After a four-hour meeting full of discussion and public comments, the Ukiah Planning Commission decided Wednesday to continue a vote on whether or not to recommend four components of the city’s plan to annex a large number of neighboring properties that are currently under Mendocino County jurisdiction.
“My sense is that this whole thing was rushed, and there was a lot of people here with questions: how is this going to affect me, what is this going to do to my property?” said Commissioner Mark Hilliker after numerous residents expressed concerns about the annexation plan. “I think when people come storming in here and they’re unhappy about something, it’s because they don’t have information. The city needs to share and spread the information before they come to us to make a decision. I think that another public meeting, one that isn’t scheduled at 3 p.m. in the afternoon, is the best route to take.”
“This is a big bite to chew, and there’s a lot of questions that the City Council will have to answer about the city’s ability to provide services to all of the annexed areas, and whether the people in the city are going to see additional costs on their bills,” said Commissioner Rick Johnson of the city’s plan to essentially triple in size, explaining that he was not opposed to annexation, but to the amount of parcels that would be annexed. “And I don’t understand what the big driver for this is as well. Why does the city feel that they can do a better job of managing this area than the county can do?”
“That’s not really being contemplated tonight,” said Community Development Director Craig Schlatter, who explained at the beginning of the meeting that the Planning Commission was “not making a decision related to the annexation application itself, that is up to the City Council. What the Planning Commission is being tasked with is deciding on a list of recommendations (related to) land use and zoning.”
“I think it’s critical to note here that all of the actions taken here are to maintain consistency with the Mendocino County zoning regulations, and the (county) land-use regulations,” Planning Manager Jesse Davis said, describing the current actions before the commission as the pre-zoning process, and that the Ukiah Valley Area Plan as a whole would “still be a county plan, so we’re not changing the responsibilities within the area plan. We’re utilizing the land-use designations specific to the UVAP.
“The county has already identified all of the parcels in the UVAP for those land-use designations, but what they have failed to do is re-zone those parcels for consistency with those UVAP designations, (and) the Brush Street Triangle is a good example,” continued Davis. “It has a mixed-use Brush Street Triangle designation as its land-use. However, it still retains an industrial zoning designation, that would be the pre-zoning difference we are facilitating here, ensuring that the Brush Street Triangle parcels will align with the Brush Street plans that the UVAP called for.”
Commissioner Johnson suggested reducing the number of parcels the commission would be recommending for “pre-zoning” and only including “an area that basically would be from Lovers Lane to the Brush Street Triangle, all the way down to perhaps Norgard Lane — basically all the urban areas, (since it) makes sense to have all of the people living in an urban area under the umbrella of the city. That would be a good first step for me.”
Instead of changing the map as part of the resolution, Schlatter suggested that the commissioners approve the four actions detailed by staff, then separately include their comments suggesting changes to the map.
“I look at it as more procedural,” Schlatter said. “What I am proposing is that the opinion (of where the boundaries should be) come in as a separate motion,” (because) what the commission was being asked to approve was only a component of the larger application for annexation, not the annexation itself.
“I think that is stepping on our own feet,” said Hilliker, noting that he did not think that annexation “is a bad idea, but I think it’s rushed.”
Commission Chairman Alex De Grassi said he agreed with Hilliker that recommending the resolution with additional comments would be like “stepping on our own feet, and I would be more in favor of not recommending this, and adding the comment that the commission was not comfortable with the boundaries.”
Adding that he did not feel the commission was ready to draw new boundaries that night, DeGrassi said he favored “that we either not recommend (the pre-zoning) or that we continue this discussion,” describing what was proposed as “a bit rushed for both the public and the commission.”
When city staff pointed out that there is another city workshop regarding annexation scheduled for 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, June 19, and that the Planning Commission had another meeting scheduled the following week, the commission voted to continue the hearing on the annexation components to its June 25 meeting.
“A lot of people here were throwing things out that I hadn’t considered, and don’t feel like I have enough information,” Hilliker said. “I want to know what those folks think, and to have another opportunity for the city to listen again. I think that’s critical.”
ON LINE COMMENTS re: Ukiah Planning Commission/Annexation report.
[1] Witnessing city staff Craig Schlatter and Jesse Davis sent to the Ukiah Planning Commission annexation meeting as henchmen for Assistant Ukiah City Manager Shannon Riley and City Manager Sage Sangiacomo exposed the deception of this entire process. More importantly it’s evidence of the top down level of corruption existing throughout the City of Ukiah I submit there should be public hearings with sworn testimony, public records disclosure, and full transparency of what has transpired over recent years that put our city in this position. This hearing should be held by a governing body above the city council as they have been complicit in the process approving the fiasco unfolding. Stop wasting resources on useless town hall meetings and open the records.
[2] Ukiah’s attempt to fast-track a major land grab hit a wall Wednesday night as the Planning Commission, overwhelmed by public opposition and unanswered questions, postponed a vote on key components of the city’s annexation plan.
Be First to Comment