of understanding protecting the city’s water supply and sales tax revenue” but since learning of Suisun City’s intent to consider annexation, Rio Vista staff have not met with the developer.

“Staff do not like the idea of California Forever circumventing the Solano County Orderly Growth Ordinance. However, the facts and circumstances have changed, staff need policy direction from the City Council as to how to proceed,” the report reads. “Suisun and Fairfield’s interest in the East Solano Plan materially change the circumstances surrounding this project. As the closest city to the East Solano Plan, Rio Vista will be significantly impacted should the East Solano Plan move forward.”

The report goes on to explain those potential impacts, citing the potential change to Rio Vista’s “small town character” should it suddenly find itself “next to a city many times its size.

“Should the city of Suisun or Fairfield move forward with annexation, the city of Rio Vista could end up with more intensive zoning uses at its city limits that are not ideal (i.e. heavy manufacturing and industry),” the report notes. “Additionally, Rio Vista would feel the impacts of the added traffic, air quality, noise, aesthetics, population growth, and water use without any of the benefits of development such as increased property tax revenue, economic development, or developer contributions vis-à-vis a development agreement.”

The report adds that the city is at a “critical time where it needs to make a decision on how it responds to the proposed project” and suggests two options for the city council to consider: Explore annexation or do not engage with the development and instead provide community on any proposed annexation to Suisun City.

The first option, staff argues, would let Rio Vista retain the ability to negotiate with California Forever to: Make sure any project benefits Rio Vista; protects the city’s desire to keep its small town feel; and mitigates impacts on traffic, water and other issues. Exploring annexation would also allow the city to potentially broaden the city’s tax base, increase services, spread the cost of municipal services across a larger population, and improve infrastructure.

Drawbacks would be significant population growth, reduced agricultural activity and open space, potential loss of a “sense of place,” and environmental impacts, staff notes.

The second option would require no action from staff other than comments on Suisun’s plan but drawbacks would include losing control over the extent of Suisun’s annexation, The project “could abut the current city limits of Rio Vista without any meaningful buffer,” staff notes. The second option would also mean that Rio Vista “could experience significant impacts from the project without any associated additional revenue,” staff notes. “For example, if Suisun annexed to Rio Vista’s city limits, Suisun City would receive all of the property and sales tax revenue and none would come to the city of Rio Vista. However, project impacts (i.e. transportation, traffic, water, etc.) would still be borne by Rio Vista residents.”

The second option would also mean Rio Vista would have limited areas to grow, leading to long-term sustainability issues.

Noting the myriad steps and review process should the city of Rio Vista decide to explore annexation, staff noted that in addition to environmental impact reports, development agreements and update to the city’s Sphere of Influence plan, any final annexation would require approval by the Local Agency Formation Commission.

“There will also be many opportunities for public input,” the staff report concludes “We do not like the position we are in. That being said, we are at a critical point where facts and circumstances have changed. Staff needs policy direction from the City Council as to how to proceed.”

Originally Published: March 1, 2025 at 1:03 PM PST