A large crowd of approximately 60 to 70 people attend the Ukiah Planning Commission’s meeting discussing the city’s recent annexation proposal in Ukiah, Calif., on Wednesday, June 11, 2025. The Ukiah Planning Commission, made up of commissioners Mark Hilliker, Alex de Grassi and Douglas “Rick” Johnson, raised numerous questions about whether the city would have the resources to provide adequate utility services to the unincorporated areas proposed for annexation. (Sydney Fishman/Bay City News)

UKIAH, CA., 6/13/25 — The Ukiah Planning Commission held a meeting Wednesday to discuss the city’s recently proposed annexation and voted to continue the conversation at its next meeting.

The proposal involves unincorporated land in the Willow area south of the city and a portion of Millview to the north. The meeting took place at the Ukiah Civic Center, which was packed with approximately 60 to 70 people, including both proponents and opponents of annexation. 

Jesse Davis, the chief planning manager for the city of Ukiah, led a discussion with the Planning Commission on the annexation process and how it would move forward if approved by the City Council and the Mendocino Local Agency Formation Commission, also known as LAFCo. 

LAFCo operates in every California county as a state-mandated agency that regulates city and special district boundaries. It is responsible for reviewing annexation proposals, incorporations, and other boundary changes to ensure orderly growth and that local governments can provide adequate public services and utilities. 

During Wednesday’s meeting, Davis explained that final decisions about the annexation have not yet been made, but the goal of the meeting was to determine whether the annexation proposal and its zoning are reasonable to move forward with.

“Tonight, as per the report, the Planning Commission is not deciding on the reorganization itself, that lies with the City Council,” Davis said during the meeting. “Our role is to determine whether the proposed pre-zoning and land use code changes are appropriate.” 

Davis said city staff, along with the Planning Commission, are currently working on “pre-zoning” the areas proposed for annexation. This means the city is still developing an official zoning plan to accompany the annexation proposal it plans to submit to LAFCo. 

“Pre-zoning ensures that if annexation is approved in the future, the properties would have zoning that’s consistent with both city policies and the county’s Ukiah Valley Area Plan,” Davis emphasized. “These pre-zonings would not take effect unless and until annexation occurs.” 

The Ukiah Valley Area Plan, adopted by the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors in 2011, was created to guide development and land use in the Ukiah area over a 20- to 30-year period. 

Developed in collaboration with the city of Ukiah, the plan discusses how the city and county can work together to streamline services in unincorporated communities such as Redwood Valley, Calpella and Talmage. The plan also designates specific areas in the Ukiah Valley for residential, commercial or mixed-use growth — a combination of the two. 

However, although the plan was adopted about 14 years ago, the county has not updated its zoning codes to match the plan’s land use designations. Because of this, areas outside the city still have outdated zoning that does not reflect the plan. 

A large crowd of approximately 60 to 70 people attend the Ukiah Planning Commission’s meeting discussing the city’s recent annexation proposal in Ukiah, Calif., on Wednesday, June 11, 2025. (Sydney Fishman/Bay City News)

The Ukiah Planning Commission, made up of commissioners Mark Hilliker, Alex de Grassi and Douglas “Rick” Johnson, raised numerous questions about whether the city would have the resources to provide adequate utility services to the unincorporated areas proposed for annexation. 

“The reason I’m asking is because residents are concerned about the city’s ability to provide services to these outlying areas that could be annexed,” asked Johnson. “I come from the business world, and if we were doing a project like this, we’d need to come forward with cost estimates, staffing plans, resources, schedules, all of that, before getting the go-ahead to move forward.” 

However, Craig Schlatter, the city’s community development director who works with the planning division, said they do not yet have a financial analysis, which is supposed to outline the city’s specific plan for services. 

“All financial analysis is being conducted as part of the plan for services,” Schlatter noted, saying that the analysis will be ready when they present their final application to the Ukiah City Council. “A resolution of application will be submitted for the City Council’s consideration.” 

During the public comment portion of the meeting, several opponents of the proposal approached the podium to share their concerns about the annexation. 

Mike Bazzani, a former law enforcement officer, commented on why he is against it. 

“From a law enforcement standpoint, you don’t have the resources,” he explained.

Former law enforcement officer Mike Bazzani attends the Ukiah Planning Commission’s meeting on Wednesday, June 11, 2025 discussing the city’s recent annexation proposal in Ukiah, Calif. Bazzani explained why he is against the annexation proposal. (Sydney Fishman/Bay City News) (Sydney Fishman/Bay City News)

Maureen Phillips, who owns half an acre near Lake Mendocino, said in an interview she is frustrated with the city’s proposal because of the lack of information.

“It is going through and the people who are going to be annexed were never notified,” Phillips said outside the Civic Center. “Why weren’t these people notified?” 

However, the city of Ukiah has compiled an extensive list of reasons for why annexation could promote economic development and growth. Shannon Riley, Ukiah’s deputy city manager, said in an interview that annexation will help residents seeking permits and project approvals within city limits. 

“There are people who are asking us to annex them,” Riley said. “They are trying to get projects through, and they are struggling, but they have had success working with the city and they’d rather have that experience.” 

Riley also noted that coordinated groups that have vehemently opposed annexation have made it somewhat difficult for supporters to make public comments during city meetings. 

“There is a segment of the community that has made it difficult for some people to speak out,” she said. “There has been an organized effort to oppose this, and when people are showing up with signs, badges, and emotions, that can make it an uncomfortable environment for people.” 

Riley also clarified that the annexation proposal is still in its early stages, which she said the city has conveyed to the public. 

“We are still in the early stages of this process,” she said. “This is the beginning of the process, this is an opportunity for public input. But people have made a lot of assumptions and conclusions.” 

The city of Ukiah is holding another meeting, a town hall, for those who would like to express their concerns or ask questions about the annexation proposal. That will be at 5:30 p.m. on June 19 at the Ukiah Valley Conference Center, 200 S. School St. City staff will share more details about the proposal during the event. 

At Wednesday’s meeting, the Ukiah Planning Commission also voted to continue the annexation discussion at its next meeting, scheduled at 6 p.m. on June 25 at the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Ave. 

Sydney Fishman is a UC Berkeley California Local News Fellow and lives full time in Ukiah. Reach her at sydney@mendovoice.com or through her Signal username @sydannfish.67.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *