Board reviews fast-tracked proposal to reconfigure Collinsville maritime acreage for potential shipyard as residents raise safety and environmental concerns

The Solano County Board of Supervisors received an informational update Sept. 9 on staff discussions with state economic development officials and a private proponent about reconfiguring the Collinsville special study area to accommodate a potential shipbuilding facility.

The update focused on a proposed state bill, informally called the Solano Maritime Act, that would direct the county to amend its general plan and local zoning by Dec. 31, 2026, to reshape — but not enlarge — the county's existing water-dependent industrial (WDI) acreage east of Collinsville. County staff said the measure would also include a limited CEQA streamlining provision and a sunset date for the statute.

Why it matters: the Collinsville area already is identified in the county general plan as a long-range water-dependent industrial opportunity, but the parcel map is irregular. County staff told supervisors proponents want the county to reconfigure the WDI boundary so a maritime-industrial layout would be buildable and competitive for federal and private shipbuilding funds. Supporters say a major maritime facility could create local manufacturing and union construction jobs; critics said the process is rushed and risks public safety, groundwater and wetland values.

County staff summary and next steps James Biesick, Director of Resource Management, described the background: the 2008 general plan designates an 8,500-acre Collinsville special study area, with roughly 1,305 acres east of Collinsville and about 289 acres currently zoned for water-dependent industrial in the Collinsville vicinity. Biesick said the draft legislation would permit the county to “adjust the water dependent industrial boundary” to a more functional configuration without increasing the total acreage and would require the county to adopt implementing changes by the end of 2026. He noted the bill would allow supportive infrastructure uses and include a statutory sunset in 2029.

Karen Lang, appearing as county legislative counsel for the update, told the board the bill language has been evolving rapidly. She said the state process imposed a practical deadline: “There’s a constitutional change that occurred several years ago that requires that all legislation be in print for 72 hours before the legislature can act on it,” and, as a result, sponsors were asking for board direction while legislative language continued to be revised.

Staff emphasized several protections it has sought in negotiations: limiting any statutory entitlement to the acreage already identified in the 2008 general plan and EIR, requiring that the county retain land-use authority, mandating that proponents reimburse the county for studies, and using a development agreement to require the proponent to address infrastructure and fiscal impacts before any ground‑breaking.

Public concerns raised in comments More than two dozen members of the public addressed the board during a prolonged public-comment period. Health and environmental concerns were frequent themes: - Dr. Bonnie Hamilton, a pediatrician, warned that concentrated carbon dioxide (CO2) pipelines and injection—raised separately by some speakers who oppose a Montezuma LLC carbon hub concept that has been discussed publicly—would create safety and environmental hazards if routed or injected near the Suisun Marsh. She said concentrated CO2 is an asphyxiant and “when mixed with water sources, dead zones are created, killing marine life.” - Tom Coonhart and other residents cited pipeline rupture risks, earthquake vulnerabilities, and a 2020 CO2 pipeline incident in Mississippi as grounds to oppose nearby carbon sequestration or transport projects. - Elizabeth Patterson and other commenters urged protection of the Delta and marshland as public-trust resources and criticized rapid legislative action that might override local protections. - Supporters including construction-union representatives and some community leaders said the project could generate local jobs and training opportunities and urged the board to work with proponents to secure safeguards and workforce benefits.

Board concerns and legal issues Supervisors expressed repeated concern about the pace of state-level drafting and the short window to review legislative language. Supervisor Williams said she could not responsibly vote to support legislation without first reading the final text. Several supervisors asked for explicit assurances about infrastructure funding and protections for taxpayers; staff said it had sought language to require proponents to reimburse study costs and to negotiate development agreements that require the proponent to fund infrastructure improvements.

The board discussed a key legal and political tension: the bill as drafted would explicitly allow a county action that would, in practical effect, change areas covered by Measure T (a local voter measure limiting rezoning of agricultural land). Staff said the draft seeks to limit changes only to the acreage already designated as water-dependent industrial in the 2008 general plan but that reshaping the boundary could still trigger a Measure T override unless the county voters or legislature provide otherwise. Staff said they are pushing for narrow language to avoid broad preemption of local land-use processes.

Timing: federal and site-selection pressures Staff and several speakers said the accelerated timeline resulted from a parallel federal and private effort to locate shipbuilding capacity quickly in the U.S.; site selectors told state officials they needed a site that could break ground quickly to be competitive for federal funding. That urgency is what pushed proponents and the governor's office to seek statutory streamlining this legislative year, county staff said.

Direction given / next steps The board did not take a formal vote on endorsing the draft bill during the informational item. Staff recommended continuing negotiations with the proponent, GO-Biz and state offices; obtaining commitments that the county will retain land‑use authority and cost neutrality; and returning to the board with a redline comparison of the different versions of the draft statute. Supervisors requested more time to review final language when it is produced and said they expect to see studies and clear development agreements before any commitments are made.

Supporters and opponents remain active; county staff said it will report back to the board on legislative outcomes and negotiations with the project's proposer and state agencies.

Ending note The board paused the item to give supervisors and the public time to read the then-current draft language and asked staff to provide a redline of changes between versions. No statutory action occurred at the Sept. 9 meeting; staff said work with state partners and the proponent would continue and the board would consider any final legislative language or project entitlements at a later date.