Dixon Grown is an independent, City-led resource made possible by a voluntary funding commitment from the developers for the Harvest and Lombardo Ranch projects. We appreciate this investment in community engagement, as it allows the City to provide high-quality, fact-based information and workshops without using taxpayer dollars. This funding allows the City to provide deep-dive resources and community input opportunities that would otherwise be limited. While these private contributions cover the logistical costs of the initiative, the City of Dixon independently manages the content and outreach. This allows the City to provide a neutral roadmap for our future, while upholding our principle that the costs of potential new development should not be shouldered by current residents.
Why do we see fast food and gas stations built instead of the “walkable cafés” developers visualize?
The Question: I see developers show pictures of beautiful cafés, but we end up with car washes and fast food. Why does that happen?
The Context: The City controls zoning (what can go there), but the market determines what actually opens. A boutique café or a specialty market needs a specific number of daily customers (“rooftops”) within a certain radius to pay their rent and staff. They also evaluate census data, economic data and leakage reports to evaluate their criteria and determine if there is demand to support their investment. If a developer builds a “walkable area” but there aren’t enough local residents to spend money there, those shops stay empty or become service-based businesses. This is why managed growth is a balance: you need enough residents to support the high-quality amenities the community wants.
The Question: If a homeowner can’t rezone their house into a drive-thru, why can a farmer rezone their land into a subdivision?
The Context: Any property owner has the legal right to ask the City to change their land’s designation through a General Plan Amendment. This applies whether the land is inside city limits or just outside them in the Sphere of Influence. While the legal mechanism is the same for a drive-thru or a large development, the likelihood of approval is worlds apart due to how urban planning works.
1. Spot Zoning vs. Planned Growth
- The Drive-Thru: Placing a commercial business in a residential neighborhood is considered “Spot Zoning.” Cities generally avoid this because it creates a mismatch with the surroundings and can negatively impact neighbors’ property values and safety.
- The Subdivision: A project like Harvest isn’t squeezing into an existing neighborhood; it’s proposing to expand the city’s boundaries. Cities view this as “Planned Growth.” Even if land is currently farmed, the City’s long-term vision usually includes plans for where new housing or shops could go as the population grows.
2. The Duty to Process
- For a House: The City can typically deny a drive-thru quickly if it clearly violates the health, safety and welfare of the existing neighborhood.
- For a project like Harvest: Because it is a large proposal for the city’s future, the law requires a rigorous and transparent process. The City cannot say “No” on day one based on a feeling; it must follow the development process, which includes CEQA, to factually determine how the project would affect traffic, water and agricultural land. Part of that process can include providing measures to help mitigate those impacts.
3. The Vision as a Living Document
- The General Plan isn’t set in stone. Every few decades, cities update it to address needs for housing or tax revenue.
- The Drive-Thru: Rarely adds a public benefit that outweighs the disruption to a neighborhood.
- The Subdivision: Developers often propose specific public benefits, such as new parks, improved roads, updated infrastructure or affordable housing, to argue the change is worth it.
The Question: The City took legal action to stop the Blu Haven project. Why can’t we do the same now to slow things down?
The Context: The planning framework and legal landscape in California has changed significantly in the last 20 years, and have imposed various demands upon cities and limits to their local control. Under the Housing Accountability Act (SB 330), cities are strictly prohibited from a “moratorium” (pause) on housing applications. In the specific situation of the Blu project by Haven, the property they were proposing to build on is not currently in the city limits, but only in the City’s Sphere of Influence. Therefore, any development of the site would necessitate annexation into the City, as well as other entitlements. The City explained to the developer that SB330 is not applicable when a property is not within city limits since the City does not control annexation, and it ultimately would require a tax sharing agreement with the County as well as LAFCo approval. The developer did not agree and continued to file its SB330 application with the City. The City evaluated its options and chose to seek injunctive relief from a court confirming that SB330 was not applicable for that specific situation. Ultimately, the court agreed with the City that SB330 was not applicable or valid to use in annexation situations. The application was then withdrawn.
The Question: Are we just using new developer money to fix old problems? What happens when the building stops?
The Context: Modern California planning follows a strict “New Growth Pays Its Way” model.
- Infrastructure: One-time developer fees pay for the new fire stations, pipes and roads required by that specific project.
- Maintenance: To ensure the rest of the city isn’t burdened, new development must pay its own way. Developers pay “impact fees” for city-wide infrastructure, and new neighborhoods are annexed into Community Facilities Districts (CFDs). Funded exclusively by those new homeowners, these CFDs pay for local infrastructure and provide an annual fee to cover essential ongoing services like Police, Fire and city administration. If you see weeds in a newer park, it’s usually a matter of maintenance enforcement against a specific contractor, not a lack of funding in the system.
The Question: I’ve heard we have 510 more units than the State requires right now. Doesn’t that mean we can stop new development?
The Context: While it’s true that Dixon is meeting its current 8-year state mandate for housing (RHNA), planning for a city doesn’t happen in 8-year chunks — it happens in 20-year visions through our General Plan. The State updates housing requirements every eight-year housing cycle. The current cycle is for 2023-2031. If we stop planning now, we risk falling behind in the next cycle. When a city fails to plan or demonstrate it can meet its share of new housing, the State can trigger the “Builder’s Remedy,” a law that strips the City of its power to deny high-density projects, effectively handing our local control over to Sacramento.
In addition, new housing is also a means to increase Dixon’s population and attract more commercial, retail and industrial uses. Most commercial entities use housing and census data to evaluate if areas meet their property metrics for a new commercial use. Many of the types of commercial uses that residents desire in Dixon are not currently feasible and do not meet the commercial/retail company economic, population or census threshold to pursue a new location in Dixon.