DAVIS, Calif. — As California continues to pressure cities to accommodate more housing, neighboring Dixon is moving forward with one of the largest expansion proposals in its history, highlighting the different paths local governments are taking to meet state housing requirements—and highlighting the likelihood that Davis will eventually face similar decisions.
On Monday, the City of Dixon hosted a Notice of Preparation (NOP) scoping meeting for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) covering the proposed Harvest Master Plan, Lombardo Ranch Master Plan, Southeast Annexation and General Plan Amendment Project.
If ultimately approved by the Dixon City Council and the Solano Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), the proposal would expand Dixon’s city limits by approximately 2,033 acres while establishing a long-term planning area covering more than 4,200 acres.
The proposal would allow construction of up to 7,125 new housing units—6,300 in the Harvest at Dixon development and another 825 in the Lombardo Ranch project—over the next two decades, making it one of the largest planned residential expansions in Solano County.
For Davis, the project represents more than a neighboring city’s development proposal. It reflects the broader reality facing California communities as the state increasingly requires local governments to plan for and accommodate additional housing through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation process and other housing laws.
While Dixon is responding by pursuing large-scale peripheral growth through annexation, Davis has historically taken a different approach. Since the adoption of Measure J in 2000—and its subsequent renewals—most residential development outside the city’s existing boundaries requires voter approval, making large peripheral projects politically and procedurally more difficult.
The contrast has become more pronounced in recent years. Dixon continues to plan for outward expansion while Davis has relied primarily on infill development, redevelopment and a limited number of voter-approved peripheral proposals.
That distinction, however, may become increasingly difficult to maintain as state housing mandates continue to grow and available infill opportunities become more limited.
According to the Notice of Preparation, “This reissued NOP is being distributed to applicable responsible agencies, trustee agencies, interested agencies, parties, and organizations as required by CEQA. Interested agencies and parties are requested to comment on the scope and content of the significant environmental issues, mitigation measures, and reasonable alternatives to be explored in the Draft EIR.”
The city first issued a Notice of Preparation for the project in July 2025 but reissued the document after revising the project description. Public comments on the revised notice will be accepted through July 27 before preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report continues.
The proposal encompasses approximately 4,233 acres, the majority of which is currently agricultural land located outside Dixon’s existing city limits. It includes expansion of Dixon’s sphere of influence by approximately 2,161 acres in addition to annexing 2,033 acres into the city itself.
The largest component is the proposed Harvest at Dixon master-planned community.
According to the NOP, “The Project encompasses the Harvest Master Planned Development—a phased, mixed-use community of up to 6,300 residential units, commercial/mixed-use space, public facilities, infrastructure (water, wastewater, stormwater, transportation), and extensive open space—anticipated to build out over 20–25 years.”
The Harvest development would include neighborhoods of varying residential densities, an elementary school site, a future fire station, mixed-use commercial development, parks, open space, stormwater facilities and supporting infrastructure. City planning documents estimate nearly 936,000 square feet of commercial, civic and mixed-use building space would accompany the residential development.
According to the city, “Development of the Harvest at Dixon Project is anticipated to begin near Parkway Boulevard and proceed south as buildout occurs which includes building parks, an associated retail center, and the majority of the backbone infrastructure required by the Harvest at Dixon Project in the initial phases of development.”
The city estimates construction would occur in four phases at approximately 300 homes annually, depending on market demand, with full buildout requiring roughly 20 to 25 years.
The proposal also includes the Lombardo Ranch Master Planned Development.
“The Project also encompasses the Lombardo Ranch Master Planned Development which proposes up to approximately 825 single-family residential dwelling units, a limited neighborhood-serving commercial area intended to serve the daily needs of Project residents, and parks and open space areas,” the NOP states.
Planning documents describe Lombardo Ranch as a predominantly low-density residential neighborhood consisting of approximately 825 all-electric homes, neighborhood commercial uses, parks, pedestrian and bicycle facilities and supporting infrastructure. The project would be constructed over approximately eight years.
The proposal also includes potential expansion of Pond C, Dixon’s existing stormwater detention basin located north and northwest of the Harvest development.
According to the Notice of Preparation, “Pond C will be addressed in the EIR from a stormwater drainage and plumbing standpoint as a result of Project activities. Pond C may be considered for expansion to provide additional stormwater detention storage to serve the Project or enhancement of the existing recreational trail.”
Beyond the immediate development projects, Dixon is also proposing to expand its sphere of influence into three additional planning areas identified as the North Sphere of Influence, East Sphere of Influence and Pedrick Parkway Sphere of Influence. While no development is currently proposed within those areas, the city intends to pre-zone them as part of its long-term growth strategy.
Before any annexation can occur, however, the project must receive approval from Solano LAFCO. It will also require updated Municipal Services Reviews evaluating the city’s ability to provide public services to the expanded area and a tax-sharing agreement between the City of Dixon and Solano County.
The Environmental Impact Report will evaluate a wide range of potential environmental issues, including impacts on agriculture, transportation, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, air quality, water resources, public services, utilities, wildfire risk and cumulative growth. It also will analyze alternatives to the proposal, including a no-project alternative.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
There is a huge assumption in this article … that housing demand respects jurisdictional and geographical boundaries.
That assumption is seriously flawed. For a UCD employee the commute from one of the new homes in Dixon will be more convenient and produce fewer GHGs than the commute from Willowgrove or Wildhorse would be. Housing demand and supply ignore City Limits.
For the next RHNA allocation SACOG would be much better served by less micromanagement of the allocations. The State’s desire for as many more housing units as possible would be better accomplished if SACOG gave the combination of Yolo’s County, Davis, West Sac, Woodland , and Winters an aggregate number and left it to the five of them to come up with a single Housing Element that accomplishes the number through the combined and coordinated housing activity of those five jurisdictions.
“There is a huge assumption in this article … that housing demand respects jurisdictional and geographical boundaries. ”
That’s not a point that was assumed or even contemplated
Once again Matt wants to re-invent the wheel.
He wants to re-invent the wheel even as the state is re-inventing the wheel.
Part of the reason for things like SACOG and RHNA is to allocate a fair share of housing for every jurisdiction. One reason the Vanguard has added housing coverage regionally and statewide is precisely because housing is not just a Davis issue and when you only focus on Davis you miss the forest through the trees.
So you agree that the Dixon development will address the housing demand of Davis.
I agree that if every community fulfills their housing allocation requirements that it will help alleviate the housing crisis.
Right after Measure V went down to defeat a regional leader told me in an aside not for attribution that Davis’ housing policies end up putting pressure on surrounding communities in ways that people in Davis either do not appreciate or do not care.
And which will produce more actual housing being built, the current system of five distinct and separate allocations, or an alternative aggregate allocation that the five jurisdictions address through collective, coordinated effort.
Five individual Housing Elements versus one combined Housing Element? Artificial bureaucratic barriers versus using market forces to maximize the total housing production? Housing near jobs or more commuting to jobs remote from the housing? Less GHGs or more GHGs? Less VMTs versus more VMTs?
One of the truisms of problem solving is than a huge number of new solutions are addressing flaws in past implemented solutions. The micromanagement of the current RHNA allocation system is overkill. Let the market forces work. Don’t stifle them.
“if SACOG gave the combination of Yolo’s County, Davis, West Sac, Woodland , and Winters an aggregate number and left it to the five of them to come up with a single Housing Element”
Uh huh.
Why would any nearby community cooperate with Davis on something like this? Are you aware of the reputation Davis has with surrounding communities?
More housing for UCD employees. More jobs for teachers leaving a downsized DJUSD. More commuter miles for people working at UCD. More homes for families.
Easier and shorter commutes for UCD employees, with fewer GHGs than commuting from new peripheral development homes in Davis (other than homes at Bretton Woods).
Given the continued congestion on I-80 and the pressure that our county roads are already under to accommodate traffic unanticipated when they were constructed, I think you should re-think that one.
What would the commuting route for a UCD employee coming from one of those new Dixon houses be? They would not enter the congested portion of I-80. They would exit I-80 on 113 North.
“What would the commuting route for a UCD employee coming from one of those new Dixon houses be?”
Pedrick Rd to Hutchison preferred. I-80 to Mondavi offramp if going to that side of campus, I-80 to 113 preferred for going to work in town vs on campus.
Agreed Don, and all of them are preferable to and less environmentally impactful than the two recommended routes from Harper JH (west on Covell to Anderson or east on Covell to I-80 to 113). The traffic apps recommended the east on Covell and around the Mace Curve route from Harper, which is 7.8 miles to the Hutchison parking structure, which is slightly longer than the 7.7 miles from the proposed Dixon projects.
There seems to be a misperception that this project would be instead of Davis. Each city has their own RHNA allotment and Dixon building this wouldn’t impact Davis’ housing commitments.
Agreed David … from a RHNA perspective. Dixon isn’t even in the same OG as Davis. They are in the Bay Area OG.
With that said from a housing demand perspective, the Dixon project DOES address Davis-generated housing demand.
If that is true, then why did you include the paragraph, ”For Davis, the project represents more than a neighboring city’s development proposal. It reflects the broader reality facing California communities as the state increasingly requires local governments to plan for and accommodate additional housing.” or start the article by saying ”and highlighting the likelihood that Davis will eventually face similar decisions.”
Because connecting regional policies/ happenings to Davis on this platform works better.
Matt said: “For a UCD employee the commute from one of the new homes in Dixon will be more convenient and produce fewer GHGs than the commute from Willowgrove or Wildhorse would be.”
How do you figure? Fewer GHG’s? Have you looked at the map?
The map doesn’t take into consideration the travel time. But since you raised that question, what would the respective travel distances be between Willowgrove and the Hutchison Drive Parking Structure versus the travel distance from one of the new Dixon homes and the Hutchison Drive Parking Structure?
“The map doesn’t take into consideration the travel time. But since you raised that question, what would the respective travel distances be between Willowgrove and the Hutchison Drive Parking Structure versus the travel distance from one of the new Dixon homes and the Hutchison Drive Parking Structure?”
None of that matters as much as the frequent congestion on I-80 due to the narrowing of the interstate.
Don, given that you commute every day from Dixon to Davis you should certainly know that the narrowing of I 80 happens after the California 113 N. exit
“Don, given that you commute every day from Dixon* to Davis you should certainly know that the narrowing of I 80 happens after the California 113 N. exit”
Eastbound I-80 narrows from 4 lanes to 3 lanes at the far east edge of Vacaville (near the Rock Shop). At 113 it is back to 4 lanes.
Reduction to 3 lanes occurs again at about Richards Blvd.
Westbound I-80 narrows from 4 lanes to 3 lanes at Kidwell. This one causes significant weekend slowdowns.
Each of those lane reductions can cause significant backups in the event of accidents or just high traffic volume.
(* I don’t live in Dixon.)
Over 10 miles from near the part of Dixon where the subdivision will be built to college Park in Davis. Travel time 22 minutes according to Google maps. Alhambra Estates to College Park 3.5 miles and 11 minutes travel time also according to Google maps. Of course that is by car. By electric bike the numbers are even better for housing in Davis for people working at UCD.
This is one of the stupidest arguments of all time.
Let your fingers do the walking Ron. If you go out to the Dixon website the location of the two developments is explicitly provided and the existing Dixon Veterinary Clinic at 7925 Pedrick Rd acts as an excellent proxy for halfway up Pedrick for those sites. Plug that site into Apple Maps or Google Maps to get the 7.7 mile commute distance.
What percentage of UCD employees have their work parking space at College Park? When you want to be obtuse you efforts are World Cup championship level.
For Willowgrove, why choose Alhambra Estates rather than Harper Junior High School?
The Pavillion parking structure has 1,453 spaces the MU parking structure has 830 spaces. I’m not current on where TAPS is funneling parking permit applicants, but my suspicion, and it is only a suspicion is that Faculty and Senior Administration get preference on MU permits, and line employees are given permits for more remote parking like the Pavillion structure.
I don’t agree with your take about GHGs and convenience for UCD employee commutes.
The closest parking garage for UCD employees living at Willowgrove would be the MU garage, not the Hutchison garage. The MU garage is 3.5 miles and 10 minutes from Covell/Alhambra via Alhambra and 5th Street. Some of these employees would likely bike to work.
The new Dixon projects would be at the far south end of town. Pedrick/Midway is a good midway point. Pedrick/Midway is 9.5 miles and about 14 minutes from the closest UCD garages at Hutchison and the Mondavi Center. Very unlikely that any of these employees would bike to work.
Craig, the most important ability is availability. How available will MU parking permits be to UCD employees who reside in Willowgrove?
The proposed projects will NOT be at the far south end of town. They will be on the eastern edge of town along Pedrick Road where the Dixon Veterinary Clinic is currently located.
Employee parking at the MU would be just as available to a Willowgrove resident as it is to anyone else. UCD parking is paid at a daily rate on a first come first served basis.
But even if a Willowgrove resident chooses to use the Hutchison or Mondavi garage instead, it’s still a faster and shorter trip compared to driving in from the Dixon projects. From Covell/Alhambra, it’s 10 minutes and 6 miles to the Mondavi garage and 12 minutes and 4.4-6.7 miles to the Hutchison garage depending on the route. Compared to 14 minutes and 9.5 miles from
Pedrick/Midway to the Hutchison garage.
I’d suggest you take a closer look at the Dixon project map in the NOP linked below. The 825-unit Lombardo Ranch project is near the Dixon Vet Clinic address you referenced. The much larger 6,300-unit Harvest at Dixon project is virtually entirely south of the existing developed area of Dixon.
https://www.cityofdixonca.gov/meetingfiles/17377/agendas/5ea19238ccfa4b05a9430889a9240286.pdf
Craig, as you have pointed out the Lombardo project is north of Midway … approximately 2 miles north. Also, Willowgrove is a mile further away from the Mace interchange of I-80 and the travel time along Mace in rush hour is very slow.
With that said does any UCD employee going to work on the campus each weekday pay for daily parking? We always bought a long term pass to avoid paying the daily rate premium. Why would an employee throw away their money like that? Which brings us to the question of to whom does TAPS issue pPermits for the MU structure? Last time I checked those permits were not first come first served. That is why I chose the Pavillion structure as the destination. It could have been a surface lot also. Those are mostly remote from the MU structure as well.
Yes, the Lombardo project is 2 miles north of Midway, and the southern portion of the Harvest project is about 2 miles south of Midway. Which is why Pedrick/Midway is a good midpoint for this analysis. Do you think that the much larger 6,300-unit Harvest project would have faster commutes with less GHGs for UCD employees when compared to Willowgrove?
Did you see the travel time and distance numbers I provided above? Derived from Google Maps for a weekday 8:30am arrival? These numbers account for rush hour congestion and are less for Willowgrove for every UCD parking garage option.
UCD no longer has employee parking permits. They switched to daily rate parking several years ago. They have spaces marked for students and spaces marked for employees that can be used on a first come first served basis.
(…) His idea of satisfying U. C. Davis housing demand is building in Dixon.
Why not build in Davis? Matt are you going to endorse Measure W, Willow Grove?
My observation over several decades living in or near Dixon is that the housing has primarily been marketed to, and bought by, people working in the Bay Area. Travis AFB is a big employer. Dixon has not historically had strong economic connections with Davis. The demographics are very different. Davis is perceived as white, wealthy, and very full of itself.
Regionally it is part of the ABAG, not SACOG. Transportation is Bay Area focused, with barely any transit between Dixon and Davis and very little likelihood of any being developed beyond the very limited shuttle service to UCD.
Dixon doesn’t do much infill because that is primarily being developed into commercial projects.
Dixon also has a much higher sales tax revenue per capita because there has been strong development along I-80 capturing dollars from passing motorists, an opportunity Davis has barely availed itself of.
Pretty sure there’s a mixed-use development proposal (with 1,041 housing units) in Dixon that’s literally called “The Campus/Dixon 257” that’s about 5 miles from UCD.
https://www.cityofdixonca.gov/departments/CommunityDevelopment/TheCampus/Dixon257
Don says: “Davis is perceived as white, wealthy, and very full of itself.”
Is that how YOU view your own customers? Or is that what your Dixon neighbors say about it?
“Is that how YOU view your own customers? Or is that what your Dixon neighbors say about it?”
No.
“The Campus/Dixon 257”
That project is not what this article is about.
RonG, have you gone to the City of Dixon website and looked at the project documents for all three projects. They literally are adjacent to one another on the west side of Pedrick Road. The center of the 257 project on Pedrick is approximately 1.5 miles north of the center of the two projects in the article. They are literally “three peas in a pod.”
Well, the “good news” is that it sounds like DJUSD may not have to right-size itself after all. :-)
Pretty sure that you can get to Dixon without even getting on the freeway, though I don’t recall the exact route at the moment.
In any case, this is one of the reasons why Dixon sucks – the people in charge of it.
Just like the local politician(s) around Suisun who support California Forever, the politicians who supported the destruction of Lagoon Valley, etc.
This is why Measure J exists – political office generally attracts the wrong, business-connected candidates. It seems that this is consistently true – everywhere (with some limited/periodic exceptions).
When I first arrived in Davis, there was a slow growth council. I mistakenly assumed that this was “normal”.
South and West of Davis is an excellent area to build housing. Not flood prone. Good soil. Near UCD. We could build closer to UCD than Dixon.
For the most part I agree Ron. It is very strange that the northwest quadrant sites that have Class 4 alkali soils that don’t even support growing hay are not at the head of the peripheral development line.
With that said, Bretton Woods has had to spend approximately $14 million on flood control mitigation measures, so flooding on the west side of Davis is definitely an issue to be considered and dealt with.