DIXON, CA (MPG) - At the Aug. 5 Dixon City Council meeting, Keep Dixon Green President Caitlin O’Halloran Hellar presented a petition with more than 700 signatures, asking the council to pause any consideration of new developments until after a “community listening session.” 

Keep Dixon Green is a local organization dedicated to preserving Dixon’s open spaces and agricultural land.

“Take a pause. Engage the community that you love. Break bread with your community before you break ground with the developers,” Hellar said.

She added that the community can help address any issues in the city that City Council says would be solved by new developments. 

City attorney Douglas White clarified that the city is legally required to review every development proposal and private landowners have the right to make requests regarding their land’s development. The city does not have any legal ability to pause the required review process, White added. 

The council then considered an updated Joint Facility Use Agreement, which outlines the shared usage of facilities at no cost between the City of Dixon and the Dixon Unified School District. 

First set in 1997 and amended in 2010, the agreement stipulates that the facilities can only be used when not in use by the other party. Public Works Director Louren Kotow said that there have been some conflicts and communication challenges between the city and the district since 2010.

Specifically, Kotow said, the district expanded and was using its own facilities so often that the city did not have many use opportunities. Meanwhile, the district was still frequently using city facilities so there was unequal usage, Kotow said. 

Recent discussions between the city and district have finally resulted in an updated agreement to include use of gymnasiums, a multipurpose room, athletic fields, parking lots and classrooms owned by the district. The city facilities include the aquatic center, parts of various parks and ponds, the council chamber, Jim Stevens arena and the senior/multi-use center.

The majority of the city’s usage is at the John Knight Middle School gym for 10 weeks on Saturdays for supplemental programming, such as holiday camps and sports camps. Currently, the city uses district facilities for a total of 92 hours per year. There is future potential to expand programming to include summer camps, which would add another 124 hours of use. 

The district mainly uses the city’s aquatic facility for the swim team and water polo, totaling 225 hours per year. The district accounts for 19% of the total aquatic center usage. With other facility uses, the district’s total is 303 annual hours. 

Councilmember Jim Ernest said that recreation is very important to the community, so he was “happy to have an agreement” that allows for expanded use of facilities. 

Vice-Mayor Thom Bogue said he appreciated the work that went into the agreement “but this deal did not address the core issue.” He said local sports teams used to be managed by the city, so they were able to use district facilities at no cost. But due to financial constraints, the city gave up the teams, which are now privately managed and paying to rent the facilities. 

Bogue estimated that the teams pay an average of $40,000 per year for facility use: “If you want to charge our local teams that kind of money, when we actually use very little of your facilities for anything really, then maybe we should start charging you those kind of fees for the use of our facilities to compensate for what those teams are now going to have to pay because the city no longer manages them but they still exist.”

During public comments, several speakers agreed that local sports teams are struggling to cover that cost. 

Bogue made a motion to re-negotiate with the district, asking the district to offer reduced fees for the local teams. He said the district has a greater need for the city facilities, so the city should use that leverage to solve this problem. The council voted to approve the motion.  

The council then heard an informational overview for an upcoming amendment to the Dixon General Plan 2040, which will also include consideration of the Harvest at Dixon master plan. 

Submitted in December 2024, the Harvest at Dixon application proposes to develop 836 acres of vacant agricultural land into a residential and mixed-use community, with public facilities, infrastructure improvements, open space and parks. Located at the southeast corner of Dixon, the property is currently outside city boundaries, so the proposal also requests annexation into the city. 

Because consideration of the annexation requires a General Plan amendment, a cost that will be covered by the developer, city staff are taking the opportunity to make other updates to the General Plan. 

The General Plan 2040 was adopted in 2021, but at that time, a long-term view for growth and development of the city was not identified or incorporated. But an amendment will allow for expansion and clarification of the existing plan.

To amend the General Plan, the city will undergo a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, which will include public engagement meetings and the creation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). 

The CEQA process began on July 21, with the issuance of a Notice of Preparation, allowing for a 30-day comment period concluding on Aug. 19. The CEQA topics under consideration include the city’s existing boundaries and sphere of influence, as well as potential areas of expansion and planning areas, an urban growth boundary/green line, and the proposed annexation of the Harvest at Dixon property along with other potential areas for annexation. 

Rob White, the Lewis Group vice-president of community planning, spoke on behalf of Harvest at Dixon. Rob White said that Harvest at Dixon welcomes public input and wants to listen and engage with the residents and City Council to develop a plan that will benefit Dixon.  

Many community members spoke against the project during public comment, including some from Keep Dixon Green. Most speakers were worried that the development would ruin Dixon’s small-town feel by cutting into greenbelts and rezoning agricultural land. Others worried that a rapid population increase would negatively impact the city’s infrastructure. 

Many commenters assumed these informational hearings are a sign that the project will be approved no matter what, with some accusing the council of ignoring residents’ concerns. Others asked the council to improve communication about public meetings to ensure residents are informed and able to participate.  

The councilmembers thanked the public for attending the meeting and sharing their opinions. Councilmember Don Hendershot reminded the public that they are still early in the review process and asked that everyone remain respectful. Councilmember Kevin Johnson said that continued public input will help them make the best decision for the community. 

“We all live here too, and we’re all in this together,” Mayor Steven Bird said.

The next Dixon City Council meeting is scheduled for 7 p.m. Aug. 19 in the City Council Chambers, 600 East A St.