Ukiah Planning Commission Rejects Annexation Prezoning in 4-1 Vote

The City of Ukiah’s Sapling 2.0 annexation proposal suffered a significant setback Wednesday night when the Ukiah Planning Commission voted 4-1 to deny recommending the prezoning and related land-use actions associated with the proposal, following hours of public testimony and pointed criticism from commissioners over the map and the way the annexation process has been handled.

Commissioner Jacob Brown cast the lone vote against the motion, leaving him as the only commissioner willing to oppose rejecting the recommendation despite hours of public concern and his colleagues’ sharp criticism of the map, City management and the annexation process.

The significance of the commission’s action went beyond a disagreement over zoning. Throughout their deliberations, commissioners made clear they did not want a vote on prezoning to be interpreted by the City Council as an endorsement of the Sapling 2.0 boundaries or the broader annexation plan.

Commissioner Devery Montano offered some of the strongest criticism of the map and the financial considerations behind its boundaries. “I know this map has been financially motivated,” Montaño said, describing it as being “drawn in a way that is ultimately decided by what is the cutoff of when we can make money off of it.”

“This map isn’t it,” Montano said.

She also rejected the idea of approving the land-use actions and simply forwarding commissioners’ broader concerns to the City Council, arguing that passing the proposal along “feels like a vote of confidence in the whole plan.”

Planning Commission Chair Alex de Grassi expressed a similar concern about what message the Planning Commission would send if it recommended the proposal. De Grassi said the commission had a “responsibility here to make it known that we are not happy with this in its entirety.”

Commissioner Mark Hilliker directed some of his criticism at how the City itself had managed the annexation effort.

“I don’t feel that management in the city has handled this well,” Hilliker said.

Hilliker also questioned whether the process had adequately incorporated the voices of residents throughout the broader Ukiah Valley, particularly those living outside City limits who would be directly affected by annexation.

“This is the Ukiah Valley Area Plan, but it’s being forwarded by the City of Ukiah without the input of those people that are the valley,” Hilliker said.

Rather than approve the recommendation while attaching concerns for the City Council to consider later, Hilliker and Commissioner Rick Johnson both advocated for rejecting what was before the commission.

“We should reject the whole thing,” Hilliker said.

Hilliker acknowledged that the Planning Commission is advisory and the City Council ultimately has the authority to disregard its recommendation. “What we recommend can be ignored by the Council,” he said.

The commissioners’ discussion followed a lengthy public hearing in which residents raised concerns about the annexation’s financial motivations, public safety, impacts on Mendocino County revenues, roads and infrastructure, water and sewer costs, agricultural properties, taxes and fees, existing land uses and the City’s ability to provide services to a significantly expanded jurisdiction.

Several speakers questioned why the City continued advancing annexation despite opposition from many of the residents and property owners who would actually be brought within City limits. Others argued the City should pursue voluntary annexation with areas that want to become part of Ukiah rather than attempting to annex unwilling neighborhoods and property owners.

The public testimony also reflected concerns about the relationship between the City and County. While annexation would transfer certain responsibilities to Ukiah, Mendocino County would continue providing countywide services including the jail, courts, coroner functions, search and rescue and other responsibilities.

Others questioned whether the City could substantially expand its boundaries without affecting services for residents already living within Ukiah.

After public comment closed and commissioners deliberated, Commissioner Johnson offered a motion that rejected the recommendation rather than simply forwarding the proposal to the City Council with concerns attached.

Johnson moved to “adopt a resolution to deny the resolution in front of us and ask City Council to direct City staff to take into account the discussions of this commission and the public comment and come back with another proposal in the future.”

Montano seconded the motion.

It passed 4-1, with Brown casting the lone dissenting vote.

The final action reflected a theme that emerged repeatedly during the commission’s discussion: commissioners did not want their action interpreted as support for the Sapling 2.0 map.

For the majority, simply passing the proposal along was not enough. Montano said doing so would feel like “a vote of confidence in the whole plan.” De Grassi wanted the City to understand commissioners were “not happy with this in its entirety.” Hilliker said City management had not handled the process well and argued the commission should “reject the whole thing.”

Johnson’s successful motion ultimately called on the City Council to have staff take both the commission’s discussion and the public testimony into consideration and return with another proposal in the future.

The vote does not automatically end the annexation effort. The Planning Commission serves in an advisory role, and the Ukiah City Council can still decide whether and how to move the proposal forward.

But the Council now faces a considerably different political landscape. Four of the City’s five planning commissioners declined to recommend the proposal, questioned the map and process and made clear they did not want their action construed as an endorsement of Sapling 2.0.

The decision now returns to the City Council: continue advancing the current annexation proposal despite the Planning Commission’s 4-1 rejection, or heed Johnson’s motion and direct staff to take the commission and public’s concerns into account before coming back with another proposal.