City Council Meeting Agenda: 11-12-2024 Page 1
Posted: Friday, November 08, 2024
NOTICE AND CALL OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE
TRINIDAD CITY COUNCIL
The Trinidad City Council will hold a regular meeting on TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2024, at 6:00 PM
at the Trinidad Town Hall, 409 Trinity Street, Trinidad, CA.
CLOSED SESSION BEGINS AT 5:00PM
For your convenience, this meeting will also be held via videoconference, hosted on the Zoom platform. Learn more about Zoom here: https://zoom.us
PUBLIC COMMENT: Public comment may be submitted via email in advance of the meeting, or in an orderly process during the meeting. If you do not have access to email and you would like to provide a written statement, please deliver your comments to 409 Trinity Street, Trinidad CA, by 2:00pm on the meeting day, or email to [email protected] HOW TO PARTICIPATE: You are invited to participate in person at the Trinidad Town Hall, or by Zoom. The City will publish a direct link to the Zoom teleconference, along with the participant code, on the City Calendar page online at http://trinidad.ca.gov/calendar
To phone in, dial 1-888-278-0296, Conference Code: 685171 Meeting ID: 830 6279 9131 Passcode: 606763 PLEASE NOTE that live meeting logistics will be prioritized. Connectivity issues on the part of the City may result in the meeting being delayed or rescheduled but technical challenges experienced by individuals will not interrupt or halt progress of the meeting.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. CLOSED SESSION
1. Public Employee Appointment: (Gov. Code section 54957(b)(1).) Title: New/Replacement City Manager
2. Public Employee Appointment: (Gov. Code section 54957(b)(1).) Title: Water Chief Plant Operator
3. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation (Calif. Gov. Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)) (1 Case:
City of Trinidad vs. Tsurai Ancestral Society, et. al, Humb. Co. Sup. Court Case No. 180684) IV. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION
V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – 10-08-2024 cc2
VII. COUNCIL REPORTS/COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS
VIII. STAFF REPORTS – City Manager & Humboldt County Sheriff Dept.
IX. ITEMS FROM THE FLOOR
At this time, members of the public may comment on items NOT appearing on the agenda. Individual comments will be limited to 3 minutes or less. Please direct your comments to the Council as a whole, maintain decorum and avoid personal attacks on staff, members of the Council and/or other members of the public. Council and staff responses will be minimal for non-agenda items.
City Council Meeting Agenda: 11-12-2024 Page 2
X. CONSENT AGENDA All matters on the Consent Agenda are considered routine by the City Council and are enacted in one motion. There is no separate discussion of any of these items. If discussion is requested by any Council member, that item is removed from the Consent Calendar and considered separately. A single opportunity for public comment on the Consent Agenda is available to the public.
1. Staff Activity Report – October 2024
2. Financial Statements – September 2024
3. Law Enforcement Report – October 2024.
4. Ocean Protection Council Funding Opportunity to Implement Coastal Resilience Plan Priority Projects on Edwards and Axel Lindgren Memorial Trail.
DISCUSSION/ACTION AGENDA ITEMS
1. Annual Unmet Transit Needs Hearing
2. Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Update/Presentation
3. Discussion/Presentation regarding Law Enforcement JPA/Contract Concept
4. Discussion/Updates regarding Saunders Park Playground Concept and Tennis/Pickleball Court Improvement Project.
5. Discussion/Decision to Begin the Recruitment Process to Fill Expiring Planning Commissioner Terms.
6. November General Election Update
X. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
XI. ADJOURNMENT
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR:
OCTOBER 08, 2024 CC2
Supporting Documentation follows with: 5 PAGES
10-08-2024 City Council Meeting Minutes Page 1
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TRINIDAD CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, OCTOBER 08, 2024 (LIVE/HYBRID)
I. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Kelly called the live-hybrid meeting to order at 6:00pm. Council members in attendance: Kelly, Ladwig, Tuttle, Breckenridge. West was running late. City Staff in attendance: City Manager Eli Naffah, City Clerk Gabriel Adams, Project Manager Jennifer Hakenen, Administrative Assistant Anton Souza, and City Planner Trever Parker. Approximately (8) participants were present by video-conference, and (7) were present live at the beginning of the meeting.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. CLOSED SESSION
1. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT (Gov. Code section 54957(b)(1).) Title: New/Replacement City Manager
2. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT (Gov. Code section 54957(b)(1).) Title: Water Chief Plant Operator IV. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION
No reportable action taken in closed session.
V. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Motion (Ladwig/Breckenridge) to approve the agenda as submitted. Passed 4-0.
VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – 09-24-2024 cc2
Motion (Ladwig/Kelly) to approve the minutes as submitted. Passed 4-0.
VII. COUNCIL REPORTS/COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS
Reports given at the 09/24/2024 cc2 meeting. No reports provided at this meeting.
VIII.STAFF REPORTS – City Manager & Law Enforcement
City Manager Naffah highlighted accomplishments summarized in the staff report included in the meeting packet, water tank and pipleline project update, Luffenholtz Creek flow 3.19cfs on 09/19/2024, Water Department staff State Certification testing update, etc.
HCSO Lt. McCall provided a brief summary of the September statistics, provided in the meeting packet.
Nothing unusual to report.
IX. ITEMS FROM THE FLOOR – No items shared.
(Three (3) minute limit per Speaker unless Council approves request for extended time.) X. CONSENT AGENDA
1. Staff Activity Report – September 2024
2. Financial Statements – August 2024
3. Law Enforcement Report – September 2024
Motion (Kelly/Tuttle) to approve the consent agenda as submitted. Passed 4-0.
XI. DISCUSSION/ACTION AGENDA ITEMS
1. Presentation/Discussion regarding Axel Lindgren Memorial Trail (ALMT) Conceptual Redesign.
Presenter Sarah Lindgren-Akana, Secretary for the Tsurai Ancestral Society - the Yurok Indians from the Village of Tsurai whose family were the lineal descendants of the village. Grandfather Axel Lindgren, Jr. helped create the Museum, assist with collection of artifacts there, and shown in the murals on Murphy’s Market. The ALMT is a cultural and ceremonial path that existed since time immemorial. The hillside and sensitive areas near Old Home Beach began failing awhile back. Trail users began making a voluntary trail around the bottom failure. In 1997 the new cable steps were installed in the non-traditional route due to higher expense related to the traditional reroute. Axel Jr. allowed the re-route with the hope and understanding the traditional path would be addressed at some point in the future as resources allowed.
Presenting images from the technical memo included in the meeting packet, Lindgren explained that a temporary re-opening of the trail has been discussed, but the trail has been overgrown with brush and small trees. RCAA 10-08-2024 City Council Meeting Minutes Page 2
was contacted for assistance. The traditional path connected to the landing boulder in the preferred route was found to be problematic due to erosion. As a result, a boardwalk style step system is being proposed. The old cable system has failed. Trying to redo what was done previously would be too much for the trail to handle. A small bridge concept from the trail, to the boulder, down steps to the beach is the preferred option now. Step systems work well for other local trails, but behavioral analysis suggests what works for one trail may not work for others. This trail has unique soil conditions, and this is a protected ceremonial trail with a design that integrates these characteristics, but is also long-lasting and feasible.
Lindgren continued, stating that this is a big project. First step is to create a design that won’t destabilize the bluff. To do this, we need help from RCAA (funded by the City) to de-brush the last section of the trail to understand what we’re dealing with. Once that’s accomplished, significant funding must be sourced and discussed through G2G meetings. We may have to work on the project in segments if needed.
Council questions included:
Breckenridge: First step is to brush the lower trial to complete the investigation? Lindgren confirmed, adding the G2G with the Rancheria would also need to occur. We are also accepting donations for this project as well.
Public comments included:
Dick Bruce – Trinidad
Regarding funding, what’s the realistic timing of grant funding being available? Also, the GHD study suggests this will be a two-million dollar project. Is this trail project eligible for that kind of funding? Will environmental planning be needed first before grants are pursued? Lindgren stated she wasn’t a grant writer, but that the Tsurai was expecting partnership with the City for this service, and timeline estimates would be up to them to comment on. Naffah responded, passing the buck to engineering and grant staff, but generally speaking a short-term solution to open the trail as soon as possible while working on the long-term fix was the goal.
Mayor Kelly noted there may be other possible construction options, with the State Parks Department for instance, that may be suitable and more affordable. Tsurai Management Team is encouraged to talk with them.
Janine Pfieffer – Ecologist for Tolowa, Resighini, and Trinidad Rancheria.
Currently working with Cher-Ae Heights Indian Colony, and interested in hearing from the City Council as to what degree Cher-Ae Heights Tribal leadership has been approached to help fund the project, as they’re closest in proximity to the trail.
Lindgren interjected, clarifying the Rancheria (not colony) is in close proximity to the City, but the Yurok Tribe is of historic origin to this area, and comprised of many villages. Tsurai Ancestral lands extend south to the Little River, within the Yurok Tribal area. Consultation is required under law. The City is setting up a G2G meeting with the Rancheria to consult. The Rancheria occupy lands within the traditional ancestral village land. The Rancheria consists of several Tribal backgrounds. Lineal, ancestral descendency has been proved in court.
Mayor Kelly added that there is a Tsurai Management Team. The meetings traditionally included Councilmembers when cultural assets are not being disclosed. The Rancheria has not been included in this level of planning, but is now being brought into the discussion. This is the first time the City Council has seen the plans included in this meeting packet.
Robert Hemstead – Trinidad Rancheria
Regarding Lindgren’s comments, there is contentious discussion and litigation on this matter. This is Yurok Territory. You can’t take that away from someone because their grandparents decided to start a Rancheria earlier than certain laws were created to protect Yurok Tribal Territory. I’m a descendent of several local tribes, specifically Yurok. Appreciate having the opportunity to be involved.
Lindgren responded, stating the current litigation between the City and Tsurai is a great place to have this discussion and we hope the Rancheria responds to our requests for documents and to get involved. That is the place to settle this. We want to protect our village and not constantly lock horns with the Rancheria. The litigation is a great venue to have these discussions.
Bryce Kenny – Trinidad
Thanked Lindgren for the presentation. Looking forward to working with the Council soon. As far as the design is concerned, it seems a little over the top. It’s a staircase, not a trail, which seems out of character with the surroundings, and will be very expensive to maintain. Shifting attention to the bigger picture, the 12.5 acres 10-08-2024 City Council Meeting Minutes Page 3
should be in tribal ownership. It’s way overdue. The City’s caught in the middle of a competition between the Rancheria and Yurok Tribe over entitlement to this area. The momentum has been to transfer title to the Yurok Tribe. This is taking up too much staff time that can be utilized elsewhere. In the meantime, a simple repair to the bottom of the trail so it can be reopened, would be a great thing to do. The current closure is currently illegal in terms of permitting with the Coastal Commission.
Robert Hemstead interjected, stating inaccuracy of those comments.
Mayor Kelly requested to shift focus to the trail, and off the title transfer, and protected the speaker’s rights to comment.
Lindgren noted that the entire trail needs to be engineered. The City hasn’t done any maintenance, upkeep, or repairs to the property since being handed ownership in 1983. Sewage, saturation, or any other issue identified was ignored by the City. In order to work through this in a sustainable way, we need to address it in a bigger way. Cable steps aren’t sustainable. Keeping things simple is 30 years too late. There’s a major problem there and we don’t want to destabilize the bluff. We have been working hard to find ways to make this trail usable and sustainable in the long-term without harming the bluff. We’ve always looked for a quick fix and transferring to a Tribe. We can’t keep kicking the can down the road. If we want to use the trail, we need to do it in a more thoughtful way so a bigger problem isn’t left for the future to inherit. GHD engineers are well equipped to design this properly. People have been living in the Study Area in tents, defecating, with dogs. How can we make it safe again without doing further harm. We chose this design to keep people on the trail.
Councilmember Jack West arrived at 6:45pm.
Mayor Kelly thanked the TMT for presenting, offering City support.
Lindgren added that her grandfather wanted this trail to be available to the community and invited and thanked everyone for their continued participation.
Presentation item only. No decision was made.
2. Discussion/Decision regarding Appeal of Planning Commission’s Denial to Extend the Temporary Closure of the Van Wycke Trail, CDP#2024-01E.
City Manager Naffah referenced the three-page report written by City Planner Trever Parker included in the meeting packet, along with his letter making the appeal himself. He defended his right to make the appeal based on recommendation and advice from the City Attorney, referencing Municipal Code appeal language. This appeal will hopefully allow additional three months to wrap this up – hopefully sooner – with G2G meetings with the Yurok and Tsurai. We also received input from CIRA with actions that can be taken to open the trail, that we’d like to share during G2G meetings proposed.
City Planner Trever Parker echoed the hope shared by City Manager Naffah that a conclusion can be reached within the next few months. Given the complexities surrounding the issue, the Council should think carefully through this. The Planning Commission had concerns that would be better addressed by the Council. No one wants to get back into the CDP closure cycle, hence the additional 3 months requested.
Council questions included:
Ladwig: Encourage planning G2G as soon as possible. I will move mountains to attend these G2G’s to conclude this process. West agreed.
Kelly: G2G’s are important. Back in 2019 the City had a $750k opportunity to repair the trail, and spent quite a bit on possible design concepts. The City Council overturned the Planning Commission’s vote to proceed with that project. Many people, including the tribal entities, objected to the repair due to an over-engineered approach. I’m frustrated when people state “nothing has been done”. There has been work done. TAS and Yurok have confirmed their belief that the trail should remain closed. I feel the trail use should be open with restricted, unstable ground caution (locals only).
Ladwig added that the prior major-repair concept included multi-modal access due to the Caltrans funding requirements, making it a significant repair. The City decided to reject the grant and pursue other options. 10-08-2024 City Council Meeting Minutes Page 4
Public comment included:
Bryce Kenny – Trinidad
My recollection was the prior design was rejected due to Tribal objection to pile driving necessary to create footings for the bridge concept. Putting up signs warning of use at risk is a major move forward. Is that trail an important cultural resource to the City – as is the ALMT to the Tsurai? If so, and I believe it is, we should keep it going. A closure lasting 5-years can’t be considered temporary. We’ve consulted enough. It’s time for the tribes to allow us to do minor handwork on the trail and let the public get back to using it. The appeal should be denied, for these reasons and those outlined in the written public comments submitted. It’s a threat to democracy when government takes power unentitled to them by their governing documents. Please not abuse your authority.
Dick Bruce – Trinidad
Submitted written comments. My understanding is that Van Wycke was a long-standing public right-of-way.
Since when does a tribal entity tell a City what to do with their right-of-ways? What will another meeting accomplish? The Yurok and TAS don’t want the trail open. The public does. The City has dug that area up so many times. I’ve talked with cultural monitors during those projects. Old photos show Van Wycke being a primary road leading up the bluff. The trail is in that exact alignment. If Edwards Street had an issue, would they ignore it for 5-years because a Tribe said there are undisclosed cultural resources there? Written public comment denying the proposed continued appeal were also received from the following individuals:
Tom Davies & Kathleen Lake
Kim Tays
Tristan Cole
City Manager Naffah explained staff is asking for an additional 3 months of closure, representing a last-ditch effort to reach out to the TAS and Yurok Tribe offering input on 2 options – improving the trail or moving it upslope. If neither prevail, we’ll opt to remove the failed improvements and open it up to the public, with caution.
Ideally we return after these discussions and offer the Council input gathered and ask for final direction.
Returning the path to its original, unimproved state would afford the City trail immunity.
Planner Trever Parker added that the G2G is a last-ditch effort to uncover why the Tribe wants the trail closed so the Council can make an informed decision moving forward.
Council comments included:
Kelly: I want to be inclusive. If we don’t overturn the Planning Commission’s decision, and the G2G meetings happen within the next two weeks, we could have the info needed by the October 22 deadline. Naffah stated it would be difficult to coordinate a meeting in 2 weeks.
West: What if we agree to keep the trail is closed but continue to let people use it? Naffah stated the insurance company (CIRA) ultimately made the decision to close it and he would not recommend going against their direction.
Parker noted that by directing Public Works to remove the improvements and opening the trail without tribal consultation, distrust may impact the relationship.
Motion (Ladwig/West) to uphold the City Manager’s appeal and extend the trail closure to December 10, allowing time for the G2G discussions to occur. Passed unanimously.
Kelly noted her appreciation of G2G communication, but there have been many and still no conclusion. We need to make a decision, once and for all. Serious cultural concerns may be persuasive, and we’ll wait to hear back.
3. Discussion/Decision Proclaiming September as Septic Smart Month.
Project Manager Jennifer Hakenen presented the annual update on the OWTS management program and highlighted permit compliance statistics. As of October 01 the City has achieved 80% compliance with only 14% of the residences that have not submitted an application. 10-08-2024 City Council Meeting Minutes Page 5
City Planner Trever Parker touched on some of the points noted in her staff report, included in the meeting packet, identifying some frequent complications uncovered by this program. A trend of new homeowners acquiring properties with the understanding, or expecting, more bedrooms or accessory unit conversions than the septic systems were originally designed for.
Hakenen also touched on compliance procedures and consequences for non-participation.
Presentation only. No decision was made.
4. November General Election Update
City Clerk Adams explained that a mailer was developed and sent to all residents, prepared by the Council in lieu of the Argument In Favor that did not make the Voter Information Guide deadline. There are no deadlines in October and the next report will be on election results in November.
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
- Government-to-Government Meeting Policy with City Attorney Russ Gans present to advise on procedures. - Ongoing Trails Update.
- General Plan Update.
ADJOURNMENT: 8:10pm.
Submitted by: Approved by:
_____________________________ _____________________________ Gabriel Adams Cheryl Kelly
Trinidad City Clerk Mayor
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 1
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ATTACHED
1. Staff Activity Report – October 2024
City Manager’s Report November 12, 2024 Meeting
Water Tank and Pipeline Project:
One of the 150.000-gallon Redwood Water Tank was taken offline the third week of October.
The contractor poured the tank foundation for the new 250,000-gallon on Saturday.
Water Plant:
The palomar pump was replaced at the water plant, and the plant is functioning well. We are asking water customers to conserve water until March as we transition to the new 250,000- gallon Stainless Steel Water Tank.
Trinidad Head Steps:
The bulk of the Trinidad Head Steps project has been completed. The new redwood steps will be open to the public in a week.
ALMT vegetation removal:
The go ahead for the vegetation removal on the Axel Lindgren Memorial Trail (ALMT) has been given. As soon as the contract is signed and the Tsurai Ancestral Society is notified, then vegetation removal can progress.
Speed Humps:
Speed Humps have been placed on View Street and will be placed on Ocean Avenue in the coming days. Signage and white markings on the speed humps will follow.
Holidays:
Town Hall is closed for Veterans Day on Monday, and for Thanksgiving and the Friday after Thanksgiving. We wish all a Happy Thanksgiving!
Chamber New Year’s Eve Celebration:
The Trinidad Chamber of Commerce is planning another New Year’s Eve Party at Town Hall.
STAFF REPORT SUPPLEMENTAL
Date: Tuesday, November 12, 2024
Background Info: The City of Trinidad is responding to the Governor’s Order calling on all Californians to do their part by reducing consumption.
Luffenholtz Creek flow readings are presented to the Council on an as-needed basis - during drought events or when requested. November, December, January, and once again February has delivered abundant amounts of rainfall, providing relief from stress-related drought on the watershed. With this in mind, the focus of these reports (during the wet season) will be to share and put into perspective how Trinidad’s water consumption metrics compare to those of recent years.
The amounts represent the total water sold, captured by 323 customer meters, measured in cubic feet (7.48 gallons = 1 cubic foot).
July 2020 275,612 cuft January 2020 199,348
July 2021 251,168 January 2021 161,379
July 2022 198,081 January 2022 189,201
July 2023 223,806 January 2023 154,543
July 2024 264,491 (21.01% Water Loss) January 2024 148,407 (23.67% Water Loss) August 2020 273,992 February 2020 155,015
August 2021 269,771 February 2021 178,545
August 2022 227,681 February 2022 154,634
August 2023 265,808 February 2023 136,626
August 2024 233,215 (17.85% Water Loss) February 2024 132,690 (11.33% Water Loss) September 2020 302,614 March 2020 164,854
September 2021 227,831 March 2021 187,607
September 2022 216,470 March 2022 184,103
September 2023 200,348 March 2023 152,813
September 2024 200,050 (22.16% Water Loss) March 2024 125,188 (19.75% Water Loss) October 2020 230,430 April 2020 199,450
October 2021 203,176 April 2021 192,287
October 2022 180,065 April 2022 173,115
October 2023 188,335 April 2023 145,504
October 2024 206,875 (21.34% Water Loss) April 2024 176,413 (40.81% Water Loss) November 2019 211,649 May 2020 183,368
November 2020 198,813 May 2021 242,529
November 2021 204,438 May 2022 154,634
November 2022 169,144 May 2023 211,380
November 2023 151,914 (22.06% Water Loss) May 2024 182,738 (14.68% Water Loss) December 2019 201,305 June 2020 240,055
December 2020 185,860 June 2021 269,087
December 2021 201,160 June 2022 233,692
December 2022 170,419 June 2023 209,336
December 2023 122,937 (27% Water Loss) June 2024 229,399 (17.12% Water Loss)
Water sold in October higher than average with several businesses and residents using significant amounts of water. We will continue to monitor consumption each month and report this information (along with summary trends and analysis) to the Council for review, comparison, and questions at each meeting.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 2
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ATTACHED
2. Financial Statements – September 2024
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 3
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ATTACHED
3. Law Enforcement Report – October 2024.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 4
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ATTACHED
4. Ocean Protection Council Funding Opportunity to Implement Coastal Resilience Plan Priority Projects on Edwards and Axel Lindgren Memorial Trail.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM
Date: November 12, 2024
________________________________________________________________________ SUBJECT: OCEAN PROTECTION COUNCIL FUNDING OPPORTUNITY TO IMPLEMENT
COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN PRIORITY PROJECTS ON EDWARDS AND AXEL
LINDGREN MEMORIAL TRAIL
Summary: The City has the opportunity to apply to the Ocean Protection Council’s (OPC) SB 1 SeaLevel Rise Adaptation Planning Grant Program for funding to implement priority recommendations and projects identified in the recently completed Trinidad Coastal Resilience Action Plan. Staff is requesting approval to develop and submit one or two grant applications for addressing the impacts of bluff instability including repair of the Axel Lindgren Memorial Trail, the toe of the bluff and increasing resilience along Edwards Street.
Background: During the development of the Trinidad Coastal Resilience Action Plan (Plan), project participants identified bluff instability on Edwards Street, and loss of coastal pedestrian access, to be a high concern. To address these concerns, the Project Team confirmed that additional planning and studies are needed to fully understand and identify options to address the bluff instability, thus involving studies to understand soil saturation and what the resulting impacts on infrastructure, public access and resources would be. As the City is already seeing the impacts of sea-level rise along our coast, these are issues that the community is stressing to prioritize.
Staff has identified an opportunity to apply to the OPC SB 1 Grant Program which would assist in addressing bluff instability. There are two different potential opportunities, a planning related project, and an implementation project. At this time, staff is currently evaluating if we could have an implementation (construction) project ready by the grant proposal deadline. If it is determined that we are not implementation ready, we still can apply for a planning grant giving us an opportunity to prepare for a priority project to become implementation ready. An example is the Axel Lindgren Memorial Trail, a priority project that was identified in our Plan, and was recently on the October 2024 City Council agenda.
The SB 1 Grant Program will provide the City with a great opportunity to study and further develop adaptation pathways to address vulnerabilities and hazards along the bluffs. It will also assist us in responding to the public and stakeholder input we have received about coastal access, critical infrastructure and protection of cultural resources. This grant would further give the City an opportunity to work with our project partners to develop, prepare, and adopt a mitigation strategy that will help us address the vulnerabilities we are facing, while also closing the gap on our ability to develop and implement plans to build resilience and reduce future risk. OPC encourages the integration of grantfunded projects with other relevant planning efforts, such as the recently completed Coastal Resilience Action Plan project and the climate related updates of Local Coastal Program. The funding range for this OPC grant is between $200,000 and $10,000,000. Proposals are being accepted on a quarterly rolling basis, with the first deadline being December 20, 2024.
Staff Recommendation:
• Direct staff to develop project proposals for the SB 1 Grant Program, which will be provided for Council review at the December 2024 Council meeting.
• Formally invite interested parties and community members to participate in the project.
Alternatives to Staff Recommendation:
• Take no action.
Attachments:
• OPC SB 1 Sea-Level Rise Adaptation Planning Grant Program Solicitation • GHD Technical Memorandum - Axel Lindgren Memorial Trail Conceptual Restoration Solutions OPC SB 1 Sea-Level Rise
Adaptation Planning Grant
Program Solicitation
Version: September 30, 2024
OPC SB 1 Grant Program Solicitation
September 2024 2
Contents
I. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................3 A. Essential Background and Information........................................................................................... 3 B. Solicitation Overview ...................................................................................................................... 4 II. Solicitation Priorities .................................................................................................................6 A. SB 1 SLR Adaptation Planning Grant Program Goals ..................................................................... 6 B. Priority Project Types...................................................................................................................... 6 C. SLR Adaptation Criteria................................................................................................................... 7 III. Proposal Submission Requirements and Information ................................................................. 8 A. Grant Eligibility................................................................................................................................ 8 B. Technical Assistance ....................................................................................................................... 9 C. Questions Regarding RFP Requirements......................................................................................... 9 D. Solicitation Webinar and Proposal Office Hour .............................................................................. 9 E. General Proposal Requirements ..................................................................................................... 9 F. Submission of Proposals................................................................................................................ 10 G. Proposal Requirements................................................................................................................. 10 IV. Evaluation, Selection, and Award – Track 1 ..........................................................................11 A. Administrative Evaluation (Pass/Fail)........................................................................................... 11 B. Technical Evaluation ..................................................................................................................... 12 V. Solicitation Updates and Contacts............................................................................................15 OPC SB 1 Grant Program Solicitation
September 2024 3
I. Introduction
A. Essential Background and Information
Sea-level rise in California is already impacting public health and safety, critical infrastructure, habitat and biodiversity, and public access. With the pace, frequency, and scale of impacts projected to increase through the end of the century and beyond, sea-level rise (SLR) poses an urgent climate threat that requires action now. In response to this threat, Senate Bill 1 (Atkins, 2021), the Sea Level Rise Mitigation and Adaptation Act, was signed into law in 2021. Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) directs the Ocean Protection Council (OPC) to administer grants to local and regional governments to plan for SLR and implement adaptation projects to build resilience along the coast and shoreline of San Francisco Bay.
While much SLR planning and adaptation work has been conducted along California’s coast over the past decade, it is currently understood that vulnerability assessments, adaptation plans, and coastal resilience projects are not consistent in their standards or criteria across jurisdictions. In recognition of these gaps, and the urgency of preparing for SLR, Senate Bill 272 (Laird, 2023) was signed into law in 2023. SB 272 requires that all coastal local governments develop SLR plans and prioritizes local governments with approved SLR plans for SLR adaptation funding. With a deadline of January 1, 2034, these plans must be integrated into local coastal programs (LCPs) or San Francisco Bay shoreline resiliency plans. SB 272 also requires OPC, in coordination with the California SLR State and Regional Support Collaborative (SLR Collaborative), to establish guidelines for the preparation of SLR plans.
In 2022 and 2023, OPC received $37.5 million in Greenhouse Gas Reduction Funds (GGRF) and $54.5 million in General Funds respectively to support the implementation of SB 1. The FY 24-25 Budget maintained $77 million in funding for the SB 1 Grant Program, with $36.8 million currently delayed for allocation until 2026. Ultimately, OPC’s SB 1 SLR Adaptation Planning Grant Program (SB 1 Grant Program) aims to provide funding for coastal communities to develop consistent SLR adaptation plans and projects to build resilience to SLR along the entire coast of California and San Francisco Bay. The SB 1 Grant Program is designed to ensure all California coastal communities are preparing for SLR through a consistent and equitable process utilizing a set of SLR Adaptation Criteria (SLR Criteria).
The purpose of this Request for Proposals (RFP) is to establish a process for selecting qualified grantees with SB 1 projects that intend to meet the SLR Criteria within their project type, establish minimum qualifications for Applicants, and explain usage and applicability of the SLR Criteria. The SB 1 Grant Program is part of California Climate Investments, a statewide initiative that puts billions of Cap-andTrade dollars to work reducing greenhouse gas emissions, strengthening the economy, and improving public health and the environment — particularly in disadvantaged communities.
For the purposes of the RFP, the following definitions shall apply. “Applicant” shall be defined as those entities that intend to submit a response to this RFP and includes the lead entity and any partners and subcontractors that may be included in the proposal. "Project" shall be defined as the comprehensive undertaking detailed in the proposal, encompassing all planned activities, deliverables, and OPC SB 1 Grant Program Solicitation
September 2024 4
collaborative efforts set forth by the Applicant, and may encompass SLR planning proposals and/or implementation project proposals, illustrating its broad applicability to both planning and implementation endeavors. “Grantee” shall be defined as the entity ultimately selected to receive funds to carry out a SLR adaptation planning or implementation project.
B. Solicitation Overview
Funding Information
Two funding tracks will be available for Applicants, depending on which phase of SLR adaptation planning is appropriate for the Applicant. Phases 1-4 reference the phases provided in the SLR Criteria.
Track One proposals (Projects in the Pre-planning, Data Collection, and Planning Phases) will be accepted through a rolling, quarterly, non-competitive process, provided the proposals satisfy the SLR Criteria and requirements of this solicitation. Track Two proposals (Projects in the Implementation Project Phase) are anticipated to be accepted through a competitive process starting in mid 2025, subject to availability of funding.
Track 1: SLR Adaptation Planning (Phase 1-3)
• Funding Range: $200,000 - $1,500,000
• Maximum project timeline: 2 years
• Proposals accepted through a rolling, quarterly, non-competitive process Track 2: SLR Implementation Projects (Phase 4)
• Funding Range: $1,500,000 - $10,000,000
• Maximum project timeline: 3 years
• Proposals accepted through a competitive process starting in mid 2025 (anticipated) OPC SB 1 Grant Program Solicitation
September 2024 5
Equity and Environmental Justice Considerations
To ensure adequate and equitable funding for SLR adaptation plans and projects that benefit tribal and environmental justice (EJ) communities,
1 no less than 15% of total available funds are set aside to prioritize projects that include tribes and EJ communities. A minimum of 5% will support proposals by federally recognized tribes or proposals co-created between local governments and California Native American tribes. This set-aside amount will be revisited and potentially increased as the SB 1 program evolves.
Solicitation Schedule
The following schedule is for Track 1 Projects. An additional schedule will be provided for Track 2 projects in mid 2025.
Key Action Date (and Time)
RFP Available to Prospective Applicants Friday, December 15, 2023 RFP Webinar Every quarter
RFP Office Hour Every quarter
Deadline for Proposal Receipt by OPC2 10 weeks prior to each OPC Meeting Evaluation of Proposals 5-10 weeks prior to each OPC Meeting Selection of Projects 5 weeks prior to each OPC Meeting 1 Environmental Justice Communities, defined by the OPC Equity Plan, are communities that are disproportionately impacted by environmental injustices and social inequities, that are environmentally- and economically-stressed and experience environmental health inequities which contribute to persistent environmental health disparities. No single tool is currently capable of identifying all EJ communities. Applicants are encouraged to use a combination of definitions below to identify their unique EJ communities:
• Rural communities of 50,000 or less and outside of urbanized areas • California Native American tribes, including federally recognized Native American tribes and non-federally recognized Native American tribes
• Regionally/locally defined underserved communities
• Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) and/or Severely Disadvantaged Communities, as identified with the Parks Community FactFinder Map
• At or below 80% Assembly Bill 1550 (Gomez, Chapter 369, Statutes of 2016) • At or above 75% CalEnviroScreen Version 4.0
• At or below 25% California Healthy Places Index (HPI) 2 Please visit the SB 1 Funding webpage for quarterly proposal deadlines.
OPC SB 1 Grant Program Solicitation
September 2024 6
Grantee and OPC staff develop Grant work plan 1-3 months following OPC Meeting Approximate Grant Start Date 2-4 months following OPC Meeting II. Solicitation Priorities
A. SB 1 SLR Adaptation Planning Grant Program Goals
The overall goal of the SB 1 SLR Adaptation Planning Grant Program is to support the implementation of SB 1 for local, regional, and tribal governments, and specifically to support SLR adaptation planning for local governments. The SB 1 Grant Program intends to fund SLR adaptation planning and projects along the entire geographic coast of all of California and San Francisco Bay, as stated in OPC’s Strategic Plan, Targets 1.1.1 and 1.1.5, and as directed by section 30973(a) of SB 1 (Atkins, 2021).
OPC intends for the SB 1 Grant Program to ensure the entire coast of California, including San Francisco Bay, is preparing for SLR through a consistent and equitable process. To ensure adaptation planning efforts across jurisdictions are consistent, standardized, and equitable, OPC staff, alongside the California Sea-Level Rise State and Regional Support Collaborative (SLR Collaborative), have developed specific SLR Adaptation Criteria. This SLR Criteria must be followed when developing and executing projects under the SB 1 Grant Program, as feasible for each locality.
A complementary SB 1 Technical Assistance (TA) Program provides application assistance to eligible SB 1 applicants facing significant and imminent sea level rise threats along the California coast and San Francisco Bay shoreline. TA is tailored based on the applicants’ needs, including but not limited to capacity building and grant writing support. The most up-to-date information on the SB 1 TA Program, including information on how to apply for TA, can be found on the SB 1 Funding webpage.
B. Priority Project Types
The SB 1 Grant Program aims to provide funding for SLR adaptation planning to help prepare communities for the impacts of climate change. While many jurisdictions have advanced planning already underway or complete, many others have yet to begin comprehensive planning or assessments. OPC aims to address this need by offering funding for a range of SLR planning activities.
These fall into the following categories as reflected in the SLR Criteria:
Track 1: SLR Adaptation Planning
Phase 1: Pre-planning (explore, define, assess)
• Community Visioning
• Vulnerability Assessment
OPC SB 1 Grant Program Solicitation
September 2024 7
Phase 2: Data Collection
• Data/Information Gathering
Phase 3: Planning (define adaptation frameworks and strategies) • Outer Coast SLR Adaptation Plan
• Single Jurisdiction SF Bay Subregional Shoreline Adaptation Plan • Multi-jurisdictional SF Bay Subregional Shoreline Adaptation Plan • Sector-Specific Adaptation Plan
Track 2: SLR Implementation Projects
Phase 4: Project Implementation (implement, innovate, assess, adjust) • Nature-based and Green-Gray Hybrid3 Adaptation Projects/Feasibility Study/Design Plans Proposals that contain an Adaptation Plan as a final deliverable, either as a multi-phase project (Preplanning, Data Collection, and Planning), or a Planning project alone, are encouraged.
C. SLR Adaptation Criteria
The SB 1 Grant program aims to support localized planning efforts, while ensuring that local plans are consistent and comprehensive. Utilizing a set of criteria to establish best practices and minimum requirements for all SLR adaptation plans is identified as a key recommendation in Planning for Sea Level Rise on California’s Coast: Status, Trends, and Recommendations (Lester, 2023). The SLR Criteria is a standardized set of minimum standards for each project type. These criteria ensure that all preplanning, planning, and implementation projects that address SLR vulnerability and impacts include the same components, ensure neighboring communities are planning for SLR at the same level and caliber, and enable sound, well-informed investments throughout California.
The SB 1 Grant Program is also intended to support local and regional governments at any stage of the SLR adaptation planning process and ensure that planning efforts are consistent with the Coastal Act for the outer coast, the McAteer-Petris Act for the Bay Shoreline, and the Suisun Marsh Preservation 3 Green-Gray Hybrid SLR Adaptation Projects are those that incorporate natural coastal ecosystems with gray infrastructure to combine the values of wave attenuation and flood control of natural ecosystems with the benefits of engineered structures. The result is a mixed hybrid ecosystem in which the conservation and restoration of natural coastal ecosystems can extend the lifespan of gray infrastructure, while also supporting fisheries, regulating water quality, and sequestering carbon.
OPC SB 1 Grant Program Solicitation
September 2024 8
Act for the Suisun Marsh Shoreline. Principle #4 in OPC’s Principles for Aligned State Action further states this commitment: Support Local Leadership and Address Local Conditions. To advance the intention and commitment of this program, Applicants are allowed to offer sound justification for why a specific criterion does not apply to their project and will therefore not be included in the project outcome.
The SLR Criteria may be updated as new science and best practices are determined. The most updated version of the SLR Criteria will be made available on the SB 1 Funding webpage.
III. Proposal Submission Requirements and
Information
This section contains instructions for the submission of your proposal. It is the responsibility of the Applicant to carefully read and follow all proposal requirements within this RFP. Compliance with the RFP instructions is mandatory for your proposal to be considered for award. Failure to comply with the RFP instructions may cause your proposal to be deemed non-compliant and non-responsive, thus ineligible for the award.
A. Grant Eligibility
Applicants that are eligible to apply for this SB 1 Grant Program opportunity consist of:
• Local governments
• Regional governments
• Federally recognized tribal governments
• Organizations or consultants who apply on a government’s behalf may be considered, however, explicit support and collaboration between the organization and government must be provided within the application (via Letter of Commitment4)
Please be aware that OPC cannot enter into a grant agreement without governing board approval or other verification that the Applicant can accept funding from the state. Applicants will be required to submit this verification before grant execution.
4 Letters of Commitment should be provided by those with authority to speak on behalf of the local, regional, or tribal government who will benefit from the project. Applicants applying on behalf of a tribal government must provide a letter or resolution signed by the chairperson. There is otherwise no requirement that a letter be provided by specific department or official. Please see the SB 1 Track 1 Proposal Template and Instructions for further instructions to submit a Letter of Commitment.
OPC SB 1 Grant Program Solicitation
September 2024 9
B. Technical Assistance
A complementary SB 1 Technical Assistance (TA) Program provides application assistance to eligible SB 1 applicants facing significant and imminent sea level rise threats along the California coast and San Francisco Bay shoreline. TA is tailored based on the applicants’ needs, including but not limited to capacity building and grant writing support. The most up-to-date information on the SB 1 TA Program, including information on how to apply for TA, can be found on the SB 1 Funding webpage.
C. Questions Regarding RFP Requirements
All questions and/or concerns to the RFP requirements must be directed to:
Questions received and answers will be added to an SB 1 Grant Program Fact Sheet available on the SB 1 Funding webpage.
D. Solicitation Webinar and Proposal Office Hour
OPC will hold informational webinars each quarter. The webinar will discuss the solicitation process, information on the complementary SB 1 TA Program, and receive questions from prospective Applicants. If you want to attend the webinar, please check the SB 1 Funding webpage further details, including a Zoom link to register. The Informational Webinar will be recorded and posted on the SB 1 Funding webpage for future reference.
OPC staff will also be available for an “office hour” in webinar format to answer questions each quarter. If you want to attend the office hour, check the SB 1 Funding webpage for further details, including a Zoom link to register.
For further questions, please contact: [email protected].
E. General Proposal Requirements
1. Proposals must provide straightforward and concise descriptions of the Applicant’s and any subcontractors’ ability to satisfy the requirements of this RFP. The proposal must be complete and accurate. Omissions, inaccuracies, or misstatements will be sufficient cause for rejection of a proposal.
2. Proposals must be submitted for the performance of all services described herein. Any deviation from the work specifications contained in this RFP, Section III, Proposal Submission Requirements and Information, may cause a proposal to be rejected.
OPC SB 1 Grant Program Solicitation
September 2024 10
F. Submission of Proposals
1. Proposals must be submitted electronically only to: [email protected] using the subject: [Main Applicant Name]-Track 1 Project-Proposal
2. While Track 1 proposals are accepted on a rolling, quarterly basis, proposals must be submitted to, and received by OPC, by the deadline identified in the Solicitation Schedule in order to be considered for funding and brought to the corresponding Quarter’s Council meeting. Proposals received after the due date will be considered in the next quarter.
3. Each proposal will be reviewed to determine if it meets the administrative requirements.
Failure to meet the administrative requirements for the RFP may be cause for rejection of the proposal for lack of responsibility on behalf of the Applicant and/or lack of responsiveness on behalf of the proposal.
4. OPC reserves the right to reject proposals for failure to achieve proposal completeness (Track 1) or due to competitive criteria (Track 2). All projects are subject to funding availability.
G. Proposal Requirements
Track 1 Proposals
Applicants should completely fill out the SB 1 Track 1 Proposal Template and Instructions (MS Word .docx) for projects in the following categories: Community Visioning, Vulnerability Assessments, Data/Information Gathering, Outer Coast SLR Adaptation Plan, Single Jurisdiction SF Bay Subregional Shoreline Adaptation Plan, and Multi-jurisdictional SF Bay Subregional Shoreline Adaptation Plan. The final version of the proposal should be attached as one PDF and submitted to OPC[email protected], as an email entitled “[Main Applicant Name]-Track 1 Project-Proposal” that includes the following:
• Proposal Cover Page (using the Template)
• Proposal Application (using the Template)
• Budget (using the Template)
• Project Team Resumes/CVs
• Project Letters
• Nonprofit Organization Pre-Award Questionnaire (required for nonprofit organizations only) • San Francisco Bay Multi-jurisdictional and Single Jurisdiction Subregional Shoreline Adaptation Plan Supplemental Questionnaire (required for applicants submitting proposals for SF Bay Area Phase 3: Planning projects only)
Applicants submitting proposals for Sector Specific Adaptation Plans should first complete a Letter of Intent (LOI), prior to preparing a full proposal. Interested parties should completely fill out the Sector Specific Letter of Intent (MS Word .docx). The final version of the LOI should be attached as one PDF and submitted to [email protected], as an email entitled “[Main Applicant Name]-Sector Specific OPC SB 1 Grant Program Solicitation
September 2024 11
LOI.” OPC will review the Letter of Intent and determine the next course of action, which may be a consultation or full proposal.
Track 2 Proposals & Urgent Phase 4 Projects
Starting in mid 2025, Track Two proposals (Implementation Project Phase) are anticipated to be accepted through a competitive process. Information on how to submit a Track 2 Proposal will be made available at that time.
However, OPC recognizes the importance of funding timely implementation projects. Therefore, the following mechanism has been put in place to fund urgent, timely implementation projects prior to the acceptance of Track 2 proposals:
Urgent projects that address near-term SLR threats, meet Phase 4 SLR Criteria requirements, and have completed necessary planning work may submit a request for consultation with OPC staff. Interested parties should completely fill out the Track 2 Letter of Intent (MS Word .docx). The final version of the LOI should be attached as one PDF and submitted to [email protected], as an email entitled “[Main Applicant Name]-Track 2 Project-LOI.” OPC will review the Letter of Intent and determine whether the project may warrant prioritization of SB 1 funding. If so, a consultation between the Applicant and OPC will be scheduled to discuss the details of the project.
This mechanism is designed to address urgently needed projects that have undergone SLR planning processes. OPC exercises complete discretion in selecting urgent projects. The primary process for allocating funds for Implementation Projects will be via Track 2, once it becomes available. This mechanism operates strictly on a case-by-case exceptional basis.
IV. Evaluation, Selection, and Award – Track 1
A. Administrative Evaluation (Pass/Fail)
The following processes apply to Track 1 Proposals only. Information on the Evaluation, Selection, and Award of Track 2 Proposals is anticipated to be released in mid 2025.
During the Administrative Evaluation, OPC staff will review each proposal to check for completeness of all required information and to ensure that the Applicant meets the Grant Eligibility requirements. Only proposals that meet all Eligibility requirements will move forward to subsequent evaluation. During this Administrative Evaluation, if an item is unclear or needs further clarification, Applicants may be requested to provide additional clarification and/or documentation.
OPC SB 1 Grant Program Solicitation
September 2024 12
B. Technical Evaluation
Applications for the SB 1 Grant Program will be evaluated for their ability to complete the proposed work. Projects selected for funding will be those that sufficiently meet the SLR Criteria, OPC’s program priorities, and evaluation criteria below.
To ensure the proposed project complies with the requirements and intent of Senate Bill 1 (Atkins, 2021) and Senate Bill 272 (Laird, 2023), applications will undergo evaluation by California Coastal Commission (CCC) staff for projects along the outer coast, or Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) staff for projects along the San Francisco Bay Shoreline. CCC and BCDC staff will evaluate grant applications for alignment with the requirements of the Coastal Act for the outer coast, McAteer-Petris Act for the SF Bay Shoreline, and the Suisun Marsh Preservation Act for the Suisun Marsh shoreline. Applications will also be evaluated to ensure they are conceptually aligned with the development/certification of a Local Coastal Program/Update, or the pending Guidelines of the Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan (RSAP), depending on whether they are along the outer coast or San Francisco Bay Shoreline. Approval of funding through the SB 1 Grant Program, however, does not supersede or guarantee final certification of the land use plan, which must be independently evaluated and approved by the CCC or BCDC.
OPC Staff will evaluate grant applications against the following selection criteria. The criteria will be considered as a whole, not weighted. In this sense, if a project shows greater need or value in certain areas, but is missing justification for other required areas, OPC staff will use discretion to determine if the project is still eligible to receive funding.
Alignment with OPC's Strategic Plan and SLR Adaptation Criteria Applicants are encouraged to demonstrate how the proposed projects align with OPC's Strategic Plan and the specific priorities outlined in the SB 1 Solicitation. Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation should advance implementation of OPC's Strategic Plan. Projects should identify and demonstrate quantitative progress in implementing Strategic Plan targets.
Applicants must also address the minimum criteria listed in the SLR Criteria. If certain criteria do not apply to an Applicant, whether due to a unique local condition or because it has already been accomplished by a previous planning effort, an explanation should be provided in the proposal. OPC will rely on these explanations to determine if the omission of a criterium is justified, and if the project is therefore still eligible for funding.
Use of Best Available Science
For all projects, the use of the best available science is imperative. Applicants must prioritize the integration of the latest scientific research and knowledge into their proposed projects, including the use of the 2024 State SLR Guidance. Projects should demonstrate use of the SLR Guidance when crafting their projects, particularly for projects that include a Vulnerability Assessment.
OPC SB 1 Grant Program Solicitation
September 2024 13
Relative Need for SLR Planning
The relative need for the proposal must be provided in terms of SLR planning and coastal or shoreline resilience and to meet the goals of SB 1 for statewide coastal adaptation planning. Relative need will be assessed based on the following concepts:
• Proposals must adequately demonstrate the vulnerability of the community to the impacts of SLR and the urgent need for SLR planning within the region, as described by Public Resources Code section 30973 (a) (added by SB 1, Atkins, 2021). This may be demonstrated by showing SLR projection or flooding maps, sharing statistics or reports about recent climate driven coastal impacts, or showing past or anticipated beach erosion or damage to public access.
Urgent proposals are those that address pressing needs that occur with high frequency or pose safety risks.
• Proposals from coastal local and regional governments as required by SB 272 (Laird, 2023) to develop sea level rise plans by January 1, 2034, clearly demonstrate a relative need for SLR planning. Projects that help fulfill this mandate reinforce the necessity of comprehensive adaptation planning.
• Additionally, Applicants are asked to describe community readiness and buy-in to accomplish the proposal. Applicants must discuss any SLR planning work that has already been completed, or is currently underway at the local level, and how this grant is needed to substantially further the effort. Finally, Applicants should also discuss the political willingness and momentum for completing the proposed pre-planning or planning project.
Likelihood of Success/Effectiveness
The success of OPC's SB 1 Grant Program is measured by its contributions to SLR planning along the California coast and San Francisco Bay. Grant proposals will be evaluated based on their likelihood of success, including the practicality, feasibility, and effectiveness of the proposed activities and the likelihood of the proposal eventually achieving a local or regional SLR Adaptation Plan. Proposals should address the need for coordination with the public and either the Coastal Commission or BCDC (depending on the location of the plan or project). The proposal should also outline practical benchmarks and timelines for the successful completion of the plan or project, including the development and review of all final deliverables. Implementation of final deliverables in terms of next steps should also be presented. The proposal’s alignment with the Coastal Act for outer coast, the McAteer-Petris Act for the San Francisco Bay Shoreline, the Suisun Marsh Preservation Act for Suisun Marsh shoreline, and the Public Trust Doctrine, will also be considered.
Letters of Support or resolutions of intent and endorsement for the proposed work from the jurisdiction, California Native American tribes, and community organizations will also support this criterion.
OPC SB 1 Grant Program Solicitation
September 2024 14
Equity and Environmental Justice
Grant proposals should explicitly address and consider environmental justice as defined in California Government Code Section 65040.12(e) (as updated in 2020): "The fair treatment and meaningful engagement of people of all races, cultures, incomes, and national origins with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies." Proposals and proposal deliverables should consider the unique challenges faced by disadvantaged, marginalized, and indigenous communities, particularly in relation to SLR issues.
Addressing these disparities and fostering equitable access to ocean resources is a priority of the state.
Applicants should integrate principles from the following Equity and Environmental Justice policies, as applicable for the proposal jurisdiction:
• California Coastal Commission – Environmental Justice Policy • San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) - Environmental Justice Tribal Consultation and Partnership
Consistent with and in furtherance of Executive Orders B-10-11 and N-15-19, SLR adaption planning and project Applicants should conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American tribes.
In addition to early and meaningful consultation, SLR adaption plans and projects co-created and developed in partnership with California Native American tribes are highly encouraged.
A letter or resolution, signed by the chairperson of the tribe(s), confirming a California Native American tribe is actively partnering with and supporting the proposal must be included in application materials for a proposal to be considered to qualify for the 5% set aside (see Equity and Environmental Justice Considerations section above).
All projects and planning documents must protect the confidentiality of tribal data and information concerning specific identify, location, character, and use of those places, features, and objects. All Applicants that partner with California Native American tribes will be required to outline measures to protect confidentiality of tribal data or knowledge prior to the disbursement of grant funds.
Applicants interested in co-creating proposals with California Native American tribes are encouraged to contact the SB 1 TA Program, as this process may qualify the Applicant for receiving technical assistance. The SB 1 Funding webpage has the most up-to-date information regarding the SB 1 TA Program.
Proposal Integration/Leverage/Matching Funds
OPC encourages, but does not require, the integration of grant-funded projects with other relevant planning efforts. Applicants are encouraged to highlight any ongoing or planned projects that complement the proposal including those supported by past OPC grant rounds, the Coastal Commission, Coastal Conservancy, Caltrans, or the Strategic Growth Council. Staff will consider the OPC SB 1 Grant Program Solicitation
September 2024 15
ability to integrate and leverage additional program funds for the betterment of SLR planning, and Applicants should describe how the proposal aligns with and supports broader coastal and shoreline resilience goals.
V. Solicitation Updates and Contacts
This solicitation is subject to periodic updates. As circumstances evolve or additional information becomes available, revisions may be necessary. A new version will be provided on our SB 1 Funding webpage, accompanied by the respective date of update. Please check the SB 1 Funding webpage regularly, join our email list, and follow our social media for the most recent updates on this solicitation process.
Contact Information
If you have further questions about this solicitation and application process, please contact:
Megan Williams, Coastal Adaptation Program Manager
Ella McDougall, Climate Change Program Manager
Email: [email protected]
Technical Memorandum
The Power of Commitment
12608028 ALMT Conceptual Restoration Solutions 1
June 30, 2023
To Sarah Lindgren Akana – Tsurai
Ancestral Society
Contact No. N/A
Copy to Kelly Lindgren Email [email protected]
From GHD Project No. 12608028 ALMT Conceptual
Restoration Solutions
Project Name Axel Lindgren Memorial Trail
Subject Axel Lindgren Memorial Trail Conceptual Restoration Solutions | Technical Memorandum
1. Introduction
GHD is providing the Tsurai Ancestral Society with this Technical Memorandum (Tech Memo) presenting a conceptual solution for the repair and restoration of the Axel Lindgren Memorial Trail (ALMT or Project) in Trinidad, California (Figure 1). Repair and restoration of the trail includes returning the trail to the Traditional Trail alignment. The Tech Memo describes our current Project understanding, review of existing data and background resources, current site conditions, a recommended conceptual solution, guidance on the permitting process, and a planning level opinion of probable construction cost.
1.1 Project Objective
The Project objective is to develop the conceptual plan for repair and restoration of the ALMT, including rerouting the trail to follow the Traditional Trail alignment. The conceptual plan was developed per the grant Project description that is provided below in Section 2 Project Understanding. The Tsurai Ancestral Society participated in the field reconnaissance and was consulted during development of the conceptual solutions to ensure that cultural resources were considered, respected, and would be protected by any conceptual plans put forth for consideration.
1.2 Purpose of this Memorandum
The purpose of this Technical Memorandum is to present the data collected during field reconnaissance, the conceptual solutions that were explored, and the recommended conceptual solution for repair and restoration of the ALMT. The Tech Memo is provided as a final deliverable under our agreement with the Tsurai Ancestral Society. It is provided to foster discussion in relation to technical matters associated with the Project and provide planning information for future work to improve the existing trail. It should not be relied upon for any other purpose.
1.3 Scope and limitations
This technical memorandum has been prepared by GHD for the Tsurai Ancestral Society. It is not intended for circulation or incorporation into other documents. The matters discussed in this memorandum are limited to those specifically detailed in the memorandum and are subject to any limitations or assumptions specially set out.
GHD has prepared this memorandum on the basis of information provided by the Client and others who provided information to GHD (which may also include Government authorities), which GHD has not independently verified or checked for the purpose of this memorandum. GHD does not accept liability in connection with such unverified information, including errors and omissions in the memorandum which were caused by errors or omissions in that information.
Trinidad
Westhaven-Moonstone &
101
Project
Location
Eureka
Arcata
Fortuna
McKinleyville
36 254
96 3
271
169
345
255 299
36 101
101
101
101
FIGURE 1
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
US Feet
Project No.
Revision No. -
12608028
Date 6/21/2023
Tsurai Ancestal Society
Alex Lindgren Memorial Trail Conceptual Plan
Trinidad, California
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: North American 1983
Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Feet
Paper Size ANSI A
o Data source: World Topographic Map - labelless; California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS; World Topographic Map - labelless; California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA; World Hillshade; Esri, USGS; World Hillshade; Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA; TIGERweb/Transportation; Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Created by: djones3 N:\US\Eureka\Projects\561\12608028\GIS\Maps\Working\12608028_LindgrenTrail_Atlas\12608028_LindgrenTrail_Atlas.aprx - 12608028_SLM_ALMT_GIS001
Print date: 21 Jun 2023 - 08:57
Vicinity Map
12608028 ALMT Conceptual Restoration Solutions 2
The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this memorandum are based on one site visit and available information referenced in this memo. Site conditions at other parts of the site not available for observation may be different from the site conditions found at locations available to GHD for this study. The additional recommended site investigations may change the recommended solutions or corresponding opinion of probable construction costs depending on those findings.
2. Project Understanding
The Tsurai Ancestral Society has applied for and received a grant through the Seventh Generation Fund for Indigenous Peoples for this Project. The Project is described in the grant submittal as follows:
“The Tsurai Ancestral Society is seeking funding to develop a conceptual plan to begin the process of repairing and restoring the Axel Lindgren Memorial Trail. Plan will identify the Traditional Trail, recommend studies, and identify cost associated with next steps. Known goals include Project site assessment and preliminary trail design that will address the following areas of concern: a railing or fencing is needed along the trail to prevent use of the new voluntary trails and add support for those utilizing the trail, new steps that ease erosion and minimize impact to the site from high volume foot traffic, a bridge to cross the small stream located near the toe of the bluff and steps leading down to the beach from the bridge/trail redesign to cope with the increased coastal erosion and bluff instability, and address water runoff that may be impacting overall trail stability. The Traditional Trail did not follow the same path at the toe of the beach bluff, however, due to budget in 1997 when the current steps were installed, the City was not able to follow the Traditional Trail. This rerouted section cuts into a sensitive area and exposes cultural resources making them easy to access by beach goers. Over the last several years, the trail has seen increased erosion from climate change and tourists, that has negatively impacted the trail and ate away at the steps. The lack of a handrail or protective fencing has made grave robbing and looting much easier in years past, along with illegal cutting from surrounding properties seeking to increase their view of the bay. The Axel Lindgren Memorial Trail is a protected cultural resource in and of itself as identified in the Tsurai Management Plan, its preservation is of upmost importance to the descendants of the Village and Yurok Tribe.”
3. Existing Conditions
3.1 Site Location and Current Alignment
The ALMT is located in the City of Trinidad in Humboldt County, California. The ALMT is located within the ancestral lands of the Yurok Tribe, which extend along the California Coast from Little River in Humboldt County to Damnation Creek in Del Norte County, and inland along the lower Klamath River (Sloan & Rocha 2007). The ALMT extends through the historical ancestral village of Tsurai, which is an irreplaceable cultural resource of great significance to the Yurok Tribe.
Access to the ALMT is located on the bluff edge at the intersection of Edwards and Trinity Streets. This is also the previous location of the Trinidad Memorial Lighthouse; however, the lighthouse has been moved due to slope stability issues in the general area and feedback from lineal descendants of the Tsurai to maintain access to the traditional ALMT. The ALMT extends from the bluff edge, down the bluff, where it connects to Old Home Beach near sea level. The elevation of the trailhead is approximately 152 feet (ft) above sea level (ASL) and where the trail meets Old Home Beach is approximately 14 ft ASL. The current ALMT was constructed in 1997 by the Yurok Tribe under the supervision of Axel Lindgren II, a lineal descendent of the Tsurai whom the trail is named after.
Google Earth imagery shows several small streams that drain from the base of the bluff, across Old Home Beach, and into Trinidad Bay. These small streams are present on historical aerial images dating back to 2005, which is the earliest available image that could be reviewed. According to the Tsurai Management Plan (TMP), the three streams that pass through the Tsurai Study Area (TSA) and flow across the beach into Trinidad Bay are known as Alder Creek, Pepperwood Creek, and Parker Creek.
The bluff is currently densely vegetated, and Google Earth imagery (2005-2022) indicates that this has been the case in recent times. However, the archival research described in the TMP indicates that the TSA 12608028 ALMT Conceptual Restoration Solutions 3
was once an open area, containing some old growth trees, a traditional plank-house village, and a historical village component off European-style houses in the mid-1800s (Sloan & Rocha 2007). Oral history and archival research indicate that the area was once managed and maintained by Tsurai Village residents, possibly through prescribed burning (a traditional Yurok practice), resulting in the open park-like quality of the Village and surrounding area (Sloan & Rocha 2007). The current saturated and overgrown conditions of the Tsurai Village and the TSA are not historic but are a result of the management decisions by past and present landowners.
The TMP also noted, “concerns about the safety and stability of the Axel Lindgren Memorial Trail, which travels down the steep slope to the beach. The bottom portion of this trail, which is constructed of interlocking cable-tie steps, has repeatedly washed-out during winter months or high wave events, at times creating a hazard for those attempting to access the beach from this route. Even as recent as the winter storm events of January 2006, the lower portion of the ALMT washed out.” The current trail alignment is the same as that described in the TMP and was again washed out in winter storm events of 2022 and 2023.
4. Background Resource Review
4.1 Tsurai Management Plan
The 2007 TMP is a result of a collaborative effort between the Coastal Conservancy, City of Trinidad, Tsurai Ancestral Society, and the Yurok Tribe (Sloan & Rocha 2007). The purpose of the TMP was to resolve areas of past and present conflict over the management of the Tsurai Study Area (an area which includes the ALMT). The objective was to make recommendations to resolve and prevent further conflicts and to identify areas where collaboration could occur for protection, preservation, and potential restoration of the cultural and natural resources.
Key findings and recommendations outlined in the TMP include:
– Installation of a handrail on the Axel Lindgren Memorial Trail to provide safer use of this primary beach access trail by the public.
– Development and installation of signs throughout the Tsurai Study Area (TSA) to direct user traffic and protect environmental and cultural resources contained therein. – Analysis and mitigation of the runoff and saturation issues that are impacting the Tsurai Village site. – Completion of a comprehensive botanical and vegetation survey of the TSA with recommendations for select vegetation removal to improve site conditions and assist in the removal of invasive species. – Development of a Vegetation Management Plan with a protocol for reviewing and making decisions on management of vegetation within the TSA; and continued collaboration between the Coastal Conservancy, City, Tsurai Ancestral Society, and Yurok Tribe on the future management of the TSA via the continuation of the Tsurai Management Team through implementation of the Management Plan.
4.2 RCAA Feasibility Study
Redwood Community Action Agency (RCAA) conducted a 1995 feasibility study for constructing improved primary trail access in the location of the current ALMT (RCAA 1995). This study was conducted prior to development of the current ALMT. This study evaluated several potential access routes via trails that existed at the time and found that two of those trails could potentially be improved for better access from the bluff to the beach: the Hogback Trail and the Western Trail. Both trails traverse the bluff from Edward’s Street to Old Home Beach, in the vicinity of the historical Tsurai Village. However, it is noted in the study that the Hogback Trail was a Tsurai Village access trail.
4.3 LACO Associates
As part of development of the TMP LACO Associates were contracted to conduct an engineering and geologic assessment of the Tsurai Village and the TSA (Sloan and Rocha 2007). The LACO report summarized previous studies, addressed the site-specific issues identified by the Tsurai Management 12608028 ALMT Conceptual Restoration Solutions 4
Team, conducted a site evaluation of the TSA, and provided a series of recommendations for mitigation of the anthropogenic causes contributing to geomorphic processes at the site (Sloan & Rocha 2007). LACO Associates identified uncontrolled discharge of surface runoff and drainage from neighboring and bluff top residences as the greatest factor affecting slope stability at the TSA. Their recommendations included controlling surface run-off through placement of drainage collection structures, tightlines, and properly located points of discharge (LACO 2004).
4.4 SHN Coastal Bluff Assessments
SHN has conducted several coastal bluff assessments for the coastal bluffs along Edwards Street and provides a description of the local geologic conditions as follows. Bedrock in the area consists of Franciscan Complex rocks referred to as “mélange”, which describes a mixture of rock blocks within a matrix of sheared shale and/or Serpentinite (SHN 2019). The Franciscan bedrock is overlain in Trinidad by a series of marine terraces. The marine terrace deposits consist of near-shore marine deposits and terrestrial deposits such as alluvium, colluvium, and wind blow sand deposits (SHN 2017). The coastal bluffs along Trinidad State Beach and around Trinidad Bay consist of exposed Franciscan mélange bedrock in the lower part of the slope and terrace deposits and uplifted coastal plain toward the top of the slope where the town in developed (SHN 2017).
The earliest evaluation reviewed is a 1996 Geologic Report for Two Trail Alternatives South of Edwards Street (SHN 1996). The focus of the evaluation was to determine if either or both of two proposed trail alignments (the Western Trail Alignment and the Hogback Trail Alignment) could be constructed without creating significant additional slope failure or erosion of the coastal bluff. The SHN evaluation describes the coastal bluff as being subject to chronic slow colluvial soil creep with localized intermittent shallow landslide occurrences. It also describes the slope as being composed of loose silty sand soils that are highly erodible when exposed to direct rainfall or concentrated runoff. The evaluation states that in comparison to other areas along the bluff, the location of the Hogback Trail is moderately to most stable. The opinion stated in the evaluation was that both trail alignments could be designed and constructed in a manner that would not significantly increase erosion or slope instability. However, it also states that the entire project area is subject to significant long-term risk of slope failure and that the slope failures tend to be episodic and unpredictable.
More recent coastal bluff assessments completed by SHN for the Project area include a 2017 Landslide Mitigation Assessment, a 2019 Coastal Landslide Hazard Evaluation, 2022 Coastal Bluff Mapping, and at least one evaluation completed for private landowners that own property along the bluff.
The 2017 SHN Landslide Mitigation Assessment was completed due to a landslide headscarp located immediately west of the ALMT (SHN 2017). The eastern edge of the headscarp had migrated near the previous location of the Trinidad Memorial Lighthouse. The opinion in the evaluation was that continued slope movement could cause structural or foundational damage to the lighthouse and that moving the lighthouse should be considered. Figure 2 in the 2017 report presents an approximate outline of the area impacted by the earthflow. This includes the location of the headscarp and the general shape and size of the earthflow from the top of the bluff to the beach. The earthflow is not shown as intersecting with the existing alignment of the ALMT. However, the bottom of the earthflow is shown as very close to, and potentially intersecting with, the lowest section of the desired trail alignment.
The 2017 SHN landslide assessment also included drilling of four Geotechnical borings (TML-1 through TML-4). The assessment states that bedrock was encountered at a depth of approximately 45 ft below ground surface (BGS) in TML-1 and 42.5 ft BGS in TML-2. Both borings were installed near the top of the bluff adjacent to Edward’s Street. Bedrock was not encountered in TML-3 and TML-4, which were installed immediately adjacent to the previous location of the Trinidad Memorial Lighthouse. SHN describes the geologic condition of the area as having a “block-in-matrix” texture consisting of blocks of Franciscan Complex bedrock floating within a melange matrix. The description also states that where melange matrix is abundant, the melange is highly susceptible to downslope mass movement in the form of earthflow. Marine terrace sediments composed primarily of fine to medium sand with scattered gravel top the Franciscan Complex and melange.
The 2019 SHN Coastal Landslide Hazard Evaluation divided the coastal bluffs on the west and south sides of the City of Trinidad into segments and then discussed bluff stability by segment (SHN 2019). The ALMT is within the footprint of the Edwards Segment. Figure 2 in the 2019 report shows the footprints of active 12608028 ALMT Conceptual Restoration Solutions 5
earthflows in the Edwards Segment. The figure shows that there are active earthflows on both sides of the ALMT, however the earthflows do not appear to intersect the existing trail alignment, except for the lowest section near the beach. As mentioned above, it does appear that the earthflow located immediately west of the existing trail alignment may intersect with the lowest section of the desired trail alignment.
The 2022 SHN Coastal Bluff Mapping objective was to provide the City of Trinidad’s planners, decision makers, and the public with updated maps of the current location of the top of the “coastal bluffs”. The ALMT is presented on Figure 5 of the 2022 Coastal Bluff Maps. Figure 5 in the 2022 report shows the location of the bluff line along Edwards Street and through the Project area. There is a note on Figure 5 that the bluff line was active (indicating active movement) in 2017, which is discussed above and is included in SHN’s 2017 Landslide Mitigation Assessment.
4.5 Crawford Slope Stability Analysis
Crawford and Associates, inc., completed a slope stability analyses for the coastal bluff along Edward’s Street in 2013 as part of the Trinidad Stormwater Improvement Project (Crawford 2013). This analysis computed the factor of safety for sections of the bluff under the existing condition and the 50-year storm condition along specific cross sections. In general, the factor of safety is a calculation of the amount of stress (or load) exerted on an object (or area) versus the amount of stress that the object is capable of holding without becoming unstable. A factor of safety that is less than 1 represent likely failure. A factor of safety above 1 represents how much stress is within the allowable limit. The ALMT is located between cross sections H-H’ and G+25 – G+25’, however it is nearest cross section G+25 – G+25’. The factor of safety computed for the existing conditions at cross section G+25 – G+25’ was 1.22 and for the 50-year Storm Condition was 1.05.
4.6 Marshall Residence Analyses
There have been at least two evaluations for bluff stability and erosion for the Marshall Residence, which is located on the north side of Edwards Street west of the ALMT. One of the evaluations was completed in 2009 by Busch Geotechnical Consultants and the other was completed in 2008 by Pacific Watershed Associates. Both reports discuss potential impacts to the geologic stability of the site and the coastal bluffs should development happen on the property. According to the PWA report, because the property is classified as being within an area of questionable stability the City of Trinidad requires a geologic report of this nature that discusses the impacts. Both reports discuss the geology of the area, seismic hazards, and erosion potential of the bluffs with respect to the property. The information provided generally concurs with the other background information summarized in this report.
5. Desired Future Trail
5.1 Desired Outcomes and Finished Trail
The Tsurai Ancestral Society provided GHD will examples of what the desired finished trail might look like.
The examples provided to GHD by the Tsurai Ancestral Society are included in Attachment 1. The desired trail would include an elevated boardwalk, or similar design, from the trailhead to the beach. An elevated boardwalk would help minimize soil disturbance and help provide a sense of floating above this rich cultural area. The lower portion of the trail would be rerouted to the traditional path. The desired trail would include railing and either wire panels or fencing that would help keep dogs and people on the boardwalk and out of the larger Tsurai Study Area. This would help prevent looting, vegetation destruction, and pet waste contamination in the Tsurai Study Area. The Tsurai Ancestral Society also noted that they would like to complete the trail in the least invasive way as possible, preventing damage to cultural resources as well as vegetation which includes minimizing excavation and soil disturbance as much as possible.
5.2 Site Reconnaissance and Field Mapping
GHD met with representatives from the Tsurai Ancestral Society and conducted a field reconnaissance on May 26, 2023. Site Photographs taken during the field reconnaissance are included in Attachment 2. The field reconnaissance was an opportunity for the Tsurai Ancestral Society to show GHD the Traditional Trail 12608028 ALMT Conceptual Restoration Solutions 6
alignment and discuss potential conceptual ideas. Due to erosion of the base of the existing trail the City of Trinidad fenced off trail access at the top of the bluff following the field reconnaissance. During the field reconnaissance the existing trail alignment was walked from the top of the bluff down the trail toward the beach. An unknown person was observed to be camping adjacent to the existing bench on the trail alignment and within the Tsurai Study Area. GHD and the Society notified the Sheriff’s department and requested that they assist with removing the trespasser and their belongings. This further emphasized the need for a trail design that prevents access off the trail and into the Study Area.
The lower approximately 20-30 ft of existing trail leading to the beach is no longer passable due to bluff erosion caused by wave action during the winter of 2022-2023. This erosion occurred at multiple locations along the base of the bluff in the vicinity of the trail. During the reconnaissance GHD and the Tsurai Ancestral Society observed Samara Restoration working to cover the eroded areas of the bluff base with biodegradable erosion control mats, which was being done as a separate project.
Due to dense vegetation, the Traditional trail segment could not be accessed. Instead, GHD and the Tsurai Ancestral Society used the Parker Creek Trail to access the beach and then walked the beach back to the Study Area. The Tsurai Ancestral Society showed GHD where the Traditional Trail historically connected to the beach. The Traditional Trail connected to a large rock that is located on the beach. GHD observed a small stream to be flowing on the south side of the rock and substantial erosion to the slope that is west of the rock. The Society noted that the Traditional Trail used to cross the stream (or spring) higher on the slope and that a bridge may be needed so that the future trail can cross the stream without causing erosion or damage to the stream or adjacent stream banks.
During the field reconnaissance GHD collected global positioning system (GPS) data that was used to help create a digital alignment of the existing and desired trail. The GPS data aided in the horizontal placement of the trail alignments; however, the vertical accuracy of the data was not as good as the available light detection and ranging (LiDAR) data. The LiDAR data was produced by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) in 2016. Therefore, the available LiDAR data was used to develop the slope elevation profile that is included in the conceptual ideas for this evaluation. The existing and desired trail alignments and the existing slope elevation profile are included in Attachment 3 on Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2.
6. Trail Components and Guidelines
The following are trail components and guidelines used in the development of the conceptual trail ideas discussed below:
– Fencing with wire mesh or similar approach along the entire length of trail that keeps people and dogs on the trail and out of the adjacent Tsurai Study Area. – An elevated boardwalk design that minimizes the impact of the trail on soil and cultural resources.
Steep sections of the trail will require stairs.
– Fencing and elevated boardwalk that can be constructed in segments, which can be individually repaired in the case of slope movement, without disruption or damage to adjacent sections. – Sections with stairs will require a handrail. Handrails will be recommended to be made of steel that can attach to the adjacent fence with a minimum clearance width of four feet between handrails. A wider trail width would be recommended if funds allow, but a narrower clearance width is not recommended. – Potentially two bridges or structures: one shorter bridge that allows for a stream crossing and one longer bridge that allows for crossing from the bluff to the rock on the beach where the trail ends. – Construction materials that provide good longevity and low maintenance costs in coastal environments.
– A construction approach and trail design that minimizes excavation and soil disturbance as much as possible.
The example ideas provided to GHD by the Tsurai Ancestral Society show boardwalks constructed mainly from wood materials. However, during the field reconnaissance the use of other materials such as stainless steel and galvanized steel were discussed for fencing and railings, and the Tsurai Ancestral Society was open to exploring those options. These other materials are being considered because they have a longer 12608028 ALMT Conceptual Restoration Solutions 7
expected lifetime and lower expected maintenance cost, compared to wood materials. Wood materials tend to start experiencing degradation within 10 years of use in coastal trails, depending on the quality of wood available during construction. Decay was observed in the existing wooden stairs of the current ALMT.
Therefore, the conceptual ideas presented below include wood, steel, and concrete material solutions.
Given that there is potential for ongoing slope instability and movement the conceptual solutions presented are those that can be constructed, and potentially repaired, in segments instead of as one connected unit.
This can be achieved through repeating sections of steps and platforms that can be constructed as independent units placed adjacent to each other to avoid gaps.
7. Conceptual Trail Designs Considered
Initially, two conceptual trail ideas were considered based on the desired trail components discussed above. The first conceptual trail would be constructed entirely of wood, including an elevated boardwalk with railing and sections of stairs as needed. A boardwalk and trail components constructed entirely of wood match the natural aesthetic seen on other existing trails in the area. The second conceptual trail would be constructed of concrete box stairs with compacted gravel tread and steel railing, which are materials that would provide improved resilience to coastal weathering. Through conceptual development of the trail, it was determined that neither of these two specific options were preferred although aspects of each option had desired aspects to carry forward. These initial conceptual trail ideas are discussed in further detail below along with a discussion of why they are not the preferred solution for this trail.
Through conceptual development of the two ideas discussed above, a preferred conceptual trail solution was identified. The preferred conceptual trail solution is an elevated boardwalk with an aluminum sub-frame and steel railing. There are several options for materials that would form the walking surface and stairs, including wood and non-wood options. This option combines the best components from the first two initial trail ideas, including an elevated surface that minimizes disturbance to cultural resources as well as construction materials that are more resilient to coastal weathering processes. The preferred conceptual trail solution for the elevated boardwalk and steel railing trail is discussed in further detail below.
7.1 Initial Conceptual Trail Ideas
7.1.1 Conceptual Wood Boardwalk with Wood Railing
Conceptual ideas for a trail constructed primarily of wood materials is provided in Attachment 3 on Figure
3.3. The figure shows both a profile and section view of the conceptual wood boardwalk. The conceptual wood boardwalk would include a wood frame, wood staircases and platforms, wood support posts, and wood top rails that connect the support posts. It would include steel handrails positioned on the inside of the wood top rails.
There would be a welded wire mesh fencing between each of the support posts that prevents human and pet traffic from exiting the trail into the Tsurai Study Area. The welded wire mesh fencing would prevent traffic from going off trail, similar to a chain-link fence, but is more aesthetically pleasing. An example of wire mesh fencing with wood posts is provided in the photos in Attachment 3.
Prior to construction of the wood boardwalk, the ground surface along the trail alignment where footings are located would need to be prepared by removing organics and loose topsoil. Areas between support posts and low slope terrain have the potential to be constructed with little to no ground disturbance. The bottom of the wood staircase would be suspended above the ground surface. There would be a minimum of 8 inches of clearance from the bottom of the staircase to the ground surface, except for at each support post location. Support footing installation would require that the ground surface would need to be excavated to firm, stable bearing soils. Each support footing would be supported by a reinforced concrete block keyed into the hillside. The soil would need to be scarified, dampened, and compacted at the location of each support footing.
The height from the top of each stair to the top of the wood top rail would be approximately 42-44 inches.
The height from the top of each stair to the steel handrail would be approximately 34-38 inches. The inside width of the boardwalk from wood top rail to wood top rail would be approximately 5 feet. However, the 12608028 ALMT Conceptual Restoration Solutions 8
steel handrails positioned inside the wood top rails would reduce the total, passable inside width to a minimum of 4 feet.
Longevity and long-term maintenance costs are concerns for trails constructed of wood materials in coastal environments. The result of coastal weathering on trails constructed of wood materials is often extended trail closures due to damaged and unsafe trail conditions. This is a concern for the frame of the boardwalk, which would need to bear weight, the support posts and railing of the boardwalk, which would need to provide stability and keep people and pets on the trail, as well as the actual walking surface of the boardwalk. For these reasons, a trail constructed entirely of wood materials is not recommended nor the preferred solution for these trail improvements.
7.1.2 Conceptual Concrete Stair and Steel Railing
Conceptual ideas for a concrete stair and steel rail trail were considered which would include concrete box stairs with compacted gravel walking surface, galvanized steel support posts, galvanized steel top rails, and steel handrails (could be galvanized or stainless).
There would be a welded wire mesh fencing between each support post that would prevent human and pet traffic from exiting the trail into the Tsurai Study Area. The welded wire mesh fencing would prevent traffic from going off trail, similar to a chain-link fence, but is more aesthetically pleasing. Examples of welded wire mesh options are included in the photos in Attachment 3. Concrete box frames would form the shape of each stair and be filled with compacted gravel. The compacted gravel would form the walking surface. This style of stair is often seen with wood box frames, like what is seen on the existing ALMT. This design would utilize galvanized steel support posts that would be driven into the soil several feet until firmly in place. The steel support rails, and steel support posts, would be connected using commonly available fence bracket connections. The heights and widths of the conceptual concrete stair and steel rail trail are the same as the heights and widths discussed above for the conceptual wood boardwalk.
The disadvantage of using any style of a box stair (concrete or wood) built at ground level is the installation requires more intrusive excavation into the hillside to set the cribbing style stairs. Unlike an elevated boardwalk design that would only require excavation at each isolated support footing, the box stair design requires excavation along the entire length of the stair sections to connect the cribbed pieces that form the box stairs. The advantages to longevity and decreased maintenance of concrete and steel materials does not outweigh the impact that would occur to cultural resources due to the excavation during installation.
Therefore, cribbed stair designs are not considered feasible for this trail because of the soil disturbance that would occur and the associated potential impacts to the sensitive cultural resources along the trail.
7.2 Preferred Conceptual Trail Solution
The preferred conceptual trail solution is an elevated boardwalk with aluminum framing and steel railing, with options for the material used for the walking surface. Conceptual ideas for an elevated boardwalk with aluminum frame and steel railing are provided in Attachment 3 on Figure 3.4 The elevated boardwalk would include elevated staircases and elevated boardwalks, galvanized steel railing posts and top rails, and welded wire mesh fencing. The boardwalk frame would be constructed of metal, which would require less maintenance over time, while the stairs and walking surface could be constructed of a different material (such as wood) that could be replaced as needed. There are several options for the material that could be used to form the walking surface of the boardwalk and stairs, including natural or pressure treated wood, manufactured wood products, aluminum, or other options.
The welded wire mesh fencing between each of the railing posts would prevent human and pet traffic from exiting the trail into the Tsurai Study Area. An example of wire mesh fencing with wood posts is provided in the photos in Attachment 3. Examples of wire mesh fencing with steel posts is provided in the photos in Attachment 3.
Similar to construction of the wood boardwalk, the ground surface along the trail alignment would need minimal preparation and most of the existing trail and wooden steps could remain. The ground surface along the trail alignment where footings are located would need to be prepared by removing organics and loose topsoil. Support footing installation would require that the ground surface would need to be excavated to firm, stable bearing soils. Each support footing would be supported by a reinforced concrete block keyed 12608028 ALMT Conceptual Restoration Solutions 9
into the hillside. The soil would need to be scarified, dampened, and compacted at the location of each support footing.
Areas between support footings and low slope terrain have the potential to be constructed with less ground disturbance. Areas between support posts and low slope terrain have the potential to be constructed with little to no ground disturbance. It would be desirable to remove the existing wooden steps and associated loose topsoil and organic matter but not necessary. The bottom of the elevated boardwalk would be suspended above the ground surface on discrete concrete foundation elements spaced apart and connected by aluminum stringers. There would be a minimum of 8 inches of clearance from the bottom of the stringers to the ground surface. The heights and widths of the conceptual concrete stair and steel rail trail are the same as the heights and widths discussed above for the conceptual wood boardwalk.
There are many advantages to the conceptual elevated boardwalk with non-wood frame and railing design.
These advantages include:
1. Less excavation during installation and therefore, less potential disturbance to cultural resources.
2. Increased longevity of the aluminum frame, steel support posts, and steel rails compared to wood frame, wood support posts, and wood rails.
3. Reduced long-term maintenance of the aluminum and steel components compared to wood.
4. Multiple options for the material chosen as the boardwalk walking surface, including wood and nonwood options.
For these reasons, the elevated boardwalk with aluminum frame and steel railing is our recommended conceptual design to develop further.
A conceptual rendering of the elevated boardwalk with steel frame and steel railing with wood colored walking surface is presented below as Figure 2.
12608028 ALMT Conceptual Restoration Solutions 10
Figure 2 Conceptual rendering of the elevated boardwalk with steel frame and railing with treated wood walking surface.
7.3 Bridges
There is potential that two bridges or elevated structures would be necessary for design of the trail that follows the traditional alignment. Approximate locations for the bridges or structures are shown in Attachment 3 on Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2. Both bridges would be located in the lower section of the trail, within the section that would be rerouted to follow the traditional alignment. The first bridge would be needed to cross the stream that flows through the traditional alignment and is anticipated to be a smaller structure. The second bridge would be needed to span the gap between the eroded hillside and the rock on the beach where the traditional alignment meets the beach. This second bridge is anticipated to be longer 12608028 ALMT Conceptual Restoration Solutions 11
as it would extend from the stable rock on the beach to an unknown point on the adjacent bluff that appears unstable. Additional information will be needed from future topographic surveys and geotechnical investigations to determine an appropriate endpoint of the bridge on the bluff. Therefore, the lengths of the two bridges are not currently known and this provides uncertainty in developing potential costs for these structures.
Photographs of prefabricated, aluminum, pedestrian bridges that have been utilized in other local coastal trail projects are included in the photos in Attachment 3. These photographs are presented as an example of one type of pedestrian bridge that could potentially be utilized for the trail. However, conceptual bridge design should be developed during the next phase of design after the entirety of the Traditional Trail alignment can be accessed and the conditions of the stream and bluff can be evaluated.
It is also important to note that regardless of the final length of the two bridges, they are not anticipated to be brought to the site and installed from Edwards Street and down the trail. They are anticipated to be needed to be brought to the lower beach along with a crane to set them in place on a barge. This approach could work for the lower longer bridge. A crane may or may not be able to reach the second site at the stream crossing which has not been accessed or identified. If it is not accessible by a crane, then the second smaller bridge may be able to be built onsite with materials brought down the trail.
7.4 Rock Access to Beach
The Traditional Trail alignment utilized a large rock on the beach that connects to the bluff and provides access to the beach. This rock can be seen in Attachment 2 Photo 8. One of the bridges described in the previous section would be constructed to provide safe access from the bluff to the top of the rock. In addition to the bridge that would provide access to the top of the rock, stairs of some form, such as concrete steps cast into the rock with a steel railing would be needed to provide safe access down the rock face to the beach. The design of these stairs should be developed in conjunction with the bridge design to ensure that there would be sufficient space for both.
8. Next Steps and Data Gaps
Additional data will be needed to advance these conceptual ideas to an initial design phase. This includes additional site visits, topographic surveys, a geotechnical investigation, discussions with regulatory agencies, CEQA and related studies, and permit applications required for environmental compliance. These recommended next steps are discussed below.
8.1 Field Evaluation of the Traditional Trail Alignment Additional field evaluation will be needed so that the proposed, Traditional Trail alignment can be accessed, surveyed, and observations made regarding the hillside condition and location of the stream that would need to be crossed. This would require some vegetation clearing, as dense vegetation was the primary reason that the Traditional Trail alignment could not be accessed during the initial field reconnaissance.
The vegetation clearing could likely be kept to a minimum and done using hand tools. However, during geotechnical data collection (discussed below) additional vegetation disturbance will likely be necessary to provide equipment access.
There are two primary unknowns that need to be addressed during the future field evaluation. The first primary unknown is the actual Traditional Trail alignment and location of a bridge if needed to cross the stream. The second primary unknown that needs to be evaluated is how the trail will connect from the bluff to the rock on the beach. Significant erosion of the hillside on the west side and location of the stream on the east side of the rock made it impossible during the initial field reconnaissance to evaluate how the trail would connect to the rock on the beach.
8.2 Additional Geotechnical Evaluation
A geotechnical evaluation will be needed prior to design of the trail and the two anticipated bridges or structures that are needed. One of the primary purposes of designing the new trail is to reduce the 12608028 ALMT Conceptual Restoration Solutions 12
disturbance to the cultural resources, vegetation, and hillside. To minimize disturbances to these resources during a geotechnical investigation, there is potential for a remote access portable auger rig to be used for drilling activities. This type of rig disassembles into pieces that can be carried by foot to the desired location on the hillside. The rig is then reassembled at the drilling location and hydraulic hoses are run from the portable rig, upslope, to a stationary rig that powers the portable unit. There are distance limitations of several hundred feet for the hydraulic lines, which would need to be evaluated during the next project phase. The portable auger rig requires a minimum work area of 3 by 6 feet, which is significantly less than the work area required by an all-terrain track-mounted rig. See Figure 3 below for an example of a remote access portable auger rig that is offered through Clear Heart Drilling out of Santa Rosa, California.
Figure 3 Example of a remote access portable auger rig that is available through Clear Heart Drilling (Clear Heart 2023). The use of a portable rig could significantly reduce the amount of ground and vegetation disturbance during a geotechnical investigation.
8.3 Future Permitting and Environmental Studies
The proposed trail would need to adhere to federal, state and local environmental regulations. It is located on City Property, and it is assumed that the City would be the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and applicant on permit applications. It is unlikely that the Project would be subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) unless it received federal funding. Compliance with NEPA is included as an optional task.
Biological and cultural inventories (“special studies”) would be conducted to determine which protected resources (if any) are present within the Project footprint. This inventory of environmental resources would help determine which resources may be affected by the Project and inform which permits are necessary to apply for. The following special studies would be conducted to inform CEQA and permitting:
– Biological Resources Report (BRR)
• Includes a site visit documenting habitat conditions, surveys and mapped locations of any sensitive vegetation communities and rare plants, and desktop review of potential special status 12608028 ALMT Conceptual Restoration Solutions 13
plants and wildlife that could occur in the Project footprint. The BRR would be utilized to inform CEQA and permit applications.
– Wetland Delineation and Report
• Includes field work and generation of report to document aquatic resources within the Project footprint that is subject to the federal Clean Water Act, and/or state Porter-Cologne Act. – Cultural Resources Report
• Includes desktop and fieldwork to determine if sensitive cultural resources are or have high potential to occur within the Project footprint. This report would help satisfy Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
CEQA is designed to ensure that state government agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects prior to approving plans or policies or committing to a course of action on a project (CEQA 2023).
The first step of CEQA is to determine if the Project falls under a statutory or categorical exemption from CEQA. If the Project is not exempt, the next step is to prepare an initial study to determine whether the Project might result in significant environmental impacts. Depending on the results of the initial study, the next step is to prepare a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report (EIR) to fulfill CEQA requirements. It is anticipated that this Project would fall under an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND).
The following permits or compliance actions are anticipated to be required:
– Clean Water Act Section 404, administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. – Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification, administered by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.
– Construction General Permit (typically required only if the Project is over one acre) administered by the State Water Resources Control Board.
• Includes preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). – Coastal Development Permit, administered by the California Coastal Commission. – Potential consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for impacts to California Endangered Species Act listed species.
– Potential consultation with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service for potential impact to federally Endangered Species Act listed species. • Includes preparation of a Biological Assessment (BA). – CEQA via an ISMND.
– NEPA via an Environmental Assessment (only required if federal funding or discretion is utilized).
8.4 Permitting Timeline
An approximate timeline is provided below for completion of environmental compliance activities:
5. Special studies: Approximately three to six months
a. Rare plant and vegetation surveys must occur in the spring and summer. b. Preferred to conduct wetland delineation in late winter/early spring.
6. CEQA: Approximately six to nine months.
7. Permit applications:
a. Approximately one to three months to prepare (pending Project design at 65%). b. Three months review time by agencies which is often an iterative process of questions and communication between agency and applicant.
c. Assume nine months between permit application submittal and permit issuance.
Overlap can occur between steps one through three to shorten the overall process. It should be assumed that the entire compliance timeframe is approximately twelve to eighteen months. 12608028 ALMT Conceptual Restoration Solutions 14
9. Planning Level Opinion of Probable Construction Cost The planning level opinion of probable construction cost (OPCC) is presented in Attachment 4. There is a separate table that presents the OPCC for the preferred concept and the wood stairs and wood railing concept discussed in previous sections. Note that each OPCC is based on these current concepts, which inherently have a lot of unknowns regarding design components, design details, quantities of materials, and other aspects of the proposed trail concepts. Estimating contingencies are commonly used for this reason.
The contingency amounts are typically reduced as the project design advances from the conceptual stage to the final design stage.
The OPCCs for each concept were developed as a planning tool and for comparison purposes. There are several project components that are the same for each concept, such as the two bridges. As mentioned previously, there are many unknowns at this conceptual stage. One of these unknowns is the size of the bridge that may be necessary at the bottom of the trail to span the distance from the rock on the beach back to the stable bluff area. Due to this unknown, assumptions were made with the intent of being conservative with the associated unit cost for that item. Since the same unit cost was used for both concepts, that line item does not make a difference when comparing the two concepts. It is important to understand that additional information is required to refine that one-unit price, and that is an example of why the estimating contingency is an important component used to develop our final opinion of probable construction cost.
10. Recommendations
GHD has reviewed historical data and conducted an initial site reconnaissance in preparation of the conceptual designs presented herein. The conceptual designs and discussion also take into consideration the importance of minimizing disturbance to this rich cultural area and the coastal environment and weathering effects that the trail will need to withstand. The initial capital costs and desired aesthetics of a project are important as is the need to consider the long-term maintenance costs so that an appropriate project concept can be developed and ultimately implemented. These aspects were qualitatively considered, and a present worth analysis to account for operation and maintenance costs over the expected life cycle of the project is recommended in the future as the project progresses.
The wood stairs and wood railing option have an aesthetic that is often desired for local hiking trails.
However, exposure to the coastal environment would cause structural and aesthetic damage to the wood materials in a shorter time frame than concrete and aluminum or coated steel materials. The concrete stairs and steel railing option is expected to have a longer overall lifetime and require less maintenance.
However, a box stair design is not considered feasible for this trail due to the amount of required excavation and likely disturbance to cultural resources that would result from installation.
For the reasons discussed above, GHD is recommending that the conceptual design selected for further development be the elevated boardwalk with aluminum framing and steel railing option. This option minimizes the footprint of excavation and therefore helps minimize the potential for disturbance to cultural resources. The galvanized steel railing and support posts are expected to have greater longevity and lower long-term maintenance cost than wood railing and posts. There are several options for construction materials for the elevated boardwalk walking surface, including materials that are more resistant to coastal weathering processes. Overall, the elevated boardwalk with aluminum framing and steel railing option provides a solution for protecting cultural resources while also providing the community with a trail that could see fewer trail closures due to reduced maintenance requirements.
Capital costs must also be considered. Based on the two conceptual designs of an elevated boardwalk, our opinion of probable construction costs for the recommended metal frame and steel railing option is approximately 30% more than the wood frame and wood railing option. This is not surprising as aluminum, or other non-wood components, are typically more expensive than wood materials. Maintenance requirements over the expected life cycle of the project must also be considered and minimized for both public safety and maintenance cost reasons.
12608028 ALMT Conceptual Restoration Solutions 15
To develop the proposed project design, additional information is required. The preferred trail alignment needs to be accessible to conduct additional field studies such as a topographic survey and geotechnical investigation. This information could then be used to develop 30% design plans which help identify the project components and allow for review and revisions before being developed to the 65% design stage.
Conducting additional fieldwork to identify biological, botanical, wetland, and cultural resources allows CEQA to be completed. Discussions with regulatory agencies could then occur and result in permit applications being submitted as required. These items are often combined into a proposal for grant funding to develop and refine the design, complete the environmental documentation, and develop an updated opinion of probable construction costs based on the 65% design. These deliverables then provide the basis for securing implementation funds allowing the project to be constructed.
Following is a table of planning level costs anticipated to advance the design to the 65% level, complete CEQA, and submit permit applications.
Regards
Steve Allen, PE
Project Manager
Mindi Curran, PG
Project Geologist
1 Grant Administration $ 10,000
3 Topographic Survey $ 60,000
4 Geotechnical Investigation $ 80,000
5 30% Design Plans $ 60,000
6 65% Design Plans, and OPCC $ 95,000
7 Environmental Documentation $ 50,000
8 Biological Assessment, NEPA EA, and CESA Coordination (If Needed) $ 35,000 9 CEQA (assuming IS/MND) $ 60,000
10 Permit Applications $ 25,000
Opinion of Probable Project Costs $ 475,000
Item No. Item Description Total for Line Item
Mindi L.Curran
Technical Memorandum
The Power of Commitment
12608028 ALMT Conceptual Restoration Solutions 16
11. References
Busch Geotechnical Consultants. 2009. Results of Factor-of-Safety Analysis and Erosion-Rate Assessment for Proposed Marshall Residence, Edwards Street, Trinidad, Humboldt County, California (APN 042-042- 005 and -013).
California Environmental Quality Act. 2023. Accessed June 2023: CEQA: The California Environmental Quality Act - Office of Planning and Research
Clear Heart Drilling. Example of Remote Access Portable Auger Rig. Accessed June 2023: GeoTechnical | Clear Heart Drilling
Crawford and Associates, Inc. 2013. Slope Stability Analyses for the Trinidad Stormwater Improvement Project, Trinidad, California. Prepared for GHD.
Kathleen Sloan & Megan Rocha (Yurok Tribe Environmental Program). 2007. Final Tsurai Management Plan. Prepared for the Tsurai Management Team, California Coastal Conservancy, City of Trinidad, Tsurai Ancestral Society, and the Yurok Tribe.
LACO Associates. 2004. Engineering Geological Assessment off Tsurai Village with Recommendations for Future Management. Prepared for the Tsurai Ancestral Society.
National Environmental Policy Act. 2023. What is the National Environmental Policy Act? Accessed June 2023: What is the National Environmental Policy Act? | US EPA Pacific Watershed Associates. 2008. Preliminary Geologic Hazard Report for APNs 042-042-005 and 042- 042-013, located on Hector Street in Trinidad, California.
Redwood Community Action Agency. 1995. Indian Beach Trail Access Feasibility Study, Trinidad, California. Prepared for the State Coastal Conservancy Contract # 93-048.
SHN. 1996. Addendum to Geologic Report for Two Trail Alternatives South of Edwards Street, Trinidad, California. Prepared for the City of Trinidad.
SHN. 2016. Coastal Bluff Setback Analysis, 20 Scenic Drive, Trinidad, California. Prepared for the City of Trinidad.
SHN. 2017. Landslide Mitigation Assessment, Trinidad Memorial Lighthouse and Edwards Street, Trinidad, California. Prepared for the City of Trinidad.
SHN. 2017b. Preliminary Assessment of Current Slope Stability Conditions, Trinidad Memorial Lighthouse, Edwards Street, Trinidad. Prepared for the City of Trinidad.
SHN. 2019. Coastal Landslide Hazard Evaluation, City of Trinidad, California. Prepared for the City of Trinidad.
SHN. 2022. Coastal Bluff Mapping, City of Trinidad, California. Prepared for the City of Trinidad.
Tsurai Ancestral Society. 2022. Seventh Generation Fund for Indigenous Peoples Grant Application. 12608028 ALMT Conceptual Restoration Solutions 17
Attachments
12608028 ALMT Conceptual Restoration Solutions 18
Attachment 1
Examples Provided by Tsurai Ancestral
Society
The Power of Commitment
12608028 | Attachment 1 Examples Provided by Client 1
Examples Provided by Client
Photo 1 Example boardwalk with railing provided by the Tsurai Ancestral Society.
Photo 2 Example boardwalk platform with stairs style provided by the Tsurai Ancestral Society. 12608028 | Attachment 1 Examples Provided by Client 2
Photo 3 Example boardwalk steep stair section provided by Tsurai Ancestral Society.
Photo 4 Example boardwalk with wire mesh fencing provided by Tsurai Ancestral Society. 12608028 ALMT Conceptual Restoration Solutions 19
Attachment 2
Site Photographs
The Power of Commitment
12608028 | Attachment 2 Site Photographs 1
Site Photographs
Photo 1 Facing west at the top of the staircase of the Trinidad Memorial Park. The Axel Lindgren Memorial Trail (ALMT) begins where the barricades are placed. The barricades are to limit trail access due to erosion of the base of the trail.
Photo 2 Facing west along the ALMT.
12608028 | Attachment 2 Site Photographs 2
Photo 3 Facing west, looking at a tent that was setup illegally along the trail where the resting bench is located.
This emphasizes the need for a trail design that prevents access into the Tsurai Study Area (TSA).
Photo 4 Facing west, moving down the trail toward the beach. 12608028 | Attachment 2 Site Photographs 3
Photo 5 At the location where the traditional alignment deviates from the existing ALMT. The traditional alignment would head north, towards the right side of the photo.
Photo 6 Looking at the top of the biodegradable erosion control fabric that was placed on the bare slope at the bottom of the trail. The slope was eroded by wave action. 12608028 | Attachment 2 Site Photographs 4
Photo 7 Looking at where the ALMT would meet the beach. The biodegradable erosion control fabric was installed as part of another project to try and reduce further erosion of the exposed slope.
Photo 8 Facing east, standing on the beach looking at the rock that the traditional trail used to access the beach. 12608028 | Attachment 2 Site Photographs 5
Photo 9 Facing west, looking at the small stream that is located on the south side of the rock that the traditional trail used to access the beach.
Photo 10 Facing west, looking at the beach from the top of the rock. The traditional trail accessed the rock from the bluff slope and then continued down the rock to the beach. 12608028 ALMT Conceptual Restoration Solutions 20
Attachment 3
Conceptual Drawings and Details
0+00
1+00
2+00
3+00
4+00 4+03 0+00 0+96 718 Third Street Eureka California 95501 USA T 1 707 443 8326 F 1 707 444 8330 W www.ghd.com GHD Inc. Reuse of Documents This document and the ideas and designs incorporated herein, as an instrument of professional service, is the property of GHD and shall not be reused in whole or in part for any other project without GHD's written authorization. © 2023 GHD Drawn Date Title Project Project Number Sheet No. Project Manager AXEL LINDGREN MEMORIAL TRAIL 12608028 Steve Allen AXEL LINDGREN MEMORIAL TRAIL CONCEPT PLAN FIG 3.1 5/23/2023 TW EDWARDS STREET OLD HOME BEACH (N) TRAIL AT (E) AXEL LINDGREN MEMORIAL TRAIL ALIGNMENT 1 ALMT CONCEPT PLAN SCALE: 1" = 40' 0 20' 40' 80' N ⅊ ⅊ ⅊ APPROXIMATE (E) AXEL LINDGREN MEMORIAL TRAIL ALIGNMENT REPRESENTATION OF (N) AXEL LINDGREN MEMORIAL TRAIL ALIGNMENT REST AREA W/ BENCH LOW SLOPE AREA W/ RAILS AND NO STAIR LOW SLOPE AREA W/ RAILS AND NO BOARDWALK LOW SLOPE AREA W/ RAILS AND NO STAIR 2 FIG3.2 4 FIG3.3
MEMORIAL
PARK (E) WALK AND STAIR AT MEMORIAL PARK SITE (N) BRIDGE TO (E) BASE ROCK AT BEACH. 6 FIG3.4 APPROX. LOCATION OF POSSIBLE (N) BRIDGE AT (E) DRAINAGE ENTRY TO TRAIL FROM MEMORIAL PARK AREA NOTE: 1. STAIR AND BOARDWALK STRUCTURE TO BE ANALYZED IN DESIGN PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF FINAL PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND OPINION OF COST. SPANS REPRESENTED, SIZE OF STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS, AND TYPE AND NUMBER OF MEMBERS SHOWN IN CURRENT FIGURES DEPICT GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONCEPTS AND ARE THE BEST CURRENT ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION.
ELEVATION STATION 0102030405060708090 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170-0+25 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 718 Third Street Eureka California 95501 USA T 1 707 443 8326 F 1 707 444 8330 W www.ghd.com GHD Inc. Reuse of Documents This document and the ideas and designs incorporated herein, as an instrument of professional service, is the property of GHD and shall not be reused in whole or in part for any other project without GHD's written authorization. © 2023 GHD Drawn Date Title Project Project Number Sheet No. Project Manager AXEL LINDGREN MEMORIAL TRAIL 12608028 Steve Allen AXEL LINDGREN MEMORIAL TRAIL CONCEPT PROFILE FIG 3.2 5/23/2023 TW 2 ALMT CONCEPT PROFILE SCALE: 1" = 40' REST AREA AND BENCH (E) GRADE AT CURRENT TRAIL ALIGNMENT (N) RAIL AT (N) STAIR LOW SLOPE AREA W/ RAILS AND BOARDWALK LOW SLOPE AREA W/ RAILS AND BOARDWALK REPRESENTATION OF (N) TRAIL ALIGNMENT (E) GRADE AT CURRENT TRAIL ALIGNMENT (E) WALK, STAIR AT MEMORIAL PARK (N) BRIDGE OR STRUCTURE TO SPAN TO (E) BASE ROCK AT BEACH 4 FIG3.3 6 FIG3.4 ENTRY TO TRAIL FROM MEMORIAL PARK AREA (N) STRUCTURE WHERE NECESSARY TO PROVIDE FOR (E) DRAINAGE. LOCATION TO BE VERIFIED AS AVAILABLE WITH SITE ACCESS. (E) GRADE AT CURRENT TRAIL ALIGNMENT (N) HANDRAIL (N) TOP RAIL LOW SLOPE AREA W/ RAILS AND BOARDWALK A NO STAIR AT LOW SLOPE DETAIL SCALE: 1" = 10' (NO VERTICAL EXAGERATION) (N) POST (N) STAIR (N) FENCE MESH VERTICAL EXAGGERATION = 2 VERTICAL : 1 HORIZONTAL (N) FOOTING NOTE: 1. STAIR AND BOARDWALK STRUCTURE TO BE ANALYZED IN DESIGN PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF FINAL PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND OPINION OF COST. SPANS REPRESENTED, SIZE OF STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS, AND TYPE AND NUMBER OF MEMBERS SHOWN IN CURRENT FIGURES DEPICT GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONCEPTS AND ARE THE BEST CURRENT ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION. 42" - 44"
8" MIN CLR
34" - 38" 5'-0" 1.5" MIN. 4.5" MAX. 4'-0" MIN. CLR. WIDTH 718 Third Street Eureka California 95501 USA T 1 707 443 8326 F 1 707 444 8330 W www.ghd.com GHD Inc. Reuse of Documents This document and the ideas and designs incorporated herein, as an instrument of professional service, is the property of GHD and shall not be reused in whole or in part for any other project without GHD's written authorization. © 2023 GHD Drawn Date Title Project Project Number Sheet No. Project Manager AXEL LINDGREN MEMORIAL TRAIL 12608028 Steve Allen AXEL LINDGREN MEMORIAL TRAIL CONCEPT WOOD DETAILS FIG 3.3 5/23/2023 TW (2) 2X TOP RAILS 6X POST AT APPROX 6' O.C. GALV. 12g WELDED WIRE MESH FENCING2X MID AND BOTTOM RAIL (3) STRINGER W/ 7X11 STEP OR SHALLOWER 2X TREAD AND RISER (2) 2X TOP RAILS 2X TREAD AND RISER REINF. CONC. PAD FOOTING AT SUPPORT POSTS (2) 1-1/2" DIA GALV. STEEL HANDRAILS 3 WOOD BOARDWALK PROFILE SCALE: 1/2" = 1' 4 WOOD BOARDWALK SECTION SCALE: 1/2" = 1' 3 REINF. CONC. PAD FOOTING AT SUPPORT POSTS APPROX. LOCATION OF EXISTING GRADE REMOVE ORGANICS AND LOOSE TOPSOIL. EXCAVATE TO FIRM, STABLE BEARING SOILS. SCARIFY, DAMPEN, AND COMPACT BELOW FOOTINGS. NOTE: 1. STAIR AND BOARDWALK STRUCTURE TO BE ANALYZED IN DESIGN PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF FINAL PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND OPINION OF COST. SPANS REPRESENTED, SIZE OF STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS, AND TYPE AND NUMBER OF MEMBERS SHOWN IN CURRENT FIGURES DEPICT GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONCEPTS AND ARE THE BEST CURRENT ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION. 34" - 38" 5'-0" 1.5" MIN. 4.5" MAX. 4'-0" MIN. CLR. WIDTH 42" - 44"
8" MIN CLR 718 Third Street Eureka California 95501 USA T 1 707 443 8326 F 1 707 444 8330 W www.ghd.com GHD Inc. Reuse of Documents This document and the ideas and designs incorporated herein, as an instrument of professional service, is the property of GHD and shall not be reused in whole or in part for any other project without GHD's written authorization. © 2023 GHD Drawn Date Title Project Project Number Sheet No. Project Manager AXEL LINDGREN MEMORIAL TRAIL 12608028 Steve Allen AXEL LINDGREN MEMORIAL TRAIL CONCEPT METAL RAIL & FRAME WITH WOOD STAIR DETAILS FIG 3.4 5/23/2023 TW NOTE: 1. STAIR AND BOARDWALK STRUCTURE TO BE ANALYZED IN DESIGN PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF FINAL PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND OPINION OF COST. SPANS REPRESENTED, SIZE OF STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS, AND TYPE AND NUMBER OF MEMBERS SHOWN IN CURRENT FIGURES DEPICT GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONCEPTS AND ARE THE BEST CURRENT ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION. 5 5 METAL RAIL & FRAME WITH WOOD STAIR PROFILE SCALE: 1/2" = 1' 6 METAL RAIL & FRAME WITH WOOD STAIR SECTION SCALE: 1/2" = 1' 2-1/2 DIA GALV. STEEL POST AT APPROX 6' O.C., TYP. FENCE BRACKET CONNECTIONS APPROX. LOCATION OF EXISTING GRADE GALV. WELDED WIRE MESH FABRIC 12g MIN. (2) 1-1/2" DIA GALV. STEEL HANDRAILS (2) 1-1/2" DIA. GALV. STEEL TOP RAILS 2X TREAD AND RISER REINF. CONC. PAD FOOTING AT SUPPORT POSTS APPROX. LOCATION REMOVE ORGANICS AND LOOSE OF EXISTING GRADE TOPSOIL. EXCAVATE TO FIRM, STABLE BEARING SOILS. SCARIFY, DAMPEN, AND COMPACT BELOW FOOTINGS. 2X TREAD AND RISER REINF. CONC. PAD FOOTING AT SUPPORT POSTS ALUMINUM STRINGER / FRAME ALUMINUM STRINGER / FRAME MOUNTING BRACKET The Power of Commitment
12608028 | Attachment 3 Example Bridges and Materials 1 Example Pedestrian Bridges and Construction Materials
Photo 1 Example of wire mesh and wood railing. (Product image found online provided by Wild Hog Railing).
Photo 2 Example of a stainless-steel welded wire mesh and railing. (Product image found online provided by Hightop Metal Mesh).
12608028 | Attachment 3 Example Bridges and Materials 2 Photo 3 Example of a galvanized steel welded wire cloth and railing. (Product image found online provided by Enzar).
Photo 4 Example of a prefabricated aluminum pedestrian bridge. This bridge is located on the Eureka Waterfront Trail.
12608028 | Attachment 3 Example Bridges and Materials 3 Photo 5 Side view of a prefabricated aluminum pedestrian bridge. This bridge is located on the Eureka Waterfront Trail.
Photo 6 Example of a prefabricated aluminum pedestrian bridge used to cover a long distance. This bridge is located on the Eureka Waterfront Trail.
12608028 ALMT Conceptual Restoration Solutions 21
Attachment 4
Planning Level Opinion of Probable
Construction Cost
Axel Lindgren Memorial Trail Concept - Wood Stairs and Wood Railing Based on design concepts for planning and comparison purposes June 30, 2023
1 Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS $ 65,000 $ 65,000
3 Pedestrian Trail Closure - Signage and Construction Fencing 1 LS $ 5,000 $ 5,000 4 Erosion & Sediment Control Measures 1 LS $ 10,000 $ 10,000 5 Site Preparation, Excavation 1 LS $ 20,000 $ 20,000
6 Stair & Rail Construction 1 LS $ 375,000 $ 375,000
7 Pedestrian Bridge - Trail to Rock 1 LS $ 250,000 $ 250,000 8 Pedestrian Bridge - Drainage 1 LS $ 80,000 $ 80,000
9 Concrete Stair - Rock to Beach 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 855,000
Estimating Contingency (30%) $ 256,500
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost $ 1,111,500
SUBTOTAL
Planning Level Opinion of Probable Construction Costs (OPCC) Item No. Item Description QTY. UNIT Unit Price Total for Line Item
Axel Lindgren Memorial Trail Concept - Aluminum Framing and Steel Railing Based on design concepts for planning and comparison purposes June 30, 2023
1 Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS $ 85,000 $ 85,000
3 Pedestrian Trail Closure - Signage and Construction Fencing 1 LS $ 5,000 $ 5,000 4 Erosion & Sediment Control Measures 1 LS $ 10,000 $ 10,000 5 Site Preparation, Excavation 1 LS $ 20,000 $ 20,000
6 Stair & Rail Construction 1 LS $ 640,000 $ 640,000
7 Pedestrian Bridge - Trail to Rock 1 LS $ 250,000 $ 250,000 8 Pedestrian Bridge - Drainage 1 LS $ 80,000 $ 80,000
9 Concrete Stair - Rock to Beach 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 1,140,000
Estimating Contingency (30%) $ 342,000
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost $ 1,482,000
SUBTOTAL
Planning Level Opinion of Probable Construction Costs (OPCC) Item No. Item Description QTY. UNIT Unit Price Total for Line Item DISCUSSION AGENDA ITEM 1
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ATTACHED
1. Unmet Transit Needs Public Hearing.
Background: Each year HCAOG conducts a citizen participation process to assess unmet transit needs within Humboldt County. The public is invited during the hearing to express their opinion, solutions, complaints, or suggestions regarding Humboldt County’s public transportation systems and/or general unmet transit needs.
Recommended action: Open the public hearing, receive comments, and forward to HCAOG.
Attachments:
- HCAOG summary letter.
HUMBOLDT COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
Regional Transportation Planning Agency
Humboldt County Local Transportation Authority
Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies
611 I Street, Suite B
Eureka, CA 95501
(707) 444-8208
www.hcaog.net
Citizen Participation Process for Transit Needs Assessment Transportation Development Act
The Humboldt County Association of Governments (HCAOG) is responsible for allocating Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds within the region. The TDA provides two major sources of funding, Local Transportation Funds (LTF) derived from a ¼ cent of the general sales tax and State Transportation Assistance Funds (STAF) derived from a tax on diesel fuel. Together, these TDA funds provide a significant revenue source for public transit in Humboldt County. The “Unmet Transit Needs” process is carried out annually to identify and evaluate the adequacy of existing public transportation services. HCAOG is required to assess transit needs prior to allocating LTF money for non-transit purposes, while STA is programmed to the Humboldt Transit Authority and Arcata and Mad River Transit.
Each jurisdiction has their own LTF account. Eureka and Arcata use the entirety of their LTF allocation for transit purposes. The County of Humboldt, Cities of Fortuna, Rio Dell, Blue Lake, and Trinidad have funds remaining after paying their share for eligible transit uses. In these cases, the TDA allows LTF to be applied to local streets and roads budgets, including pedestrian and bicycle projects. In Ferndale, there are no eligible public transit services and the LTF allocation is applied to non-transit purposes.
Public Process to Make a Finding
HCAOG’s Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) leads the process.
Although only one hearing is required, public meetings are held to ensure residents in each jurisdiction are heard. The SSTAC considers all public testimony and input, determines if the suggestions meet the adopted definition of an unmet transit need and applies adopted criteria to determine if the need is “reasonable to meet”. Public comments are accepted throughout the year and close on December 31st.
The SSTAC will consider the draft Unmet Transit Needs report and forward one of the following findings to the HCAOG Board for consideration:
(a) there are no unmet transit needs; or
(b) there are no unmet transit needs which are “reasonable to meet”; or (c) there are unmet transit needs, including those that are “reasonable to meet” Potential Impacts to Local Transportation Funding
If HCAOG adopts finding (c), then the unmet transit needs shall be funded before any allocation is made for non-transit purposes (i.e. streets and roads) within the jurisdiction.
Funds for new or expanded transit services can be set-aside from sources other than TDA funds. For instance, in 2018 the HCAOG Board voted to set aside Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) funds for late-night weekday service on the Redwood Transit Service. The service was found based on ridership at that time to be an unmet transit need reasonable to meet, but could not be funded due to insufficient Local Transportation Funds available to all required entities. When COVID hit and ridership fell dramatically, these LCTOP funds were repurposed to support free fares.
Examples of Past Public Input and Findings
The FY 24-25 transit needs process resulted in a finding that Redwood Transit System (RTS) increased frequency to every 30 minutes during peak hours between McKinleyville Airport and Cal Poly Humboldt Library Circle is an unmet need that is reasonable to meet. HCAOG is working with HTA, the County and Cities to develop an operational and funding plan to meet this need. The unmet need must be funded prior to allocating any FY 24-25 Local Transportation Funds (LTF) to streets and roads.
Previous findings led to new transit services to Tish Non-Village (Bear River Rancheria) and Old Arcata Road. Both services were discontinued after two years because not enough people used them. In 2024, the SSTAC modified the “reasonable to meet” criteria to include an analysis of performance measures such as operating subsidy per passenger and riders per hour. These metrics provide other ways to consider the cost and projected performance of new transit service, with the intention to avoid starting new services that will not be viable. Other unmet needs including Sunday service on RTS and ETS, Saturday night service on RTS, and later evening service on ETS were not reasonable to meet based on projected farebox returns and very low estimated ridership that would result in a high operating subsidy.
Comments received through this annual process can provide valuable feedback to transit operators. Not all operational requests can be accommodated, but agencies make every effort to respond. In addition, public comments are beneficial as a record of community need and can help to secure competitive grant-funded opportunities such as first-last mile mobility solutions to expand access to transit.
Opportunities for Public Comment on Unmet Transit Needs • Navigate to the project page at https://www.hcaog.net/programs-projects/publictransportation or find the survey at https://bit.ly/HumboldtTransitNeeds • At one of the advertised public meetings;
• Written comments and/or feedback gathered from staff during direct outreach; • Comment submittals by email or telephone: [email protected]/444-8208
U N M ET T R AN S I T N E ED S
D EF I N I T I ON & R E AS ON A BL E T O M EET C R I T ER I A Unmet transit needs are, at a minimum:
(1) Trips requested from residents who do not have access to public transportation, specialized transportation, or private transport services or resources for the purpose of traveling to medical care, shopping, social/recreational activities, education/training, and employment; or
(2) Proposed public transportation, specialized transportation, or private transport services identified in the following, but not limited to: a Transportation Development Plan, Regional Transportation Plan, Coordinated Public Transit–Human Services Transportation Plan. (3) Sufficient broad-based community support exists, meaning that persons who will likely use the service on a routine basis demonstrate support with at a minimum two requests for general public service and for disabled service.
Additionally, unmet transit needs do not include:
❖ Improvements funded or scheduled for implementation in the next fiscal year. Two potential new services that will be reevaluated this year are:
• Express bus service between McKinleyville and Eureka during peak hours • Late Night Weekday Service on the Regional Transit System ❖ Minor operational improvements or changes such as bus stops, schedules, and minor route changes. Minor operational improvements are changes to service which do not affect the operating cost of the transit service either by requiring additional staff and/or additional vehicle hours of service or miles of service. ❖ Trips for primary or secondary school transportation
❖ Sidewalk improvements or street and road needs
Reasonable to meet criteria:
(1) To be considered “reasonable to meet”, a service must be operationally feasible and financially sustainable, as defined below:
a) The service must have adequate roadways and must be safe to operate. b) Enough money should be available from identified sources of funding to pay for the marginal operating costs of the service continuously for three years. (2) The service must be projected to meet a minimum “marginal farebox-return-ratio” of 10 percent within two years. Performance measures including estimated subsidy per passenger trip and passengers per vehicle hour of service will also be considered. For new service, ridership and farebox-return-ratio thresholds will be considered. (3) Pursuant to the requirements of TDA Statutes (Public Utilities Code Section 99401.5c, a determination of needs that are “reasonable to meet” shall not be made by comparing unmet transit needs with the need for streets and roads, for the allocation of TDA funds. (4) Once a service is determined to be "reasonable to meet" and is implemented, it can be expected that the ridership in the first 1-2 years of the new service will be less than the projected optimal ridership. Ridership should be evaluated at 6-month intervals to determine if service is meeting performance standards adopted by the transit provider, and specifically, whether the service meets a minimum 10 percent marginal fareboxreturn-ratio. If the service is being adequately promoted and fails to be within 60 percent of the identified standards after six months, 90 percent with the first year, or 100 percent within two years, the service may be cancelled and deemed "no longer reasonable to meet." An exception to this rule is when a community or group is willing to participate in sharing the ongoing cost of the new service.
DISCUSSION AGENDA ITEM 2
NO SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED
2. Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Update/Presentation DISCUSSION AGENDA ITEM 3
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ATTACHED
3. Discussion/Presentation regarding Law Enforcement JPA/Contract Concept AGENDA ITEM: Law Enforcement JPA/Contract Concept
Date: November 12, 2024 _______________________________________________________________________ ANALYSIS:
Our current law enforcement contract is with the Sheriff’s Office, supplemented by Pacific Coast Security (PCS). The Deputy Sheriffs patrol the City and respond to calls. PCS is in the City in the evenings observing traffic and communicaLng with the community. The arrangement with the Sheriff’s Office and PCS seem to provide adequate coverage for the City.
CIRA, our liability insurance pool, had concerns with the indemnity language in the Sheriff’s Contract which shiOs risk from the County to the City. See aQached Summary Report from CIRA for further details. Note that the Sheriff’s contract with Trinidad is for 5 years, and the Sheriff has not indicated that there would be a significant increase in cost to the City.
Over Lme residents have expressed an interest in having a dedicated officer assigned to the City as the Sheriff’s Office provided when they had more personnel available. In the past 2 months staff have had a couple of meeLngs with Ferndale, Blue Lake and CIRA to discuss potenLal opLons for consideraLon. We want to discuss this potenLal opLon with the City Council and the community to ascertain if there is sufficient interest to further pursue this opLon.
The concept is that the three smallest ciLes in the county can form a JPA or contract for services. Ferndale has a police department that can supply police officers to serve Blue Lake and Trinidad. Three officers would locate in the Blue Lake and Trinidad areas, one Sergeant and two officers. One officer would be dedicated to Trinidad. A police car and uniforms can be purchased with CIRA flexible spending funds for Trinidad. CalPoly Humboldt Police Department could provide dispatch. Mutual aid can be provided by all local agencies including the Sheriff’s Office, CHP, Arcata, as well as Ferndale.
The cost of providing these services through the ciLes would be much greater that the current services provided to the City. The City is now spending under $100,000 dollars annually, but the potenLal cost would likely be in excess of $200,000.
ACTION:
The City Council can give direcLon to staff:
1. To further pursue this opLon at this Lme; OR
2. To wait unLl aOer Blue Lake and Ferndale have made their arrangement and reconsider.
ATTACHMENT:
Summary Report provided by Erike Young of CIRA
DISCUSSION AGENDA ITEM 4
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ATTACHED
4. Discussion/Updates regarding Saunders Park Playground Concept and Tennis/Pickleball Court Improvement Project.
AGENDA ITEM: Saunders Park Playground Concept and
Tennis/Pickleball Court Update
Date: November 12, 2024 _______________________________________________________________________ ANALYSIS:
Saunders Park Playground Concept:
Councilmember Jack Tuttle initiated the concept of a playground at Saunders Park. Jack, City staD, Land Trust staD and Gail Saunders met on site to consider the feasibility at this location. Subsequently we have researched some playground equipment and outdoor fitness equipment. Jack has also prepared the attached Powerpoint.
It seems logical to preserve the walkway area for community events such as Taste of Trinidad, and locate the playground in the area close to the hillside. Outdoor fitness equipment can be located in the area where the Bocce Court is located if it is determined that the Bocce Court is not needed. We want to discuss this concept with the City Council and the community to ascertain if there is suDicient interest to further pursue a playground and/or outdoor fitness equipment.
Tennis/Pickleball Court Improvement Project Update:
StaD is preparing a Bid Packet which will then be reviewed by the city attorney and CIRA.
Subsequently, early next year we will advertise the project and contact eligible contractors with experience in resurfacing and adding Pickleball. The project will be constructed next spring or summer.
ACTION:
The City Council can give direction to staD on whether to pursue a playground/outdoor fitness equipment.
ATTACHMENT:
Powerpoint prepared by Jack Tuttle
Proposal: Transforming Saunders
Park into a Multi-Use Playground
A Vision for a Community-Focused Recreational
Space
Presented by: Jack Tuttle Resident of Trinidad
Date: 8-30-2024
Introduction
• What is Saunders Park?
• Location: Trinidad, CA.
Current Usage: Brief description of the park's
current state.
• Why Change?
• - Opportunity for community enrichment.
- Addressing lack of diverse recreational spaces
for children and families.
- Potential to attract visitors and enhance local
pride.
Project Goals
• Create a Safe and Inclusive Space:
• - Design for various age groups (toddlers to
grandparents).
- Ensuring safety features such as soft flooring, fencing, and accessible equipment.
• Multi-Use Functionality:
• - Combining traditional playground equipment,
outdoor fitness areas, and community gathering spots.
• Sustainable Design:
• - Incorporating eco-friendly materials.
- Using solar-powered lighting, water-efficient
landscaping, and more.
Design Concept
• Playground Areas:
• - Install modern playground equipment: slides, swings, climbing structures, etc.
- Inclusive elements for children of all abilities (e.g., wheelchair-accessible features).
• Fitness Area:
• - Outdoor gym equipment for adults and older kids.
- Space for yoga, stretching, and relaxation.
• Gathering Spaces:
• - Picnic tables, benches, shaded areas.
- Space for community events.
Present • Benches and Tables and an unused
Bocce Court.
• A place to hide from society with few
tourists or locals utilizing this park.
• Encampment area, frightening
parents with families to visit.
Arcata Redwood Park
Kid Town in Cresent City
Frontier Land, Pacifica CA
Ocean Themed
Environmental Impact & Sustainability
• Native Landscaping:
• - Incorporating native plants that thrive in the local climate.
- Reducing water usage through xeriscaping.
• Solar Energy:
• - Installing solar panels to power park lighting and
facilities.
• Recycled Materials:
• - Utilizing recycled rubber for playground surfaces.
- Eco-friendly building materials for benches,
structures, etc.
Community Benefits
• Health & Well-Being:
• - Encourages physical activity for all ages.
- Offers a place for social interaction and mental well- being. • Economic Impact:
• - Increased foot traffic to nearby businesses.
- Opportunities for hosting local events and activities. • Tourism & Visibility:
• - Attracting visitors to Trinidad for a family-friendly destination.
- Enhancing the city's image as a community-oriented
space.
Budget & Funding
• Cost Estimates:
• - Playground equipment.
- Fitness equipment and installation.
- Landscaping and sustainable features.
- Maintenance costs.
• Funding Sources:
• - Grants (state and federal).
- Local fundraising and donations.
- Public-private partnerships.
Timeline
• Phase 1: Community Input & Planning (3-6 months)
• - Conduct surveys and hold public meetings to gather
input.
• Phase 2: Design & Permitting (6-9 months)
• - Work with landscape architects and engineers.
• Phase 3: Construction (9-12 months)
• - Begin groundwork, construction, and installation of equipment.
• Phase 4: Grand Opening & Community Event (1 month)
• - Celebrate with a community event to unveil the new
park.
Conclusion
• Summary:
• - Transforming Saunders Park into a multi-use
playground will promote community wellbeing, sustainability, and economic growth. • Call to Action:
• - Engage with stakeholders and the
community to bring this vision to life.
Contact Information
• Thank You for Your Attention
• Contact Information: Jack Tuttle
([email protected]/805-440-9458)
DISCUSSION AGENDA ITEM 5
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ATTACHED
5. Discussion/Decision to Begin the Recruitment Process to Fill Expiring Planning Commissioner Terms.
DISCUSSION AGENDA ITEM
Tuesday, November 12, 2024
Item: Planning Commission Vacancies – Term Expiration
Background: Planning Commissioner terms last 4-years, and appointments are made by the City Council. The 4-year terms expire on a rotating basis in December during each General Election year (even numbered year).
New Councilmembers are seated in January at the conclusion of each general election. At that meeting the Council is asked to make appointments to the Planning Commission to fill the vacancies left by rotating term expirations.
The current commissioners are:
Tom Hopkins Trinidad area Resident Term expires December 2024 Tristan Cole City resident Term expires December 2024
Richard Johnson Trinidad area resident Term expires December 2026 Aaron Hakenen City Resident Term expires December 2026
Chris Slay City Resident Term expires December 2026
Trinidad Municipal allows the Planning Commission to include up to (2) Commissioners that live outside the city limits if no qualified City residents apply. Commissioner Hopkins is one of two serving that live outside the City limits. His term is expiring, along with resident Tristan Cole (Berry Road).
With no term limits specified in the Trinidad Municipal Code for Planning Commissioners, current Commissioners are welcome to reapply.
Recommended Action: Authorize staff to begin the recruitment process to solicit public interest in serving on the Planning Commission and bring letters of interest back to the Council for appointment in January.
Attachments: Vacancy Notice (November 12, 2024)
CITY OF TRINIDAD Cheryl Kelly, Mayor
P.O. Box 390 Gabriel Adams, City Clerk
409 Trinity Street
Trinidad, CA 95570
(707) 677-0223
Tuesday, November 12, 2024
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES ON THE
TRINIDAD PLANNING COMMISSION
(2) SEATS, TERM: Through DECEMBER 2028
The City of Trinidad is currently seeking qualified individuals to serve as volunteers on the 5-member Planning Commission. There are (2) openings for 4-year terms serving through December 2028.
Of the (2) positions open, the Council may choose to select (1) applicant from the “Greater Trinidad Area”, but the other (1) selected must reside within the city limits.
Experience or an understanding of development or planning-related concepts relevant to the City of Trinidad is preferred - but not required. Commission applicants are appointed by the City Council during open session and attendance is requested for the selection meeting.
Please submit a letter of interest that includes your contact information, connection to the city or Greater Trinidad Area, reason for wanting to serve, and any relevant experience you may have in Planning related matters. The deadline for filing is December 09, 2024, and will remain open until filed.
Send letter of interest to the City Clerk’s Office:
CITY OF TRINIDAD, P.O. BOX 390, TRINIDAD, CA 95570
Deliver letter in person to:
TRINIDAD CITY HALL, 409 TRINITY STREET, TRINIDAD, CA
Or Email to: [email protected]
THE DEADLINE FOR FILING IS 2:00 PM, MONDAY, DECEMBER 09, 2024, OR UNTIL POSITIONS ARE FILLED.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL 677-0223.
Gabriel Adams - Trinidad City Clerk
DISCUSSION AGENDA ITEM 6
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ATTACHED
6. November General Election Update