Solano supervisors approve broad zoning text updates, clear new rules for farm stands; Williams dissents

The Solano County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 on Jan. 14 to adopt ordinance ZT2402, a zone-text amendment to Chapter 28 that clarifies how the county interprets mandatory versus permissive code language, refines subdivision rules and updates farm-stand (formerly "roadside stand") standards across unincorporated Solano County.

The package, presented by James Fusick, director of Resource Management, and Alan Calder, the department's planning manager, rewrites definitions for words such as "shall," "must," "should" and "may" to reduce ambiguity in permit reviews, adds a formal definition for aliquot parts used in Public Land Survey System (PLSS) subdivisions, removes an obsolete roof-pitch requirement and standardizes farm-stand rules. "Those are items that would need to be acted on per the zone, text amendments," Calder said when explaining the new mandatory language.

Why it matters: County planners said the edits eliminate years of inconsistent interpretation, shorten permit review time and create one regulatory framework for small farm-based retail across the county. Agriculture stakeholders and local supervisors spent much of the hearing debating how narrowly or broadly to define what may be sold at farm stands, how to enforce percentage limits, and how fee and permitting changes would affect small operators.

Key changes and details

- Definitions and interpretation: the code now defines "shall/must" as mandatory, "should" as non‑mandatory with alternatives acceptable when the applicant demonstrates equivalent intent, and "may" as permissive. Staff said adding those definitions makes the code easier to apply and reduces grievance risk during application reviews.

- Aliquot parts: the ordinance adds a PLSS-based definition allowing common aliquot-part lot splits (e.g., quarter/half/quarter-quarter sections) when deeds and surveys indicate that intent. County surveyor Chris Ferrucci and staff said this clarifies long-standing issues that arise when historic surveys and deeds do not match modern measurements.

- Roof pitch: a legacy rule requiring a 3-inch vertical over 12-inch run roof pitch was removed to allow modern flat-roof systems and to streamline building approvals.

- Farm stands (formerly "roadside stands"): the revision standardizes the term "farm stand," places explicit restrictions on alcohol, and creates three product categories: agricultural products, local products and other products. Staff materials and the ordinance explain how much of a stand's floor area may be devoted to each category: - Agricultural products (examples in the code include fruits, nuts, vegetables, flowers, grains, raw honey and nursery stock) may constitute up to 100% of a farm stand's sales area. - Local products (handcrafts, pottery, jams, jellies, soaps and similar goods produced on- or off-site within the county or in harmony with agricultural character) may be allowed up to 50% of a stand's area, under the draft language. - Other products (goods not in harmony with agricultural character or sourced primarily from outside the county) were limited to a small share (staff proposed up to 10%).

Staff also proposed a planning-commission recommendation that at least 50% of the agricultural products sold be grown by the owner/operator on land they own or lease in Solano County; staff noted the Suisun Valley plan retains a 25% on-site requirement specific to that valley.

Approvals, fees and enforcement

- Permit types and fees: the ordinance lowers the regulatory bar for larger farm stands by making some stands eligible for a minor use permit rather than a full use permit. Staff said a minor use permit fee drops to about $2,500 compared with a substantially higher full-use-permit fee; pieces of the packet note an administrative threshold and that stands 1,000 square feet or smaller are allowed by-right with reduced or no initial permit fee (other inspection and building fees may still apply). Building permits are required for construction exceeding about 120 square feet.

- Food safety and alcohol: environmental health will retain authority over food preparation requirements; the ordinance explicitly prohibits alcohol sales at farm stands and defers any change to a separate review involving ABC rules and potential state licensing implications.

What the board and public said

Farmers, agribusiness operators and valley representatives turned out in force. Alexis Kofa, president of the Pleasant Valley Agriculture Association, told the board that "expensive permits means small farmers are priced out of competing in the agricultural market before they've even begun," urging lower fees and simplified processes. Larry Balestra of Larry's Produce said the proposal "feels like a direct attack on Larry's Produce" and urged protections for long-standing local operations. Jim Leland of Caymus Vineyards asked staff to explicitly allow "fresh or processed products" in the agricultural-products definition; staff and the board agreed to add that language.

Planning staff and several supervisors argued the draft balances protection of agricultural character with reasonable flexibility for economic development during slow harvest seasons. Supervisor Vasquez said the changes will help make county farms more commercially viable in the "shoulder seasons." Supervisor Williams repeatedly pressed staff for more time and technical training for supervisors, asking for a zoning workshop to give board members deeper background before major code changes.

Board action

Supervisor Vasquez moved to adopt ZT2402 (as modified by the board to add the phrase "fresh or processed products" to the agricultural-products definition); the motion was seconded and carried on a 4-1 vote, with Supervisor Williams voting no. The ordinance as adopted updates Chapter 28 to the text presented at the hearing and directs staff to implement the changes and follow up on fee schedules and implementation details.

Next steps and follow-up

Staff said the revised code becomes enforceable after the ordinance's effective date (publication process applies) and that a separate annual fee schedule will be brought forward during the county's regular fee cycle. Planning staff also recommended a farm-ombudsman or dedicated ag/economic liaison to help farmers navigate permits; several supervisors and speakers endorsed that idea and staff said it would be considered in budget and implementation planning.

The full redline ordinance and planning-commission materials remain available in the county record for detailed product lists and district-specific rules (for example, Suisun Valley has an existing, separate requirement).