Logo courtesy of the City of Dixon

DIXON, CA (MPG) - At the June 2 meeting, the Dixon City Council heard a presentation about the Dixon Grown outreach meetings and considered maps for a revised Notice of Preparation (NOP) and general plan amendments associated with the Harvest at Dixon and Lombardo Ranch projects. 

The goal of Dixon Grown was to create a platform for community engagement and input regarding potential development, to ensure projects are evaluated with a focus on thoughtful growth that balances economic progress and resident priorities. 

Staff said various workshops and outreach efforts showed residents want to maintain the city’s agricultural identity, revitalize the downtown area and support more in-fill development. There was a lot of concern about rapid growth, as well as a preference for developer-funded infrastructure rather than increases to residents’ taxes. 

There are two major development projects currently under consideration. Harvest at Dixon proposes up to 6,300 housing units on 890 acres, built out over 30 years. Located southeast of Dixon, outside city limits, the proposal requested a general plan amendment to annex it into the city. 

Lombardo Ranch proposes up to 800 housing units mixed in with commercial uses on 147 acres southwest of Dixon. This project location is also outside city limits and requested annexation. 

Community Development Director Raffi Boloyan explained that these proposals and annexation requests provide an opportunity for the city to make general plan amendments and consider an expansion of Dixon’s Sphere of Influence (SOI), a legal boundary that allows for more input on regional development near the city. 

Submitting the NOP will initiate the environmental review process, with both proposed projects considered together for a coordinated evaluation to guide decision making. 

The city is about a year away from any possible vote on these development proposals. The environmental review must be completed, in addition to a public comment period. And any annexations will ultimately have to go through California’s Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCO) process, even if they are approved by the city first. 

Based on community input, staff reduced the expanded SOI areas included in the original NOP map, but a property owner north of Highway 80 requested inclusion. So, the council had two possible maps to consider, the revised and the alternative. 

During public comments, some residents thought it made sense to include areas across the highway in the SOI because commercial growth along that corridor could benefit the city. Others expressed concerns that too much growth would cause Dixon to lose the open space and farmland that make it special. A representative for the group Keep Dixon Green said they are not opposed to development but would like to see more in-fill development on existing vacant land already zoned for residential or commercial. 

City Attorney Douglas White clarified that none of these projects were initiated by the city. These are development proposals that the city is legally required to consider. He also explained the SOI is “protectionist,” because it gives the city input on areas the county might consider developing along Dixon’s boundaries. 

Councilmember Kevin Johnson said everyone on the council loves Dixon and wants to do what’s best for it. He said expanding the SOI protects local control, and a larger analysis area gives them more information to ensure well-planned, thoughtful growth with infrastructure to support it.

Mayor Steven Bird said he doesn’t want the county or state to dictate what Dixon can do, so it’s important to maintain as much local control as possible. He preferred the original NOP map prior to any revisions because it studied the largest area. 

The council voted to approve the alternative map, which had a larger area of the two under consideration, with Johnson dissenting. 

Finally, the council considered approving the replacement of the 2026 Grillin-n-Chillin event with the Downtown Dixon Cars & Qs event, organized by the Downtown Dixon Business Association (DDBA) on June 27. The approval would include street closures, city support and the reallocation of $29,071 in special event funding. 

All these approvals were originally intended for Grillin-n-Chillin, a long-running event put on by the local nonprofit Dixon Action Team (DAT), which was cancelled this year due to funding issues after a lawsuit was filed against DAT and the City of Dixon. 

A member of DAT spoke during public comment to question why the city would bend the rules about event permits and road closures for a “copy-cat” event being organized at the last minute, “while the DDBA capitalizes on our devastating loss” by taking over an event started by DAT. She also expressed sadness that the city had offered no support as they navigate this lawsuit, since she said the reason they can’t fund the event is because they have to cover the cost of the city’s legal fees in addition to their own.  

A representative of the DDBA said they were trying their best to bring a similar event to benefit the community, because so many people were disappointed that the event was cancelled. 

Mayor Bird asked if DDBA intended to yield the event back to DAT next year if they’re able to take it back over. The DDBA rep said she wasn’t sure what would happen and suggested maybe there’d be two events next year.  

City Attorney White explained that the lawsuit triggered liability insurance coverage, and it is DAT’s event insurance that should be covering the costs. He offered to speak with them after the meeting to clarify the process. 

The councilmembers all said they want Grillin-n-Chillin back next year, while also thanking DDBA for stepping up this year. They voted to approve the replacement and reallocation of funds for the new event, with Mayor Bird adding that DAT will have the city’s support when they’re ready to host the event again.