Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After hours of debate, Solano supervisors adopt Chapter 28 zoning changes including farm-stand rules
Summary
The board adopted a package of annual zoning clarifications to Chapter 28 (ZT2402), including a new farm-stand definition, product-category limits, a ban on alcohol sales at farm stands, and editorial definition clarifications; the motion passed 4–1 after extended public comment and supervisor questions about enforcement and impacts on local growers.
The Solano County Board of Supervisors voted 4–1 to adopt zone text amendment ZT2402, an annual package of clarifications to Chapter 28 of the county code that staff said aims to remove ambiguity in word usage, permit procedures, and land-use standards and to standardize "farm stand" rules across zoning districts.
Resource Management Director James Music and Planning Manager Alan Calder told the board that the amendment defines the meaning of mandatory terms ("shall/shall be/shall") and clarifies interpretations of permissive language ("may"), updates subdivision language to allow aliquot-part interpretations consistent with the Public Land Survey System, removes an outdated roof pitch requirement, and creates a consolidated "farm stand" definition to replace "roadside stand." Staff presented three product categories for farm stands: agricultural products (up to 100% of stand area), local products (allowed up to 50% of floor area in the staff proposal), and "other products" (up to 10%), and explicitly prohibited alcohol sales at farm stands, leaving ABC licensing and environmental health requirements in place for any food preparation.
The proposal drew extensive board questions about enforcement and economic fairness to growers. Supervisor Williams said she wanted more time and requested a zoning workshop and additional outreach, citing concerns that the 50% on-site requirement could harm stands that cannot produce year-round. Several supervisors and staff discussed complaint-driven enforcement and the possibility of a farm ombudsman or dedicated planner to support agricultural operators.
During the public hearing, farmers and farm-stand operators urged the board to reduce permit fees and to avoid overly prescriptive product listings. Alexis Kofa (Pleasant Valley Agriculture Association) told the board that high administrative fees bar small farmers: "We really should see permit fees that are less than $1,000 because if a farmer is paying $2,500…small farmers are priced out of competing in the agricultural market." Larry Balestra (Larry's Produce) warned the board that strict county-only sourcing rules could threaten longstanding operations and called for grandfathering or permit flexibility for established businesses.
Board members debated possible carve-outs, the administrative timeline for fee changes, and the difference between use permits and minor-use permits. Supervisor Vasquez moved adoption including a staff revision to the agricultural-products definition to explicitly read "fresh or processed products, including, but not limited to…" (adding jams, jellies and other items listed in the motion). The motion passed 4–1 with Supervisor Williams voting no.
The record shows the board adopted the ordinance package as noticed and staff said the agricultural permitting fee schedule will be considered in the county's regular fee-review cycle this spring. Staff committed to follow-up outreach and to return with clarifying language if necessary.
Quote: "We really should see permit fees that are less than $1,000 because if a farmer is paying $2,500 a small farmer…is priced out," said Alexis Kofa during public comment.
