UKIAH, CA., 6/4/26 — The city of Ukiah held an annexation scoping meeting this week aimed at gathering community feedback on potential environmental impacts if the city’s proposal to pull some unincorporated areas into the city limits were to go through.
The meeting Monday evening drew in about 20 Ukiah Valley community members, many of whom live or own businesses in the areas to be annexed, and many of whom passionately expressed being against annexation.
According to the city, the purpose of the meeting was to gather input to help the consulting firm preparing a supplemental environmental impact report find out what it should include. The report will be prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as part of the annexation proposal process.
The city said the report will be supplemental to the city’s environmental impact report that was done for its 2040 general plan, which maps out Ukiah’s sphere of influence, a designation for areas with probable growth where public services and utilities could be reasonably provided by the city.
A California law called the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act of 2000 requires Local Agency Formation Commissions, the regulatory commissions that oversee boundaries, to identify spheres of influence for cities and special districts to manage growth in an intentional way.
The city said the supplemental report will evaluate potential environmental impacts of the proposed annexation and identify necessary mitigation measures as well as consider reasonable alternatives.
The environmental report will be put together by Rincon Consultants, a California-based environmental consulting firm, with the input from community members at the meeting as well as from agencies that could be impacted by the proposed annexation if it ultimately gets approved by the Mendocino Local Agency Formation Commission, which the city is several steps away from approaching.
“The next phase will be take that input, we take those comments, and we actually prepare the environmental impact report,” said Matt Maddox, principal at Rincon Consultants, who facilitated the meeting. “We do the analysis, we determine what impacts will occur if the reorganization project is adopted, and then identify ways if there are environmental impacts to reduce or avoid those impacts, as well as conduct an alternative analysis on other projects that could be proposed.”
Maddox said after the report is drafted, a 45-day public review period will open, then the final report will be prepared, published and presented at a planning commission hearing, then the City Council would make a decision on the proposed annexation based on the supplemental environmental impact report.
Several commenters had input that was not entirely environmentally related, but most often critical of the proposed annexation for several reasons. Multiple commenters expressed disapproval of the city’s proposed annexation of lands to the north and south of Ukiah, saying they didn’t want it.
Jill Bales, a resident of the southern area proposed to be annexed, said she and likely her neighbors bought their homes outside the city limits to be outside Ukiah, or they couldn’t afford to buy within the city. Bales also expressed worry about property values increasing, thus upping property taxes.
A few comments criticized the city for spending money on the proposed annexation before asking residents if they wanted to be annexed. Two people used the term “putting the cart before the horse,” to describe how the city was going about the proposed annexation in reference to gauging public approval before spending resources on annexation proposal efforts.
Several said the city should do a poll to find out if residents want annexation to happen, and Ross Liberty of the grassroots No Ukiah Annexation group, said the group will be conducting a poll themselves with the help of the city, to find out public approval rates for the proposed annexation.
There is a public voting aspect involved in the annexation proposal process, but not until the city’s application to the Mendocino Local Agency Formation Commission is complete.
It’s called the protest vote. After the city presents its annexation proposal to the commission, landowners and registered voters in the areas proposed to be annexed will receive written notification of the protest process and be able to submit their choice of whether they approve of the annexation. If the commission receives more than 50% disapproval, the annexation proposal will be canceled, and the city cannot reapply for a year.
A few comments touched on concerns of the city changing zoning designations after annexation, which city officials said would not be as easy as some may think.
Part of the proposed annexation is an aspect called prezoning, where the city would adopt the county’s zoning for the areas proposed to be annexed, maintaining existing county land use and development standards, the city said.
“The proposed project would not change allowable land uses, development intensity, or site development standards, and would not induce growth or enable development beyond what is currently permitted,” the city’s webpage for the supplemental environmental impact report relating to annexation reads.
While most comments were about annexation in general, several brought up potential environmental impacts of the proposed annexation, as the city wanted to focus on.
Commenters mentioned possible emissions from increased coverage areas for emergency services and consequential runoff as well as disturbance of wildlife if the city decides to develop or update infrastructure in the areas that could be annexed.
The current comment period before the report is drafted closes June 8 at 5 p.m. and community members can submit input by sending an email to CSchlatter@cityofukiah.com or mailing a letter to city of Ukiah, Attn: Craig Schlatter, Community Services Director, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482.
The next city of Ukiah annexation workshop for community members to learn more about the city’s proposal is June 11 at 6 p.m. in the community room at the Alex Rorabaugh Recreation Center at 1640 S. State St. in Ukiah.
I don’t trust writers who refer to elected officials as “The City “ when they give responses to questions like will zoning changes be made .
“ it’s not as easy as you think “
What a misleading and untrue answer
Of course they will change zoning
They want to grow the city
Because they make money
Period .
Who wants a bigger more populated Ukiah ? Development
I do?
What has staying small and meek done for this economy? The local businesses are over priced for most consumers and they underpay the youth. Ross has no interest in competing with outside businesses that might have better practices. Costco pays better than the local county and offers healthcare to part timers, along with full timers. Bringing in new businesses and new blood is exactly what this area needs to adapt to a world without black market cannabis as a crutch to lean on.
I imagine most of these folks who are anti annex have drummed up fears based on nonsense. Property taxes aren’t changing, and if anything being in a city district may add to the property values. Most of these folks just outside of town already shop in Ukiah and pay the sales taxes to a city they get no representation from since they reside just outside the city limits.
A lot of land is targeted for development outside the City’s limits precisely because the County’s environmental and other zoning restrictions are so lax. The few comments at the City’s scoping meeting about the environmental impacts of annexation (the whole purpose of the meeting), i.e., “emissions” from emergency vehicles and “consequential runoff” plus “disturbance of wildlife, ” actually apply more to the types of development already occurring RIGHT OUTSIDE the city limits.
Take for example the sterile stretch of asphalt and windowless, multistory buildings next to the Russian River right off the north freeway exit. That property happens to be owned by the loudest opponent of annexation, Ross Liberty, already a major developer in the area whose various industrial developments, and cleared acreage for more, already line a long section of that street. What kind of plans does he have to mitigate the effects of that ugly concrete monstrosity that sticks out like a sore thumb at the entrance to the city?
Regarding environmental concerns, what is Liberty’s plan to replace all the huge, heritage oaks that he’s already taken out to make way for his developments? (ref. to commentator’s “disturbance of wildlife”) How does he prevent polluted run-off from his asphalt plateau from draining into the Russian River? (ref. to “vehicle runoff”) How long before those isolated redwoods he planted grow tall enough to shade that expansive, heat-radiating parking lot, if they survive the constriction of their shallow root systems under the asphalt? How will the traffic those businesses generate–e.g., the delivery semi-trucks to and from the warehouse(s)–affect the roads, air quality (ref. “emissions”), freeway on and off-ramps, and–yes–services that the city pays for, like those emission-emitting emergency vehicles?
The County’s new jail will certainly not ease the City’s environmental concerns. It will only add to the already congested traffic, poor air quality, and sore-thumb-sticking-out trend that seems to be the status quo around here. Planning? What planning?
All the tax monies taken from you, and yet California “government” continuously whines about “we don’t have money for […..]”?
Here’s the reason:
“The environmental report will be put together by Rincon Consultants, a California-based environmental consulting firm”
That wasn’t free!
The idea that an administrative change of imaginary lines on a piece of paper called a map would have significant “environmental impact” is quite amusing. Rincon Consultants is also surely amused, as they collect taxpayers’ money for their useless report.
I’m currently living in a bay area city after living my whole life in Ukiah, and I love it. Cheaper services, diversity, options, restaurants, public transportion, doctors, schools and things to do. I’m so sad for Ukiah now that I’m away.
Urbanist: You must be a developer, right? Well, what is your own vision for the Ukiah Valley? The only sole proprietor or mom-and-pop businesses that seem to be surviving here are the overly-abundant nail salons, gun and ammo shops, massage parlors and tattoo businesses. Are they overpriced, as you say? I don’t know, but I also wonder how they can survive if they are all competing with each other, and how much demand there can be for their services or products in this small town.
The other rare “small and meek” specialty businesses have been dying out for a long time, not because they were overpriced as you claim (although the outrageous bombardment of tariffs from You-Know-Who hasn’t helped), but because mega-corporations have either bought them out or suffocated them. Amazon is the worst, quickly becoming the only shopping alternative in small towns like this around the country. It’s slowly culling all its competition, from small grocery stores to clothing stores, gift shops, department stores, book stores and hardware stores. They already had a hard time competing with mega-big-box corporations like Home Depot and Walmart, and yes, even Costco, but Amazon is the final blow. And now to top it off, there’s an Amazon distribution center just down the road from the ghost town it’s creating! What’s the plan there, “pro-growth” advocates?
Darn right Ross has no interest in competing with businesses with better practices. He not only doesn’t care about bad practices, he embraces them.
There’s a not-so-hidden cost for cheap goods, and you’re seeing it right here in our own town.
D.W.B. – Finally a competent retort. I’ll try to keep it short.
Being small and under-developed (and/or rural) will make your community susceptible to volatility in a climate that is becoming less stable (and I am also speaking about our glorious Cheeto Puff administration not just the weather). Living on the fringes (like Black Bart, Brooktrails, McNab, etc) is costing the county way more money and the economics for this area doesn’t support all this excess aging infrastructure. This is why developed cities get wholesale value vs rural living. Internet is cheaper, Property insurance is more reasonable, utilities are more affordable, and you live in a real community not siloed off on a ranch where you can’t see your neighbor. If you make Ukiah, Willits, FB, etc more attractive, like less overhead costs, access to police and fire protection, walkable neighborhoods, easy access to entertainment and shopping, you reach a bigger audience of consumers (locals and tourists alike) and on a more regular basis. All these empty shops in Ukiah and Willits would be full if people lived in the cities.
How much upkeep are rural folk spending on gas? Car maintenance? Internet? Electricity, Home projects? Land management? (XYZ, etc?)
How much upkeep are urban folk spending on X,Y,Z? – My bet is that living in an urbanized Ukiah, Willits, or FB will be more affordable than any rural area in Mendocino county.
The more people that come to live in these more dense cities the more diversity of businesses (and services) they can support and therefore generate for stable tax revenue to support the more compact infrastructure overhead. Heck, the cities could have nicer amenities like parks and bike lanes. Rome wasn’t built in a day but Ukiah annexing some of the surrounding areas would allow a new ecosystem to develop in Mendocino County.
And …one more addendum
Amazon’s proliferation is more a failure of our gov’t’s urban planning to adjust to the changing times. Suburbs and rural suburbs are mostly unstable living arrangement given the higher risks of fires and spiking gas costs along with tariff ridden goods.
Rural folks love Amazon because the costs of leaving their distant parcels is much higher than any city dweller who can walk to the nearby cafe, market, and/or retailer to grab coffee or groceries. Even if you lived in a Ukiah suburb, you would spend a fraction of resources compared to someone from a rural domain to leave your house. Plus people may spend more time out and about in an urban landscape knowing more activity is happening a block or two away. (Farmers markets, street fairs, Uber and lyft services, DJs music halls, outdoor cafe and music venues, stand up comedy, theatre, movies in the park, future bowling alley, etc)
These are all great perspectives
Thank you .
My daughter live in La Cross Wisconsin where she teaches college.
Interestingly
People there are not fixated on property values like California.
No entire sections of the local paper touting how a 3-2 ranch house sold for $1,386,000 like that’s an achievement.
I prefer Ukiah a bit funky myself after living in Sebastopol for years.
I believe Mendocino co outta focus more on Manufacturing. This is a blue collar county for certain .
But we are most certainly an inept species as behaving in long term vision of our planets future goes .
Pointing out how more gas is used by responding vehicles is kinda moot .
I haven’t read or heard any real benefits of annexation that aren’t of insignificant importance .
The person who is grinding their hatchet about Ross’s little redwood trees is an example of goofy reasons to annex . Bet they really hate Costco’s little trees in their giant parking lot.
Who said anything about responding vehicles? – Where did you read this?
Costco added trees where there were none before. Not to mention that parking lot is the most environmentally conscience construction I have seen in Mendocino County. If this was inside the County, it would look no different than the one in front of Raley’s. Bio swales, trenches and preservation of surrounding wetlands were considered when Costco’s parking lot went in. It’s in the EIR statement.
Ukiah being “funky,” as you put it, can be expanded on with more investment and maybe even become a magnet town.
Wisconsin isn’t the 5th largest economy in the world nor does the weather help the disposition of Wisconsin. You might as well compare a Rolls Royce to a John Deer Lawn mower.
“I haven’t read or heard any real benefits of annexation that aren’t of insignificant importance .” – Most counties with economy’s of scale have more robust cities. Let’s start with that tid-bit. Mendocino County is suffering from too much debt and spending and not enough revenue generation. The City of Ukiah already provides more benefit’s to the county than it does to itself. If Ukiah grows, so does Mendocino County’s finances and services. Cities do a better job at economic development than County gov’ts. They have better representation with their voters direct concerns with the immediate area and they’ll have more of a voice in their own neighborhood than with a larger county BOS. Cities have the benefits of wholesale value while rural communities do not. You get more bang for you buck in a city and better infrastructure since more people live closer together and contribute more tax share to a more compact infrastructure overhead. Cities also support more businesses than rural developments.
There are plenty of benefits. The question is more ‘Do you evolve or do you go extinct?