The City of Fairfield was not required to demonstrate that an agreement to receive, treat, and return water to Solano County Irrigation District was consistent with the City’s general plan. Not every decision that affects land use is a “land use decision” that requires consistency with the general plan under California Planning and Zoning Law. Solano County Orderly Growth Committee v. City of Fairfield, 113 Cal.App.5th 1027 (2025).
The City entered into a water supply agreement with the District which would allow the District to use the City’s water treatment system to provide potable water service to a new mixed-use development community, Middle Green Valley, in unincorporated Solano County. Under this “treat and wheel” agreement, the District would route raw water to the City, and the City would treat it and then convey an equivalent quantity of potable water back to the District for distribution to end-users in Middle Green Valley.
Appellants, the Solano County Organized Growth Committee, challenged the agreement, arguing that it directly conflicted with an “express policy” in the City’s general plan which, according to the Committee, precludes the City from providing municipal services for development beyond the City’s urban limits.
The appellate court first addressed whether state law requires that an agreement of this nature be consistent with the City’s general plan, and held it does not. The parties agreed—as a threshold matter—that there is no specific statutory requirement that such an agreement be consistent with the City’s general plan; however, the Committee argued that the agreement was nonetheless a “decision affecting land use” and must be consistent on that basis.
The court declined to interpret California’s Planning and Zoning Law so broadly. The Court explained that the Planning and Zoning Law enumerates the categories of actions (e.g., zone change, adoption of a specific plan, issuance of a tentative map, etc.) that must be consistent with a general plan. Other categories that are not expressly enumerated, such as approval of a conditional use permit, are either derivatives of zoning law or, in the case of a public works project, relate to physical development within the local jurisdiction’s boundaries. That the water supply agreement might have an effect on land use, generally, did not make it a “land use decision” that must be consistent with the City’s general plan.
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the City’s action to enter into the agreement with the District was required by law to be consistent with the City’s general plan, the court engaged in a detailed analysis of the policy in question (LU 3.1), as well as other policies in the plan, and held that it was. The court reiterated the deference afforded to a local jurisdiction’s interpretation of its own general plan, and that “consistency” with a general plan is determined by whether an action is in “agreement or harmony” with a plan—perfect conformity is not required.
Policy LU 3.1 provides, in relevant part, that “[a]ny urban development requiring basic municipal services shall occur only within the incorporated City and within the urban limit line established by the [City’s general plan].” The court stated that the meaning of this policy is “far from clear,” evidenced by parties’ differing interpretations and because “urban development” and “basic municipal services” are not defined in the general plan. To the City, the policy means that it may not approve urban development beyond the City limits, and “basic municipal services” includes the distribution, service, and billing of utilities—not the transfer of treated water to another entity for end-use. The court held that a reasonable person could interpret the policy this way, and the Committee has not met its burden of proof to show otherwise.
[View source.]
