Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Harvest At Dixon topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents, unions and council spar over "Harvest at Dixon" master plan as staff seeks guidance
Summary
City staff presented the Harvest at Dixon master plan — a proposal for up to 6,350 homes on about 836 acres phased over roughly 20 years — prompting lengthy public comment urging slower growth, local‑hire requirements and protections for farmland. Staff stressed the item was an outreach update, not a decision.
City staff presented the Harvest at Dixon master plan to the Dixon City Council on May 6, describing a master plan that could include “up to 6,350 residential units on about 836 acres,” phased over about 20 years with the first homes potentially available by 2030, a neighborhood retail center and more than 140 acres of parks and open space. City Community Development Director Raffy Beloyan told the council the draft vision and guiding principles were drawn from developer‑ and city‑led public workshops and are intended to guide staff review rather than approve the project.
The presentation prompted an extended public comment period in which dozens of residents, union leaders and grassroots organizers weighed in. Keep Dixon Green president Caitlin O'Halloran Heller said the project “far exceed[s]” the housing numbers in the city's housing element and asked the council to place a five‑year moratorium on new construction after the state‑required allocation is met. Union speakers, including Alicia Mahars of the Sheet Metal Workers and Jared Picano of IBW Local 180, urged the developer to commit to family‑sustaining wages, health benefits and local hiring. Mahars said the draft materials omitted protections for construction workers and asked the council to require fair‑wage and apprenticeship commitments.
Several speakers emphasized farmland loss and greenbelt concerns, arguing the scale of the proposal would change Dixon's small‑town character. One resident noted the project would remove "over 800 acres" of farmland and questioned whether the community needs that much housing now. Others urged the city to secure clear community benefits, independent fiscal analyses and coordinated planning with the school district for a proposed elementary site. Council members and staff repeatedly emphasized that no annexation or approvals had been made and said staff will pursue a fiscal analysis and public‑safety studies (contracted to AP Triton) and post technical materials online. The council did not take action; staff invited further public input and meetings with community groups.
