Regular City Council Meeting - January 16, 2024
View Agenda - Watch Entire Meeting
The land that Eureka rests on is known in the Wiyot language as Jaroujiji. Past actions by local, State and Federal governments removed the Wiyot and other indigenous peoples from the land and threatened to destroy their cultural practices. The City of Eureka acknowledge the Wiyot community, their elders both past and present, as well as future generations. This acknowledgement demonstrates the City’s commitment to dismantle the ongoing legacies of settler colonialism.
Report Out of Closed Session - Watch
Motion passed with 4 yes votes and one abstention to authorize City Attorney Luna to initiate litigation to petition for receivership at 1766 P Street. Councilmember Bauer recused himself from that item.
Mayor Bergel presiding; Councilmember Castellano, Councilmember Moulton, Councilmember Fernandez, Councilmember Bauer, and Councilmember Contreras-DeLoach present in chambers.
A. Mayor’s Announcements - Watch
A.1. Proclamation: Appreciation of Service for Charles Petty - Watch
Read by Mayor Bergel, in recognition of Charles "Chuck" Petty and his many years of service to the City of Eureka and the Historic Preservation Commission. Presented to Chuck Petty.
A.2. Proclamation: USCG Manson - Watch
Read by Councilmember Bauer, in recognition of Aviation Survival Technician Second Class Manson's life-saving actions. Presented to Aviation Survival Technician Second Class Manson.
A.3. Proclamation: National Mentoring Month- Watch
Read by Councilmember Moulton, in recognition of Big Brothers Big Sisters of the North Coast's 55 years of service in Humboldt County and proclaiming January 2024 as National Mentoring Month. Presented to Big Brothers Big Sisters of the North Coast.
B.1. 2023 Home For The Holidays Recognition - Watch
Presented by Economic Development Coordinator Sarah West
Presentation of awards to the winners of the 2023 Home for the Holidays contest. This year was the 4th annual contest. Voting is open in the last two weeks of the year, and goes through Christmas. The contest is open to participants in the greater Eureka area, and do not need to be within City limits. This year extended the voting through Christmastime, which was peak voting time. Will be continuing that in the future.
Participants compete for 1st Place, 2nd Place, and Mayor's Choice. Winners are awarded a gift certificate to a Eureka business of their choice. 1st and 2nd Place winners are chosen by popular vote through online voting. Mayor's Choice is chosen by Mayor Bergel.
Five people shared public comment. One commenter thanked City staff and Councilmembers for responding to an incident; asked for a better response from their representative Councilmember, and shared their observation of incidences of crime. One commenter shared their opinion about homeless people and their own observations with Council, and articles written about other cities. One commenter shared their experience of riding the new public transit service from Eureka to Ukiah, their appreciations for the NAACP Martin Luther King Jr Day celebrations, and that they will be sending a ceasefire resolution to Council. One commenter shared an invitation to the public to participate in Humboldt Marble Weekend, February 9th through February 11th. One commenter asked that Consent Calendar Item F.4. to be pulled from the Calendar. Mayor Bergel confirmed that the item will be pulled from the Calendar for discussion.
E.1. Carrington Company Lot Line Adjustment Coastal Development Permit (CDP-23-0001) Appeal - Watch
Attachment 1 - City Council Resolution
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Report
Presented by Senior Planner Caitlin Castellano
Review of second appeal by the Carrington Company's Lot Line Adjustment Coastal Development Permit at 4775 Broadway. The applicant proposes the adjustment of the lot lines of three parcels, resulting in three parcels. No new parcels will be created.
The site is located in the southern portion of Eureka, along Broadway and abutting the City-County line. Most of the property is within the Coastal Zone, with a small portion of the most north-east corner in the Inland Zone. The property is currently comprised of three parcels, and the proposed Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) will result in three parcels. The proposed LLA would section off the portion of the property currently used by the Butler Valley Carol Sund Center into a 3 acre parcel (Parcel A), and section off the upper terrace portion of the property into its own distinct 20 acre parcel (Parcel C) separate from the 61 acre grazed lowland portion of the property (Parcel B). The applicant's stated purpose of the LLA is to convey Parcel A to the Butler Valley operation, retain Parcel B and continue leasing it for grazing, and potentially sell Parcel C in the future. No physical development or new uses are proposed on any of the proposed parcels at this time.
The property is in the Coastal Zone, and the LLA is non-exempt development and is requires a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). The CDP is appealable to the Coastal Commission, and must conform to the policies of the Local Coastal Program (LCP). Based on the findings and analysis (available in the Director's Staff Report), the Director approved the CDP with three conditions, outlined in the Director's Staff Report. Two of the conditions are intended to limit impacts to coastal resources through deed restrictions on Parcel B, and one condition stipulates that the LLA cannot be recorded until the CDP becomes effective. Parcel B is subject to these deed restrictions because the proposed Parcel B would be without any clear uplands, and any potential development would require filling of wetland. The deed restriction conditions stipulate that Parcel B may not have any future development except for developments outlined in the Director's Staff Report, and only after all necessary permits and authorizations are obtained, including a Coastal Development Permit; and that proposed Parcel A include an access easement to access Parcel B.
The Director conditionally approved CDP on 11/13/23. 18 community members joined the meeting on Zoom; 9 spoke and 9 appeals were received. The concerns shared at that meeting were about the City's noticing procedure and the use of Zoom only to conduct the Director's hearing, the LLA not consistent with the LCP. The Planning Commission sustained the Director's approval by a 2:1 vote, with one recusal and one absent on 12/13/23. 6 community members spoke, 4 appeals were received. Concerns similar to what had been previously expressed, and new concerns about the use of exemption from CEQA, future traffic and safety impacts near Pine Hill Elementary, and impacts to views as a result from any potential future development of the upper terrace (Parcel C). The Planning Commission's responses to the appeals are included in the Planning Commission Report.
Council may sustain, modify, or overrule the Planning Commission-level decision on appeal, and if Council sustains or approves, that decision is appealable to the Coastal Commission. An important note is that any future development on any resultant parcel must be consistent with Coastal Agriculture land use/zoning designation, and requires CDP and environmental review, and no new uses or physical development is authorized by the LLA, which allows for the exemption from CEQA.
Mayor Bergel invited the applicant to shared comments with Council.
Applicant's agent Mike O'Hearn, surveyor with O'Hearn and Associates. O'Hearn conducted the parcel research and mapping for the LLA. Satisfied with staff summary, iterated that there are no new parcels created as a result of the LLA, and no development is being proposed at this time. Carrington Company is creating Parcel A to make a donation of the parcel to the Butler Valley Carole Sund Center. Mr. Carrington has a personal interest in the work that the center does with developmentally disabled adults, and wants to give the land to the organization. Applicant wanted to make the lot lines better fit the land, by consolidating the lowland and the upper terrace into their own separate parcels. If there is any future development, that would have to go through the full permitting and CEQA analysis. This LLA would not have any impact on traffic. Asks for Council to approve the LLA.
Council Questions
Councilmember Castellano noted that many of the comments received expressed concerns about potential future development, and asked if there could be potential future developments on the site as the lot lines are now. Answer: Mike O'Hearn as the lot lines are now, there are two parcels that cover the developable upper terrace, and there could be the potential for two separate development projects on two parcels. Senior Planner Castellano added that any developments would have to be developed consistent with the Coastal Agriculture zoning designation.
Councilmember Castellano asked if there were future developments regardless of the LLA, would there be a similar process followed in terms of going to the Coastal Commission and such. Answer: yes.
Public Hearing Comments
Seven people shared public comment. All of the commenters shared concerns about the impact of the LLA proposal on the surrounding roads and habitat. Several commenters spoke in support of the planned donation of a proposed parcel to the Butler Valley Carol Sund Center, but were very concerned about the effects of any potential development on other proposed parcels. Commenters spoke about the unique nature of the sensitive wetland habitat located on two of the proposed parcels, and express concern for that habitat in the event of not yet proposed development. One commenter shared their belief that there are plans to develop the upper terrace section, and that it would be in contradiction to the City's General Plan. One commenter shared an observation of an osprey nest that was not captured in an old report.
Council Questions & Comments
Councilmember Bauer asked if development was allowed in the 100-foot ESHA (environmentally sensitive habitat areas) buffers, noted in Attachment 4, in the Wetland Delineation Report. Answer: Senior Planner Castellano noted that the Wetland Delineation Report that is included, is from 2012 when there was a previous study done for a potential subdivision. This report was included to show that there had been a wetland delineation, and that there were at least some upland areas outside of those 100-foot buffers. If it were ever to be developed in the future, a new wetland delineation would be required, but under the Coastal Commission regulations, no development is allowed within the 100-foot buffer unless it is demonstrated based on evidence that a smaller buffer would be appropriate and still protect the resource. The 100-foot buffer is standard unless it can be proved that a smaller buffer would be sufficient.
Councilmember Castellano has concerns about the items brought up, and how those concerns play into the decision before Council about the lot line adjustments. Councilmember Castellano believes that the Coastal Commission will take the concerns presented here very seriously, and will review environmental analysis that the Council is not situated to consider when only looking at the LLA, and moving forward with the LLA will push the matter into a renewed review of the habitats at the site. Councilmember Castellano does not believe that the environmental concerns will change based on where the lines are drawn.
Councilmember Moulton commented that there is one stated definite outcome that is the good of giving the parcel to the care home organization, where as the future development, we have to trust the process and give the benefit of the doubt that what's going to be done in the future, if something happens in the future, will be done in a way that's responsible and in compliance with the law.
Councilmember Fernandez noted that procedurally this is only a consideration of the LLA, but to say that the LLA should not be allowed because of something that may happen in the future is something that Councilmember Fernandez is reluctant to do. There are procedures, there is CEQA in place to make those decisions. The Planning Commission and Council will have the oversight with future developments on this site, and would like to move forward with the approval of the LLA at this time.
Motion to council
Council moved to approve staff recommendation; motion passed unanimously.
Item F.4. was previously requested to be pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
F.1. Approve City Council regular minutes of December 19, 2023
F.2. Outdoor Equity Grants Program Fund Authorizing Grant Resolution for D.Y.N.A.M.I.C. (Discovering Your Nature Adventure and Making Impactful Connections)
F.3. Mayor's Appointments to Boards and Commissions
F.5. Biosolids Disposal Project 2024/26 Award
F.6. Community Block Grant Program Coronavirus Response (CDBG-CV) Standard Agreement Amendment
Attachment 1 - CDBG-CV Amendment Resolution
Motion to council
Council moved to moved to approve the Consent Calendar minus item F.4.; motion passed unanimously.
F.4. Humboldt Asians and Pacific Islanders Letter of Support - Watch
Councilmember Castellano was recused for this item.
Attachment 1 - Letter of Support
Presented by City Manager Slattery.
This item is a letter of support for Humboldt Asians and Pacific Islanders (HAPI), the organization that has worked with City staff on the Chinese Expulsion memorial. They have applied for a California Humanities Grant to help support that project, and staff has put together a letter of support for their application to make it more competitive.
Council Questions & Comments
No questions from Council.
Public comment for this item
Public comment from Sheri Woo of the steering committee of HAPI, thanked Council and staff for being supportive of not only this project, but of the other projects that are a part of the Eureka Chinatown Project including the interpretive panels, the renaming of Charlie Moon Way, the mural, and the tours of the area. Noted that there is a segment on local PBS station KEET program where HAPI is also featured.
Motion to council
Council moved to approve Item F.4. Humboldt Asians and Pacific Islanders Letter of Support; motion passed with 4 yes votes and 1 absent.
H. Ordinances & Resolutions - Watch
H.1. 2024 Salary Schedule - Watch
Attachment 2 - Salary Schedule
Presented by Human Resources Director Will Folger
This is a routine item that requires approval each year, and there are several changes that are effective as of January 1st, 2024.
The City Salary Schedule is routinely updated and approved by Council, as required by CalPERS regulations. When there are changes to executive salaries, there is a requirement that those changes are reported orally. The changes to the salary schedule reflect routine changes to the Classification and Compensation Plan, including newly created classifications, minimum wage raises, and previously negotiated and approved salary raises that went into effect on January 1st and will be applied to all permanent classifications, including the salaries for executive positions.
- City Manager, moving from Grade Code (GC) 303 to GC 313
- Assistant City Manager, moving from GC 263 to GC 273
- Public Works Director, moving from GC 257 to 267
- Development Services Director, Community Services Director, Finance Director, and Human Resources Director, all within the same GC, moving from GC 251 to GC 261
These changes are a part of the 5% increase in salaries that will be applied across the board to all positions that have not received an independent market rate adjustment during the term of the current contracts.
Council Questions
No questions from Council for this item.
Public comment for this item
No public comment for this item.
Council Comments
Councilmember Castellano appreciates the raising of the lower levels of the wages tier, and still has concerns that there are employees starting at less than $18.00/hour with the increased costs of living, and would like to see that addressed. Councilmember Castellano understand the technicalities of incremental adjustments, and would like to keep this matter in the forefront of attention.
Motion to council
Council moved to adopt the resolution approving the 2024 Salary Schedule; motion passed unanimously.
H.2. Eureka Police Department Equipment Ordinance - Watch
Attachment 1 - Bill No. 1033 Military Use Ordinance
Attachment 2 - AB 481 EPD Military Equipment
Presented by City Manager Slattery
This is the same ordinance that was brought before council at the last meeting (See the summary and watch the presentation to Council at the December 19, 2023 meeting), and there have been no changes since then. This is an inventory of the equipment that Eureka Police Department (EPD) uses, including equipment that is owned by EPD and equipment owned by the County or other agencies. Nothing has changed since the Public Hearing at the last meeting, and staff is asking Council to adopt the ordinance. EPD must come before Council to add items owned by other agencies to inventory of items available to use, or when EPD would like to purchase items.
Council Questions
No questions from Council for this item.
Public comment for this item
No public comment for this item.
Council Comments
Councilmember Fernandez cited Councilmember Moulton's comments from the December 19 Council Meeting and appreciates the attempt to bring more of this to light so we have an understanding of the use and a timeline of when, why, and how these materials may be used by law enforcement in Eureka.
Motion to council
Council moved to adopt the resolution; motion passed unanimously.
I. Reports & Action Items - Watch
I.1. Measure A Opposition Letter
Councilmember Bauer was recused for this item.
Attachment 1 - Measure A Opposition Letter
Presented by City Manager Slattery
This item was brought by a Councilmember at the last Council meeting as an urgency item for legislative action, after being contacted by opponents of Measure A. Council had staff bring this item back for more discussion and consideration. Since that time, City Manager Slattery has received communication from proponents of and opponents to Measure A, and has forwarded all information received about this item to Council. That information did not make it into the agenda packet, both because staff was continuing to receive information after the agenda publication time, and this is a County measure that has gone through multiple public processes, including a forum in Arcata.
A brief overview of the talking points from the proponents of Measure A says that this will protect rivers, streams, and wildlife; it will add a goal to the General Plan supporting small-scale, high quality cannabis cultivation, discourage future large-scale farms by limiting the size to less than 10,000 square feet for new permits, limit the number of permits and acreage under cannabis cultivation, protect vested rights and property rights, improve public participation and official accountability, and support effective enforcement.
Opponents to Measure A say that the definitions being expanded will result in the ballot measure being applied to existing permit holders any time the number or size of existing structures in connection with cultivation, which will preclude modifications of the site, even for environmental protection. It caps the cultivation area to 10,000 square feet, which they feel is arbitrary when in parts of the state cultivation size is over 100 acres, and will make grows that are greater than 10,000 square feet or grows that mix light and indoor cultivation legal-non-conforming, which means the sites cannot be modified. The permit term and renewal limitations of the ballot measure would greatly increase the costs of the permits. When the ballot measure becomes effective, it'll impose caps that have already been met, and the ballot measure will require that any amendment to the cannabis codes for the county be changed through another ballot measures, which opponents say with the industry being dynamic and changing, will make it difficult to adapt to those changes.
Council Questions
No questions from Council for this item.
Public comment for this item
10 people spoke for this item. 8 people spoke in opposition of Measure A, and two proponents of Measure A spoke. Two proponents and one opponent asked that the City Council not weigh in and not send the open letter. Proponents for Measure A spoke about the time taken to build the language of the initiative, how they see would be a benefit to environmental harms they see. Opponents against Measure A spoke about their own experiences as growers and manufacturers, the amount of strict compliance must currently go through as growers, and that this would be an additional burden. Some commenters shared that this could be an existential burden. Opponents also shared what other entities in the County were also publicly against this measure.
Council Comments
Councilmember Castellano supports the letter in opposition to this County measure, and recognizes the stress that local farmers experience. Has heard from a number of farmers, and would like for Humboldt County to continue to be a place where people can come to get locally grown cannabis.
Councilmember Contreras-Deloach has spoken to a number of people since this item was first introduce and now, including people involved in the industry, civic leaders, people involved in enforcement, and tribal leaders. Does not support this letter, and is not comfortable with Council weighing in as most of the cultivation does not happen in Eureka; and is important for the voters to decide on this matter. People have shared the great issue with abandoned farms, diversion of streams, destruction of watersheds, and facing many years of environmental impacts of abandoned sites when farms go under. Tribal leaders have shared the great issue with poisoning of streams and watersheds, which poison wildlife, including fish. Has heard from a number of groups speaking about the downsides of the industry, and based on the information shared with her, will vote to not send the letter for these reasons.
Councilmember Fernandez discussed the intent versus the impact, and that the measure is written too broadly. This will have an impact on Eureka, even if there is no commercial cultivation within City Limits; this will impact manufacturing and retail, and will be voting to send the letter.
Mayor Bergel cannot vote on the matter, but did share appreciation for the courage of the farmers to come forward and take a risk to become legitimate, and does not believe that there is any business or industry that is as regulated as cannabis, and that it is over-regulated. Noted that this measure would only impact legal grows and not illegal grows, which are the sources of the issues that this measure seeks to meet.
Councilmember Contreras-DeLoach responded to the comments from the Mayor, learned from law enforcement that there are issues with legal operations circumnavigating the rules, and that there could be a lot done to be more friendly, and also sees that the market is saturated.
Motion to council
Council voted to approve the sending of the letter in opposition to Measure A; motion passed with three yes votes, one no vote, and on abstention.
Councilmember Castellano served as the Mayor Pro-Tem for 2023, and Council will elect a Mayor Pro-Tem for 2024.
Council Comments & Nominations
Councilmember Fernandez indicated interest.
Councilmember Moulton asked if Councilmember Castallano was interested in serving in the role again.
Councilmember Castellano said that there were not many opportunities to appear as Mayor Pro-Tem in the past year, as Mayor Bergel was not absent from many events or meetings, and would like to serve again.
Public comment for this item
No comments from attendees in chamber, none on Zoom.
Motion to council
Councilmember Moulton nominated Councilmember Castallano for Mayor Pro-Tem, Councilmember Bauer seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
J. Future Agenda Items - Watch
Councilmember Bauer requested a check-in report from the Crisis Alternative Response of Eureka (CARE) Mental Health Clinicians. City Manager Slattery noted that staff was planning on providing a report to Council in City Manager's Reports, will agendize it separately provided there is consensus from Council. Response: Consensus reached.
Councilmember Bauer has been reading about private equity firms and other corporations purchasing homes to rent and becoming landlords, seeing this mostly happen on the East Coast. Would like to ask staff to review if this could be a issue that could affect Eureka when reviewing the upcoming ordinance for short-term rentals. Concern is over private equity firms buying up apartments and becoming terrible landlords, and would like to discuss if creating an ordinance before it's an issue when discussing short-term rentals. Response: Consensus reached.
K. City Manager Reports - Watch
K.1. Development Services Customer Service Survey - Watch
Presented by Development Services Director Kenyon
The City had received a grant with a requirement and funding to conduct a survey related to Customer Service in the Development Services Department.
The Development Services department is one of five other departments that comprises the organization of the City of Eureka. The department is a very small, and has two divisions, Planning and Building. The Planning division is made up of two Senior Planners, three Assistant Planners, two part-time, temporary Planners, and an Administrative Technician. The Building division is made up of a Chief Building Official, a Building Inspector, a Permit Analyst, and an Administrative Technician. The four-person Building division issued 1,196 building permits in 2023, without any outside plan-check.
This survey came out of a goal of the Housing Element, Housing Element Goal H-1, and Implementation Program H-5, and received funding for the survey from a grant. In addition, Director Kenyon was inspired by the City of Eureka's Strategic Visioning and conducted visioning for the Development Services Department, and outlined department vision and goals. The vision statement that was crafted by the Planning team is service-oriented.
The Planning division created an online survey that was 24 questions long about permit processes and customer service. The survey took approximately 8 minutes to complete, and was sent out in July of 2023 to people who applied for a building or planning permit in 2021 or 2022. 599 customers were emailed and postcards were mailed to 2,386 customers. 61 people responded. The timeframe for the survey means that the respondents were people who applied prior to the new City website and before the City moved to online permitting through OpenGov, as well as during the pandemic, and when the department was at a different staffing level and the Building division was relying on outside consultants to perform plan check. Staff were also working remotely, which had a major impact on responsiveness.
Out of the 61 respondents, 55% applied for building permits only, 17% were for planning permits only, and 28% applied for both, and most of the respondents were the property owners. Customer service is important to the Development Services department, since they have a lot of interaction with the public, especially property owners, in situations that have high stakes for the applicants.
There is a customer service survey from 2015, the Business Ready Study that asks a lot of the same questions, and provides a good point of comparison. This was sent to local businesses, instead of just permit applicants, and had questions about all City departments. The Business Ready Study is included in the the Planning Library. Many of the items requested in that survey have been implemented in the time since the survey was conducted. Now have a pre-application development review process where twice each month, relevant departments and some outside agencies review a preliminary site plan submitted by the project proponent and provide feedback the project proponent can include in their design process. Have had comprehensive update to the Inland Zoning Code, to allow for greater flexibility based on context, and perform an annual cleanup amendment to address issues with the implementation of the zoning code. The Planning division now has Spanish speakers on staff. The set up of how applicants interact with the Planning division has changed; prior to 2020, the public visited the third floor, and now the public requests assistance at the first floor counter, and staff comes downstairs. This change has improved staff efficiency.
The current best practices for the Planning division workflow is to refer projects to other agencies and departments early, to highlight any issues early in the process. Have a Planner on Duty assigned daily to be available for calls or walk-ins. Planners create written records that are tied to that property in the database to record any research done for each property, which prevents work from being duplicated and allows for consistent communication about a property. Customer service is a part of employee evaluations at hiring and annual performance reviews, and there is support for staff training for things like interpersonal skills, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training, and there is time set aside for training each month.
The current survey results show that most respondents found the permitting process to be mostly clear, with most respondents reporting that they found the permitting steps, permitting fees and items necessary for a complete application to be clear, but the timeline of the permitting process to be confusing. Respondents could choose answers from Very Clear, Clear, Confusing, and Very Confusing.
The survey asked respondents to select items from a list of actions that they felt would most improve the City's permitting process. The top responses were to consolidate information on necessary permits and approves from the various City departments in one location, to allow staff to approve more projects administratively without committee/commission review, and to designate a point person that coordinates with all departments, or a "one stop shop". Other ideas for improvement that came out of some of the open-ended sections of the survey include continuing to clean up/update the code, including Coastal Zoning Code update, more same-day approvals; more ministerial approvals; streamline findings for discretionary approvals, better communication on what needs a permit and what info is needed for the application and why, and OpenGov improvements such as yes or no questions to help figure out permits needs; auto-fill duplicative info among permits.
Survey respondents rated their interactions with Planning and Building staff. Speed of response, clarity and accuracy of information provided, professionalism and courtesy, and helpfulness with problem-solving or challenging or unique circumstances were all rated positively, but the responses for clarity, professionalism, and helpfulness were down from the 2015 study. Ideas for improvements for how staff interacts with the public include creating standard customer service training of new staff, requesting customer feedback more, train staff on written correspondence, get out in the community more, like tabling at Friday Night Markets, and growing Talk Eureka website, the community engagement forum.
Respondents gave feedback about the coordination and communication among the City divisions and departments during the application and review process. 66% of respondents rated as Coordinated or Very Coordinated, while 18% said Very Uncoordinated. Ideas for improvement in this area include cross-training, using a model of a Planner as a case manager to help people move through the process, and follows an application through the process, building relationships with outside agencies, and holding internal multi-division project meetings for more complex projects.
Respondents were asked about if they went through the pre-application review process. 14% had gone through, and all but one person found it to be helpful or somewhat helpful. The people who did not participate were asked if they were aware of this option, and 88% of respondents were unaware. Ideas for improvement here include getting the word out to the community that this is an option, and adding follow-up emails from staff with contact info and the roles of staff who attended these reviews.
Respondents were asked if they had conducted business at City Hall. 59% of people said yes; this will go down with OpenGov as the permitting application is available online. The average rating from the respondents was 3.5 out of 5 stars. Improvements regarding this are already beginning, staff has installed better signage at the front desk, and will be adding better ADA access and workstations, creating and advertising appointment system to encourage scheduling ahead to allow for more informed conversations, more cross-training, and ensuring proper training for new staff before they are assigned front-counter work without supervision.
Respondents were asked about the City website, the responses were more than likely about the old website which was updated in January of 2023. 71% of respondents said that they had visited the website for development-related information, and the average rating of that website experience was 3.3 stars out of 5. Asked respondents open-ended questions about how to improve, and had good responses: the new website is an improvement, and more ideas for improvement are to improve ADA compliance, add Spanish language material, review the content to ensure use of plain language, add more guidance about regulations and processes, increase use of the Web GIS viewer and educate the public on how to use it, and have all permit information together in one place, as opposed to by department.
The survey asked if respondents had participated in the permitting process in other cities or counties, and 64% of the respondents said they did, and the most common jurisdiction was Humboldt, Fortuna, and Arcata. Most of the respondents said that Eureka's process was roughly equivalent or more difficult than the other jurisdictions, but responded that the costs were either roughly equivalent or cheaper that other jurisdictions. Ideas for improvement include talking to other jurisdictions about how they handle their processes, and explaining the permit fees better.
The process of improving customer service in the Development Services department is an ongoing process. Will conduct a survey like this in a few years to measure the progress made.
City Manager Slattery added that he has seen a huge progression in improvements in Development Services in his employment at the City, and does not receive the amount of complaints that had done so previously, but receives positive feedback from customers and the community. The work that staff has been doing to improve the experience of the public is visible.
Council Comments
Councilmember Bauer commented that he was glad to see the improvements, saw a lot of positivity in the survey responses, and is appreciative of the presentation. Asked the public to please participate in surveys when they come out.
M. Council Reports & City Related Travel Reports - Watch
Councilmember Bauer attended CalCities policy committee introductory meeting, will be discussing legislation, a lot of which will affect the City; attended the JPA [Humboldt Bay Fire Joint Powers Authority] meeting; will be attending RCEA [Redwood Coast Energy Authority] meeting; noted that it will be a busy winter with lots of legislation at the Capitol.
Councilmember Castellano attended Eureka Main Street and HWMA [Humboldt Waste Management Authority] meetings; will be attending CalCities Housing and Economic Development Committee meeting; attended Eureka NAACP Martin Luther King Jr Day celebration and HC Black Music and Arts celebration, shared that they were powerful events.
Councilmember Contreras-DeLoach hosted a field trip for a high school civics class; attended CalCities Tax and Revenue Committee meeting and will be discussing the Governor's Budget and will be learning more about the upcoming budget cuts, will be affecting housing and homelessness funding; attended swearing in of Eureka Police Chief Stephens; attended NAACP MLK Day celebration.
Councilmember Fernandez had cell phone stolen and missed some events; attended CalCities Governmental Transparency and Labor Relations committee; will be attending 2x2 with Eureka City Schools; attended NAACP MLK Day Celebration.
Councilmember Moulton will be starting up 2x2 meetings with Eureka City Schools later this month; offered congratulations to Chief Stephens, was unable to attend the swearing in; noted that the January Arts Alive was well attended despite the amount of rain; had traveled during the holidays back to hometown in Texas and shared appreciation for local governments and communities working together to maintain community space. Attended JPA meeting; and will be hosting a Town Hall on Tuesday, January 23rd in Council Chambers at City Hall, from 6:00 to 8:00 pm to discuss the Jacobs Site. The site has changed hands and is now no longer owned by Eureka City Schools, and Councilmember Moulton is hosting the Town Hall to discuss what developments are possible there, and gather feedback from the community about what the community would like to see there.
City Manager Slattery noted an item not mentioned in City Manager's Reports, was notified via press release that the City was awarded a 1.9 million dollar grant to fund electric vehicle charging stations. The City will be in the design process in the next year, and begin the installation phase in the next two years.
Mayor Bergel also had items not mentioned in the Mayor's Reports; shared that it was an honor to swear in Chief Stephens. Noted that community problems require community solutions, and invites community members to join in and volunteer or attend events, or meet with elected officials, and invites community members to share what changes they would like enacted.
Thank you for your contribution!
Help us reach out to more people in the community
Share this with family and friends