HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-02-26 PacketPlanning Commission
Regular Meeting
AGENDA
Civic Center Council Chamber ♦ 300 Seminary Avenue ♦ Ukiah, CA 95482
February 26, 2020 6:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4.a. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes 2/12/2020
Recommended Action: Review and approve draft minutes.
Attachments:
1.20200212 PC Minutes Draft
5. APPEAL PROCESS
All determinations of the Planning Commission regarding major discretionary planning permits are final unless a written
appeal, stating the reasons for the appeal, is filed with the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the date the decision was made.
An interested party may appeal only if he or she appeared and stated his or her position during the hearing on the decision
from which the appeal is taken. For items on this agenda, the appeal must be received by March 9, 2020.
6. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NONAGENDA ITEMS
The Planning Commission welcomes input from the audience. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments
to three (3) minutes per person and not more than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action
to be taken on audience comments.
7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION
8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE
9. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS REPORT
10. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Page 1 of 31
10.a. Community Development Department Status of Current and Advanced Planning Projects
Recommended Action: Receive report.
Attachments:
1.10a. Director's Report Staff Report
10.b. Overview of January 16, 2020 Staff Presentation to City Council Regarding Long Term Land
Use Planning and Annexation
Recommended Action: Receive report.
Attachments:
1.10b. Director's Report Staff Report
2.Attachment 1 11620 CC Meeting 3a.3.b. Agenda Summary Reports
3.Attachment 2 Map of Current and 1995Proposed SOI
4.Attachment 3 Research 1995Proposed SOI
5.Attachment 4 Proposed City of Ukiah SOI
6.Attachment 5 CC Reso 202006 Adopting Annexation Policy
11. CONSENT CALENDAR
12. NEW BUSINESS
13. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
13.a. 6Month Report Regarding Community Center and Winter Homeless Shelter at 1045 S. State
St.
Recommended Action: Receive report and provide additional feedback as necessary.
Attachments:
1.13a. Staff Report
2.Attachment 1 Final Signed COA 1045 S State_RCS
3.Attachment 2 RCSB2_Data_Report_for_COURev021820SW
14. ADJOURNMENT
Please be advised that the City needs to be notified 72 hours in advance of a meeting if any specific
accommodations or interpreter services are needed in order for you to attend. The City complies with
ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon
request. Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of
the agenda packet are available for public inspection at the front counter at the Ukiah Civic Center,
300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482, during normal business hours, Monday through Friday,
8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
agenda was posted on the bulletin board at the main entrance of the City of Ukiah City Hall, located
at 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California, not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting set forth on
this agenda.
Page 2 of 31
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 1 of 2
CITY OF UKIAH
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
February 12, 2020
6:00 p.m.
1.CALL TO ORDER
The City of Ukiah Planning Commission met at a Regular Meeting on February 12, 2020,
having been legally noticed on February 5, 2020. Chair Wetzel called the meeting to order at
6:00 p.m.
CHAIR WHETZEL PRESIDING.
2.ROLL CALL
Roll was taken with the following Commissioners Present: Ruth Van Antwerp, Linda Sanders,
Mark Hilliker, Laura Christensen, and Mike Whetzel; Staff Present: Craig Schlatter,
Community Development Director; Mireya Turner, Associate Planner; and Pamela Mathias,
Deputy Clerk.
3.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chair Whetzel.
4.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.Approval of the January 8, 2020 Regular Meeting Minutes.
Motion/Second: Vice Chair Christensen/Commissioner Sanders approved the January
8, 2020 Regular Meeting Minutes, pending the correction of Commissioner Sanders'
name. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Van Antwerp, Christensen,
Sanders, Hilliker, and Chair Whetzel. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
5.APPEAL PROCESS
No matters eligible for appeal were heard.
6.COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
No public comment was received.
7.SITE VISIT VERIFICATION
Confirmed by Commissioners.
8.VERIFICATION OF NOTICE
Confirmed by Staff.
9.PLANNING COMMISSIONERS’ REPORT
Presenter: Chair W hetzel.
10.PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Presenter: Craig Schlatter, Community Development Director.
Page 3 of 31
Minutes of the Planning Commission, February 12 2020 Continued:
Page 2 of 2
11.CONSENT CALENDAR
12.NEW BUSINESS
a.Request for Review of a Major Use Permit and Major Exception to Allow Operation of a
Cannabis Microbusiness to Include Cultivation, Distribution, and Dispensary/Retail in an
Existing Building at 270, 272, & 274 East Smith Street; APN 002-191-23; File No. 19-4635.
Applicant Comment: Jay Donnellan and Ashley Bargenquast, Legal Counsel.
Public Hearing: Chair Whetzel opened the public hearing and the following people spoke: Ron
Meaux, Eloisa Gonzalez, John Johnson, Gena Davis. No one else was present wishing to
speak and the public hearing was closed.
The following conditions were added to the Conditions of Approval:
The seven foot (7’) sheet metal fence shall be similar in character and design, to the fencing
currently along the mobile home park boundary. Cypress trees shall be planted along the
portion of the parcel boundary adjacent to the mobile home park only, on both sides of the
fence.
Permittee shall maintain the cypress trees on the project parcel in accordance with the City
of Ukiah’s Tree Management Guidelines.
Motion/Second: Vice Chair Christensen/Commissioner Hilliker approved the Major Use
Permit and Major Exception for fencing for Wine County Cannasseurs to allow operation of a
cannabis microbusiness, including cultivation, distribution, and dispensary/retail at 270, 272 &
274 East Smith Street, based on the Findings, and subject to the Conditions of Approval, as
amended, in the staff report dated February 12, 2020; carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Christensen, Hilliker and Chair Whetzel, NOES: Sanders, Van Antwerp ABSENT:
None. ABSTAIN: None.
13.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a.Appointment of New Chair and Vice Chair, and Planning Commission Reorganization.
Motion/Second: Chair Wetzel appointed Laura Christensen as Chair, Vice Chair
Christensen nominated Linda Sanders as Vice Chair, carries by the following roll call
vote: AYES: Van Antwerp, Christensen, Sanders, Hilliker, and Chair Whetzel. NOES: None.
ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
14.ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:33p.m.
____________________________
Pamela Mathias, Deputy Clerk
Page 4 of 31
AGENDA ITEM NO. 10a.
Department of Community Development
Planning Division
300 Seminary Ave.
Ukiah, CA 95482
DATE: February 19, 2020
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Craig Schlatter, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: 10a. Director’s Report – Community Development Department Status of
Current and Advanced Planning Projects
____________________________________________________________________________
This will be a verbal report to Planning Commission of current and advanced planning projects.
Typical reports may include all or a portion of the following:
List of current Major Use Permits and Site Development Permits in-process; and estimated
date of Planning Commission review
List of minor planning permits approved by the Zoning Administrator
2040 General Plan Update, status of implementation of 2019-2027 adopted Housing
Element, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, new California legislation, and related
advanced planning topics
Page 5 of 31
AGENDA ITEM NO. 10b.
Department of Community Development
Planning Division
300 Seminary Ave.
Ukiah, CA 95482
DATE: February 19, 2020
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Craig Schlatter, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: 10b. Director’s Report – Overview of January 16, 2020 Staff Presentation to
City Council Regarding Long Term Land Use Planning and Annexation
____________________________________________________________________________
Background:
At a January 16, 2020 special meeting of the City Council, Staff discussed with Council the City
of Ukiah’s Long-Term Land Use Planning Policy for Ukiah and the Ukiah Valley, including
modifications to the corresponding City Council policy directive related to the Sphere of
Influence (SOI). Staff and Council also discussed a proposed annexation policy. Agenda
Summary Reports for both items are included in Attachment 1. Other attachments from the
January 16 meeting are as follows:
Attachment 2- Map of Current and 1995-Proposed SOI
Attachment 3- Research- 1995-Proposed SOI
Attachment 4- Proposed City of Ukiah SOI
Attachment 5- City Council Resolution No. 2020-06 Adopting Annexation Policy
By a 5-0 vote, the City Council directed Staff to proceed with the proposed SOI. City Council
also adopted the proposed annexation strategy.
Discussion:
The purpose of this agenda item is to provide an overview to Planning Commission of the
January 16, 2020 presentation, as well as an opportunity for Planning Commissioners to ask
questions.
Page 6 of 31
Page 1 of 4
Agenda Item No: 3.a.
MEETING DATE/TIME: 1/16/2020
ITEM NO: 2020-114
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT: Discussion with Possible Direction to Staff Regarding the City of Ukiah’s Long-Term Land Use
Planning Policy for Ukiah and the Ukiah Valley Including Modifications to the City Corresponding Policy
Directive Related to the Sphere of Influence.
DEPARTMENT:Community
Development PREPARED BY:Craig Schlatter, Community Development
Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1.8-27-19 CC LT Planning Workshop ASR
2.Map of Current and 1995-Proposed SOI
3.Research- 1995-Proposed SOI
4.Proposed City of Ukiah SOI
Summary: Council will receive a report from Staff regarding the City of Ukiah’s long-term land use planning
policy for Ukiah and the Ukiah Valley, specifically related to research and additional analysis and information
pertaining to Policy Directive No. 2 and the Sphere of Influence. Council will also consider modification to the
policy directive.
Background: On August 27, 2019, the City Council discussed the City of Ukiah’s long-term land use planning
policy for Ukiah and the Ukiah Valley during a workshop at the Ukiah Valley Conference Center. The
workshop served to provide information regarding reorganization requirements under the Cortese-Knox-
Hertzberg Act, the role of the Local Agency Formation Commission, and key terms such as Sphere of
Influence and Municipal Service Review, as well as outlining proposed Policy Directives for Council’s
consideration. The discussion was prompted by priorities and strategies within the City Council’s Strategic
Plan, which listed actionable items as 1) update the Ukiah General Plan; 2) update the City of Ukiah’s sphere
of influence; 3) prepare and adopt annexation policies, and; 4) evaluate and amend the city zoning code to
improve efficiencies/public service and protect natural resources. See Attachment 1 for the Staff Report for
August 27.
During the discussion by Council related to the recommended Policy Directive No. 2, Council requested
additional information regarding possible reasons for the proposed reduction of the Sphere of Influence (SOI)
in the 1995 General Plan. Although never adopted by the Mendocino County Local Agency Formation
Commission (Mendocino LAFCo), the 1995-proposed SOI (see Attachment 2) reflected a departure from the
long-term planning policy and approach to growth management in Ukiah and the Valley since 1974.
To address Council’s questions, plus explore information provided by Mendocino LAFCo’s Executive Officer at
the August 27 City Council workshop related to Areas of Interest, Staff has conducted extensive research into
the City’s archives and historical files, as well as reviewing past City Planning staff’s notes and files. This
research is contained in Attachment 3 and summarized as follows:
Research indicates the 1995 Ukiah Valley General Plan, although serving as the City’s municipal general plan,
is essentially an older version of the (2009) Ukiah Valley Area Plan. It is not a traditional municipal General
Attachment 1
Page 7 of 31
Page 2 of 4
Plan in that it is not focused primarily on City incorporated areas. This historical context is important. Although
aligning with a vision in earlier General Plans that foresaw the City and Valley as one community, the
difference between the City’s General Plans and related efforts between 1974 and 1989 and the Ukiah Valley
General Plan process of 1990-1995 appears to be that the former was Ukiah-centric versus the latter that was
area-wide. It is Staff’s opinion that although this was a worthwhile planning effort ultimately leading to
development of the UVAP, at this point (2020) in the Valley’s development it is appropriate for the City to have
its own municipal general plan, and although not required by State law, the 2040 General Plan should seek to
achieve consistency with the 2009 UVAP.
During the time period, it is also not clear that City of Ukiah representatives on the Planning Commission or
City Council were fully in support of the valley-wide approach to the City’s General Plan. “While the document
was not changed in a grand or profound way as a result of the Commission’s involvement, it would
nevertheless be misleading and inaccurate to deduce that the Commission was in full harmony on various
issues, or that individual Commissioners did not have viewpoints that substantially deviated from the Steering
Committee’s recommendations…Indeed, differences of opinion were expressed in regards to…the Plan’s
relationship to the community’s needs.” (Ukiah Valley General Plan, I.1. Preface)
However, although it can be proven with a degree of certainty that the 1995 Ukiah Valley General Plan is akin
to an area plan, the specific motivation or reasoning behind the 1995-proposed SOI is more ambiguous. There
appears to have been several early versions of the SOI developed by various stakeholder groups, but few
additional details or reasons are provided as to how these proposals were formulated. Given that the final
Draft Ukiah Valley General Plan was produced by the Growth Management Steering Committee (GMSC) for
presentation to the Planning Commission and City Council, and this Draft Plan included the 1995-proposed
SOI, it is thus reasonable to conclude the 1995 SOI was a product of the GMSC.
In light of this research, plus research into subsequent confirmations of the 1995 SOI by City Councils in 2006
and 2012 (although in 2012 there was an amendment proposed to increase the 1995 SOI slightly to
encompass the western hills) it is Staff’s conclusion that the reasoning behind the 1995 SOI consisted of the
following: 1) the focus of the City’s General Plan was on the entire Valley, and the City’s representation was
reduced due to the composition and focus of the GMSC and Citizen Advisory Committees (CACs); 2) few to
no City-related annexation applications had been received, nor approved, during the period from 1974 to
2012, so there were limited realistic development expectations for the City, and 3) a combination of little to no
population growth, limited new construction activity, and the Great Recession in 2007-2009 all tempered future
growth expectations.
Discussion: Given the research, plus other analysis below, Staff recommends modifying Policy Directive No.
2 as follows (note that strike-throughs are utilized to show deletions to the current Policy language):
Policy Directive No. 2: Maintain the City’s current Sphere of Influence Planning Area as the City’s long-
term Sphere of Influence 2040 Planning Area. Reduce the City’s Sphere of Influence to be reflective of
areas with existing and forecast urbanized development within the next 10 years, and designate as
Areas of Interest areas outside the SOI but within the City’s 2040 Planning Area.
Reasoning behind 2040 Planning Area Recommendation
The planning area in the 1995 General Plan is coterminous with the current (1984) SOI and planning area of
the Ukiah Valley Area Plan (UVAP). Planning areas represent geographical areas, sometimes similar to or the
same as SOIs and at other times greater than SOIs, representing any land outside a city’s boundaries which
in the planning agency’s judgment bears relation to its planning (Gov. Code 65300).
In its 2017 General Plan Guidelines, the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) notes “When
Page 8 of 31
Page 3 of 4
establishing its planning area, each city should consider using its sphere of influence as a starting point, and
building off of that area based on factors such as its location in a watershed.” Both the 1995 Ukiah Valley
General Plan and 2009 UVAP refer to the Ukiah Valley as one community, and in Staff’s opinion this
reinforces the importance of establishing the City’s planning area as coterminous to the UVAP planning area.
However, adoption of a planning area alone would limit the City’s ability to “have a seat at the table” when it
comes to land use planning and future development in the Ukiah Valley.
Therefore, Staff recommends Council direct that Staff work with Mendocino LAFCo to pursue Areas of Interest
for all areas outside the proposed SOI but within the 2040 planning area. Mendocino LAFCo defines Areas of
Interest in its Policies & Procedures Manual as the following:
a) “An Area of Interest is a geographic area beyond the sphere of influence in which land use decisions or
other governmental actions of one local agency (the "Acting Agency") impact directly or indirectly upon
another local agency (the "Interested Agency"). For example, approval of a housing project developed to
urban densities on septic tanks outside the city limits of a city and its sphere of influence may result in the city
being forced subsequently to extend sewer services to the area to deal with septic failures and improve city
roads that provide access to the development. The city in such a situation would be the Interested Agency
with appropriate reason to request special consideration from the Acting Agency in considering projects
adjacent to the city.”
(Policies & Procedures Manual, Section 10.1.12)
Reasoning behind Sphere of Influence Recommendation
The Office of Planning and Research defines a Sphere of Influence as “a plan for the probable physical
boundaries and service area of a local government agency as determined by the" (local agency formation)
"commission.” Spheres of Influence are designed to map out future development of urban uses or urban-type
service expectations within a certain period of time, usually 10-20 years. In deciding on an appropriate SOI for
recommendation, it is important to analyze both the historical decision-making leading up to the current SOI
and 1995-proposed SOI, plus affirmations of these SOIs, as well as the planning and development landscapes
of these eras and the era since the 2012 Municipal Service Review (the date of the most recent Council
affirmation of the 1995-proposed SOI). This historical perspective was the key component missing in Staff’s
presentation at the August 27, 2019 workshop.
There are five, and possibly more, notable differences between the time period of 1995 to 2012 and the period
of 2012 to the present. From a review of data on major land use applications and building permits, plus
inquiries related to new commercial and residential development, development pressures have potentially
been greater within the last seven years than in any time since the "growth years" of the 1920s.* Second and
given the demand for development, the City is rapidly approaching full build-out. Third, within the last
approximately five years, Ukiah, like most of California, has experienced significant demand for housing and
new State laws like SB 743 and the California Housing Package have prioritized that this housing be located
within infill areas served by adequate infrastructure and services. Fourth, the City recently completed a study
that identified 11 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs), and per Mendocino LAFCo’s Policies
and Procedures, Issues of Interest, Section D. “To promote environmental justice for underserved inhabited
communities, funding sources should be identified for extension of municipal services, including options for
annexation of contiguous disadvantaged unincorporated communities.” And fifth, given these reasons, plus
the increasing need for wildfire mitigation planning within the Wildland Urban Interface, it will be vital that the
City move forward with a plan for the orderly development of future urbanized areas.
Consequently, it is Staff’s opinion that the SOI should reflect the current and future perspective of Ukiah and
Page 9 of 31
Page 4 of 4
its Valley, representing realistic infill development expectations within the short-term planning period- areas
that are planned to be annexed by the City within the next 10 years (see proposed SOI in Attachment 4). Staff
is also of the opinion that the City’s general plan should be reflective of this updated perspective and that,
although not required by State Law, the general plan be consistent with the County’s UVAP.
From a big picture standpoint, this policy recommendation effectively ties together all separate but related
components of long-range planning in Ukiah and the Ukiah Valley. It is reflective of historical policy (through
consistency with the UVAP), current development conditions, and future infill development expectations. It
also represents a policy that is more proactive and driven by the City.
Footnote:
*This statement is made from a review of the resources cited in this report. Development pressures prior to
1974 have not been studied in detail.
Recommended Action: 1) Receive report and discuss; 2) Approve modifications to Policy Directive No. 2
related to the Sphere of Influence, as detailed within this Staff Report.
BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: N/A
CURRENT BUDGET AMOUNT: N/A
PROPOSED BUDGET AMOUNT: N/A
FINANCING SOURCE: N/A
PREVIOUS CONTRACT/PURCHASE ORDER NO.: N/A
COORDINATED WITH: David Rapport, City Attorney; Phil Williams, Special Counsel, Welty, Weaver &
Curry; Sean White, Water Resources Director
Page 10 of 31
Page 1 of 2
Agenda Item No: 3.b.
MEETING DATE/TIME: 1/16/2020
ITEM NO: 2020-132
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT: Consideration of Adoption of Resolution Adopting a City of Ukiah Annexation Policy.
DEPARTMENT:Community
Development PREPARED BY:Craig Schlatter, Community Development
Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Proposed City of Ukiah Annexation Policy
2.Supporting General Plan Goals
3.City of Ukiah Annexation Policy Resolution
Summary: Council will consider and possibly adopt a resolution adopting a proposed City of Ukiah
Annexation Policy.
Background: One of the City Council's Strategic Plan Priorities is "Plan for the Future," and actionable items
listed are to 1) update the Ukiah General Plan; 2) update the City of Ukiah’s sphere of influence; 3) prepare
and adopt annexation policies, and; 4) evaluate and amend the city zoning code to improve efficiencies/public
service and protect natural resources. Towards accomplishment of action item #3 and the City's long-term
land use planning objectives, at the August 27, 2019 City Council workshop Council directed Staff to prepare
annexation policies for future Council adoption.
Staff has completed a proposed annexation policy (Attachment 1) for Council's review, consideration, and
possible adoption.
Discussion: Annexation is a process that incorporates territory into a city. For the City of Ukiah, annexation
involves incorporating currently unincorporated areas (i.e., territory in Mendocino County outside the City’s
existing city limits) that are within the City’s Sphere of Influence. A sphere of influence is a plan for the
probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, like the City, as determined by the Local
Agency Formation Commission for the relevant County. The Mendocino County Local Area Formation
Commission was established by state law and is responsible for coordinating, directing, and overseeing logical
and timely changes to local governmental boundaries, including annexation, in Mendocino County.
The proposed City of Ukiah Annexation Policy ("Annexation Policy") provides a framework within which the
City will operate in the context of annexations to the City. The Annexation Policy establishes the intent by the
City to annex or support the annexation of unincorporated areas within its Sphere of Influence to accomplish a
number of important functions for long-term planning in the Ukiah Valley, such as avoiding the negative
consequences of urban sprawl in the Ukiah Valley and ensuring the efficient provision of municipal services.
The Annexation Policy also provides the City's policy position and approach regarding annexations, such as
ensuring that facilities, services, and infrastructure improvements are or will be available to support the
proposed annexation. Recognizing the value of open space and prime agricultural lands, and the importance
of avoiding or mitigating environmental impacts as a direct consequence of annexation, the Annexation Policy
also seeks to ensure those values are appropriately protected. Related to the City’s current updating of the
General Plan, in the future Council may want to consider incorporating the Annexation Policy, as may be
Page 11 of 31
Page 2 of 2
amended, into the City's 2040 General Plan.
Several goals and policies within the City's existing (1995) General Plan currently support the proposed
Annexation Policy. Please see Attachment 2 for a list of these specific goals and policies.
Staff recommends Council adopt the resolution in Attachment 3 adopting the proposed City of Ukiah
Annexation Policy.
Recommended Action: Adopt resolution adopting the proposed City of Ukiah Annexation Policy.
BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: N/A
CURRENT BUDGET AMOUNT: N/A
PROPOSED BUDGET AMOUNT: N/A
FINANCING SOURCE: N/A
PREVIOUS CONTRACT/PURCHASE ORDER NO.: N/A
COORDINATED WITH: Phil Williams, Special Counsel, Welty, Weaver & Curry; David Rapport, City
Attorney, Sean White, Director of Water Resources; Shannon Riley, Deputy City Manager
Page 12 of 31
101
101
20
Lake Mendocino
253
City of Ukiah
City Limits
Current SOI
Proposed SOI
0 1 20.5 Miles
Attachment 2
Page 13 of 31
RESEARCH INTO HISTORY OF 1995-PROPOSED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
Overview
On August 27, 2019, City Council and Staff discussed the City of Ukiah’s long-term land use planning policy
for Ukiah and the Ukiah Valley during a workshop at the Ukiah Valley Conference Center. During discussion
by Council related to the recommended Policy Directive No. 2, Council requested additional information
regarding possible reasons for the reduced Sphere of Influence (SOI) proposed in the 1995 General Plan. To
address Council’s questions, Staff has conducted extensive research into the City’s archives and historical
files, as well as reviewing past City Planning staff’s notes and files.
Documentation of Sources and Materials
The following constitutes the sources and materials reviewed: 1974 General Plan, 1984 General Plan,
Sphere of Influence Study prepared by William R. Zion, Fall 1984, Planning Commission agenda packets and
minutes for the period 1991 to 1995 (which included updates from the Growth Management Steering
Committee formed to provide recommendations for the City’s 1995 General Plan), 1991 Ukiah Valley-Wide
Task Force Report and Recommendations, minutes and agenda packet materials from 1994 and 1995
meetings of the City Council, the 1995 Ukiah Valley General Plan, documents/notes from former Director
Stump titled “City of Ukiah Sphere of Influence Update 2014-2015,” 2009 Ukiah Valley Area Plan, Mendocino
County General Plan (2009), and the 2012 City of Ukiah Municipal Service Review.
Research was conducted from published reports, studies, and documents and publicly available legislative
materials. No interviews were conducted as part of this research, nor were any opinions collected from the
former members of the committees, City Councils, Boards of Supervisors, special districts, certain special
interest agencies and organizations, or the former or current staffs of these various entities.
Below is a timeline listing key events leading up to and/or related to the development of the 1995 General
Plan, as well as pertinent quotes.
1.Establishment of the City of Ukiah Sphere of Influence
Fall 1984: Sphere of Influence Study, by William R. Zion
Known as the Zion Study, this was an independent Mendocino County-wide study completed for all special
districts and local agencies in Mendocino County. The purpose of the study was to make recommendations
to Mendocino LAFCo on appropriate SOIs for Mendocino County. Relevant quotes:
“The adopted city” [of Ukiah] “sphere of influence includes all of both [Willow and Millview] water districts,
except for that part of Willow south of Boonville Road. In addition the territory of both districts is part of the
Ukiah urban area and needs the full range of city services.”
“Because of the inclusion of the districts within the Ukiah sphere, a “zero” sphere is indicated, implying no
annexations and eventual annexation to Ukiah and dissolution. That part of the Willow district outside the city
sphere could have a sphere permitting some expansion, if LAFCo feels this is consistent with the county
general plans and with local needs.”
This study and recommendations within the study served as the basis for establishing Ukiah’s SOI, which
Mendocino LAFCo adopted on December 3, 1984, through Resolution No. 84-15.
2.Early Annexation Efforts and Intentions
Attachment 3
Page 14 of 31
There has been speculation that the City never intended to annex areas within its 1984 SOI. However, in
reviewing actions and legislative proceedings from 1984 to 1989 it appears the City was actively preparing to
annex areas within the entire SOI while also focusing on preservation and protection of agricultural areas.
August 1986: City Council Ordinance 858, Prezoning Certain Properties Ukiah North
“Whereas, pursuant to Government Code Section 65859, the City has the authority to prezone property
within its Sphere of Influence, and
Whereas, the subject prezone includes 1110 parcels extending from the northern city boundaries to Highway
20 and westerly to the foothills from the Russian River.”
November 1988: City Council Minutes, Presentation of Maps of the Incorporated Ukiah Valley
“The City Manager presented maps depicting the Ukiah Valley with the City of Ukiah sphere of influence that
is overlapped by different water, sanitation, and fire districts. He noted since the City Council has established
a goal of incorporating the Ukiah Valley, this map visibly shows the magnitude of the issues to be resolved.
(Mayor Henderson, Councilmembers Shoemaker, Schneiter, Hickey, and Wattenburger).”
February 1989: Letter from Mayor of Ukiah City Council to Board of Supervisors and Policy Resolution
First paragraph and part of second paragraph from letter written by Mayor Colleen Henderson to Marilyn
Butcher, Chairman of Board of Supervisors: “As you may know, the City of Ukiah is in the process of
prezoning all parcels of land within its sphere of influence. We have completed the prezoning of all lands to
the north, and down the east side of the valley south to Gobbi Street. This process raised some concern
within the farming community that agriculturally zoned lands might not be preserved. The City has always
had a strong commitment to the preservation of agriculture in the valley and an individual’s right to farm on
such agriculturally zoned lands. In light of this commitment and in light of the farming community’s concerns,
the City Council and Mendocino County Farm Bureau have adopted policy resolutions reflecting our joint
position on prezoning and annexation of agricultural lands from Gobbi Street south in Ukiah’s sphere of
influence…I am enclosing copies of both resolutions for your reference.”
3. Towards a Plan for the Ukiah Valley- Development of the 1995 Ukiah Valley General Plan
1990-91: Ukiah Valley-Wide Task Force Report and Recommendations
A Valley-wide task force was formed by the City of Ukiah and County of Mendocino in April 1990. The task
force consisted of a combination of citizens-at-large, County and City representatives, representatives from
each of the water districts and fire district, and representatives from agencies of other certain interests. The
purpose of this task force was “to initiate a long overdue study of possible consolidation of services, and
consolidation of interests in providing services and/or meeting future service needs in the areas of water,
sewer, emergency services and development standards.”
After several meetings, the Task Force produced a draft report in August 1991 with findings and
recommendations for efficient delivery of public services within the Ukiah Valley. The task force also
produced an implementation plan for accomplishing the recommendations.
“8. The County and City shall reactivate their joint planning meetings and utilize these joint meetings to
facilitate the standardization of development standards in the Valley.”
In relation to the sections focused on the Ukiah Valley, the report reinforced the importance of joint planning
between the City and Mendocino County, especially in regards to future development and land use. The
report also served as the basis for the future Community Facilities Element of the 1995 Ukiah Valley General
Plan (1995 Ukiah Valley General Plan, Section 2.02.8).
1990-1994: Growth Management Steering Committee
November 21, 1994 Staff Report from City of Ukiah Planning Department to City of Ukiah Planning
Commission providing background and a recommendation to adopt the Draft Ukiah Valley General Plan and
Page 15 of 31
Draft Environmental Impact Report: “In late 1990, the Ukiah City Council authorized and budgeted for this
planning effort” [the 1995 Ukiah Valley General Plan]. “Thereafter, the Growth Management Steering
Committee (GMSC) was formed to guide the Plan’s development, and a planning consultant was awarded
the contract to perform necessary research and actually compose the document. The GMSC is a 35-member
citizen advisory committee made up of Valley-wide participants representing groups, organizations, agencies,
districts, and the general public. The consultant is The Company of Eric Jay Toll AICP, Inc., a small planning
firm from Carson City, Nevada. The GMSC, which met regularly over the course of the entire four-year
period, was basically responsible for crafting the final version of virtually every goal, policy, and
implementation measure contained in the Plan, as well as many of the findings contained in each Element.”
In addition to the GMSC, individual Citizen Advisory Committees (CACs) were created for each of the 14
General Plan Elements. Similar to the member composition of the GMSC, the CACs represented Valley-wide
interests. “Each volunteer [of the GMSC and CACs] was drawn from a broad cross-section of the entire
[emphasis included within document] community- both in the City and in the Valley.” (1995 Ukiah Valley
General Plan, Section 1- Preface)
“…it was apparent from the early stages of the planning process that the Ukiah Valley General Plan would
have its greatest influence on the long-term development and use of the Valley if both the City of Ukiah and
the County of Mendocino would utilize it for decision-making and planning policy. Accordingly, about mid-
1991, City staff broached the subject of having the County adopt the eventual document as an Area Plan of
the Mendocino County General Plan with County officials and the County Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors.”
Although serving as the City of Ukiah’s General Plan, the 1995 Ukiah Valley General Plan appears to have
been envisioned by its creators to be the area plan for the Ukiah Valley. Through the collaborative efforts of
both County and City representatives, the 1995 Plan would eventually be used to develop the 2009 Ukiah
Valley Area Plan (UVAP), which is a component of the Mendocino County General Plan.
Utilization of an area plan as a municipal general plan is unusual. Common planning practice is for area or
specific plans to be used for systematic implementation of a general plan (as is the case currently with the
2009 UVAP and its relationship to the Mendocino County General Plan). This aspect deserves further study,
which Staff has attempted in Section 4 below. Additionally, given the City’s current updating of the General
Plan, Council will want to consider if continuing with a Valley-wide focus in the 2040 General Plan is
appropriate, especially in light of the 2009 adopted UVAP. Staff has provided some preliminary
recommendations (see Agenda Summary Report), and a future General Plan workshop has been scheduled
to discuss the subject further.
1994-1995: Sphere of Influence and Planning Commission and City Council Review and Adoption
The earliest conceptualizations of the 1995-proposed SOI appear to have been developed by various
stakeholder groups, either in conjunction with or independent of the Ukiah Valley General Plan GMSC. For
example, in a City planning staff report produced in February 1994 a footnote to the report states “In addition
to the Staff-proposed version, the GMSC already has a color copy of the Board of Realtors’ proposed Sphere
of Influence, and has seen a presentation of the Farm Bureau’s version. In addition, Lief Farr has also
proposed a Sphere of Influence based on other issues.”
From the reports, minutes, and documents produced during this period, it appears that the GMSC reviewed
multiple proposed SOIs from different Valley-wide stakeholders, then developed a final proposed SOI, which
was inserted into the Draft Ukiah Valley General Plan.1
1 Because the GMSC provided information to the consultant Eric Jay Toll, Inc., who then prepared the Preliminary General Plan, which
would serve as the basis for the Draft Ukiah Valley General Plan presented to the Planning Commission and City Council, and because
it appears the GMSC and CACs were not legislative or quasi-legislative bodies and not subject to the Brown Act, no minutes or reports
have been found that were produced by the GMSC and CACs. Instead, Staff has been able to piece together the origin of City planning
staff’s Sphere of Influence recommendation through review of informational reports (updates) produced by City staff and agenda
packets and minutes of the Planning Commission and City Council.
Page 16 of 31
The efforts of the GMSC concluded sometime in mid-1994, and the Draft Ukiah Valley General Plan was
presented to the Planning Commission on December 13, 1994. Through a series of public meetings from
December 1994 to April 1995, the Planning Commission discussed and deliberated on proposed revisions to
the General Plan. After conceptually approving the Draft on June 10, 1995, the City Council conducted a
series of public meetings and made “numerous additional revisions,” resulting in a Final General Plan that
was adopted on December 6, 1995.
It seems the final City Council adopted version was relatively unchanged from the GMSC Draft document.
Per Section I.1.3, Preface, of the Ukiah Valley General Plan “The Planning Commission worked hard on the
draft Plan, but, in the end, the Plan was left basically and functionally intact from the Growth Management
Steering Committee’s final version…The document was, and remains, truly representative of the citizens of
the Valley…”
4. Summary of Research
The 1995 Ukiah Valley General Plan, although serving as the City’s municipal general plan, is essentially an
older version of the (2009) Ukiah Valley Area Plan. It is not a traditional municipal General Plan in that it is
not focused primarily on City incorporated areas. This historical context is important, as it aligns with earlier
General Plans that foresaw the City and Valley as one community. The difference between the City’s General
Plans and related efforts between 1974 and 1989 and the Ukiah Valley General Plan process of 1990-1995
appears to be that the former was Ukiah-centric versus the latter that was area-wide. It is Staff’s opinion that
although this was a worthwhile planning effort ultimately leading to development of the UVAP, at this point in
the Valley’s development it is appropriate for the City to have its own municipal general plan, and although
not required by State law, the 2040 General Plan should seek to achieve consistency with the 2009 UVAP.
It is also not clear that City of Ukiah representatives on the Planning Commission or City Council were fully in
support of the valley-wide approach to the City’s General Plan. “While the document was not changed in a
grand or profound way as a result of the Commission’s involvement, it would nevertheless be misleading and
inaccurate to deduce that the Commission was in full harmony on various issues, or that individual
Commissioners did not have viewpoints that substantially deviated from the Steering Committee’s
recommendations…Indeed, differences of opinion were expressed in regards to…the Plan’s relationship to
the community’s needs.”
However, although it can be proven with a degree of certainty that the 1995 Ukiah Valley General Plan is
akin to an area plan, the specific motivation or reasoning behind the 1995-proposed SOI is more ambiguous.
There appear to have been several early versions of the SOI developed by various stakeholder groups but
few additional details or reasons are provided as to how these proposals were formulated. Given that the
final Draft Ukiah Valley General Plan was produced by the GMSC for presentation to the Planning
Commission and City Council and this Draft Plan included the 1995-proposed SOI, it is thus reasonable to
conclude the 1995 SOI was a product of the GMSC.
In light of this research, plus research into subsequent confirmations of the 1995 SOI by City Councils in
2006 and 2012 (although in 2012 there was an amendment to increase the 1995 SOI slightly to encompass
the western hills) it is Staff’s conclusion that the reasoning behind the 1995 SOI consisted of the following: 1)
the focus of the City’s General Plan was on the entire Valley, and the City’s representation was reduced due
to the composition and focus of the GMSC and CACs; 2) little to no City-related annexation applications had
been received, nor approved, during the period from 1974 to 2012, so there were limited realistic
development expectations for the City, and 3) a combination of little to no population growth, limited new
construction activity, and the Great Recession in 2007-2009 all tempered further growth expectations.
Page 17 of 31
´
0 10,0005,000 FeetDocument Path: C:\Users\astricklin\Desktop\WaterBoundaryClip for Sean.mxd
This map is a guide. Every reasonableeffort has been made to ensure the accuracyof the map and data provided. Parcel linesare not intended to represent surveyed data.Date Saved: 1/9/2020 1:06:37 PM
Public Works
Proposed SOI
Ukiah City Limits
Proposed City of Ukiah Sphere of Influence
Attachment 4
Page 18 of 31
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-06
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ADOPTING ANNEXATION
POLICY
WHEREAS, the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000
provides for the annexation of unincorporated areas within a City's sphere of influence; and
WHEREAS, on August 27, 2019, the Ukiah City Council provided direction to staff to
prepare and adopt annexation policies as part of the City's long-term land use planning and City
Council Strategic Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City intends, in part through the attached Annexation Policy, to avoid
the consequences of continued urban sprawl in the Ukiah Valley, to ensure the efficient
provision of municipal services, and to protect open space and prime agricultural land in the
Ukiah Valley; and
WHEREAS, the City envisions a future of the Ukiah Valley as a thriving community that
is politically, economically, environmentally, and socially sustainable; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to provide annexation policies for the City and property
owners within the City's sphere of influence that promote the successful annexation of
unincorporated areas.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE to adopt the Annexation Policy attached as Exhibit A, which shall be endorsed to
show adoption by the City Council on January 16, 2019 and made publicly available.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of January, 2020, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Mulheren, Brown, Scalmanini, and Mayor Crane
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Douglas F. Crane, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kristine Lawler, City Clerk
t
Page 1 of 2
Attachment 5
Page 19 of 31
EXHIBIT A
City of Ukiah
Annexation Policy
The City will pursue, apply for, and support the annexation of unincorporated areas to
the City to avoid the negative consequences of continued urban sprawl and to ensure the
efficient provision of municipal services to unincorporated areas without placing an undue
financial burden on the City or its residents.
The City's Sphere of Influence reflects the City's intent and ability to apply to annex
those territories within that Sphere of Influence. The City's Sphere of Influence should be
updated periodically and as necessary to reflect any change in the City's intent or ability to
annex unincorporated territory.
The City's Area of Interest reflects that territory outside its Sphere of Influence where the
City has an interest in ensuring orderly development and the efficient provision of municipal
services, and a financial interest in the implications of any such development and services. The
City will consider providing services to unincorporated areas within its Area of Interest when the
City and all local agencies with relevant jurisdiction, if any, arrive at an agreement ensuring the
City is adequately compensated for the costs it incurs and/or will incur due to development in its
Area of Interest.
The City will apply for the annexation of unincorporated areas and will support property
owners who desire to annex to the City where the City determines it to be in its residents'
interests to do so, to promote orderly development, to implement General Plan goals and
objectives, and/or to ensure the efficient provision of municipal services.
In pursuing, applying for, or supporting annexation, the City will demonstrate that
existing or planned -for facilities, infrastructure and improvements, and municipal services are or
will be available, including but not limited to: vehicular and pedestrian traffic corridors, fire
protection, sewer, electricity, and municipal and industrial water, in accordance with City
standards and General Pian goals and objectives, to those areas proposed to be annexed.
The City will pursue, apply for, or support annexations that could affect open space and
prime or unique agricultural lands, when it is satisfied that they will be adequately protected.
The City will pursue, apply for, or support annexation in those cases where significant
environmental impacts have been mitigated or avoided as appropriate.
The City will develop, maintain, and make publicly -available a City of Ukiah Annexation
Guide that includes an annexation applicant's responsibilities, the requirements for
environmental review, requirements for development plans, and fees associated with
applications for annexation.
If appropriate, and as it may be amended, the City will incorporate and include this
Annexation Policy in its 2040 General Plan.
Page 2 of 2
Page 20 of 31
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13a.
Department of Community Development
Planning Division
300 Seminary Ave.
Ukiah, CA 95482
DATE: February 19, 2020
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Craig Schlatter, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: 13a. Unfinished Business – 6-Month Report Regarding Community Center
and Winter Homeless Shelter at 1045 South State Street
____________________________________________________________________________
Background:
On July 26, 2017, Planning Commission adopted findings conditionally approving a Major Use
Permit and Site Development Permit to allow a Community Center and Winter Homeless
Shelter at 1045 South State Street, for the applicant Redwood Community Services (RCS). As
part of the Conditions of Approval, Planning [Community Development] Department Condition
#15 required the following:
15. The Director of Community Development and Planning shall report to the Planning
Commission once every six months during the first two years of the shelter operation. The
Director’s report shall include a record of any complaints received from the public or shelter
occupants and an assessment on the most effective ways to modify the [Program] plan to
address valid complaints.
Given that the approval was for both the Community Center and Winter Homeless Shelter, and
the entirety of the project did not receive a Certificate of Occupancy until August 6, 2019, the
Director assessed the start of this reporting period as six months after August 6, 2019, or
February 6, 2020. This makes the earliest meeting date upon which a report shall be given to
the Planning Commission as February 26, 2020.
Discussion:
In preparing this report, the Community Development Director collected, reviewed, and
analyzed information from the following sources:
Site visit at 1045 South State Street on Tuesday, February 18, 2020
Meeting with members of RCS’s executive staff and on-site facility supervisor and RCS’s
general contractor on Tuesday, February 18, 2020
Major Use Permit/Site Development Permit Conditions of Approval (Attachment 1)
Building Bridges B2 Data Report (Attachment 2)
Number and type of police calls received from January 1, 2019 – January 1, 2020
During this 6-month period, the Community Development Department recorded no complaints
received from the public or shelter occupants. Because no complaints were received, no
modification of the plan is necessary.
Page 21 of 31
2
Although no modification to the plan is necessary, staff of RCS have stated they are continuing
to make improvements to operations in order to minimize impacts to the surrounding
neighborhood.
Recommendation: Staff recommends Planning Commission receive the report and provide
additional feedback as necessary.
Page 22 of 31
Attachment 1Page 23 of 31
Page 24 of 31
Page 25 of 31
Page 26 of 31
Page 27 of 31
2774 total visits in December!
August visits: 1551 September visits: 2127
October visits: 2543 November visits: 2961
Building Bridges Homeless Resource Center
December 2019 Utilization
1148 December showers
Average 37/day (Nov. average = 42/day)
1013 December laundry loads!
Average 33/day (Nov. average = 27/day)
96 individuals provided shelter
for a total of 1463 bed-nights
41 exits over the month. Of those:
5 exits to permanent housing 2 exits to short-term stable locations
41 exits to the street/unknown
Much gratitude to MCAVHN, Manzanita, RQMC (Whole Person Care), Adventist Health Ukiah Valley (COMPASS),
Project Sanctuary, Legal Services of Northern California, Hillside Health Center, Volunteers (mostly B2 guests!), &
Redwood Community Services for working together to provide a variety of excellent services to the guests of B 2!
Day Center: Open 7 days a week, from 9am – 6pm
Inland Winter Shelter: Open 7 days a week, from 6pm – 9am
1045 South State Street, Ukiah; 707-234-3270
91
86
12
87
97
89
107 103
63
77
91
97
105
87 86
95 92
100
89
78
104
85
79
89 92
104 106 106
91 88
98
42
36
5
30
45
29
62
49
39 38 41
31
40
29
40
34
40
35
46
28
44
38 36
47
39 41
30
35 37
28
343129
5
32 35
27
38
33 33 35
45
38
33
27
34 30 32 36 37
23 21
31 33
39 40
28
41
31
44 48
24
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Day Center Daily Counts
Guests Showers Laundry
Week 2: 12/8—12/14 Week 3: 12/15—12/21 Week 4: 12/22—12/28
AVERAGE 89 GUESTS/DAY
Week 1: 12/1—12/7
• 167 people
screened since
shelter opened
• Average 7
turned away
per night5
1%
7%
32%
45%
14%
Shelter Guest Age
0-17 18-25 26-40 41-60 61+
Female,
38%
Male,
61%
Trans/GNC,
1%
Gender
Attachment 2
Page 28 of 31
Building Bridges Day Center Calendar: January 2020
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
EVERY DAY HOURS COLOR KEY 1 2 3 4
Shelter Screening
11am-4pm
Laundry
9:30am-3:30pm
Showers
9:30am-3:30pm
Family Only
Showers
3:30-4:30pm
Computers
9am-5:30pm
Day Center:
7 days/week
9am – 5:45pm
Inland Winter
Shelter:
Nov – April
7 days/week
6pm – 8:45am
• Manzanita
• Adventist Health
(AHUV)
• Legal Services of
Northern
California (LSNC)
• Hillside Health
Center
• MCAVHN
• RCS
HAPPY
2020!!
Movies &
Games!
Manzanita:
Housing
Navigation
10:30am-1:30pm
AHUV:
COMPASS Clinic
12:30 – 2pm
Community Forum
4:30-6pm
MCAVHN
Harm Reduction
Outreach
9am-12pm
Hillside:
Housing
Navigation
1pm – 3pm
Movies &
Games!
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Movies &
Games!
HOUSE MEETING
9am
Manzanita:
Housing
Navigation
9:30am–11am
MCAVHN
Housing
Navigation
2pm – 4pm
Hillside:
Primary Care
Outreach
9:30 – 11:30am
RCS:
Housing
Navigation
10am—1pm
Manzanita:
Housing
Navigation
10:30am-1:30pm
AHUV:
COMPASS Clinic
12:30 – 2pm
MCAVHN
Harm Reduction
Outreach
9am-12pm
Hillside:
Housing
Navigation
1pm – 3pm
Movies &
Games!
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Movies &
Games!
Manzanita:
Housing
Navigation
9:30am–11am
MCAVHN
Housing
Navigation
2pm – 4pm
HOUSE MEETING
4pm
Hillside:
Primary Care
Outreach
9:30 – 11:30am
LSNC:
Legal Assistance
2pm – 4pm
Laundry closes at
1pm; Showers
close at 2:30pm
RCS:
Housing
Navigation
10am—1pm
Manzanita:
Housing
Navigation
10:30am-1:30pm
AHUV:
COMPASS Clinic
12:30 – 2pm
MCAVHN
Harm Reduction
Outreach
9am-12pm
Hillside:
Housing
Navigation
1pm – 3pm
Movies &
Games!
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Movies &
Games!
HOUSE MEETING
9am
Manzanita:
Housing
Navigation
9:30am–11am
MCAVHN
Housing
Navigation
2pm – 4pm
Hillside:
Primary Care
Outreach
9:30 – 11:30am
RCS:
Housing
Navigation
10am—1pm
Manzanita:
Housing
Navigation
10:30am-1:30pm
AHUV:
COMPASS Clinic
12:30 – 2pm
MCAVHN
Harm Reduction
Outreach
9am-12pm
Hillside:
Housing
Navigation
1pm – 3pm
Movies &
Games!
26 27 28 29 30 31 SOCIAL
Movies &
Games!
HOUSE MEETING
9am
Manzanita:
Housing
Navigation
9:30am–11am
MCAVHN
Housing
Navigation
2pm – 4pm
Hillside:
Primary Care
Outreach
9:30 – 11:30am
LSNC:
Legal Assistance
2pm – 4pm
RCS:
Housing
Navigation
10am—1pm
Manzanita:
Housing
Navigation
10:30am-1:30pm
AHUV:
COMPASS Clinic
12:30 – 2pm
MCAVHN
Harm Reduction
Outreach
9am-12pm
Hillside:
Housing
Navigation
1pm – 3pm
Check us
out on
Facebook!
@Redwood
Community
Services
Page 29 of 31
Foster Family Agency | Behavioral Health Services | Family Social Services | Skill Building & Empowerment Services
Crisis Response Services | Transitional Services | Residential Services | Homeless Services |Substance Use Services
Mailing Address: PO Box 2077, Ukiah Ca 95482 | Administrative Office: 707-467-2010 | Administrative Fax: 707-462-6994
Building Bridges Inland Winter Shelter
Mental Health & Substance Use Data
November 2019
• Total of 95 individuals accessed the shelter during November 2019
• 39% of those are currently or were previously engaged in mental health services
2018—2019 Winter:
• Total of 244 individuals accessed the shelter between November 2018 —April 2019
• 43% report substance use challenges
• 66% report mental illness
• 43% currently or were previously engaged in mental health services
2017—2018 Winter:
• Total of 211 individuals accessed the shelter between November 2017 —April 2018
• 37% were engaged in mental health services at the time they stayed at the shelter
Page 30 of 31
Foster Family Agency | Behavioral Health Services | Family Social Services | Skill Building & Empowerment Services
Crisis Response Services | Transitional Services | Residential Services | Homeless Services |Substance Use Services
Mailing Address: PO Box 2077, Ukiah Ca 95482 | Administrative Office: 707-467-2010 | Administrative Fax: 707-462-6994
Inland Winter Shelter
November 2018 – April 2019 Report
142
20
83
Gender
Male Not collected Female
14%
78%
8%
Ethnicity
Hispanic Latinx
Not Hispanic/Latinx
Not collected
74%4%
14%
7%8%
Race
White
Black
Native American/Alaskan Native
Other
Not collected
6%10%
26%
39%
12%7%
Age
0-17 18-25
26-40 41-59
60+Not collected
6%
Yes
82%
No
12%not
collected
Veteran
244 unduplicated
individuals
provided with
shelter!
73%
Yes
17%
No
10%not
collected
Disabled
7%
Yes
71%
No
2%
refused
20% not
collected
LGBTQIA+
80 82
3 6 6 10 9 7 4 10 12 12
0
20
40
60
80
100
Last Exit Destination
Page 31 of 31