Dixon Planning Commission to receive draft General Plan

The Dixon Planning Commission will review the draft of the revised General Plan at its Tuesday meeting.

According to a staff report by Community Development Director Raffi Boloyan, the current General Plan was adopted in 1993 to outline the city’s vision for development. However, the City Council determined in 2014 that the plan was “greatly outdated and out of compliance with new state regulations and current trends” despite numerous amendments over time. Thus, the council decided the plan needed to be updated, so the city enlisted the urban planning firm of Dyett and Bhatia to assist with the process.

Following the completion of a traffic model in 2019, work began on the draft General Plan 2040, which aims to update the current plan and include changes to the policy structure and land-use designations that seek to direct growth and conservation through the year 2040. It also seeks to comply with state regulations that have been enacted since the last update, including new requirements to address geologic hazards, flooding, environmental justice and woodland and urban fires, Boloyan wrote.

The public review for the draft and its environmental impact report (EIR) were released July 8, with a public comment period running through Aug. 21. Staff prepared responses to the comments, which were incorporated into the final EIR.

The primary focus for future growth and development outlined in the draft plan, Boloyan wrote, will be the areas of southwest Dixon, the Northeast Quadrant, downtown Dixon and the State Route 113 corridor north of downtown.

“The Plan seeks to preserve and enhance the quality of life in existing neighborhoods within the City limit and to preserve the natural open space and agricultural lands that surround Dixon,” Boloyan wrote.

The draft plan is organized into six chapters, consisting of an introduction, conservation for the city’s natural environment, land use and community character, a strategy to enhance economic development, citywide mobility and addressing the city’s public facilities and services.

The analysis outlined in the draft EIR found that most impacts associated with the process were less than significant or could be mitigated. However, five significant and unavoidable impacts were identified, including the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses, development that could violate air quality standards, the potential for greenhouse gas emissions that are above the statewide reduction target and traffic increases as a result of population and job growth.

Per the California Environmental Quality Act’s requirements to identify alternatives to reduce or avoid the significant impacts of the plan, the EIR considered three alternatives in addition to the required suggestion of “No Project.” These consisted of a transit-oriented development alternative, compact growth alternative and balanced jobs-housing ratio alternative.

Boloyan wrote the alternatives were developed to avoid the conversion of prime farmland and significantly reduce the daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per service population.

“However, VMT analysis conducted on these alternatives determined that none of three would avoid or substantially reduce 2040 per service population VMT as compared to the Proposed Plan,” he wrote.

Simply not updating the plan “could feasibly address the significant and unavoidable impact related to conversion of Prime Farmland,” Boloyan wrote. However, the plan as proposed was found to have had an impact profile similar to foregoing the project and was ultimately determined to be “more successful in achieving the objectives of the General Plan update including fostering economic growth, encouraging careful stewardship of resources like water and energy, promoting highquality development, and allowing convenient and safe travel,” Boloyan wrote.

“The Proposed Plan would concentrate development along key mixeduse corridors and in downtown and would result in more multi-family housing units,” he wrote, adding that “the Proposed Plan is found to be environmentally superior in more cases and thus determined to be the environmentally superior alternative.”

“The Proposed Plan would concentrate development ... would result in more multifamily housing units.” — Community Development Director Raffi Boloyan

Staff is recommending the commission accept the staff report and presentation, conduct a public hearing to receive more comments and recommend that the City Council certify the final EIR, adopt CEQ A’s findings and statement of overriding considerations and adopt the General Plan 2040.

The meeting will be held at 7 p.m. Tuesday at the following link: Us02web.zoom.us/j/9886211 137?pwd=R2dxZ3RkbU9S QXdlUVllRkc0QlQwZz09. Participate by joining the virtual meeting or by calling 669-900-9128 for teleconferencing. The meeting ID is 988 621 1137.

The public may give comments by clicking on the “Raise Hand” function on Zoom or by pressing *9 if teleconferencing. Comments may also be emailed to publiccomment@cityofdixon.us prior to the meeting.