Regular City Council Meeting - March 19, 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.
Mayor Bergel presiding; Councilmember Castellano, Councilmember Moulton, and Councilmember Bauer, present in chambers. Councilmember Fernandez attending via teleconference. Absent: Councilmember Contreras-DeLoach
Report Out of Closed Session - Watch
Report out of closed session presented by Assistant City Manager Powell. Councilmember Fernandez requested to attend via teleconference, and provided reason in closed session. Councilmember Fernandez is caring for family, and the reason provided was sufficient to allow for attending via teleconference. On a motion moved by Councilmember Castellano and seconded by Councilmember Bauer, the motion passed with three yes votes to allow Councilmember Fernandez to participate.
A. Mayor’s Announcements - Watch
Change to agenda: Item I.3. will be removed and discussed at the next Council meeting.
Old Town Rotary invited to speak about the Rhododendron Parade. This will be the 57th annual parade, on Saturday April 27, at 10:00 a.m. and the theme will be the Roaring Twenties. The Grand Marshal will be Evo Fanucchi. There is no entry fee, and there will be prizes and awards for bands and floats, including a Sweepstakes Trophy, a Grand Marshal's Trophy, and a Mayor's Trophy. More information is available from the Old Town Rotary website at eurekarhodyparade.com.
Redwood Discovery Museum invited to speak about the recent Perilous Plunge fundraiser. Redwood Discovery Museum thanked the City and Mayor for support provided for the 23rd Annual Perilous Plunge fundraiser, from staff assisting with permit approvals, waterfront staff, ladder from Humboldt Bay Fire, and more. Presented special recognition award to City of Eureka for support, trophy was made by co-founder Ken Pinkerton.
A.1. Proclamation: Two-Spirit Day of Appreciation and Celebration - Watch
Read by Councilmember Fernandez, in recognition of Two-Spirit Day of Appreciation and Celebration. Presented to Wiyot Tribal Chair Hernandez and Wiyot Tribal Administrator Vassel.
Tribal Administrator Vassel and Tribal Chair Hernandez shared remarks: The Wiyot people welcome everyone into our community to engage in cultural activities, rediscover Wiyot culture, investigate, participate, support, and encourage each other to be welcomed into our community with opened mind and heart. We recognize that each of us has a role to play in advancing the tribe's mission, culture, and language revitalization, and the effects of colonialism of Native American communities resulted in both marginalization on the basis of race and ethnic identity, as well as gender and sexuality. Watch the full presentation and acceptance remarks.
Mayor's announcements continued: Mayor Bergel has been out with an injury, is glad to be back. There is a work day to spread wood chips and clean up at Ross Park on Saturday, March 23 from 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Thanked Councilmember Castellano and City Manager Slattery for filling in while out. The flowers in the Council Chambers are from the Eureka High School floral program, and they will be providing flowers for the remainder of the school year.
Presented by City Engineer Willor.
City Engineer Willor noted that the Bike Plan process is nearly complete. The Bike Plan is driven by the desire from Council in the Complete and Green Streets Policy, a policy of implementing streets that provide a comprehensive connected multi-modal transportation network where feasible. Multi-modal here encompasses bicycles, pedestrians, and all means of rolling.
Engineer Willor reviewed the reasons why the City should have a plan. Having a plan allows the City to focus on the bike element of the transportation network, dedicating staff time and resources on the big picture, assessing what is already available and envisioning what the future of the network can look like, and like a Capital Improvement Plan, a Bike Plan allows the City to prioritize and implement network enhancements rather than one-off projects.
Grant funding to develop a plan allowed for staff to partner with consultants to aid in the community engagement side of determining the community need. Consultants helped create and implement the community engagement element to inform and gather feedback. Having a plan in place also puts the City in a position to go after grant funding for the projects and improvements identified in the plan.
The process so far; the project kicked off internally almost a year ago, when a consultant was selected in April of 2023. Developed a project task force, members are groups of local experts or groups who are interested in a bike network, and be local agencies as well, and have helped guide the process. Summer into fall of 2023, held task force meetings and conducted community surveys. Fall and winter, conducted walking audits, held in-person engagement events, and conducted community meetings, and most recently had an open-house in-person engagement event.
The Bike Plan process will continue with task force meetings, and then will draft a report to present to the task force. After discussion and refinement with the task force, a report will be presented to the Transportation Safety Commission. Then will present a final report the community and to Council.
Council Comments
Councilmember Moulton thanked staff for the report, noted was hoping to see a map of ways to get around by bike, and asked if this was a suitable topic for a Talk Eureka page. Answer: City Manager Slattery believes that can be accomplished.
Councilmember Castellano attended the recent public meeting, appreciates the work that went into that meeting. Noted that one of the questions that came up in the public meetings, that when people hear "Bike Plan," will ask about a plan for the streets. Asked staff to speak about how this plan is simultaneous with other work being done in the City. Answer: City Engineer Willor noted that when there is guidance from Council [like in the Complete and Green Streets Policy], that pushed staff to go after grant funding from the State through CalTrans specifically for projects like the Bike Plan. Described getting grant funding like this is like "cream" on top of the regular "coffee", with the "coffee" being the systematic plan for street repair utilizing transportation and roadway dollars. For instance, the paving on H and I Streets currently is part of that plan, and the department is getting ready to work on additional streets this coming summer, and following seasons after that, with a list of priority streets. This isn't taking place of anything, this in addition to ongoing work. Also noted that while we have a robust roadway network, we don't have a robust bicycle network and this plan is an effort to develop this as funding becomes available. City Manager Slattery also noted that the Capital Improvement Plan would be the coffee, and the Bike Plan would be the cream.
Eight people shared public comment. One commenter spoke about the impacts of substance abuse on their family, a commenter spoke about Measure H funds, with questions about how it was being utilized. Four people spoke about the Bike Plan, three people were supportive and noted that some people bike out of necessity rather than choice, and also they would like to have more separated bike lanes over sharrows, and that safer bike routes could have an impact of lessening the parking congestion near Eureka High School. One person didn't understand how some of the decisions were made, and another commenter didn't like how the meetings were conducted. and asked for more opportunities for question and answer sessions. One person spoke about Arcata City Council adopting a ceasefire resolution in regard to Gaza and asks Eureka City Council to consider that again.
E.1. Tirsbeck Surplus Property and Right-of-Way Vacation and Local Coastal Program Amendment - Watch
Attachment 1 - Resolution for ISMND and MMRP
Attachment 2 - Resolution for SP and SV
Attachment 3 - Resolution Exhibits A and B
Attachment 4 - Resolution for LUP
Attachment 5 - Bill No. 1034-C.S. for IP
Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Report
Presented by Senior Planner Castellano
Applicant Alan Tirsbeck is requesting that the City surplus and vacate a City-owned 20 foot by 300 foot parcel to the adjoining property owner. The two parcels together are known as "the Notch", and were created in the distant past for a 20-foot-wide, 130-foot-long public alley that the City never developed. These two parcels are located within the parcel located at 2000 Broadway. The applicant is also requesting that the zoning for another parcel he owns, 936 West Hawthorne, which is directly west of 2000 Broadway, be changed to have the same zoning as 2000 Broadway, General Service Commercial/Service Commercial (CS), through a Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendment.
Applicant Alan Tirsbeck is requesting that the City surplus and vacate a City-owned 20 foot by 300 foot parcel to the adjoining property owner. The two parcels together are known as "the Notch", and were created in the distant past for a 20-foot-wide, 130-foot-long public alley that the City never developed. These two parcels are located within the parcel located at 2000 Broadway. The applicant is also requesting that the zoning for another parcel he owns, 936 West Hawthorne, which is directly west of 2000 Broadway, be changed to have the same zoning as 2000 Broadway, General Service Commercial/Service Commercial (CS), through a Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendment.
The first component of the project is the proposed surplus property and vacation of the property. The applicant is requesting the City surplus and convey the small 600 square foot parcel to the adjoining property owner, and vacate the alley easement over the Notch. The public alley that the Notch was created for was never developed. Future development and use of the Notch will be combined with the surrounding property, 2000 Broadway.
The second component is the requested LCP amendment for 936 West Hawthorne to change the zoning to be the same as 2000 Broadway so that both parcels may be developed together, from General Industrial (GI) to Service Commercial. No projects at this time, but the intent is to develop the entire property with new retail and service commercial uses that may complement the new hotel and revitalized Broadway aesthetically. CS zoning allows for retail stores, offices, service establishments, amusement establishments, wholesale businesses, and residences. GI zoning allows limited or big-box retail, offices, and industrial uses; no residences are allowed in GI. The two zones have similar development standards, but the maximum height in CS is 55 feet and GI is 35 feet.
The LCP amendment requirements are that the Land Use Plan, or the map amendment that changes the land use designation, must conform with the Coastal Act, the Implementation Plan map amendment, or the change to the zoning designation, much be consistent with and adequate to carry out requirements and policies from the City's Land Use Plan, the Implementation Plan, and other requirements when changing to a commercial district. Required findings for approval of the entire project are included in Planning Commission Report, Attachment 5, pages 7-17.
All of this will resolve issues with the title over 2000 Broadway, and allow the owner to redevelop or sell the parcels, and the LCP amendment would allow 2000 Broadway and 936 West Hawthorne to be redeveloped together with new commercial uses. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared for the entire project, and only considers the impacts of future redevelopment to the extent possible. Environmental review will be required for project-specific impacts not contemplated by this document. Redevelopment of the entire property will require a Coastal Development Permit, which will trigger an environmental review. There will be future opportunity to address project-specific impacts.
This is the first of two City Council meetings where this will be discussed. This meeting Council will decide about adopting the IS/MND, decide about declaring the surplus property and vacate the alley easement, decide about adopting the land Use Plan map amendment, and have the first reading of the Implementation Plan map amendment ordinance. If all of that is decided, the Implementation Plan amendment ordinance will come before council to be adopted, and direct staff to submit to the Coastal Commission for certification. Staff will also submit the LCP amendment application to the Coastal Commission. The Coastal Commission can not respond and the property will be disposed to the adjoining property holder, or staff will return to Council with negotiation results.
Council Questions
No questions from Council.
Public hearing public comment
One commenter from the public shared hearing from other people in the community about excitement about the hotel being built, noted the need for housing and supports the zoning that allows for residential components.
Council Comments
Councilmember Moulton commended Senior Planner Castellano on synthesizing the hundreds of pages into a concise and informative report. Noted that the situation itself is ridiculous, and happily supports what needs to be done to correct it.
Councilmember Castellano appreciates the time staff has spent on this item and the ongoing commitment to support the development of cohesive plans around properties, looks forward to seeing what happens next.
Motion to Council
Council voted to adopt the resolutions and introduce the ordinance; motion carries with four yes votes and Councilmember Contreras-Deloach absent.
F.1. Approve City Council regular minutes of March 5, 2024 Council meeting
F.2. Eureka Rhododendron Parade Sponsorship
Agenda Summary - Rhododendron Parade
F.3. Senate Bill 1119 Letter of Support
F.4. Coast Guard Building Improvements - Acceptance
F.5. Crowley Property Electrical Installation Project - Award
Agenda Summary - Award Crowley Electrical Bid
F.6. Crowley Property Electrical Equipment Purchase - Award
Agenda Summary - Award Crowley Electrical Equipment Purchase
F.7. Amend Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program (PLHA) Plan
F.8. Salary Schedule Update - April 2024
Agenda Summary - Salary Schedule April 2024
Resolution - Salary Schedule April 2024
Motion to Council
Council voted to approve the consent calendar; motion carries with four yes votes, Councilmember Contreras-DeLoach absent.
H. Ordinances & Resolutions - Watch
H.1. Memorandum of Understanding - Eureka Police Officer's Association/City of Eureka - Watch
Agenda Summary - EPOA MOU 2024-2027
Resolution - EPOA MOU 2024-2027
Presented by Human Resources Director Will Folger.
The is the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was reached between the City of Eureka and the Eureka Police Officers Association (EPOA). The resolution authorizes the Mayor to execute the MOU effect July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2027. This MOU includes increases to base salaries, longevity and retention base salary increase, change in the retirement plan, increase to professional certification compensation, increases to uniform allowances, and incorporates previously agreed-upon side letters. This three-year agreement represents a significant investment to the City's dedicated professional law enforcement and public safety personnel. This also represents another example of the strong partnership that does exist between the City and EPOA. This was an example of good-faith bargaining; we were able to resolve this rather quickly, amicably, and really appreciate the partnership we have with that unit. Important to point out that this rather significant contract provides a lot of stability moving forward for the next three years, includes much-needed cost-of-living adjustments and other benefits for our public safety union that they can look forward to over that time, and all of that is made possible by Measure H. [The City's] ability to respond to the needs of that unit rests firmly in the tax revenues that are generated by Measure H and are dedicated to those public safety personnel.
Council Questions
Councilmember Bauer thanked Director Folger and EPOA, noted that he believes it is a fair contract and will be good for the competitiveness for the City in this tight labor market. Director Folger thanked Council and the members who aided in the process.
Councilmember Fernandez noted a broad question, asked how this compares to other municipalities in the region. Answer: Director Folger noted that [the City] views this as a very competitive package in terms of wages and benefit adjustments that make [the City] on par with and very competitive within our local labor market. This is a significant investment, and this is a broad question. This was what was discussed going into the discussions, and this agreement addresses the needs brought forward by the EPOA, based on the requests they had and the prioritization of their needs, and doing the best to address them in a meaningful way to resolve the challenges in staffing, recruitment, and retention. These issues are occurring everywhere across all industries, and particularly in law enforcement. Broadly sees this as a significant step in the right direction in addressing challenges that we have. Director Folger doesn't think that the parties would agree to this agreement unless they felt that it was acceptable. Councilmember Fernandez agreed with Director Folger that this agreement won't solve all of the issues around recruitment and retention but it does help mitigate those. Councilmember Fernandez noted there was public comment that stated that Measure H funds have not been used for public safety, asked if the City was using Measure H funds for this agreement.Answer: Director Folger said that the answer to that was absolutely. [Measure H] was largely enacted as a general tax, intended to support public safety. That encompasses many things, and at the core of that is the EPOA, the Police department and the services they provide that are vital to public safety in our community. Without Measure H, the sustainability that has been seen over the last three year term contract and the contract that will replace it will not have been possible without the funds generated by Measure H. The funds are being applied directly not only to these agreed-to MOUs but other services that are infused into those department that provide the vital services. These are a large part, but only a part of the Measure H funding. City Manager Slattery noted, to the point that the public commenter was speaking about, the commenter referenced a slide detailing where funds beyond the previously sunset half-cent sales tax Measure Q and describing what that portion of Measure H was going to. There had always been money going to those items, both quality of life items which would include the Bay to Zoo trail as well as public safety, roads, streets infrastructure and non-streets infrastructure; all of that is a part of Measure H.
Public comment for this item
One person shared public comment, spoke about not using cameras and using those funds for public safety.
Council Comments
Mayor Bergel commented that she shared the appreciation for Director Folger and the EPOA, noted that this was a successful negotiation, appreciative of the process.
Councilmember
Motion to Council
Council voted to adopt the resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute the MOU; motion carries with four yes votes and one absent.
H.2. Bill No. 1035 Open Space, Parks and Recreation Commission - Watch
Presented by Assistant City Manager Powell.
This ordinance is a change to the configuration of the Open Space, Parks and Recreation Commission from the current configuration of nine members to a requested number of seven members. The language is modified to be the same as the majority of the other boards and commissions, which gives Council the ability to have five or seven members, depending on interest and the actions that the boards need to take. This commission had nine members, and until recently had four members who had served nearly 40 years on the commission. Two members had retired and have been replaced, and two more members retired at the end of 2023. Community Services staff would like to make the board a little more manageable at seven members, which is the same configuration as the Transportation Safety Commission, and not replace the vacated board positions. This is an introduction of the ordinance.
Council Questions
Councilmember Moulton asked to clarify if making this change would make the meetings of the commission more manageable, if scheduling so that a body of nine members will be able to all attend is difficult. Answer: Assistant City Manager Powell noted that was exactly it, there have been many instances of needing to cancel meetings due to a lack of quorum; have not been able to get a quorum for this commission in the last two months. Councilmember Moulton noted that this is a great opportunity to invite people to serve on Boards and Commissions, noted that it is a time commitment of a few days a year, and are the people who make decisions in the City. [To learn more or apply for appointment view the Boards and Commissions page. Board vacancies will be listed on the Board & Commissions page and announced at Council meetings. For further information, please contact Assistant City Clerk Shannon Fazio.]
Councilmember Fernandez asked if it would be simpler to just have a five member body. Answer: Assistant City Manager Powell noted that at this point there are seven serving members of the board, and would not want to ask two people to leave. If staff does find that it becomes difficult to replace members as terms expire, the language in the proposed ordinance would allow Council the ability to appoint five or seven members with a request from staff.
Public comment for this item
One person commented, asked that the title of the commission to include the Oxford comma in the name of the name of the commission.
Council Comments
Councilmember Fernandez asked if the comment could be added.Assistant City Manager Powell said that the comma could be added, will appear when the ordinance appears before Council for adoption.
Motion to Council
Council voted to introduce the ordinance; motion carried with four yes votes and one absent.
I. Reports & Action Items - Watch
I.1. Planning Commission Vacation Rental Report - Watch
Attachment 1 - Planning Commission Report and Public Comments Received
Presented by Development Services Director Kenyon and Planning Commissioner Kraft and Planning Commissioner Lazar.
The Planning Commission formed a subcommittee for two commissioners to gather information and form policy recommendations on the regulation of vacation rentals within the City to present to City Council, and this is that presentation. Director Kenyon expressed thanks for the work that the Planning Commission does on behalf of the City.
The Planning Commission dives into technical items in the Planning code, such as the Notch that had come before Council previously. Vacations Rentals have been the subject of heated debate, when coming before the Planning Commission, and the Commission believes that this is an important point to bring to Council, as it is a cause of disharmony in Eureka neighborhoods.
The primary issues are housing affordability, neighborhood harmony, and overall percentage of vacation rentals as a part of the rental properties, and density. Vacation rentals [also called short term rentals or STRs] in a community can provide choice for visitors, they provide Transient Occupancy Taxes, but they also affect housing affordability and have other downsides that should be managed.
Information from Rentor, a property management firm that has about five percent of the rental units in Humboldt County. They are concentrated in the Humboldt Bay area, and Commissioner Kraft believes that this is a decent snapshot of what is available in Eureka. The median rental cost for a three-bedroom, two-bathroom home in Eureka is about $2,200 per month, while a two-bedroom, one-bathroom home or apartment would be about $1,325 per month. As of December, there was a 99% occupancy rate, which is a very tight market. Traditional measure of affordability is that housing costs including utilities should be a third or less of total income. Median household income in Eureka is $51,971 annually. The annual income for a family to consider the two-bed, one-bath unit would be $47,000, and the annual income for a family to consider the three-bed, two-bath affordable would be $79,200.
The current density of STRs show that two and a half percent of available rental units are used as vacation rentals; however the long term rentals are only about thirty percent of what is being advertised, which leads to a feeling of STRs taking over the rental market.
The Planning Commission would like to see a change to a how permits are issued, would like to see them as renewable licenses rather than permits that run with the property. Academic research shows that as density of SRTs increase, rental rates increase. Planning Commission implements policy passed by the Council, and the Commission would like more concrete guidance from Council. The Planning Commission provides recommendations of directions Council can provide staff if Council agrees, to direct staff to complete the STR compliance drive, to direct City Planning staff to research and report to the Planning Commission on potential regulatory changes, to direct the Planning Commission to provide recommendations to Council, and for Council to then update codes, with potential implementation for 2025.
Council Questions
Councilmember Moulton asked what was the large item on the map of compliant and non-compliant STRs. Answer: Commissioner Kraft was directed by City Attorney Luna to not directly identify properties, and Director Kenyon was able to clarify that the large yellow square is the Eureka Inn, and that the Host Compliance report will pull all properties listed on short term rental sites, including hotels that may advertise there. The map is not completely accurate, but the point of it is to get the impression, and to see the general distribution of STRs throughout the City. Commissioner Kraft noted that some of the visuals may not be statistically factual, but they illustrate facts. Commissioner Lazar noted that there are about 100 parcels on the map, and that the map is highlighting the footprint of parcels, and the data is from July of 2023.
Councilmember Castellano asked if the number of out of town owners is known or included in this report. Answer: Commissioner Kraft did not review that information, noted that there is a requirement for an emergency contact within 50 miles. Councilmember Castellano asked if that could be included in future reports. Director Kenyon will be able to do so. Councilmember Castellano asked if STRs pay the same TOT rate as hotels. Councilmember Castellano asked what the fees for a STR are. Director Kenyon noted that there are many factors that go into what fees could be, can come back to Council with that information.
Councilmember Castellano asked about the public comment that cited different numbers of STRs, could Director Kenyon speak to the source of the numbers of STRs. Director Kenyon guessed that the source of the commenters information could be looking at the greater Eureka area, not just within City limits, and there were just two categories, whole unit and renting a room. When staff and Commissioners reviewed properties and how they are being used, it seems like a lot of the units are rooms with a door to the outside that have been converted to a hotel suite. Those are being called separate units, but are still part of the house.
Councilmember Bauer asked if there were indications in the data that show that the numbers of STRs are increasing and becoming a bigger issue, noted that there news items about private equity buying up rentals and taking over the rental market, asked if there were trends or other indications to consider if Council sets limits on STRs. Answer: Commissioner Kraft answered for himself, did not see indications of a rush, but noted that if he were designing a cap and agrees that there should be a cap, he would set the cap higher that the current amount to not cause a rush. Sees an opportunity to manage before it becomes a problem, and doesn't believe that there are issues yet. City Manager Slattery added that he believes Commissioner Kraft's personal opinion is accurate, does not see the numbers as reported by Directory Millar that the numbers have fluctuated, but do not see a distinct trend of increasing or decreasing.
Councilmember Fernandez referenced request outlined in the report of creating an easier permitting path for someone residing at the property as opposed to an out of area operator, how that could be achieved without raising civil rights or equity issues. Answer: Commission Kraft doesn't have the specifics, has seen enough examples to know that it has been done before. Commissioner Lazar noted that the STR regulations by the County differentiate between home-share and full home rentals, not without precedent and is doable, and also shows how the conversation about STRs is more nuanced now. Noted that the City was one of the earliest jurisdictions to regulate STRs and provide a permitting pathway, and now believes it's time to determine if should differentiate between different types and set different caps and considerations, given the consequences of the different types of rentals.
Councilmember Fernandez noted that the City code allows for caps, asked if the City current has a cap in place. Answer: Director Kenyon said there are not caps currently. City Manager Slattery noted that what is being recommended by the Planning Commission is what the intent of, seems to be consistent with the direction that Council has given us, which is basically we have regulations in place for these properties to be permitted, we're getting a hold of what the numbers are, sending out letters to those who are non-compliant and getting them into compliance, and then when we get to that point where we have people in compliance and we have a hold of the numbers, then come back and discuss regulations.
Public comment for this item
No public comment for this item.
Council Comments
Councilmember Castellano tends to agree with the recommendations from the Planning Commission, would like to know how many are out of town owners. Is familiar with other communities who have restrictions in place regarding operators who live onsite, and could be something to consider further. Would like to see a "menu" of options. Noted that something that was striking was that what the income from vacation rental can be, and also considering the social cost of people not having access to housing. Within the City, are investing funds to help people with rent and other assistance, is the City losing resources through essentially subsidizing the housing that is lost to STRs, would like to see further assessment of that. Would like to see fees higher to recognize the impact they have on the community. Would like to look at the density of rentals in a community, and considering different thresholds for on-site and off-site operators.
Councilmember Bauer commented that Councilmember Castellano laid out the issues very well, noted that perhaps not higher permit fees, but rather permit fees that match staff time, do not want to subsidize the permitting process. Appreciates the report and the recommended steps timeline. Hopes that people in the community are coming into compliance, the intent is to make it a legal structure, legitimatize and make something to contribute to the community.
Mayor Bergel also shared appreciation for the Commissioners and staff for the work that is done during the Planning Commission meetings and outside of the meetings.
I.2. Jacobs Campus Town Hall Debrief and Next Steps - Watch
Presented by Assistant Planner Ponce and Development Services Director Kenyon
The Jacobs site is a former middle school, built in 1956 and closed in 1982. The facilities were used until 2009, and the District demolished the unused buildings in 2021 and began negotiations to sell the property at about that same time, including with the City of Eureka. The school board made the decision to enter into an exchange agreement with AMG Communities - Jacobs LLC in December of 2023. The southern portion of 8.3 acres of the site are being sold to a developer, and funds from the sale will be used for the District's capital facility needs, and the District will retain the upper 5.8 acres and continue to use them as ball fields. The developer and the District remain under contract for the land exchange, but the closing date has not been set, and the developer has not informed the City about future development plans. This site is of great interest as the City is largely built out, and few sites of this size are realistically available for new development.
Councilmember Moulton held a Town Hall meeting on January 23 in response to questions from the community about the District's decision to sell the property to the developer, which provided a forum for the community to pose questions and gave staff input about what the community would like to see at that site.
Over 100 community members attended the meeting, in person and on Zoom. A majority of the attendees lived next door or within the neighborhood, and most people people reported that they came to the meeting because they are concerned about what will happen to the site and how it will affect them.
After presentations to the group by staff and a neighborhood group, attendees were asked three questions or prompts, and the answers were tallied and the most common responses were gathered.
Question 1. What do you love about the neighborhood around the Jacobs site (what's working)? Most common responses: affordable, good neighbors, walkability, safe, young families, diversity, ocean view.
Question 2. What are your biggest concerns (what could be better)? Most common responses: Traffic, speeding vehicles, better public transit, ADA accessibility and sidewalks, trash, safety, crime, over population, gentrification.
Question 3. Knowing the lower 8.3 acres are being sold to a private developer, what is your dream or vision for the Jacobs site? Most common responses: community space, community recreation, publicly accessible communal amenities such as swimming pool, bike paths, and dog parks.
There is consensus among the community in concern about the site, the desire for transparency, and public involvement in the planning and development of the site. There was no clear consensus on the best use of the site going forward. Some community members were disappointed that negotiations with California Highway Patrol were unsuccessful. There was discussion about what private development may be appropriate for this site, and there were differing opinions. A desire for solely community amenities aren't feasible, and there were various concerns reported around what kinds of housing could be built, concerns around high-density, building height, traffic and parking, safety, and property values. People also wished to see low-density, affordable, mixed income and owner-occupied housing. Community members also would like to see mixed use such as small shops, medical offices, neighborhood markets, and restaurants.
Director Kenyon reiterated that the City and the School District are separate entities, and the Jacobs site is not owned by the City and do not have site control. The City does have influence over the future use of the site through zoning power. The site is currently zoned designated Public Facilities, which limits the site to public and civic uses. Any private development would require Zoning and General Plan Map amendments to rezone the site. Rezoning can be initiated by the property owner, City Council, or by ballot initiative and there is a ballot initiative that qualified for the City's next general election that if passed would in part require the City to rezone the Jacobs site.
State law requires the City to approve a rezone of unused school sites to at least the same as adjacent properties, and the zoning adjacent to the site is Residential Low (R1). The City could also rezone to Residential Medium (R2) or Residential High (R3), or to a mixed use Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which would allow limited-scale neighborhood-serving commercial uses and residential uses. These are base zones, and the City also has overlay zones that can be applied to a base zone to add restrictions or additional allowances, such as a Neighborhood Market Overlay to allow limited neighborhood-serving uses in a residential zone. There are also Special Considerations Overlay that are site-specific standards that can be adopted through ordinance.
Staff has identified three different potential next steps for City Council. Council could initiate General Plan and Zoning Map amendments for the lower portion of the Jacobs site. Staff does recommend doing optional additional background work to determine how to rezone this site. Staff would recommend additional public outreach, hiring and expert to perform an economic feasibility analysis to determined what could be supported in this market, and hiring a graphic designer to explore different site layout configurations, test site capacity, and use the visuals to communicate options. Based on this research and outreach, the City would propose new land use designation and base zoning district, and an optional development of a Special Consideration Overlay ordinance tailored to the Jacobs site. Staff does anticipate the rezoning of the Jacobs site will require CEQA environmental analysis, likely a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the amendment would require noticed public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. The estimated cost for this option is around $75,000, approximately $35,000 of which would be for the CEQA environmental review. Rezoning would not affect the use of the site by state agencies; they do not have to follow local zoning. Rezoning could be completed by the end of the year if begin the process right away, but if the initiative passes, could be required to rezone again. At that point, additional CEQA environmental review would not be required if rezoning is required by voters.
The City could instead develop and adopt a new 'Mixed Neighborhood" Overlay Zone that could be applied to the Jacobs site and other sites around the City. This would be similar to the Neighborhood Market overlay and would have per-determined standards for integrating higher-density residential and mixed uses into predominately single-family neighborhoods. The standards would be focused on form, design, and layout of buildings and sites to ensure compatibility in scale with surrounding single-family homes. The overlay would include diagrams or other visuals to help communicate the communities vision for appropriate form and scale of development. The same density can look very different depending on what form that development takes. The older neighborhoods of Eureka have great examples of blending of higher-density residences in predominately single-family neighborhoods, sometimes from conversions of existing large housing into smaller units. This overlay would be an attempt to recreate these gentle density using overlay regulations. The steps for this option would be similar to the rezoning option by starting with public outreach, visual communications of different options, overlay development and public hearings before the Planning Commission and Council. As this overlay would add to an existing base zone, staff anticipates being able to use a common sense CEQA exemption, which means the estimated cost would be cheaper, at about $40,000. This could also be completed by the end of the year, and could be applied to the Jacobs site in the future regardless of whether the initiative passes, and could be applied elsewhere in the City.
Alternately, the City could do neither of these and take no action at this time, but wait for greater certainty about the site ownership and the results of the ballot initiative, or wait for the School District or future owners to request the land use or zoning map amendments. If the property owner initiates the rezoning, they pay for the process.
Council Questions
Councilmember Moulton appreciates the synthesis of the Town Hall and all of the differing opinions, asked about the rezoning process, if the City did the rezoning, and the ballot initiative passed and the City would need to rezone again, would would the second rezoning cost. Answer: Director Kenyon said that if the City was rezoning as a result of the ballot initiative, there would be no point in doing any public outreach or background analysis, the City would not be able to change anything about what the initiative would require, would be paying the cost of going to the Planning Commission and City Council twice with newspaper and mailed notices, which is about $5,000. Councilmember Moulton: if the City did nothing and the ballot initiative passed and the City were to rezone then, is that about what it would cost? Director Kenyon: yes.
Councilmember Moulton asked what the $40,000 cost in the mixed overlay option include. Answer: Director Kenyon explained that is the cost of the outreach that the City would conduct, and the graphic design to create visuals to communicate what forms would be appropriate in a single-family neighborhood, to show single-family scaled would allow for multiple units or commercial, and then developing that ordinance to those design standards, and would include diagrams or other visuals incorporated into that ordinance, and then going before Planning Commission and Council. Graphic design is a large portion of the cost, would have to hire someone to do that, do not have graphic designer on staff.
Councilmember Moulton noted that if the City were to rezone and the ballot initiative passed, that would undo the rezoning, asked what would happen if the overlay were to be implemented at the Jacobs site and then the ballot initiative were to pass, what that would do to the overlay. Answer: Director Kenyon said that ballot initiative focuses on what uses are allowed, and it requires that 40% of the site to be reserved for high density residential. The City would have to make sure that the overlay is written in a way to not impede any of that, if it was focused only on design and form, do not anticipate it conflicting with the initiative.Councilmember Moulton: the overlay would be more of what it could look like, not necessarily what can happen there. Director Kenyon: correct, it wouldn't be controlling uses, it would be controlling form.
Councilmember Castellano thanked staff and Councilmember Moulton for holding the public meeting, it continues to be informative. Prefaced by saying that overlays and form-based code is cool, asked if an overlay were developed and if the Jacobs site remained zoned public, would the site eventually need to be rezoned or could an overlay be incongruent. Answer: Director Kenyon said that the focus of the overlay would be on housing and commercial, and would not apply to a public base zone. Councilmember Castellano asked if the overlay were to be developed, would it be applied to other sites in Eureka, a useful tool in general. Answer: Director Kenyon said that is the thought process behind this option, that it would be a useful tool to help understand what the density requirements mean, to help communicate what different density levels can look like, and also looking forward, if are looking to up-zone a transitional area and are concerned about nearby neighborhoods and how that could affect their character, could apply this overlay in those situations. That is part of the cost of the general overlay, would be looking at a number of neighborhoods in the City to develop that overlay, to make sure it is more broadly appropriate. If were just focused on the Jacobs site, would only be looking at that site. Councilmember Castellano noted that the public process in both the zoning change and overlay option would be equally as robust. Director Kenyon: correct, if developing a general overlay, would not be so focused on just the Jacobs site, would be thinking about single-family neighborhoods in general.
Councilmember Fernandez confirmed that Council is giving direction and not voting on this item, asked if the City has made the attempt to reach out to the developer. Asked if the City has done anything like this in the past, where a parcel was in escrow or newly purchased, and the City has changed the land use designation or approved a new overlay. Answer City Manager Slattery: confirmed that Council is providing direction and not voting, and that the City has attempted to reach out to the developer many times and not gotten any response. Director Kenyon clarified that the School District is still the owner of the site, they are in escrow, and there is not a known end of escrow date. City Manager Slattery is not aware of the City initiating a change in zoning or overlay application when a property has changed hands before. Director Kenyon noted that there were a number of properties that were rezoned with the Comprehensive Inland Zoning Code update, there were a number of properties that were rezoned, and that was a City initiative amendment. City Manager Slattery agreed, that as a part of the General Plan and zoning code updates, that has occurred before. Director Kenyon noted that they are in the process of updating zoning codes for the Local Coastal Program for the Coastal Zone. Councilmember Fernandez asked if this was something novel, or has the City done something similar in the past. City Manager Slattery: if reviewed properties where rezoning has occurred, it is possible that some were in escrow when rezoning had been implemented before. Director Kenyon noted that the rezoning process is usually initiated by the property owner. Councilmember Fernandez asked if the cost of the other two options would change if the City were to wait to see what happens. City Manager Slattery said that the cost would remain the same, if the City chose to do this two years from now, barring inflation, would be spending the same amount of money to implement an overlay. If the City did a CEQA on a rezone, it would be the same process. The processes outline by Director Kenyon would be the same. Councilmember Fernandez asked if the City went with the first two options, would the City be hosting a second town hall to get more input from residents. Answer: Director Kenyon confirmed, foresees the process as starting to really drill down into what people would feel is appropriate and get into details, if site-specific, if it were the overlay, look at typologies of building and surveying to see how people feel about different building types and items like that.
Councilmember Bauer would like to get a broader sense of community development, have talked about a lot of housing projects. Asked how many large-scale projects are occurring in the city right now. Answer: Director Kenyon said there are a lot. There are five projects that are on City property that the City is actively helping with, helping with community meetings on for affordable housing, and then there are other private developments happening, like the ACGC two mixed-use developments in Old Town that are large developments. Councilmember Bauer asked if staff was consumed by these projects as far as time goes. Answer: Director Kenyon said that the department is busy. Did reach out to a consultant to see what the costs would be, can expand the capacity by tapping consultants to do planning work.Councilmember Bauer wanted to get a sense of what this would entail for staff to undertake another large project that the City may not have much say over in the end. Answer: Director Kenyon agreed that staff does have a lot of balls in the air, and adding more items would mean that some things could take longer, noted that there is always that opportunity cost.
Public comment for this item
Seven people shared public comment. One commenter spoke about other large high density locations in the region and is concerned about parking. One speaker commented about the structure of the town hall and would like for the bike plan project to do something similar. One speaker spoke about language and use of the term project and the connotations of that word in relation to housing. One commenter has been a resident of the neighborhood and asks Council to wait to take action to see what the new owner will do. One commenter is a homeowner and is excited to see development happen at the site. One commenter noted that the property doesn't belong to the City and why have any discussion. One commenter spoke about housing rental vacancy rates being low, and the market pricing people out of homes, would like Council to keep more ways to have homes to be built in mind.
Council Comments
Councilmember Castellano noted that the City has no control over the sale of the Jacobs site, and invites the public to reach out to the School District to share comments with them. Regarding the matter at hand, have seen that the public is activated about this site, and does not think that the conversation has to be dictated by the election cycle, and think it would be worthwhile to continue to nourish the public's interest in discussing land use, overlays, and similar items. Believes that an overlay would be a useful tool for potentially this site and for many other sites in the City. Would like to explore that and support public conversation in land use and what serves neighborhood interests, whether it is the Jacobs site or other sites in general.
Councilmember Moulton commented why had asked staff to come back with options regarding the Jacobs site, and it is about the engagement of the public. People are fired up about this now. The second ward has the most young families with children, it is the poorest and most diverse neighborhood in town, and would guess that are also the people with the least amount of time available to go out in the evening and engage in politics. The fact that 100 people showed up in Chambers and on Zoom to discuss this, not just to complain but to also bring ideas about what they wanted. Wants to capture that, and that the people of the second ward deserve to have their voices heard, and should catch this now and not let it dissolve and become a footnote and let the Jacobs campus be a pawn in the broader scheme of everything that is happening in Eureka. Does not like the idea of spending money on something that could potentially end up just going out of the window. Councilmember Moulton does like the idea of creating a zoning code overlay that would address the concerns of the folks in the neighborhood and have multiple purposes going down the road; spend money creating something that would not just be useful on the Jacobs campus, and satisfy the concerns of the second ward, but also be of use to the City going forward. The the cost of not doing anything is not nothing. The cost of not doing anything is the input, the goodwill, the happiness of the people in the second ward, who live where the Jacobs site is.
Councilmember Fernandez was was elected to the School Board in 2018 after Jacobs had been closed, and it took about a year to get the site moving to the point of being razed. Understands the anxiety around the site. Inclined to wait as the property hasn't changed hands yet. Is in favor of an overlay, believe would serve to hold another town hall to see what that means. Not inclined to approve another $40,000 until have a clearer picture.
Councilmember Bauer agrees with the rest of Council, agrees that an overlay would be good, and also agree most strongly with Councilmember Fernandez about waiting, do not want to spend money on a hypothetical. There are a lot of developments that are in the works and trying to keep momentum going. Until the ballot initiative is decided, would rather focus efforts on what we already know we can do and what staff is already doing. Leaning toward waiting it out to see what happens.
Councilmember Castellano appreciates the concerns for staff time, appreciates the perspective from Councilmember Moulton as the representative for the people who live at the Jacobs site. Asked if there could be a space to compromise by looking at cost savings with the overlay options, and keep the conversation happening, but without sidelining the other projects that staff is already working on, if there is consensus from Council in terms of moving forward. Director Kenyon noted that could start off with public meetings, and not commit to the whole process right away.
Councilmember Moulton noted that if the City does something it might get changed, and noted that if there is development at the Jacobs campus it will not likely be a school again, and will change to something. Believes that the starting point should be what the people in the public want. If the City were to create a mixed neighborhood overlay, would that be an efficiency in other developments, if that were already ready to go with that public input process, would that make it easier and faster to integrate higher density housing into single-family neighborhoods. Director Kenyon: yes, foresees it being helpful in the future. Councilmember Moulton: it could be a short-term expenditure of staff time but a long-term savings. Director Kenyon: yes. City Manager Slattery added to clarify, based on comments made about the overlay, and how it would change; an overlay would not change with the ballot measure, if the overlay went through, the ballot measure would have no effect on that. Councilmember Moulton added that it would remain useful and be useful in other parts of the City doing work that would need to be done ahead of time.
Councilmember Fernandez has concerns about the public not having understanding of what an overlay is, is not inclined to say yes to that until people have a better understanding of what it is.
Councilmember Moulton understands that part of the process and expense in the overlay option would be the public education and communication and logistics aspects of teaching the public and gathering the input based on the specific education about how things would look and how things would lay out. Director Kenyon confirmed this. Councilmember Moulton commented that this items is asking if we do the rezoning, if we do the zoning overlay, which in order to move forward would have this expense but would be useful in a variety of ways in the city, or do we do nothing. Director Kenyon: or move forward with public meetings to talk more about overlays and options and things like that. Councilmember Moulton: potentially a town hall that is purely educational about zoning overlays? Director Kenyon: I guess. Councilmember Moulton: somehow I don't see that as being as enthusiastically participated in as the town hall we have already hosted and gotten a lot of feedback from, and spent a lot of time analyzing the feedback from.
Councilmember Castellano noted that it doesn't have to be an abstract overlay town hall, it makes sense to have context, and it makes sense to have the context be the Jacobs site as a case use example of what it might look like, is a useful study, is very much in the intention, and could get people participating and thinking and also learning about overlays.
Director Kenyon asked if Council would like staff to bring an item back to the next Council meeting with a recommended motion. Mayor Bergel noted that there is not consensus, so that may be the way to move forward. City Attorney Luna suggested that Council narrow down and dispose of items that do not want to consider on an up or down motion. Noted hearing some consensus of not being in favor of a rezone at this stage.
Councilmember Moulton would be satisfied with further conversation, as it sounds like most of Council are not in favor of outright rezoning with the cost and potential waste of effort and money there. Want more information about the potential for a mixed neighborhood zoning overlay and how that would look. Council is in consensus. Director Kenyon will provide more information about the mixed neighborhood overlay option and a potential recommended motion moving forward.
I.4. Housing Element Annual Progress Report - Watch
Housing Element Annual Progress Report
Presented by Development Services Director Kenyon
Housing Element annual progress report (APR) for calendar year 2023, is required by the State; State Housing Law requires every county and city in California to plan for a share of the states total expected housing need in their Housing Element, which is part of their General Plans. This is on an eight year cycle, and the current cycle runs through 2027. The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) determines how much housing at the different affordability levels is needed for each region, the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The state allocated Humboldt County 3,390 dwelling units for the 2019 to 2027 cycle, and that is the goal of building that many net new units in that cycle. Those are divided into income levels.
The Humboldt County Association of Governments (HCAOG) allocates the RHNA numbers across the jurisdictions within the region. HCAOG allocated 952 units to Eureka, or 28% of the total number of units. The share is based on the percent of the regional population and workforce, averaging those two percentages. The RHNA allocations are divided into four income sub-categories, and for a housing unit to be affordable to that income category, the housing costs including utilities need to be about 30% or less of monthly income. State law requires the City to provide adequate land with adequate development standards to accommodate the RHNA numbers, and the City must report on the progress to meeting the RHNA each year.
The City reports four different metrics in a document provided by HCD, complete permit applications for new housing units, building permits approved but not yet issued, building permits issued and fees paid, and when Certificate of Occupancy has been granted, or the permit is 'finaled.' HCD tracks progress toward RHNA numbers when permits are issued, not when the Certificates of Occupancy are granted. The APR is only reporting on new units, which are separate living quarters and includes accessory dwelling units (ADU), Homekey conversions, and single-room occupancy units. Does not include shared living quarters like dorms or assisted living facilities with group living arrangements, or quarters in institutions or general hospitals, student housing, or quarters in transient occupancy hotels. The APR also only includes applications in 2023, not ongoing projects.
The 2023 Housing Element APR includes 30 separate new housing applications totaling 47 units, and the vast majority of the projects were ADUs. Four projects required discretionary approvals. 27 separate building permits were issued, totaling 29 units and 21 of those units were ADUs. 21 Certificates of Occupancy were issued, totaling 70 units, 49 of those units were in the Providence Supportive Housing project on 4th Street, where a motel was converted into 48 very-low income units and one manager's unit.
The reporting table generated by document provided by HCD shows the City has only met 16% of the required housing units with 152 new units to date, but Director Kenyon believes that the table is not correct and that the City is farther along. It appears that two Homekey projects were not reported, and another projects was reported in the incorrect income category. These corrections increase the total number of units to date to 218, or 23% of the RHNA numbers.
There were 37 distinct ADUs where a building permits was approved, issued, or finaled in 2023. They averaged to be about 600 square feet in size. 15 units were new construction and 22 were conversion or legalization of an existing space. A lot of the conversions were converting garages, and the average and median costs were between $45,000 and $46,000. The of the new construction permits for only ADUs, they were much more expensive than the conversions, including installation of per-fabricated ADUs on new foundations.
ADUs mostly only require a building permit and are allowed on any parcel in any district in conjunction with a single- or multi-family dwelling. Sewer and water impact fees are waived. No new parking spaces are required for an ADU, and if existing covered parking is eliminated to create the ADU, replacement parking is not required. ADUs do not count toward maximum density, floor area ratio, or site coverage standards, it is a bonus unit above site standards.
Motion to Extend Meeting
Council voted to continue the meeting until 10:00 p.m.; motion carried with four yes votes and one absent.
Council Questions
Councilmember Castellano asked if the Providence site is now full, and noted that senior home repairs were mentioned in the housing element and the general plan report and would like to hear more about that program and the implementation. Answer: City Manager Slattery said that the Mother Bernard site operated by Providence is now full and has a waiting list, and the Housing Manager in the Finance Department can provide information about the senior home repair program.
Public comment for this item
Two people provided public comment. One commenter noted that the RHNA numbers should be a floor and not a ceiling, would encourage the City to increase housing beyond the numbers mandated by the state. Another commenter noted they were not aware of the senior home improvement program.
I.5. 2040 General Plan Annual Progress Report - Watch
2040 General Plan Progress Report 2023
Review the 2040 General Plan - Learn more information about the 2040 General Plan and review previous progress reports
Presented by Senior Planner Castellano
The California Government Code section 65400 requires the City to submit an annual progress report (APR) on the implementation of its General Plan to the City Council and to the State by April 1 each year. The General Plan APR highlights key accomplishments in implementing the City's 2040 General Plan during calendar year 2023. The accomplishments are organized by their respective goals. This year's APR is not a complete list, anticipate this being more comprehensive next year.
A General Plan works as a blueprint for a local government and how that jurisdiction will develop, and is a requirement from the State of California. Has a long-term planning horizon of 20 to 25 years. The City's 2040 General Plan lays out the future of the City's development in general terms through a series of policy statements and maps, and is the supreme document from which all local land use decisions must derive.
All General Plans in California must include seven mandatory elements: Land Use, Housing, Open Space, Conservation, Safety, Circulation, and Noise. It can include additional optional elements that speak to other topics of local interest. The 2040 General Plan's
The 2040 General Plan's required and optional elements are presented in the following five sections:
- Section 3.1 Our Community: Land Use, Housing (under separate cover), Economy, and Historic and Cultural Preservation
- Section 3.2 Our Environment: Natural Resources and Open Space, Agriculture and Timberlands, and Air Quality and Climate Change
- Section 3.3 Our Civic Resources: Arts and Culture, Parks and Recreation, and Community Services
- Section 3.4 Our Infrastructure: Mobility and Utilities
- Section 3.5 Our Well-Being: Health and Safety, and Noise
The City began the process of updating the General Plan in 2013, the previous general plan had been updated in 1997. The update process spanned five years and included outreach and deliberation through stakeholder interviews, community workshops, web-based virtual town halls, focus groups, landowner requests, City Council and Planning Commission check-in sessions, environmental impact review scoping meeting, dedicated website, community flyers, media releases and public hears. The City adopted the 2040 General Plan in October of 2018, and began the Housing Element update in April of 2019. Council adopted the 2019 to 2027 housing element in December of 2019. The Housing element is a component of the General Plan, but is on an 8 year cycle.
Council will receive the report tonight, and if there are changes recommended, those changes do not need to go through a process. Staff will then submit the report to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) by the April 1 deadline.
Council Questions
No questions for this item.
Public comment for this item
One commenter asked how to access the General Plan.
Council Comments
Councilmember Castellano would like to encourage the public to review the general plan, since so much of what the City does comes from this document.
Mayor Bergel added that the document is easy to read, also encourages the public to review the document.
Councilmember Bauer noted that has heard from the public with questions about why the City may be embarking on a project, and that a lot of those projects are ones that have been listed in the General Plan for a number of years.
J. Future Agenda Items - Watch
Councilmember Castellano noted a reference to the Homeless Strategy and Master Plan in another document, would like to ask staff to provide an update, in a time-frame that works well for staff. Response: consensus from Council.
Councilmember Fernandez would like an update on the street pavement and rehabilitation. Response: City Manager Slattery said that the CIP (Capital Improvement Plan) report will be coming before Council at a meeting in April; this satisfies the request.
Councilmember Bauer would like to explore what the County is doing regarding nitrous oxide, and explore if the City would like to take their same approach. Response: consensus from Council.
K. City Manager Reports - Watch
City Manager Slattery thanked Development Services staff on being able to adapt to the needs of the room and still provide efficient reports and reach all of the pertinent issues.
Introduced Assistant Planner Ponce, bringing a report of the neighborhood naming project, which is a part of the Strategic Visioning process.
K.1. Update on Neighborhood Naming Effort - Watch
Presented by Assistant Planner Ponce
Brief update on the project. Have collected over 144 names from various forms of outreach. Planning staff started outreach for the project at the Friday Night Markets in June of 2023, have also tabled at College of the Redwoods and CalPoly Humboldt, and hopes to do more tabling now that the weather is getting warmer. If organization, event leader, or business owner is interested in hosting tables, please contact Assistant Planner Ponce via email. There are laminated maps in the lobby of City Hall and outside of Council Chambers for people to submit ideas, and have posted flyers. Have media coverage by local news organizations and a high school newspaper. Presented at committee meetings, and published a Talk Eureka webpage, where community members can submit, comment, and vote on ideas and suggestions. Since the page was published, have had about 500 views, and 38 people have contributed to the site. The platform may be difficult to use the mapping tools on phones. Have started working with a local high school student who will be working on this project as a part of their AP Government class project. Will be doing more targeted outreach to areas that have not had as many name submissions. Would love suggestions for outreach.
Once enough broad input is received, the next step will be to analyze and present all of the feedback. The neighborhood naming effort is also a neighborhood mapping project, and anticipate the most difficult part will be to determine boundaries within the neighborhoods. Anticipate putting a survey together to have the community vote on different name and map options. After the results from that, will present to Council for review. If Council decides to adopt an official neighborhood map, would like to establish a process for the community to change names and boundaries in the future. When there is a final map, will be collaborate with other departments about how to incorporate those names into the neighborhoods. Could be through placards on street signs, or sidewalk art, or murals, banners, or items like that.
M. Council Reports & City Related Travel Reports - Watch
Councilmember Castellano traveled to Willits for the Redwood Empire CalCities meetings, will be traveling to Burbank for the CalCities policy meeting, will be participating in the Housing, Community, and Economic Development Policy committee . Attended Eureka Main Street meeting, as well as the Eureka Main Street Economic Vitality meeting. Attended the Bike Plan meeting, and will be hosting a Town Hall on Tuesday, April 30. The topic is open, if people in the First Ward would like to submit ideas, interested in focusing on neighborhood connection and community.
Councilmember Moulton Attended a Joint Powers Authority meeting, attended the recent healing ceremony for Nex Benedict, was glad to acknowledge Two Spirit Day. Noted that the Sisters hosted a very moving and healing moment for folks who are feeling the hurt deeply and afraid for themselves or their loved ones. Honored to be there, and grateful for the folks in the community to take the time to put together what people need. Noted that the General Plan is available on the City website, look for the 2040 General Plan if using the website search bar.
Councilmember Bauer also attended the CalCities meeting in Willits, attended Keep Eureka Beautiful Tree Planting and invited public to take part in a tree planting; will be traveling to CalCities Environmental Quality meeting. March 30 will being hosting a cleanup and invasive species removal with PacOut Green Team in Cooper Gulch. Historical Society will be showing Times-Standard newspapers from the past 20 years on display, at the Timber Heritage Association in Samoa, invites public to view.
Councilmember Fernandez thanked staff for translating the Participatory Budget information into Spanish. Attended Pacific Well Policy Makers conference in Yosemite, will be following up with people from Truckee about deed-restricted housing for low-income buyers, would encourage staff to attend the California Climate and Energy Forum. Will be attending CalCities conference in Burbank for Government Transparency and Labor Relations Committee. Participated in ride-along with EPD, also attended the healing ceremony, and noted that Wiyot Two Feathers Family Services is a resource available in the community.
Mayor Bergel May 4th is Mental Health Month, and will have a kickoff event, partnering with NAMI (National Alliance on Mental Illness) and some other folks. Will be hosting a speaker from Canada, and will have two panels, one of professionals and one of people with lived experience.
Thank you for your contribution!
Help us reach out to more people in the community
Share this with family and friends