UVAP talking points
From CFI
Massive Growth in the “Discussion Areas” is unneeded, counter productive, and contrary to community vision
-Unnecessary. The estimated growth rate for the UVAP area states that by 2025 approximately additional 1300 housing units will need to be constructed (EPS Report page 11). According to the numbers presented in UVAP Valley Summary published last week an additional 1414 potential housing units exist without modifying the current UVAP. This number soars to over 6,000 if all potential alternative C choices are made. This translates to 15,600 new residents!
-Counter productive. Much of the land slated for conversion to residential and commercial conversion is best suited to uses already zoned for. For example the Lover’s Lane Parcel (Discussion Area 3) is listed as prime agricultural land. As our ability to import food from great distances is challenged, every available piece of valuable agricultural land will be invaluable for local food security. Another example is the former Masonite Site (Discussion Area 6). Much of this site is located within the flood plain making it well suited for agriculture but not for other uses. The remaining section is already established for industrial uses and has the necessary infrastructure in place. Again as the need to produce goods locally becomes more acute the loss of prime industrial sites will be to the detriment of the local economy.
-Contrary to community vision. Throughout all of the community forums on the UVAP process the community has consistently voiced it’s vision of the future of the Ukiah Valley retaining its rural character and enhancing resident’s ability to access natural features and pursue diverse economic activities. Massive increases in population that would accompany a housing boom would severely increase traffic, air, light, and noise pollution, as well as putting a strain on existing natural resources, namely water.
This UVAP update is being driven by developer pressure, not citizen input
-A planning process should consider what current residents demand, not what developers want. An examination of the areas under discussion compared to what the community has voiced makes clear that local residents are not being given priority. At the first two UVAP public forums, consistent themes arose including: -Creating a mixed use Downtown in Ukiah -Attracting infill development to model sustainable growth -Re-Using existing buildings before building new ones -Encouraging public gathering spaces and parks -Improving walk and bikeablity of the Valley -Preserving Agricultural and Open Spaces (Above taken from the Ukiah Valley Area Plan Community Engagement Summary Memorandum prepared by MIG) While the above themes have been consistent message from the community, the choices that we are now presented with do not address any of the above concerns. Why has the process become so exclusively centered on the “Discussion Areas” (euphemistical renamed from “Change Areas”), when it has been clear from the beginning that local residents want to focus on our core first?
Preserve our Agricultural Land!
-Our Ag lands are of the highest value for local food security. This plan should examine creative strategies like Agricultural Land Trusts (Marin has a wonderful model to emulate), Land Banking, and Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs). TDRs have been used throughout the state to direct growth to areas best suited for it, while preserving agricultural lands and open spaces. These models have been used to compensate landowners for loss of development rights and guided development to appropriate areas. Urge your supervisors to direct staff to examine these concepts as part of the UVAP process.
Cluster housing should be considered
-By locating houses in clusters we can preserve open space, reduce infrastructure costs, and provide opportunities for additional resource conservation through innovative housing models such as co-housing. By siting homes close together residents can save money and resources by jointly using facilities such as laundry, childcare, and food preparation. Cluster house also allows for housing to be sited in the most appropriate areas while preserving valuable bottomlands and sensitive hillsides.
Masonite Site Ill Suited for Commercial development, preferable alternatives exist, and massive regional retail will have a net negative impact on the County
-The Masonite site has severe limitations for potential “regional retail”. Traffic patterns off of North State Street are already currently congested. Adding a massive amount of additional cars to that area will only increase the burden. -If “regional retail” is ultimately desired there are many other sites in the UVAP area that can accommodate these types of stores within existing zoning and that are better equipped to handle the traffic. The Pear Tree Shopping Center could be revitalized. The property north of Mervyns is well suited. The Airport industrial park could accommodate 2 200,000 square foot stores. The South Ukiah Discussion Area (Number 9) could also handle a considerable amount of retail growth. -The creation of massive retail shops at Masonite will draw business away from downtown and existing shopping centers. The creation of additional low wage service jobs will ultimately put a strain on county services that will have to provide medical and food assistance to people working for low wages. While sales tax revenue will be generated from those new stores this must be compared against the loss of sales at existing businesses and strain on county services. The leakage figures provided by the Masonite Developers in the most recent report are suspicious. It assumes that all spending currently happening outside the county could be captured locally. However this fails to recognize that people shop outside of the county for cultural reasons, not simply because they can’t find what they want here.
Bike paths a must
-Bicycle transportation is by far the most efficient way to move people. The community has consistently called for additional bikeways at UVAP community meetings. The right of way along the railroad track could be utilized as well as creating a path between the college and neighborhoods on the northwest side of town.
Planning must consider resource constraints
-Water is a critical issue. As we are seeing this summer our ability to provide high quality of life is dependant on adequate water supply. All future plans for growth must determine if sufficient water supply exists. -Energy resources drive our economy and lives. As the price of energy continues to increase and the ability to access energy decreases all of our land use planning decision must reflect this reality. Promoting growth dependant on the automobile is a recipe for disaster. We must consider our energy situation in all land use decisions and encourage through all available means the production of renewable energy.
Development and demolition permits should be withheld or individually considered by the Board pending the completion of the UVAP process
-With the UVAP being considered no options should be foreclosed. The BOS could pass a resolution that would require the approval of all construction and demolition permits to be approved by the Board explicitly. This would maintain the maximum degree of flexibility when the plan is completed. Actions taken now to start projects will limit future options. In particular no ministerial demolition permit should be granted for the Masonite buildings.
Preferred Alternatives for Each Discussion Area
Discussion Area 1: Calpella – Alt A or B (identical) Preserves all Ag lands, encourages mixed use, higher density residential uses.
Discussion Area 2: North State Street- No Change. All three alternatives call for conversion of Ag land. However Alternative C is the least preferable as it call for conversion of 35 acres of Ag to mixed use.
Discussion Area 3: Lover’s Lane – Alt A or B. While these two alternatives do call for the conversion of 16 acres of Ag Land to residential they preserver the remaining 205 acres which would be lost to housing under Alt C.
Discussion Area 4: City of Ukiah – No alternatives were provided. It is unfortunate that the city has not been discussed in the most recent report. It is at the heart of the UVAP and has a huge potential to accommodate any future growth in an intelligent manner. Currently almost 300 acres of land is available within the city limits for housing (number extrapolated from County raw data). All of these parcels are within walking and biking distance to the city core, thus eliminating the necessity for automobile transport.
Discussion Area 5: South State Street –Any alternative as they are all identical. This change would allow for mixed-use multi-family home development in an area fairly close to city services.
Discussion Area 6: Masonite – Alt A. Converts land east of the railroad to Ag while preserving the industrial zoning for the site currently housing the industrial infrastructure.
Discussion Area 7: Brush Street Triangle – No preferred alternative. The Brush Street Triangle is well suited to conversion for residential uses (close to city core and infrastructure). Alt A and B (identical) allow for the maximum amount of this type of development. Alternative C envisions some of this development but also leaves land for a criminal justice complex (new jail, criminal courthouse). While this alternative might not be preferred in some circles it is important to remember that State mandates are driving the relocation of parts of the courthouse and if the community does not help guide this process it could be stuck with a facility in an area even less desirable.
Discussion Area 8: East Ukiah Hills – Alt A or B (identical) Because of the geographical limitations and high fire danger of this area it would be best to maintain them in their current designation of range lands. If housing must be sited in the area it is a prime candidate for cluster housing.
Discussion Area 9: South Ukiah Valley – Alt A or B (identical) This change would allow for the development of limited commercial services to meet the needs of residents of new development at the Stone Property. While this site is not ideally suited for residential development because of its lack of proximity to the city center it has been zoned for residential for many years and the expectation that it will be developed is strong.
