title
The Department of Resource Management recommends that the Board of Supervisors receive a presentation from staff on continued discussion on issues identification for the County’s General Plan update with an emphasis on economic development; Provide feedback and direction to staff as needed
body
Published Notice Required? Yes ____ No _X _
Public Hearing Required? Yes ____ No _X _
DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION:
The Department of Resource Management recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
1) Receive a presentation from staff on continued discussion on issues identification for the County’s General Plan update with an emphasis on economic development; and
2) Provide feedback and direction to staff as needed.
SUMMARY:
The General Plan is the County’s comprehensive policy document guiding growth, development, and resource management over a 20-year or greater horizon. Solano County’s current General Plan was last comprehensively updated in August 2008. Staff is seeking continued Board input to shape the next steps in the General Plan update (GPU) process, with the intent to be completed by 2028.
The Board received an overview of the General Plan on March 25, 2025, and a follow-up presentation on August 26, 2025, focusing on emerging issues and strategic priorities. The Board affirmed the need for a targeted update with emphasis on key chapters including Land Use, Economic Development, Agriculture and Circulation. Staff was asked to return for further discussion, focusing on Economic Development and related challenges in the unincorporated area, including Measure T, Williamson Act policies, and infrastructure limitations. Staff seeks Board input on how these issues should be addressed in the GPU process.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The costs associated with preparing the agenda item are nominal and absorbed by the Department’s FY2025/26 Working Budget.
DISCUSSION:
The 2008 General Plan’s Economic Development (ED) chapter emphasizes maintaining a diverse, sustainable economy rooted in agriculture and city-centered growth. Its strategic directives focus on support for manufacturing and office development in appropriate locations, business recruitment and retention in partnership with cities and the Solano Economic Development Corporation (EDC), and workforce and education investments to strengthen the local labor pool. These strategies have had limited success in preserving agricultural lands and sustaining the County’s rural character. They have also limited flexibility to pursue broader economic and fiscal development objectives in the unincorporated area.
Issues and Barriers to Economic Development in the Unincorporated Area
Orderly Growth Initiative / Measure T
Since 1980, Solano County’s growth management framework has directed urban development into the cities with a goal of preserving unincorporated lands for agriculture and open space. Proposition A (1984), the Orderly Growth Initiative (1994), and Measure T (2008) limit conversion of agricultural land to other uses unless approved by voters. These measures have had limited success in protecting farmland as community boundaries have expanded and also restrict flexibility to accommodate new employment or commercial opportunities in the unincorporated area.
Williamson Act Contracts
Approximately two-thirds of the County’s agricultural land is enrolled in Williamson Act contracts, which provide reduced property taxes in exchange for maintaining agricultural or compatible uses. However, these contracts present challenges to economic diversification due to a combination of use restrictions as well as a cumbersome non-renewal process.
Infrastructure and Utility Constraints
The unincorporated area lacks municipal water and sewer service, relying on wells and septic systems which restricts development intensity. Projects exceeding 25 employees, residents, or visitors often require Public Water System (PWS) permits, which can take 12-18 months for State approval. In order to support meaningful economic development, provision of municipal services, either through expanded district charters or through partnership with cities, would need to be addressed.
Fiscal and Tax Base Impacts
Because growth is directed into cities, most property and sales and use tax revenue is retained within city boundaries. The County’s master tax sharing agreement was discontinued, requiring the County and other agencies work together to develop new agreements which recognize the financial needs of the County as well as the cities.
Potential Solutions and Ongoing Efforts
Interchange Study
The Department of Resource Management retained Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. to evaluate eight key study areas along the I-80 corridor around highway interchanges for economic development potential. The study will identify short- and long-term opportunities consistent with existing land use designations and infrastructure conditions, and results will be presented to the Planning Commission and Board in early 2026.
Agritourism and Value-Added Agriculture
The County continues to promote agritourism and value-added agriculture to strengthen the agricultural economy. Efforts include implementation of the Suisun Valley Strategic Plan, adoption and build out of the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan, and development of a Pleasants Valley Road Overlay Zone to support small-scale visitor-serving uses. Constraints remain due to Williamson Act restrictions and limited infrastructure. Considerations include staff evaluating more uses by right or under minor use permits to reduce the length of time to process and to provide more certainty of approval. The GPU will evaluate updating agritourism policies, in alignment with the ongoing Agricultural Department led SALC grant effort and final Board direction, clarifying compatible uses and identifying flexible overlay zones.
Shared Services Opportunities - Overview
As the County evaluates future growth and infrastructure needs in the Interchange Study Areas, there are opportunities to strengthen collaboration with cities and special districts on shared service delivery. Under Measure T, urban-level development is expected to occur within cities where municipal water, wastewater, and other urban services are already planned and supported. In contrast, most unincorporated areas rely on wells and septic systems, limiting development scale and intensity.
Coordinated approaches to utility and service planning can help ensure that development occurs in appropriate locations, supports economic investment, and remains consistent with the County’s growth management framework.
The following mechanisms provide options for collaborative service delivery:
Municipal Service Areas (MSAs)
MSAs identify where cities are expected to extend municipal services through the General Plan horizon. They provide the framework for coordinated planning at the city-County interface. Within MSAs, the County and cities may jointly plan for water, wastewater, and other urban services in advance of annexation, when appropriate.
Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs)
IGAs formalize collaboration between agencies without creating a new legal entity. They are frequently used for shared services, regulatory coordination, and infrastructure planning-particularly for rate-based utilities such as water, wastewater, and solid waste-ensuring consistent service standards across boundaries.
Cooperative Services Agreements (CSAs)
CSAs enable agencies to share staff, equipment, or facilities for targeted services while maintaining separate organizational structures. They are commonly applied for public safety, emergency response, road maintenance, and utility operations in areas where full municipal service structures may not yet be in place.
Joint Powers Agreements (JPAs)
JPAs allow public agencies to jointly exercise powers they already hold. They are often used to deliver shared services or develop shared facilities, providing a governance structure that supports efficient and coordinated service delivery across jurisdictions.
Financing Tools
There are potential financial tools that could be used to help support the development of the future economic development opportunities in the unincorporated areas of Solano County, including Communities Facilities Districts (Mello-Roos) as well as both Infrastructure Financing Districts and Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts.
Items for Board Consideration
As a follow-up to the Board’s previously identified Economic Development (ED) priorities, staff is seeking direction on how the GPU should approach economic development in the unincorporated area. The 2008 General Plan emphasizes agriculture, agritourism, and rural-serving uses outside city limits. Board guidance is needed to determine whether the GPU should maintain this approach or explore opportunities for expanded economic activity in strategic locations.
To support this discussion, staff requests Board input on the following questions:
1. Alignment with Board ED Priorities
• Should the County’s ED efforts in the unincorporated area remain focused on strengthening agriculture, value-added agricultural activities, and agritourism, or does the Board wish to evaluate broader commercial or employment-generating uses in limited, well-defined unincorporated locations (e.g., I-80 corridor, Dixon I-80/SR-113 area) as part of advancing the Board’s ED goals?
2. Support for Agricultural Viability
• Is the Board’s primary intent to expand flexibility for agricultural landowners-such as crop processing, diversification, small-scale visitor uses, and other activities that improve farm income or should the General Plan consider a more diversified economic strategy in which certain non-agricultural uses may be appropriate in targeted rural areas?
3. Fiscal Considerations Tied to ED Goals
• Is the Board interested in economic development that could produce meaningful fiscal benefits for the County (e.g., increased property or sales tax revenue) and should staff study whether targeted commercial nodes could support both fiscal stability and the Board’s ED priorities?
4. Infrastructure and Service Delivery
• Should the GPU explore partnerships with cities or special districts to extend or share infrastructure (e.g., water and wastewater) in strategic locations to support the Board’s ED goals or should efforts remain limited to uses that can operate under existing rural infrastructure conditions?
The GPU process will begin with a consulting team reviewing the current general plan to identify which chapters require update and will work to incorporate the State’s required changes. Staff and the consulting team will evaluate more robust options in support of economic development and will return to the Board during the GPU process providing updates and soliciting Board feedback.
Next Steps
Staff is currently launching the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for consultant services to prepare the GPU. The RFP emphasizes Economic Development, Land Use, Agriculture, and Circulation. In addition, staff will be returning to the Board in early 2026 with the results of a consultant led Interchange Study. Staff is continuing to hold visioning sessions with the Pleasants Valley community to discuss a potential overlay in support of enhanced agritourism. Finally, staff is reviewing ways to provide flexibility within the Williamson Act program in support of agritourism.
ALTERNATIVES:
The Board could choose not to receive a presentation. Staff does not recommend this alternative, however, since Board members requested this additional working session dedicated to economic development issues in the County.
OTHER AGENCY INVOLVEMENT:
None.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION