Agenda packet, regular meeting — Trinidad City Council, July 8, 2025 (part 1 of 2)

City Council Meeting Agenda: 07-08-2025 cc Page 1
Posted: Friday, July 04, 2025

NOTICE AND CALL OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE

TRINIDAD CITY COUNCIL
The Trinidad City Council will hold a regular meeting on TUESDAY, JULY 08, 2025, at 6:00 PM
at the Trinidad Town Hall, 409 Trinity Street, Trinidad, CA.

CLOSED SESSION BEGINS AT 4:30PM
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: 861 0557 6998 Passcode: 433032 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. 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. DR180684

2. Public Employment – Appointment (Calif. Gov. Code Section 54957): City Manager/Interim City Manager

3. Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Gov. Code Section 54957): Interim City Manager IV. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION
V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – 05-13-2025 cc, 05-20-2025 scc, 06-10-2025 cc VII. COUNCIL REPORTS/COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS.

VIII. PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT (Sheriff and Pacific Coast Security) 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. 1 of 322
City Council Meeting Agenda: 07-08-2025 cc 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. Financial Statements – May 2025

2. Law Enforcement Report – June 2025.

3. Second Reading of Ordinance 2025-02; Amending section 15.04.260 of the Trinidad Municipal Code and any other Ordinances, Resolutions, or parts of ordinances or resolutions that are in conflict with the Schedule of Fees for Building Inspection Services.

4. Enter into a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Trinidad and HCAOG regarding the Partnering Assets and Authorities for Comprehensive Transit (PAACT) Project.

5. Authorization to Award Construction Contract for the Trinidad-Westhaven Emergency Intertie Project

6. Letter of Support for Trinidad Coastal Land Trust’s Candidacy for the Better Together Nature Positive Innovation Grant.

DISCUSSION/ACTION AGENDA ITEMS

3.1-acre undeveloped parcel. The Planning Commission approved the Design Review and Grading Permit for the project and recommended approval of the CDP/CUP on June 18, 2025.

Located on the eastern edge of Trinidad City Limits, situated between Highway 101 and North Westhaven Drive; APN: 515-151-066.

2. Discussion/Decision regarding Participation in a Feasibility Study to Join the Trinidad Rancheria in a Drinking Water Pipeline Connection project with Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District.

3. Discussion/Decision regarding Town Hall Renovation Project – Windows, Rot Repair, Etc.

4. Discussion/Decision to Adopt the Assistant City Manager Job Classification into the City Staff Structure.

5. Staff Activity Report – June 2025
X. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
XI. ADJOURNMENT
2 of 322
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR:

MAY 13, 2025 CC
MAY 20, 2025 SCC
JUNE 10, 2025 CC
Supporting Documentation follows with: 17 PAGES
3 of 322
05-13-2025 City Council Meeting Minutes Page 1

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TRINIDAD CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MAY 13, 2025 (LIVE/HYBRID)
I. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Kelly called the live-hybrid meeting to order at 6:00pm. Council members in attendance: Kelly, Tuttle, Varela. Kenny attended via videoconference. Breckenridge was absent. City Staff in attendance: City Manager Joe Tagliaboschi, City Clerk Gabriel Adams, Deputy Clerk Anton Souza, and City Planner Trever Parker. Approximately (4) participants were present by video-conference, and (8) were present live at the beginning of the meeting.

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. CLOSED SESSION – No closed session scheduled.

IV. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION
V. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Motion (Tuttle/Varela) to approve the agenda as submitted. Passed 4-0.

VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – 04-08-2025 cc
Motion (Varela/Tuttle) to approve the minutes as submitted. Passed 4-0.

VII. COUNCIL REPORTS/COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS
Tuttle: HTA exploring micro-transit service between the airport and Trinidad, and unveiling the new hydrogen powered bus. Also requested bus drive slow through Trinidad.

Varela: RREDC, learned about California Fishing Industry, the economy, and how offshore wind projects will affect them.

Kenny: HCAOG, Trinidad’s request for transportation funds (TDA) was approved.

Kelly: Attended RCEA meeting, discussed how to interpret PG&E bills and how much of household income is needed to pay energy costs. Energy assessment tools are available. On April 27, the CERT Team performed a moulage training (makeup included) with over 25 people attending. Thanked CERT organizers Jeff Austin and Larry Goldberg. Met with James Gore, kicking off campaign to replace Mike McGuire. Impressed with him, and appreciated the time he dedicated to visit us.

VIII.STAFF REPORTS – City Manager & Law Enforcement
City Manager Tagliaboschi highlighted accomplishments summarized in the staff report included in the meeting packet.

HCSO Lt. McCall was unable to attend, but the monthly report is included in the meeting packet.

IX. ITEMS FROM THE FLOOR
(Three (3) minute limit per Speaker unless Council approves request for extended time.)

Jeff Bairey – Trinidad
Update on Edwards and Galindo crosswalk signage. I also hear from several sources there are biohazards detected like giardia or e-coli or pathogen on Trinidad State Beach and Mill Creek, where I surf fish and children play? and would like to know more about that. I was on the beach yesterday and watched dogs take dumps on the beach, unleashed. There are no signs on the beach - and there needs to be - on the dune with dog poop bags and collection containers.

City Manager Tagliaboschi explained that coastal pathogens came up during an Animal Advisory discussion topic, and the crosswalk evaluation is underway.

Andrew Davis – Trinidad (zoom)
I hear something has changed on the Animal Advisory Committee – Breckenridge resigned? 4 of 322
05-13-2025 City Council Meeting Minutes Page 2
X. CONSENT AGENDA

1. Financial Statements – March 2025

2. Law Enforcement Report – April 2025.

3. Second Reading of Ordinance 2025-01; Designating the Fire Hazard Severity Zone as recommended by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Government Code Section 51178.

4. Resolution 2025-03; Adopting a List of Projects for Fiscal Year 2025/2026 Funded By SB-1, The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017.

Motion (Kenny/Varela) to approve consent agenda as submitted. Passed 4-0.

XI. DISCUSSION/ACTION AGENDA ITEMS

1. Discussion/Presentation regarding FY2025-2026 Budget Preparation.

City Manager Joe Tagliaboschi explained that on March 11 Staff conducted a mid-year review to review budget assumptions and adjust the budget if needed to capture unforeseen circumstances or needs in the organization.

The second part of the discussion peeled back a layer and focused on the current year priorities, identified achievements, and discussed the overall health of the General Fund and Special Revenue Funds.

The takeaway from the March 11 meeting was positive as forecast revenues were a bit ahead of estimates. The Water Enterprise Fund and recently adopted rates are still in the initial stages of analysis and with recent changes in the CPO and costs associated with that change the trend is cautiously positive.

This meeting will provide detailed information on the General Fund and reserves and how they are assigned, committed, or unrestricted, Special Revenue Funds, and our Water Enterprise Fund.

There will be a discussion of our current proposed staffing plan and the financial statements for FYE June 30, 2024, and through March 30, 2025. The statements were reconciled by Cunningham, Malone and Morton Bookkeeping Service, and our Auditor Brett Jones at JJCPA who conducts Audits for the City.

The Council also agreed on a list of goals and objectives at the January 07, 2025 Council meeting as a roadmap for the future. These items included:
• Invest in maintenance and upkeep of Town Hall, and recreation assets such as trails and parks. • Continue to plan for utility undergrounding.
• Prioritize strategies to stabilize water funds and staff. Including in house T3/CPO. • Prioritize developing a classification and compensation plan, and updating the Employee Policy and Procedure Manual, which aligns staff responsibilities and wages with the needs of the City, encourage retention, and rewards advancement.

Along with maintaining and enhancing the current service levels provided to the city, the current draft of the FY25/26 Budget aims to provide a continued focus on transitional stability for the Water Department. It is important to recognize that while adopting rates and transferring $300,000 from the General Fund to the Water Enterprise Fund was important and needed, it will take time for the fund to recover. While the recent change to a new interim CPO certainly helps better manage costs, staff are still working to have an in-house CPO to perform that work. Along with trained and credential staff that can operate the plant in all conditions, with appropriate backups in case of absences or open positions.

The proposed budget includes an accurate assessment of what is to come this year, projecting conservative spending in a healthy manner. For perspective, it is important to understand that the General Fund Reserve has been building over the last 5-years due to a combination of robust economic activity affecting the 95570 area (through tourism, increasing property values, and a resilient tax base). This past FY24/25 continues with that trend.

Staff feel the proposed budget accurately reflects the desires of the community, based on priorities set by the Council. The draft includes revenue and expenditure budget worksheets for each of the fund categories.

General Fund: Administrative, Public Works, Police, & Fire Restricted Funds: Water & Cemetery
Special Revenues: Gas Tax, Transportation (TDA), & COPS 5 of 322
05-13-2025 City Council Meeting Minutes Page 3
Tagliaboschi continued the presentation with slides shared that included the following topics, echoed in the meeting packet, draft proposed budget and summary:
• Budget Unit Structure
• Revenue Sources Overview
• General Fund Revenue Sources & Sales Tax Rate
• General Fund Revenues vs. Expenditures
• General Fund Reserves, Policy, and Total Fund Balance • General Fund Divisions: Admin, Police, Public Works, Fire • 3% CPI increase for Staff
• Staff Organizational Chart – slight reduction in personnel to 8.18 FTE (8 employees) from 9.25FTE in prior year (13 employees).
• Estimated Payroll and Grant Payroll Offset
• Water Operating Fund – may end 2025 with $140,000 thanks to $300k gift from General Fund. • Water Fund Goals and Highlights
• Grants In Progress
• General Fund Goals & Highlights
• Public Works Goals & Highlights – Capital Projects (Town Hall improvements, Tennis Court, Trails, etc.) • Next Steps
Council questions included:

Councilmembers Kelly and Kenny both asked questions to help distinguish between the Assistant City Manager and the Assistance to the City Manager. CM Tagliaboschi noted Grant Coordinator Angela Cather would be a great candidate for that position.

Kelly: Thanked Tagliaboschi for the work done so far, especially handling cost overruns with the Water Plant so quickly.

Kenny: The cart is before the horse if we account for ALMT (trail) grant funding before the Council approves the project. I’ve stated a few times that just because grant funding is available, we have to make sure the project fits our policy goals. I appreciate the presentation. It answered many questions I had after reviewing the line items.

What return rate are we getting on our reserve fund? – Clerk responded, between 4-7% through LAIF, and noted that prior years of underspending and conservative revenue expectations resulted in reserve fund growth. The budget this coming year intends to utilize the reserves to implement projects that were budgeted in prior years.

Public comment included:

Andrew Davis – Trinidad
Regarding compensation study, you might want to factor into the budget cost estimates and or adjustments.

City Manager Tagliaboschi noted that once the study was in hand, it will be brought back to the Council for adoption and adjustments as recommended.

Kelly, Tuttle, Kenny discussed Pacific Coast Security shifts, days of the week, and preferences, with agreement that their service is greatly appreciated.

Motion (Kenny/Kelly) to bring back the proposed budget in June with increased budget for Pacific Coast Security to 24 hours/week. Passed unanimously.

2. Discussion/Decision regarding Distribution of Tourist Occupancy Tax Funds to Community Organizations.

City Manager Tagliaboschi explained that in 2013 the City Council agreed to allocate 10% of the total, annual Tourist Occupancy Tax revenue for community organizations. Each Council serving since then have confirmed their intent to continue this tradition.

The Chamber of Commerce, Museum, Library, and Trinidad Coastal Land Trust agreed among themselves to distribute that amount every year to each organization proportionately. 6 of 322
05-13-2025 City Council Meeting Minutes Page 4
The total, unaudited Occupancy Tax revenue collected in FY 2023-2024 is $213,924. The City will be issuing 10% of the total revenue ($21,392) to each organization in the following payments:
30% $6,417.60 Greater Trinidad Chamber of Commerce
30% $6,417.60 Trinidad Museum
30% $6,417.60 Trinidad Coastal Land Trust
10% $2,139.20 Trinidad Library
Council comments included:

Kenny: Thanked the groups and expressed full support.

Kelly: Consider hearing from the groups to know how and what they’re up to.

Public comment included:

Patti Fleschner – Museum Society
Thanked the Council and offered to provide additional details as needed, but noted how insurance and building improvement costs have increased significantly.

Karen Parker – Trinidad Area Resident
Concerned why the proportion of payments are so low for Library. Patti Fleschner explained how the arrangement was made, funds were raised and reserved, and the contributions made on a regular basis by the City to maintain the facility.

Motion (Varela/Kenny) to confirm budget expense for fiscal year 2024-2025 as proposed. Passed unanimously.

3. Discussion/Decision regarding approval of the Plans and Bid Documents for the Water System Intertie Project.

Grant Coordinator Angela Cather explained that on March 11, 2025, Council approved the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Trinidad and Westhaven Community Services District regarding the Water System Intertie Project. Since approving the MOU in March 2025, the City’s contracted engineers, GHD, and WCSD’s contracted engineers, PACE, developed a completed set of Plans and Bid Documents for Council’s approval. These documents are now ready for the bidding process.

Council comment included:

Kenny: This is a project that we rely on staff to provide us good information and keep it on track.

There was no public comment.

Motion (Kenny/Tuttle) to approve the Plans and Bid Documents regarding the Water System Intertie Project and direct staff to advertise the project and request formal bids. Passed unanimously.

4. Staff Activity Report – April 2025
City Manager Joe Tagliaboschi summarized the following:
• CSA4 meeting- Staff met with members of Westhaven fire, CalFire, The Rancheria, BOS Members Madrone and Wilson and Board and Lafco staff. The group discussed a study for fire services and agreed that it is a worthwhile endeavor. Specifics of the study were discussed with a plan to solicit the study to a consultant with some quotes for costs. Once those results are analyzed and discussed there could be a request to contribute to help fund the study. • Water update: Eric Sanders invoice for April -$4000.00. Carl Anderson is working to schedule his exam for T3s
• Westhaven Intertie Project: Staff received the long-anticipated Plans, Specifications, Engineering (PSE) and updated Projected Costs to complete from Westhaven Water District. The PSE are scheduled for Council approval and then the project can get out for bidding. The project is expected to start at the end of July and end around the middle of November. • Staff is waiting on contractor response and quotes for the Windows and Rot repair at Town Hall. An additional document is being prepared for the front porch carpet removal and epoxy application. 7 of 322
05-13-2025 City Council Meeting Minutes Page 5

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
- Trails meeting May 20.
- Single-use plastic ordinance.
- Budget
ADJOURNMENT: 7:40pm.

Submitted by: Approved by:
_____________________________ _____________________________ Gabriel Adams Cheryl Kelly
Trinidad City Clerk Mayor
8 of 322
05-20-2025 Special City Council Meeting Minutes Page 1

MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE TRINIDAD CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2025 (LIVE/HYBRID)
I. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Kelly called the live-hybrid meeting to order at 6:00pm. Council members in attendance: Kelly, Kenny, Tuttle, Breckenridge, Varela. City Staff in attendance: City Manager Joe Tagliaboschi, City Clerk Gabriel Adams, Assistant Clerk Anton Souza, and City Planner Trever Parker. Approximately (3) participants were present by video-conference, and (10) were present live at the beginning of the meeting.

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Motion (Breckenridge/Varela) to approve the agenda as submitted. Passed unanimously.

IV. ITEMS FROM THE FLOOR – No items presented
(Three (3) minute limit per Speaker unless Council approves request for extended time.) V. CONSENT AGENDA – None proposed
VI. DISCUSSION/ACTION AGENDA ITEMS

1. Trinidad Trail Closure Issues: Discussion/Action regarding future management of City Trails, particularly related to the Axel Lindgren Memorial Trail, Van Wycke Trail, and Galindo Trail. The discussion will focus on the approaching expiration of the temporary, permitted closure of the Axel Lindgren Memorial Trail and a phased reopening plan.

City Planner Trever Parker read from and summarized a comprehensive report included in the meeting packet.

She explained that trails and their repair and maintenance have been significant ongoing issues for several years. During this time, several trails have been temporarily closed, some for multiple years. Trail closures, and many maintenance activities require Coastal Development Permits (CDPs). Therefore, the Planning Commission has had primary responsibility for discussing and acting on the various closures and maintenance/repair proposals. A timeline of recent closure actions are listed below:
• Van Wycke
o August 2020, the PC approved a 6-month temporary closure that was appealed to the City Council (appeal denied) and the Coastal Commission
o September 2023, the Coastal Commission found the appeal raised no substantial issues, but made it clear they wanted a solution
o March 2024, the PC approved another 6-month closure
o September 2024, the PC denied an extension of the closure o October 2024, the City Council approved a 3-month extension of the closure o December 2024, City staff made some minor repairs (not requiring a CDP) and the closure expired. • Axel Lindgren Memorial Trail
o February 2023, City staff authorized an emergency CDP for closure at the request of the TAS o April 2023, the PC followed up to authorize a 6-month closure (2 months for Parker Creek Trail, which was reopened in May 2023)
o May 2023, the PC issued a CDP for repair of the Parker Creek Trail and remediation actions for erosion and impacts to cultural resources at the toe of the bluff along Old Home Beach o October 2023, the PC approved a 4-month extension on the condition that City staff develop a short-term reopening plan.
o March 2024, the PC approved another 4-month extension to the closure o July 2024, the Planning Commission denied a new CDP for continued temporary closure of the ALMT for up to a year (appealed to the City Council who upheld the appeal and overturned the PC decision, which was in turn appealed to the Coastal Commission who found the appeal raised no substantial issues).
o August 2024, the Planning Commission conditionally approved a CDP for vegetation removal along the realignment.
9 of 322
05-20-2025 Special City Council Meeting Minutes Page 2
The Planning Commission has expressed growing frustration with the continued closures of trails in Trinidad, particularly in the face of public opposition to the closures. This frustration is exacerbated by the fact that the Planning Commission does not have any authority to direct staff or resources to address trail issues or to otherwise affect progress towards reopening the trails other than acting on CDPs. Although they recognize that staff have been doing what they can, the Planning Commission wants the City Council to take a more active role in directing resources and following through to ensure that solutions are being actively pursued. This includes agendizing trail issues at City Council meetings to provide the public with a forum to provide input to the Council and for the Council to provide clear direction to staff.

AXEL LINDGREN MEMORIAL TRAIL (ALMT)
Parker explained that the City has continued to work with the Tsurai Management Team (TMT) to look at both short and long-term repairs to the ALMT and ways to address the bluff instability. The current closure will expire on May 23. There was some discussion at the TMT about the possibility of opening a portion of the trail. The City requested a TMT meeting on 3/31 and 4/2, but did not receive any responses from Yurok Tribe or TAS representatives. However, more recent direction given to staff is to reopen the entire trail on the existing alignment as quickly as possible.

It has always been the City’s intent to reopen the trail as soon as safely and sensitively possible. This was what various parties agreed to when the City temporarily closed the trail in February 2023 at the request of TAS. The City took several follow-up actions in 2023 as requested by the TAS, including installing fencing at the top and bottom of the trail, placing jute matting along the toe of the bluff, and installing snow/sand fencing on the beach along the base of the bluff. The City has continued to meet with the TMT to work in good faith to reopen the trail along the traditional alignment as requested by the TAS. However, that process has taken longer than anticipated and now does not appear to present a viable option for reopening the trail in the short-term.

Therefore, the City plans to move forward with a phased approach that will reopen the trail in the existing, permitted alignment in the immediate short-term, and it will also commit the City to continuing to work on improving the ALMT to protect cultural resources, including moving forward with the realignment in both the long and intermediate terms.

The phased reopening plan consists of four basic steps: 1) immediately trim vegetation and install cable steps at the toe of the existing, permitted alignment, remove the fencing, and allow the temporary closure to expire; 2) replace existing steps as needed and work with the TMT to install fencing or a railing along the east side of the trail or portions of the trail to discourage people from leaving the trail; 3) work with the TMT to plan studies and improvements necessary to reroute the bottom of the trail to the traditional alignment; and 4) apply for grant funding to implement the long-term boardwalk plan developed by GHD and TAS.

As part of the initial phase, the City plans to process an amendment to the CDP/Design Review/Use Permit that was issued in 1996 to construct/improve the Hogback Trail for public use. This hearing is scheduled to occur at the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of May 21, 2025. The proposed amendment will authorize ongoing maintenance and periodic repair of the trail consisting of vegetation trimming and placement of new cable steps at the base of the trail to replace the old cable steps that were washed away. The trail specifications and conditions of approval from the 1996 action will remain in effect.

It should be noted that the TAS object to the existing, permitted alignment of the trail. However, that alignment was properly permitted and constructed by and in coordination with the Yurok Tribe and Axel Lindgren II in 1997. The City intends to continue to work with the TAS/TMT to reroute the base of the trail. But since it has become apparent that cannot be accomplished in the short term, the City feels that reopening the trail in its current configuration best meets the City’s obligations to provide public access, meet the needs of the community, and to comply with the terms of the 1994 settlement agreement.

Council questions/comments included:

Varela: Trail closed due to safety concerns. What have been the barriers to reopening it? Kenny: I have a different view of our options tonight. The City’s Ordinance does not consider our reopening strategy to be “development”, and that we do not need a CDP to proceed. Parker noted the Coastal Commission staff believe the maintenance work needs a permit, due to the sensitive location adjacent to the shoreline.
10 of 322
05-20-2025 Special City Council Meeting Minutes Page 3
Kelly: What is the CDP issuance timeline? Trever explained, a 2-week local appeal period, followed by a 10- working day appeal for the Coastal Commission.

Kenny: If someone appeals, we lose another summer without the trails open. We should apply our local coastal program interpretation to this project. Parker recommended against pursuing that option with the risk of getting a notice of violation.

Breckenridge: Asked for a description of the realignment, where there seems to be the point of contention.

Parker described that it was the bottom third of the trail where it currently veers towards the east, with the traditional route veered towards the west. The bluff retreat has made the traditional route infeasible. The Yurok Tribe chose the current route for ease of construction. The short-term, immediate opening would involve repairing the current route.

Kenny: The proposed realignment exits onto a large rock that has been impacted by erosion.

Kelly: I voted to close the trails after big storms and erosion two years ago, to mitigate safety and cultural sensitivities that occurred. Staff has been working diligently to evaluate different options. I want to preserve the longer-range plan but also do something in the short-term for the community.

Public comment included:

Steve Madrone – Fifth District County Supervisor
I built many of the trails in Trinidad over the last 40 years. Every trail (except Galindo) in the area has the same erosion problem at the toe of the slope. I propose a longer-term vision. There’s a lot of pressure along the shoreline. It’s the nature of the area. Crib steps last, but also require maintenance. There’s more than just the trail at stake below Edwards Street. The street itself is threatened by erosion, and also 80,000 gallons/day injected into the bluff by brining potable water to town . There’s city infrastructure at risk along with the Tsurai Village Site. If this was a European cemetery at risk, we might approach it differently. If you really want to stop the erosion by creating a stable transition from the trail to the beach, build a biotechnical revetment structure – including logs and willow, binding everything together. If not dealt with you’re looking at multi-million dollar projects down the road. Build biotechnical bank stabilization all the way from the west point of the beach, all the way past the Parker Creek Trail. I believe it’s possible to get permits for this. You could rebuild Groth Lane and bring 10 yard dump trucks, logs, excavators, and everything needed to stabilize the bluff. Build a toe trench and bury the midden with sand. Rip-rap fill the slope over 20ft high. In the near term the only solution is the cablesteps. I drew up a design that I’ll share with the City Manager, estimating the cost at 2-3 million dollars.

Kelly: Perhaps we can take this to the Tsurai Management Team and ask Madrone to help provide additional guidance. Madrone offered his services for free.

Jacque Hostler-Carmesin – Trinidad Rancheria Executive Director I appreciate the discussion tonight. On behalf of the Tribal Council and Chairman, we notice that Trinidad Rancheria has not been referenced in the staff report. We have repeatedly asked that the Rancheria be included in Tsurai Management Team meetings. We understand cultural sensitive discussions occur in executive sessions. It’s very concerning that after 14 years there no mention of the Trinidad Rancheria’s request to engage in trail opening or closing solutions. The Tribal Council is in favor of the proposed temporary repair. We have a lot of experience with coastal forces, erosion, and ongoing repair and maintenance. The Rancheria’s knowledge and descendance from the village should be considered. G2G consultation needs to happen. Respectfully request acknowledgement and inclusion in these solutions.

Allie Lindgren – Lineal Descendent of Tsurai
91 years old, born and raised in Trinidad. Trinidad is Tsurai. People have to change, speak slowly so everyone can understand what’s going on. Thanked the Council for holding this informative meeting.

Council comments included:

Kenny: Thanked Allie Lindgren for attended tonight.

Kelly: Summarized short-term and long-term strategies, and giving direction to the Planning Commission and Staff to move forward.
11 of 322
05-20-2025 Special City Council Meeting Minutes Page 4
Breckenridge: I support the short-term, expeditious solution, and am intrigued by the long-term fix proposed by Madrone. Would like to hear more about that at some point in the future.

Varela: I feel that it’s important to acknowledge the resilience and strength of the indigenous people of this area and in this room, and the impact colonization has had on your communities. I joined the Council to be an advocate for a new way forward. Colonization has impacted the trajectory of native people’s lives, and reshaped the history of this space, allowing people like me to be here. We have a beautiful future together. I want to find an equitable path forward acknowledging and representing your experience, heritage, and history. I also want to acknowledge Jacque Hostler’s leadership of the Rancheria community. How are we going to share this history with locals and visitors. Sharing is priceless. It allows us to fall in love with this place. The focus tonight is trails. I’m in favor of adding cultural interpretive information along all our trails to share this history.

Kenny: Question about the exclusion orders, and exemptions. I think we have a pretty good case for saying we don’t need a permit. If the Coastal Commission wants to give us a cease and desist letter, we’ll address it then.

I worry about someone filing an appeal and risking the trail be closed for yet another summer. My preference would be to make a finding that the repair does not need a permit. It’s the season to get people down to the beach. Parker noted that they require 2/3rd of the Coastal Commission vote to adopt, with more rigorous review. Exclusion order will take precedence over local actions.

Kelly: I understand the need to expedite. However, the process for people to appeal gives an opportunity for more input – it’s part of the process. I believe they can be resolved quickly since we have consulted with the Coastal Commission. Kenny noted it would take at least 4-5 months.

City Manager Tagliaboschi explained that the City Attorney and Planner guidance is consistent.

Kenny: My fall-back position is to get the CDP but proceed anyway if someone appeals the project. We reserve the right to do that.

Kelly: I don’t want to lose the summer either, but I may not be comfortable saying “too bad, we’re building it anyway”. Let’s make a motion and vote to see what the Council thinks. Varela agreed.

Continued public comment:

Jacque Hostler-Carmesin – Trinidad Rancheria Executive Director Harbor asked the Coastal Commission to do maintenance, asking for an exemption, and received a favorable response. It has to do with the manner in which work will be performed. What I’m hearing is there is no intent for ground disturbance. The City may want to write a formal letter to the Coastal Commission requesting a waiver. It won’t hurt.

City Planner Parker noted that the temporary closre CDP will expire on Friday, and we cannot guarantee zero ground disturbance. The cables steps may be considered a new structure. The Coastal Commission has a waiver procedure, but the City’s LCP does not. We could move forward with the permit, and send a letter.

Steve Madrone – County Supervisor
Not doing something could create a safety issue since people may likely use the trail anyway – regardless of signage. It happens all the time. You also have tremendous experience and resources with the Trinidad Coastal Land Trust. It is not a no ground disturbance project.

Continued Council comment:

Kenny: We need to show backbone and be brave, and can back down if necessary. This is our City, and our ordinances.

Motion (Kenny) to move forward with a CDP for the short-term repair, with the caveat that the City reserves the right to continue with the project without a permit, and the City will continue if the project is appealed. Motion fails due to lack of second.

Kenny, continued: The long-term phase of the proposed project plan is inappropriate. There’s not enough return for the investment. We need to give the land back to a Tribal entity and let them decide how to manage 12 of 322
05-20-2025 Special City Council Meeting Minutes Page 5
the land. The Yurok Tribe should get first right of refusal. The City needs to get out of this situation. To honor Trinidad’s splendor and beauty, trails should have the least amount of engineering as possible.

Kelly: We need to stay focused on the trail proposal/repair tonight. The City should work with the Tsurai, Yurok, and Rancheria to pursue funding to redirect the trail as the Tsurai has requested.

Motion (Kelly/Tuttle) to approve the ALMT phased reopening plan, direct staff to continue implementing it with necessary CDP, writing a formal letter requesting exemption, and to continue working with Tribal entities to develop a joint-funding proposal whereby the trail can be redirected in the traditional, preferred pathway.

Passed unanimously.

GALINDO TRAIL
City Planner Parker explained that Galindo Street can be seen on aerial photos dating back at least to the 1960’s, and it is included in Trinidad’s original 1980 LCP (Plate 4 and Policy 64). It was reconstructed in 1992 as a “repair and maintenance” project. Although the TAS assert that the City agreed to close the trail in 2001 as part of the “Walkway Project,” which resulted in construction of the boardwalk along lower Edwards, and again as part of the development of the TMP, there is no evidence or support of that claim in the file record. If such an agreement was made, it was not done in a public forum. I only mention this because it is likely to come up at the meeting. I don’t think the question can be easily resolved, but it appears to be a moot point, since the City has publicly agreed to pursue closure of the trail now.

The current trail closure discussion first arose in November 2017, when the TAS presented a petition (https://www.change.org/p/trinidad-city-council-close-galindo-street-trail-in-trinidad-ca) to close the Galindo Trail as an “item from the floor” at the City Council meeting. The stated reason is because the trail passes over or near to Tsurai gravesite(s). Although the Council could not take action on an item not on the agenda, they indicated an interest in following up on the issue. Staff researched the files, and the City Council held a Government-to-Government (G2G) meeting with the Yurok Tribe in February 2018. There was also an onsite meeting around the same time with representatives from TAS, the Yurok Tribe, Trinidad Rancheria, the City Manager only, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. At that meeting, it was reported that there was a general consensus that the trail should be closed.

City staff then met with Coastal Commission staff in March 2018 to discuss the process for closure of the trail.

Coastal Commission staff did not support trail closure at that time and suggested that an LCP amendment would be required and that detailed analysis and justification to close the trail would be necessary. In addition, they suggested that some type of pedestrian pathway between the bottom of Edwards Street and the bottom of the Galindo Trail would be required in order to provide alternative access in the “same time, place, and manner” pursuant to their interpretation of Coastal Act § 30214. Coastal Commission staff additionally suggested that prescriptive rights could interfere with closing the trail. Therefore, little progress was made due to these significant hurdles.

The issue came up again in 2020, and the City Council officially directed staff to work on a proposal for closing the Galindo Trail at their August 11, 2020 meeting. (Motion to direct City staff to work with Coastal Commission staff and stakeholders to put together a proposal to close the Galindo Trail, which will eventually become an application for a CDP and LCP Amendment. Passed 4-1.) Note that in the minutes for that meeting, there are several comments from then current and former Councilmembers that they had already voted to close the trail.

However, I cannot find a record of it being on a previous City Council agenda, and my best guess is that they were referring to the G2G meeting with the Yurok Tribe in February 2018, the results of which I cannot find any details of in the record.

However, progress towards trail closure was not made until 2022 due to the previously mentioned challenges presented by Coastal Commission staff, because City staff did not have the information and resources to address them. That changed in 2022 with a change of leadership at the local CCC office and likely as the result of new executive and legislative directives requiring state agencies to more comprehensively consider environmental justice and tribal consultation/issues. The TAS met with Coastal Commission staff directly in July 2022. And City staff met with the TAS and Coastal Commission staff in August 2022, where Coastal Commission staff agreed that the trail should be closed and provided suggestions for an achievable path forward.

13 of 322
05-20-2025 Special City Council Meeting Minutes Page 6
City staff continued to meet and work closely with the TAS and Coastal Commission staff into early 2023 to plan a small parklet that would serve as a memorial and an overlook at the top of the bluff along the trail with closure and restoration of the lower portion of the trail. The conceptual plan is attached. The City was also working on coordinating repair of the boardwalk along lower Edwards at that time, which provides a critical alternative pedestrian access route. City staff were planning on presenting the plan to the City Council and the public at the February 2023 meeting. Unfortunately, we all got pulled away to deal with the erosion along Old Home Beach instead. And staff have continued to be busy with trails other issues so that we have not gotten back to working on Galindo. In addition, there have been delays with the easement for the boardwalk repair, which may impact the ability to move forward with the closure anyway.

Council comments/questions included:

Varela: Does the Tsurai Ancestral Society still want the trail closed? Kenny: Against the closure. Tuttle agreed.

Public comment included:

Aaron Hakenen – Trinidad
I’m up here as a resident – not as a Planning Commissioner. Question, if closure is a decision will the lower bench and vista be kept onsite? It’s a wonderful view of the Harbor.

Jack West – Trinidad
Former Councilmember. I was likely in the last meeting held with the Yurok Tribe. We need to follow through with things promised in the past, requested by the Yurok and Tsurai.

Jacque Hostler-Carmesin – Trinidad Rancheria Executive Director I attended the meeting Parker referenced with the BIA and Tribal Archeologists. The concern was protecting possible gravesites on the trail. It was a very serious meeting. The recommendation of the BIA Archeologist was that you can’t answer the question about the location of the grave. You can’t examine it. All you can do is protect the grave. Keeping the trail open doesn’t protect the grave. During that meeting, there was consensus that the trail should be closed. It is important to use caution with statements regarding the outcome of the Tsurai Village transfer/ownership, etc. It’s inappropriate to make statements about the disposition of the Village when it is not properly noticed on the agenda. There is current litigation that these opinions should be held for.

Steve Madrone – Trinidad Area Resident
Myself and team at RCAA and Conservation Corps built this trail with Axel Lindgren III monitoring. The trail is convenient and scenic. Late in the process of building the steps, Lindgren left for a doctor’s appointment and when he returned, he pointed out that the steps were constructed near the grave. We need to let go of our personal feelings and think about a trail through a cemetery, it’s inappropriate. I will help volunteer to remove the trail. A believe there was recognition and agreement to close this trail. This is a step forward to heal.

Tristan Cole – Trinidad
The Galindo Street Trail is the only deed public access to reach Launcher Beach. There is no deeded access via pavement.

Jacque Hostler-Carmesin – Trinidad Rancheria Executive Director The Rancheria memorialized the easement that is there during the BIA Trust process. Access to the Pier is also protected by easement. Closing the trail does not mean revoking the easement.

Council comments included:

Breckenridge: Do we know where the graves are? To promise closure but not deliver seems harmful to our relationships.

Tuttle: It is unfortunate that the Van Wycke trail was closed and now we’re talking about closing another trail. I would be ok closing this trail if Van Wycke was open. Concerned with the public being upset with us for this.

Van Wycke is technically open, but very difficult to use.

Kenny: Who was representing the public’s interest during those internal meetings? I understand a good argument can be made that the whole country is a huge injustice to the native people. It’s wrong to close this 14 of 322
05-20-2025 Special City Council Meeting Minutes Page 7
trail, used by everyone. Two wrongs don’t make one right. This is the only public access linking to the easement. The Pier easement runs out in 2032. This is an important link for the public’s access to the Pier. I doubt this was considered when trail closure was discussed. The boardwalk to the Harbor is on Rancheria property, and in the summer dumps people off on a busy intersection. Galindo Trail exists in a quiet section of the Harbor. The boardwalk is not a great substitute. Galindo is also the quickest way to get to high-ground during a tsunami. When I walk by and think of someone buried there, I feel a connection to tribal interests.

They may be glad see people walking by, thinking about them. I don’t think there’s anything disrespectful about that. People keep an eye on that area. The top of the trail can be relocated to a less sensitive area, but trail closure is not necessary.

Kelly: I served on the Trail Committee and Planning Commission. I run trails, and voted to fix Van Wycke. I’m pro-trail. However, I anchor my decisions to integrity. This Council has discussed with all three tribal entities closing this trail. On August 11, 2020, the Council directed staff to develop a plan to close Galindo - due to gravesites, information received, and consultations. I don’t see why the Rancheria would restrict access to their business enterprises. I want to stand by to previous Council commitments, keep our word and close Galindo.

Motion (Bryce/Tuttle) to reaffirm Council commitment to keep Galindo Trail open. Motion failed 2-Yes, 3-No.

Motion (Kelly) to direct staff to continue building the process to evaluate the closure of the Galindo Trail, work with Tribal entities to confirm this position. No vote taken.

Varela: I recognize historic meetings have been held, but it feels important to have one more G2G meeting, or have further conversation to make sure this issue is relevant. It could be done with Van Wycke Trail access back on the table for discussion.

Final public comment:

Jacque Hostler-Carmesin – Trinidad Rancheria Executive Director It would be great to accomplish cultural site protection and find a solution for the Van Wycke Trail. The meeting occurred 7 years ago, and agree with Varela that reaffirming positions is a good idea.

Steve Madrone – Trinidad Area Resident
Don’t make one trail closure contingent upon another opening.

Staff will take guidance from tonight’s meeting, communicate and reaffirm Tribal entities positions, and return to the Council with information gathered.

VAN WYCKE TRAIL
City Planner Trever Parker explained that as of May 15, 2025, the CIRA’s Board (the City’s insurance provider) voted to remove the exclusion on the Van Wycke Trail, so it now has liability insurance coverage again.

Although the immediate issue of the temporary closure has been solved for the short-term, the future of this trail is still in question. The slide that is impacting the trail will continue to move, further compromising the condition of the trail. As previously noted, the City will need to decide whether to pursue repairs and to what extent, and consider if/when the trail should be closed as has been requested by the Tsurai Ancestral Society and Yurok Tribe. Staff recommends that the City Council request formal consultation with the Yurok Tribe to better understand the potential impacts to cultural resources from the use of the trail in order to inform the Council’s decision.

Public comment included:

Roland Johnson – Trinidad Area
Doesn’t want the Council to give up on Van Wycke. Recollected driving a jeep on Van Wycke growing up in Trinidad. It should be kept open.

No decision was made.
15 of 322
05-20-2025 Special City Council Meeting Minutes Page 8

2. Discussion/Decision to Appoint two (2) Councilmembers to the Tsurai Management Team.

City Manager Tagliaboschi explained that it was appropriate to bring back the appointments made back in January when new Councilmembers were seated, to confirm Breckenridge and Varela wish to continue serving in this capacity.

Varela expressed interest in continuing. Breckenridge would give up the seat due to inconsistent scheduling that may interfere with her work schedule.

There was no public comment.

Motion (Kelly/Tuttle) to nominate Kenny to replace Breckenridge on the TMT. Passed unanimously.

Continued public comment included:

Jacque Hostler-Carmesin – Trinidad Rancheria Executive Director Concerned with being prevented from participating in Tsurai Management Team meetings.

Motion (Kenny/Tuttle) based on its position relative to Policy 69 of the City and the 12.5 acre Study Area, to invite the Trinidad Rancheria to become a member of the Tsurai Management Team. Passed unanimously.

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
- Old Home Beach slope reinforcement concept (ALMT phased plan) - Underground Utility District
- Playground at Saunders Park.

ADJOURNMENT: 8:35pm.

Submitted by: Approved by:
_____________________________ _____________________________ Gabriel Adams Cheryl Kelly
Trinidad City Clerk Mayor
16 of 322
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 1

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ATTACHED

1. Financial Statements – May 2025
17 of 322
18 of 322
19 of 322
20 of 322
21 of 322
22 of 322
23 of 322
24 of 322
25 of 322
26 of 322
27 of 322
28 of 322
29 of 322
30 of 322
31 of 322
32 of 322
33 of 322
34 of 322
35 of 322
36 of 322
37 of 322
38 of 322
39 of 322
40 of 322
41 of 322
42 of 322
43 of 322
44 of 322
45 of 322
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 2

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ATTACHED

2. Law Enforcement Report – June 2025.
46 of 322
47 of 322
48 of 322

CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 3

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ATTACHED

CITY OF TRINIDAD STAFF REPORT
DATE: Tuesday, July 08, 2025
TO: Mayor Kelly and City Council
FROM: City Manager Joe Tagliaboschi

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the second reading of Ordinance 2025-02; An ordinance of the City of Trinidad amending section 15.04.260 of the municipal code and any other ordinances, resolutions, or parts of ordinances or resolutions that are in conflict with the schedule of fees for building inspection services.

JULY 08 DISCUSSION/BACKGROUND
First reading was held and approved by the Council at the regular meeting on June 10.

Upon approval of the second reading, staff will prepare a Resolution for adoption at the next regular meeting with the fee schedule included. Adoption of the resolution will conclude process and allow staff to begin implementing the updated fee schedule.

Section 15.04.260 of the Trinidad Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:

15.04.260 Building Permit Fees. Fees for permits and inspections shall be required of any person when authorized by the appropriate adopted code. Any person required to obtain a permit or a combination of any such permits shall, at the time of filing an application, pay to the City building inspector the fee set forth by the City Council. The current building permit fee schedule shall be maintained and made publicly available on the City official website or at such other location designated by the City. The City Council may amend the fee schedule by resolution at any time, as deemed necessary by the City Council.

JUNE 10 DISCUSSION/BACKGROUND
In general, it is good practice to update Master Fee Schedules on an annual basis to keep cost recovery current and help better manage budgets for the Planning and Building Department along with other fees in the schedule. This is practice in most municipalities and is usually done along with the annual budget. In Trinidad this process requires an update, and an amendment to our Municipal Code to update the fees.

The last attempt at updating the Building Fees Ordinance occurred on October 10, 2012. The schedule that was approved then was based on the County of Humboldt’s format. The format established a comprehensive set of fees that allowed the fees to be more consistent and fairer. Larger projects such as new homes or high valuation projects would enjoy a stabilized fee rate for building projects including mechanical, plumbing and electrical work that would be based on similar formats and costs from other agencies. As a part of this adopted ordinance automatic fee increases would no longer automatically apply, and modifications or changes would require specific action by the Council.

The attached fee increase proposal is modest at around 35% considering it has been over 20 years since the last attempt to update the fee schedule. The proposed fees also provide for cost recovery fees to be collected when a project must be referred for evaluation and input from other agencies or departments, such as Planning, or Public Works fees.

ATTACHMENTS
• Proposed Revised Ordinance
• Proposed Building Permit Fees
• Proposed Grading plan fees
• Proposed Other Fees
50 of 322
City of Trinidad Ordinance 2025-02
TRINIDAD CITY HALL Cheryl Kelly, Mayor
P.O. Box 390 Gabriel Adams, City Clerk
409 Trinity Street
Trinidad, CA 95570
(707) 677-0223
ORDINANCE NO. 2025-02
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TRINIDAD AMENDING SECTION 15.04.260 OF THE

MUNICIPAL CODE AND ANY OTHER ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, OR PARTS OF

ORDINANCES OR RESOLUTIONS THAT ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THE SCHEDULE OF FEES

FOR BUILDING INSPECTION SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City of Trinidad (“City”) maintains building permit fees, currently codified as Section 15.04.260 of the Trinidad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Title 7, Division 1, (commencing with Section 65000) authorizes the City to impose and increase fees levied on building permits; and WHEREAS, the City desires to modify the fees required for building permits to better reflect the costs incurred by the City by providing services to City residents; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Trinidad (“City Council”) recognizes the need for flexibility in adjusting fees from time to time to respond to changing costs, inflation, service levels, and emergency.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TRINIDAD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Section 15.04.260 of the Trinidad Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE TRINIDAD CITY COUNCIL of Humboldt County of the State of California this 10th day of June, 2025, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Attest:
________________________ _________________________
Gabriel Adams Cheryl Kelly
Trinidad City Clerk Mayor
First reading: Tuesday, June 10, 2025
Second reading: Tuesday, July 08, 2025
51 of 322
52 of 322
53 of 322
54 of 322
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 4

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ATTACHED

4. Enter into a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Trinidad and HCAOG regarding the Partnering Assets and Authorities for Comprehensive Transit (PAACT) Project. 55 of 322

CITY OF TRINIDAD STAFF REPORT
DATE: Tuesday, July 8, 2025
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Angela Cather, Grants Department
AGENDA ITEM: Enter into a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Trinidad and HCAOG regarding the Partnering Assets and Authorities for Comprehensive Transit (PAACT) Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
• Authorize the City Manager to sign the Memorandum of Understanding by and between the City of Trinidad and Humboldt County Association of Governments (HCAOG) DISCUSSION/BACKGROUND: On January 18, 2024, City Manager Eli Naffah submitted a letter to HCAOG in support of partnering on the Partnering Assets and Authorities for Comprehensive Transit (PAACT) Project. The PAACT project will fund collaborative planning to build strong working relationships among HCAOG, Humboldt Transit Authority, other transit and mobility-service provides, Caltrans, local tribes, cities, and county agencies to plan transportation and land use together, considering socio-economic and equity factors and funding mechanisms.

If the City Council authorizes the City Manager to enter into the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), it would solidify the City’s pledge to contribute $2,000 for the funding match in-kind contributions. In 2024, City Manager Naffah acknowledged that while there are needs and benefits of greater coordination, he advised HCAOG that the City is under-resourced and lacks staff capacity to engage. With this understanding, the MOU would include that the project’s awarded funds will directly support City staff time to participate in advisory working groups and dedicate resources to special studies for transit operation and needs in our jurisdiction. Specifically, HCAOG agrees to reimburse the City up to $8,000 in grant funds for the purpose of paying for staff expenses or other eligible activities and expenses related to implementing and delivering the PAACT project.

The City will agree to maintain an accounting system that properly records, and segregates incurred project costs and matching funds by line item.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not applicable.

FISCAL IMPACT
• Is there a Fiscal Impact: Yes. The City will contribute $2,000 from the 501 – Public Works fund. The City will be reimbursed up to $8,000 for eligible expenses.
• Is it Currently Budgeted: No.
• Where is it Budgeted: N/A
• Mandatory or Discretionary: N/A
• Staff Resource Impact: Yes

ATTACHMENTS
• Memorandum of Understanding By and Between City of Trinidad and Humboldt County Association of Governments for Partnering Assets & Authorities for Comprehensive Transit (PAACT) • Exhibit A – Scope of Agreement
• Letter of Support – City Manager Eli Naffah
• Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program – Grant Application Signature Page and Cover Sheet 56 of 322
57 of 322
58 of 322
59 of 322
60 of 322
ADMIN. DRAFT

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

BY AND BETWEEN

CITY OF TRINIDAD
Address: P.O. Box 390 / 409 Trinity Street, Trinidad, CA 95570 AND

HUMBOLDT COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
Address: 611 I Street, Suite B, Eureka, CA 95501
FOR

PARTNERING ASSETS & AUTHORITIES FOR COMPREHENSIVE TRANSIT (PAACT) This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”), entered into this _____ day of _________ 2025, by and between the City of Trinidad, a political subdivision of the State of California, herein referred to as “CITY OF TRINIDAD,” and the Humboldt County Association of Governments, a Joint Powers Agency, herein referred to as “HCAOG,” is made upon the following considerations:

WHEREAS, successful regional transit networks require a high degree of active collaboration with the local transit agencies, local and tribal governments, and agencies with land-use authority; and

WHEREAS, Caltrans’ Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program includes Strategic Partnerships–Transit grants, whose purpose is to fund transit-focused, multi-modal planning studies of regional, interregional and statewide significance, and whose objective is to strengthen government-togovernment partnerships; and WHEREAS, the Strategic Partnerships–Transit grants are intended to accomplish Federal Planning Factors such as to “Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns;” and
WHEREAS, HCAOG has adopted, in the 2022 Regional Transportation Plan (Variety in Rural Options of Mobility 2022-2042), Public Transportation objectives to “Coordinate long-range transit planning with land use policy, environmental policy, and development projects to help achieve a balanced transportation system” and to “Double transit trips by 2025, and again by 2030, and again by 2040;” and WHEREAS, HCAOG’s 2022 Regional Transportation Plan ratifies Policy Land-5, “Transportation for compact, mixed-use development: HCAOG shall work towards increasing coordination with land use decision-making agencies to identify and prioritize specific transportation investments needed to support compact, mixed-use development. HCAOG recognizes transit-oriented development transit service as valuable investments for achieving efficient land use. (CTP 2050 recommended action);” and WHEREAS, HCAOG has adopted, in the 2022 Regional Transportation Plan, the Tribal Transportation Goal that “Tribal communities have safe and efficient mobility options, benefit from equitable access to transportation resources, and have strong interjurisdictional partnerships for advocating and solving transportation issues of tribal communities;” and WHEREAS, HCAOG and the CITY OF TRINIDAD applied for a grant for the Partnering Assets & Authorities for Comprehensive Transit (PAACT) planning project, to fund collaborative planning to build strong working relationships among HCAOG, Humboldt Transit Authority, other transit and mobilityservice providers, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), local tribes, cities, and county 61 of 322
Memorandum of Understanding by and between City of Trinidad and HCAOG

Page 2 ends

agencies in order to plan transportation and land use together, considering socio-economic and equity factors and funding mechanisms; and
WHEREAS, Caltrans awarded a FY 2024-25 Strategic Partnerships–Transit grant of $479,500 with a required local match of $62,150 (11.47%), for an estimated total project cost of $541,650, with HCAOG as primary applicant, Humboldt Transit Authority (HTA) as secondary applicant, and CITY OF TRINIDAD as a sub-applicant, and Caltrans gave authorization to proceed on January 27, 2025; and WHEREAS, CITY OF TRINIDAD on July 8, 2025, the City Council authorized the City Manager to accept the award of Strategic Partnerships–Transit grant funding, administer the program and submit to HCAOG all documents necessary to administer the funded programs, including, without limitation, applications, agreements and payment requests for up to eight thousand dollars ($8,000.00); NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
l. HCAOG hereby agrees to reimburse CITY OF TRINIDAD up to eight thousand dollars ($8,000.00) in Caltrans’ FY 2024-25 Strategic Partnerships–Transit grant funds for the purpose of paying for staff expenses or other eligible activities and expenses related to implementing and delivering the Humboldt Partnering Assets and Authorities for Comprehensive Transit (PAACT) project, including, without limitation, participating actively and consistently in the Project Steering Working Group and performing the pertinent tasks described in Exhibit A–Scope of Agreement, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as if set forth in full; and

2. CITY OF TRINIDAD hereby agrees to provide, no later than June 30, 2027, a local match of greater than or equal to two thousand dollars ($2,000) regardless of the amount of grant funds that the CITY OF TRINIDAD requests for reimbursement, and in accordance with Exhibit B–Strategic Partnerships-Transit Guide (Excerpt), which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as if set forth in full; and

3. CITY OF TRINIDAD hereby agrees to fulfill reporting and accounting requirements, completely and on time, as set forth by Exhibit B. Strategic Partnerships-Transit Guide (Excerpt), which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as if set forth in full and includes but is not limited to:
o Grantees and sub-applicants/recipients are required to maintain an accounting system that properly records, and segregates incurred project costs and matching funds by line item.

The accounting system of the grantee, including its sub-applicants and subcontractors, must conform to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles that enable the determination of incurred costs at interim points of completion and provides support for reimbursement payment vouchers or invoices sent to or paid by Caltrans. Allowable project costs must comply with 2 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 200; and

4. The staff members who will be the primary contact for this MOU on behalf of the CITY OF TRINIDAD and HCAOG are listed below. In the event one (1) of these individuals leaves their employment or changes jobs within the CITY OF TRINIDAD or HCAOG, the parties shall notify each other of this fact and provide the name and contact information of the individual's replacement in writing within ten (10) working days. Each of these listed individuals may delegate work to other staff within their department, provided they give notice to the other party. Any and all notices required to be given pursuant to the terms and conditions of this MOU shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the addresses below, and shall be deemed received when placed in the stream of mail. 62 of 322
Memorandum of Understanding by and between City of Trinidad and HCAOG

Page 3 ends

CITY OF TRINIDAD:

Attention: City Manager
409 Trinity Street
P.O. Box 390
Trinidad, California 95570
HCAOG: Humboldt County Association of Governments
Attention: Oona Smith, Senior Regional Planner
611 I Street, Suite B
Eureka, California 95501

5. This MOU shall begin upon execution by both parties hereto and shall remain in full force and effect until June 30, 2027, unless extended by a valid amendment hereto.

6. Each party shall hold harmless, defend, and indemnify the other party, and its officers, officials, employees and volunteers, from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, damages, liabilities, expenses and costs, including, without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees and other costs of litigation, of any kind or nature, arising out of, or in connection with, the other party's negligent performance of, or failure to comply with, any of the duties and/or obligations contained herein, except such loss or damage which was caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the other party or its agents, officers, officials, employees or volunteers.

7. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, in the event that both parties are held to be negligently or willfully responsible, each party shall bear their proportionate share of liability as determined in any such proceeding. In such cases, each party will bear their own costs and attorney's fees.

8. Acceptance of the insurance required by this MOU shall not relieve either party from liability under this provision. This provision shall apply to all claims for damages related to either parties' performance hereunder regardless of whether any insurance is applicable or not. The insurance policy limits set forth herein shall not act as a limitation upon the amount of indemnification or defense to be provided hereunder.

9. Without limiting either party's indemnification obligations set forth herein, each party shall maintain in full force and effect, at its own expense, any and all appropriate comprehensive general liability, comprehensive automobile, workers' compensation and professional liability insurance policies.

10. This MOU may be amended at any time during the term hereof upon the mutual consent of both parties.

No addition to, or alteration of, the terms of this MOU shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by an authorized representative of each party hereto.

11. This MOU shall constitute the entire agreement between the parties relating to the subject matter of this MOU, and shall supersede any previous agreements, promises, representation, understanding and negotiation, whether oral or written, concerning the same subject matter. Any and all acts which may have already been consummated pursuant to the terms which are embodied in this MOU are hereby ratified.

12. This MOU, and any amendments hereto, may be executed in one (1) or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and all of which, when taken together, shall be deemed to be one (1) and the same agreement. This MOU, and any amendments hereto, may be signed by manual or electronic signatures in accordance with any and all applicable local, state and federal laws, regulations 63 of 322
Memorandum of Understanding by and between City of Trinidad and HCAOG

Page 4 ends

and standards, and such signatures shall constitute original signatures for all purposes. A signed copy of this MOU, and any amendments hereto, transmitted by email or by other means of electronic transmission shall be deemed to have the same legal effect as delivery of an original executed copy of this MOU and any amendments hereto.

13. Each person executing this MOU represents and warrants that he or she is duly authorized and has legal authority to execute and deliver this MOU. Each party represents and warrants to the other that the execution and delivery of this MOU and the performance of such party's obligations hereunder have been duly authorized.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this MOU as of the first date written above.

CITY OF TRINIDAD:

By: Date:

Joe Tagliaboschi
City Manager
HUMBOLDT COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (HCAOG):

By: Date:

Brendan Byrd
Executive Director, HCAOG
LIST OF EXHIBITS:

Exhibit A – Scope of Agreement
Exhibit B – Strategic Partnerships-Transit Guide (Excerpt) Exhibit C – Letter of Support with Local Match Pledge
64 of 322
Memorandum of Understanding by and between City of Trinidad and HCAOG

Page 5 ends

EXHIBIT A.

SCOPE OF AGREEMENT

PARTNERING ASSETS & AUTHORITIES FOR COMPREHENSIVE TRANSIT (PAACT)

PLANNING PROJECT
For Fiscal Years 2025-26 and 2026-27
Summary of the role of Partners in the Project-Steering Working Group:
• Actively participate in a multi-agency, project-advisory working group. • Commit to a maximum of 100 staff hours over the course of the grant project (2 years). • Attend working meeting, some of which will be all-day (estimated no more than 3), in-person meetings.
• Share knowledge (project-related, transit-focused) with Project-Steering Working Group and project team staff (HCAOG, HTA, and consultant staff).
• Participate in discussions for setting values and priorities for regional transit network. • Engage with, and help direct, project consultants for existing conditions assessment and regional transit operations assessment/analysis.
• Participate by directing, informing, and reviewing and commenting on project deliverables for the project tasks:
o Task 1. Establish Advisory Group (Project Steering Working Group) o Task 2. Understanding the community’s transit values and priorities o Task 3. Existing Conditions Report on community & regional characteristics o Task 4. Transit market analysis & regional operations assessment o Task 5. Land use-transit policy connections
o Task 6. Stakeholder outreach, engagement & participation strategies Task 02: Consultant Procurement
HCAOG and one to two sub-applicants will procure a consultant consistent with all applicable Caltrans, state, and federal requirements. The sub-applicant(s) elected for this task will review and comment on the draft Request For Proposals/Qualifications for contract/consultant services, and/or score responsive proposals.

Task 02 Deliverables:
• Comments on the draft Request for Proposal/Qualifications, • Scoring sheets, consultant selection recommendation (HCAOG, HTA, 1 to 2 other sub-applicants to score proposals)
Task 1: Lay Foundation for Consensus-Building: Establish Advisory Group A government-based Project Steering Working Group will build upon, and serve to strengthen, government-to-government relationships. The distinct roles of the steering group are to: work directly with the project team and consultants to complete the comprehensive transit network analysis; tackle more difficult or costly network management decisions; recommend/promote transit-supportive land use policy directives; and achieve consensus on regional policy directives 65 of 322
Memorandum of Understanding by and between City of Trinidad and HCAOG

Page 6 ends

to effectively apply regional decisions.

PAACT sub-applicants will assign agency staff to actively participate in the project steering group throughout the majority of the project timeline. The sub-applicants are: HTA (secondary lead applicant), Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria, City of Arcata, City of Blue Lake, City of Trinidad, County of Humboldt, and Yurok Tribe. The City or Eureka will also participate as a member of the Project Steering Working Group.

The seven PAACT sub-applicants, as members of the Project Steering Working Group, will be responsible for participating directly and actively in the overall project, including but not limited to attending a minimum of meetings, defining a consensus-based vision statement or purpose statement, and communicating this subject project within their respective communities.

Task 1 Deliverables
• Executed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
• Contact information for designated member of the Project Steering Working Group. • Steering committee purpose statement.
• Attendance at a minimum of two preliminary meetings (at least one in-person or hybrid). (This task may include travel costs.)
Task 2: Comprehensive Plan for Regional Transit & Multimodal Networks & Networking
• Understanding the Community’s Transit & Mobility Values and Priorities Led primarily by direction from the Project Steering Working Group, project partners will work to find consensus on a defined problem/purpose/vision statement for regional transit service and active mobility. This process will be facilitated by a consultant. The work will involve engaging and surveying diverse stakeholders to identify the broad community’s key choices for deciding how to redesign, enhance, or expand the regional transit network. • Existing Conditions Report on Community & Regional Characteristics The existing conditions report will analyze and summarize demographics, equity factors, governance, funding and other existing conditions that affect active-transportation demand and equitable access for area residents. Stakeholders will use this information as a basis for exchanging ideas, informing priorities, and informing policy direction and potential strategies to deliver high-quality multimodal access for communities.

The sub-applicant agencies will be responsible for reviewing data and for supplying available data (e.g., demographics, equity factors, governance and staffing, environmental, funding) for their jurisdictions as needed to fill in data gaps.

Population characteristics to gather and analyze can include, but are not limited to:
 Population density, activity density, and employment density (i.e., proximity of jobs, housing, destinations/major points of interest)
66 of 322
Memorandum of Understanding by and between City of Trinidad and HCAOG

Page 7 ends

 Service Equity & Justice40 factors that contribute to transportation burdens, e.g., zerovehicle households; low-income households; race and ethnicity; age; limited English proficiency; low-wage jobs; job types; off-peak hour commutes; and mobility disabilities.
 Populations/areas overburdened by pollution.
 Disadvantages Communities in Humboldt as defined in the RTP, VROOM 2022-2042.  Dimensions designating communities as burdened by underinvestment in transportation, per USDOT: Transportation Insecurity, Climate and Disaster Risk Burden, Environmental Burden, Health Vulnerability, and Social Vulnerability.  Other applicable factors identified as contributing to marginalizing communities. • Transit Market Analysis & Regional Operations Assessment Consultants will analyze the existing transit network and develop scenarios for improving, expanding, and enhancing multimodal access, mobility, and funding stability. The Project Steering Working Group, which includes PAACT sub-applicants, will work directly with consultants. The sub-applicant agencies will be responsible for reviewing data and for supplying available data for their jurisdictions as needed to fill in data gaps (e.g., existing conditions, adopted policies, and/or programs for transit, transportation network, travel patterns, land use, health and safety outcomes, etc.). As applicable, sub-applicants will provide presentations and/or tours of transit systems in their respective jurisdictions (e.g. HTA, Arcata, Eureka, Yurok, Blue Lake, unincorporated County).

Task 2 Deliverables
• A purpose statement or vision statement for Humboldt regional transit service or for regional active mobility. (Collectively deliberated and developed by consensus.) • Review and comment on draft plan/technical memos and mapping (administrative draft, public review draft, and final).
• Attendance at presentations and/or tours of transit systems in sub-applicants’ jurisdictions. (This task includes travel costs.)
• Attendance at Project Steering Working Group meetings.

Task 3: Land Use-Transportation Policy Connections
Because land uses and population densities are fundamental in determining viable transit operations and multimodal choices, this project includes specific work to engage ongoing dialogue and collaboration among transit operators and planners and land use authorities. This task includes work to explicitly discuss, study, and dialogue on what strategies would best govern the vision of regional transit service and multimodal networks.

Task work will include researching relevant land use policies and identifying applicable best practices that promote transit and active transportation, and sharing this with local jurisdictions.

The project team, the Project Steering Working Group (including all sub-applicants) and partners will explore opportunities for incorporating more of these policies into local and tribal jurisdictions’ applicable planning documents and processes (e.g. General Plans, Tribal Plans, 67 of 322
Memorandum of Understanding by and between City of Trinidad and HCAOG

Page 8 ends

Specific Plans, Transit Development Plans, etc.). Partners will collaborate on building consensus for regionally-focused policy as well as local policy that effects the regional multimodal network.

The Project Steering Working Group, and other project partners as applicable, will be convened to explore ways that land-use authority agencies can improve processes for integrating land use and transit/active mobility in their standard procedures. Specifically, work will seek to identify and implement procedures for improving regular agency consultation with Humboldt Transit Authority. Project Steering Working Group sub-applicants will help coordinate and facilitate meetings with, and review and input from, other pertinent staff, departments, and elected officials of their respective agencies.

Task 3 Deliverables
• Attendance at Project Steering Working Group meetings. • Coordination of, facilitation and attendance at meetings with other pertinent staff, departments, and elected officials of jurisdiction’s respective agency. As applicable: staff reports to advisory group(s), meeting sign-in sheets.
• Draft, review, and comments on procedures for government-to-government consultations and/or new pro-transit land use policies or implementation measures (as applicable). • Presentation to respective jurisdiction. (This task may involve travel costs.) Task 4: Stakeholder Outreach, Engagement, & Input
HCAOG and the whole project team will carry out/carry on community engagement throughout the project timeline. PAACT sub-applicants and the CITY OF ARCATA will help engage and get input from community members and other interested stakeholders, agency staff, and decisionmakers, both through serving on the Project Steering Working Group and individually through their respective agencies and meetings.

Public engagement meetings can include, but are not limited to, attending agencies’ and community-based organizations’ (CBOs’) meetings, hosting meetings and workshops, and tabling at community events.

Task 4 Deliverables
• Stakeholder input and community outreach meetings. Minimum one meeting per jurisdiction of respective Project Steering Working Group members. (This task may involve travel costs for some sub-applicants.)
• Meeting announcements, meeting agendas, minutes or summaries, public comments, sign-in sheets as applicable to jurisdiction’s respective outreach meetings. • Per respective jurisdiction meeting(s), as applicable: slide deck presentations, virtual workshop recording, bilingual services, community surveys, receipts for light snacks (with Caltrans preapproval). 68 of 322
Memorandum of Understanding by and between City of Trinidad and HCAOG

Page 9 ends

Task 5: Draft and Final Product
HCAOG and HTA and/or consultants will compile all written reports (Tasks 4, 5, and 6) into a final product. The whole project team, including the Project Steering Working Group, will use the compilation product as another opportunity for informing and engaging the public and for soliciting feedback.

Task 5 Deliverables
• Review and comment on compilation report (draft and final), including reviewing public comments.
• Presentations at public meetings. Minimum one meeting per jurisdiction of Project Steering Working Group members. (This task may involve travel costs for some sub-applicants.) • Record of meeting, public comments if applicable.
69 of 322
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 5

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ATTACHED

5. Authorization to Award Construction Contract for the Trinidad-Westhaven Emergency Intertie Project
70 of 322

CITY OF TRINIDAD STAFF REPORT
DATE: Tuesday, July 8, 2025
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Angela Cather, Grants Department
AGENDA ITEM: Authorization to Award Construction Contract for the Trinidad-Westhaven Emergency Intertie Project
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
• Authorize the City Manager to sign the Notice of Award to Karl Benemann Contracting for construction of the Trinidad-Westhaven Emergency Intertie for both the base bid and additive bid items for a total budget of 1,067,450.00 as bid.
• Authorize staff and the City Manager to manage the construction project moving forward such as but not including issuing the Notice to Proceed, work directives, and Contract Changes Orders as needed to construct the project with the grant guidelines and approved grant budget.

DISCUSSION/BACKGROUND: On June 1st, the Trinidad-Westhaven Emergency Intertie Project bid package was released and publicly advertised. The bid period came to a close at 11:00 am on Thursday, July 3rd, at which time the City had received and then opened three (3) bids. The bid results, including base and additive bid items, are shown in the table below.

Company Base Bid Additive Bid Total
Mercer Frasier $ 1,183,211.00 $ 31,400.00 $ 1,214,611.00 Karl Benemann Contracting $ 1,041,391.00 $ 26,059.00 $ 1,067,450.00 GR Sundberg $ 1,703,766.00 $ 24,950.00 $ 1,728,716.00

The Engineer’s Estimate was $1,041,970. The approved grant budget for construction is $1,224,100, leaving $156,650 for contingency during construction.

How the bids are evaluated and project award determined is spelled out in the contract bid documents (page B-9) just below the Additive Bid Schedule Items, and above the Contractor’s signature line which reads:

Determination of low bid and award:

Awards will be made to the lowest, responsive, responsible, BIDDER. The low bidder shall be determined based on the sum of all Bid Schedules. Depending on the bids and the availability of funds, the City may award some or all the Additive Bid items, or the City may choose not to award any or all items. Additional bid items may be added to award as a change order during the project and the bid amounts shown here shall be the agreed upon contract amount for the work.

In California, a public agency is generally required to award the contract to the lowest, responsive and responsible bidder or else to reject all bids. Karl Benemann Contracting’s bid documents were reviewed in more detail and determined to be complete, making their bid responsive. Karl Benemann Contracting’s Class A contractor’s license is active and valid making them a responsible bidder. Therefore, staff recommends awarding the project to Karl Benemann Contracting, unless there is a bid protest, due by Tuesday, July 8th at 11:00 am.

Current Bid and Construction Schedule as of June 19, 2025:

Item Description Date
1 Bids Due 7/3/2025
2 Council Meeting to approve Bid 7/8/25
3 Notice of Award 7/11/2025
4 Notice to Proceed 7/25/2025
5 Start of Construction 8/4/25
6 End of Construction 12/12/25
71 of 322

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not applicable.

FISCAL IMPACT
• Is there a Fiscal Impact: No. All items during the construction phase are considered grant expenses and will be reimbursed by the funder (Department of Water Resources). • Is it Currently Budgeted: All cost associated with the project are covered by the grant. • Where is it Budgeted: 607 – Intertie & Tank Projects DWR Grant • Mandatory or Discretionary: N/A
• Staff Resource Impact: No

ATTACHMENTS
• GR Sundberg – Bid Proposal
• Karl Benemann Contracting – Bid Proposal
• Mercer Fraser – Bid Proposal
72 of 322

BID PROPOSAL

BID SCHEDULE
Bidder agrees to perform all the work described in the Contract Documents for the following unit prices or lump sum.

NOTE: Bids shall include sales tax and all other applicable taxes and fees.

BASE BID SCHEDULE ITEMS
Item Description
No.
1 Mobilization and Demobilization
2 6-inch C900 PVC Pipe
3 Tie-in to Westhaven CSD Svstem
4 Samplino Station
5 Combination Air Vacuum Valve
6 6-inch Gate Valve
7 Blowoff
8 Trench Cutoffs
9 Temporary Traffic Control
10 lntertie Pump Station
11 Electrical Improvements
12 Sheeting, Shoring, and Bracino
13 Bollards
14 Cultural Monitor
15 Flushina Hvdrant w/ Gate Valve

ADDITIVE BID SCHEDULE ITEMS
Item Description
No.
1 Buildina Gutters
2 Integrate Flow Meter into Trinidad WTP
SCADA
Determination of low bid and award:

Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
--
1 LS e,,,;:; :JbO vv c;::, -3()() -
3,107 LF //j'()-- �fJ4_ I/(, OD
1 LS (,Z5°0 0U (9 25"0 .,v
2 EA 7600 IJO
I tsc.0011()
1 EA /S-QX)"" I 5"0()0 1111
5 EA f � Nlf}l1'1 /!;;, 00() ,,.,
1 EA /,. jO() do ��qooov
27 EA 2_°30., dil c,; ,-oo".,
1 LS 7 oa nn11 ,,. ico, ootJ ""
1 LS IZ"l,�""
I 2'1,dl)O .,.,
1 LS 47/,01/0 �0 f-7'1, 000 • .,
1 LS S,7.0b •• ,t;;;" 2()() IJU
3 EA tl,ZOO 0" ��-�00 --
1 LS 4 4 lltk1 "" 4' 4 0.:t!> ,,.
3 EA /C. �l) ,,., 50 L(()O °"
TOTAL BASE BID ($
I /, 7 D? 1 1(;{, s2ll.--
)
(Add Base Items 1 through 15)
Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
1 LS 9�0 OD ci'5D .,.,
1 LS �Lf,ow 0
" ,:/.'-f,DDO .:>O
TOTAL ADDITIVE Bl 0($ ;), 1-f 1 250 .. 00 )
(Add Additive Items 1 through 2)
Awards will be made to the lowest, responsive, responsible, BIDDER. The low bidder shall be determined based on the sum of all Bid Schedules. Depending on the bids and the availability of funds, the City may award some or all the Additive Bid items, or the City may choose not to award any or all items. Additional bid items may be added to award as a change order during the project and the bid amounts shown here shall be the agreed upon contract amount for the work.

Receipt of the following Addenda is acknowledged· Q .J
• l,\d.u�
Construction Documents
PART 1: BIDDING REQUIRMENTS
Project#: 12590133
June 2025
B-9
GR Sundberg
73 of 322

BID PROPOSAL

BID SCHEDULE
B
l
idder agrees to perform all the work described in the Contract Documents for the following unit prices or ump sum.

NOTE: Bids shall include sales tax and all other applicable taxes and fees.

BASE BID SCHEDULE ITEMS
Item Description
No.
1 Mobilization and Demobilization
2 6-inch C900 PVC Pine
3 Tie-in to Westhaven CSD Svstem
4 Samplinq Station
5 Combination Air Vacuum Valve
6 6-inch Gate Valve
7 Blowoff
8 Trench Cutoffs
9 Temoorarv Traffic Control
10 lntertie Pumo Station
11 Electrical lmorovements
12 Sheetinq, Shorina. and Bracina
13 Bollards
14 Cultural Monitor
15 Flushing Hydrant w/ Gate Valve

ADDITIVE BID SCHEDULE ITEMS
Item Description
No.
1 Building Gutters
2 Integrate Flow Meter into Trinidad WTP
SCADA
Determination of low bid and award:

Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
1 LS $25 000 $25 000
3 107 LF $121 $376 050
1 LS $34,291 $34 291
2 EA $8 080 'i:1R 1i:::n
1 EA 'i:7A'lC: <1:7 LI.�&;
5 EA a,,:, ('\('\,l $15 041
1 EA <t')C: ('\('\('\ $25,000
27 EA $2 000 $54 000
1 LS $150 000 $150 000
1 LS $165 000 s;1Ri:; nnn
1 LS $80 000 $80,000
1 LS $18 onn <1:1R nnn
3 EA $5 000 $15 000
1 LS $40 000 $40 000
3 EA $6 805 <1:?n 415
TOTAL BASE BID _____
$_1,_0_
4_
1,_3_
91_�
(Add Base Items 1 through 15)
Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
1 LS $7,000 '1:7 nnn
1 LS $19,059 $19,059
TOT AL ADDITIVE BID($ $2B,QSg )
(Add Additive Items 1 through 2)
Awards will be made to the lowest, responsive, responsible, BIDDER. The low bidder shall be determined based on the sum of all Bid Schedules. Depending on the bids and the availability of funds, the City may award some or all the Additive Bid items, or the City may choose not to award any or all items. Additional bid items may be added to award as a change order during the project and the bid amounts shown here shall be the agreed upon contract amount for the work.

Receipt of the following Addenda is acknowledged:

Addendum No.1, June 25, 2025
Cons1ruction Documents
PART 1: BIOOING REQUJRMENTS B-9
Project#: 12590133
June2025
Karl Benemann Contracting
74 of 322

BID PROPOSAL

BID SCHEDULE
Bidder agrees to perform all the work described in the Contract Documents for the following unit prices or lump sum.

NOTE: Bids shall include sales tax and all other applicable taxes and fees.

BASE BID SCHEDULE ITEMS
Item Description
No.
1 Mobilization and Demobilization
2 6-inch C900 PVC Pipe
3 Tie-in to Westhaven CSD System
4 Samplinq Station
5 Combination Air Vacuum Valve
6 6-inch Gate Valve
7 Blowoff
8 Trench Cutoffs
9 Temoorarv Traffic Control
10 lntertie Pump Station
11 Electrical Improvements
12 Sheeting, Shoring, and Bracing
13 Bollards
14 Cultural Monitor
15 FlushinQ Hydrant w/ Gate Valve

ADDITIVE BID SCHEDULE ITEMS
Item Description
No.
1 Buildinq Gutters
2 Integrate Flow Meter into Trinidad WTP
SCADA
Determination of low bid and award:

Quantity Unit
1 LS
3,107 LF
1 LS
2 EA
1 EA
5 EA
1 EA
27 EA
1 LS
1 LS
1 LS
1 LS
3 EA
1 LS
3 EA

TOTAL BASE BID
Quantity Unit
1 LS
1 LS
Unit Cost
�E,',,C{'n -
{.SC
'?{)C() -
JL�</CJ:r
-z.7,;�
�zc;,,,oJ'Z,t.J�O
1f'15� -
S'trOOO
1 '1'1,«.J(, -
?J,, 'I ,llrY1
t:,,/.'..71,,
"Z.Of"lnI J, :,.QI"' ..
;q,,{JO(,F
Total Cost
,3"f!:c;DC ~
4/..f'. A7)-
?ooo32-R�,-

7.,-:;i,~300-
? , 21 7. Sn
l Z, 4 1,r,.,...

7.A : c./';Z,1 - �,,(YJ(),
,C/<./,<ll"YJz 6'f,aocr
/4/,C......c\
(..oco-
, (/z9J57,,nna
($ ft I e 3 2. H - ) (Ad Base ftems 1 through 15)
Unit Cost Total Cost
) 'i oo- /',l(Kj50�000- z,qoa:..,-
TOTAL ADDITIVE BID($ 3,( ,
,../00.-
)
(Add Additive Items 1 through 2)
Awards will be made to the lowest, responsive, responsible, BIDDER. The low bidder shall be determined based on the sum of all Bid Schedules. Depending on the bids and the availability of funds, the City may award some or all the Additive Bid items, or the City may choose not to award any or all items. Additional bid items may be added to award as a change order during the project and the bid amounts shown here shall be the agreed upon contract amount for the work.

Receipt of the following Addenda is acknowledged:

Construction Documents
PART 1: BIDDING REQUIRMENTS
Project #: 12590133
June2025
#1 6/25/25
B-9
Mercer Frasier
75 of 322
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 6

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ATTACHED

6. Letter of Support for Trinidad Coastal Land Trust’s Candidacy for the Better Together Nature Positive Innovation Grant.
76 of 322
7/4/25, 2:35 PM
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADkxOWYxMDM1LWY…i05MTBhLTY4Y2I3NTgyYTFjMwAQAL%2FRx2SwNHJFo%2Bw5bcb35%2FA%3D Page 1 of 2 Outlook
Fw: TCLT Requesting Letter of Support
From Ckelly Trinidad <[email protected]>
Date Fri 6/27/2025 7:22 AM
To Citymanager Trinidad <[email protected]>
Cc Cityclerk Trinidad <[email protected]>
Okay to sign?
From: Elizabeth Hinojosa <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2025 5:19 PM
To: Ckelly Trinidad <[email protected]>
Cc: Claire Nasr <[email protected]>
Subject: TCLT Requesting Letter of Support
Hi Cheryl,
This is Liz the Stewardship Director at TCLT. I'm reaching out for a letter of support from you (and the city) for our PG&E grant application.

If you are interested in learning more about the grant here is the Grant Program Overview Here is a brief description of our project proposal:

This project will establish an electric vehicle-based transportation system to support land stewardship and environmental cleanup activities in underserved communities of Humboldt County.

Our goals are to safely remove and dispose of invasive plants and trash, reduce fire fuel loads, expand workforce development for local young career professionals, and connect the community to environmental restoration opportunities. With this project, TCLT aims to modernize and scale its stewardship capacity while modeling climate-smart operations.

We have drafted a letter to ease the process, but feel free to edit, adjust, and add a letterhead and signature. You can then return it to us in pdf format.

NPIG City of Trinidad Letter of Support 2025
I recall you require a vote of approval from the city council before providing a letter of support so I wanted to ask in a timely manner.

TCLT would really appreciate your support. This grant would really help elevate our stewardship capacity!
77 of 322
7/4/25, 2:35 PM
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADkxOWYxMDM1LW…i05MTBhLTY4Y2I3NTgyYTFjMwAQAL%2FRx2SwNHJFo%2Bw5bcb35%2FA%3D Page 2 of 2 Best,
Liz
--
Elizabeth (Liz) Hinojosa
Stewardship Director
Trinidad Coastal Land Trust
Office: 380 Janis Ct, Trinidad, CA 95570
[email protected]
78 of 322
To: PG&E Corporation Foundation
Date: Wednesday, July 09, 2025
From: Cheryl Kelly, Mayor
Re: Letter of Support - Trinidad Coastal Land Trust
I am writing in support of the Trinidad Coastal Land Trust’s (TCLT) candidacy for the Better Together Nature Positive Innovation Grant. TCLT is an exceptional candidate for this opportunity because of their 40 plus years of stewardship experience along the Trinidad coast in Northern California and the dedication and expertise of their volunteers.

The Better Together Nature Positive Innovation Grant would help provide TCLT with a vehicle which will positively impact safe public access and environmental preservation along our scenic coast.

TCLT manages 30 local properties and easements for the preservation of public access and the protection of our special coastal ecosystems. Alongside their incredible volunteer base, TCLT helps to restore native plant communities, maintain public trails, and educate the community. The beaches and trails along the Trinidad coast are some of the most visited in the county- by local and travelers alike.

TCLT is dedicated to engaging the community in land stewardship. Their “Pulling Together Trinidad” last year brought over 100 volunteers and collaborators including the City of Trinidad, Trinidad Rancheria, CA State Parks, and the Bureau of Land Management. Their project will ensure that community stewardship events such as this one can continue.

The City of Trinidad has worked alongside the land trust for over 40 years in maintaining public access to our beautiful coastline and can attest to their commitment to the local community and our natural spaces.

I hope you will join us in supporting the TCLT in their project.

Thank you,
Cheryl Kelly
Mayor, City of Trinidad
P.O. Box 390
Trinidad, CA 95570
707-677-0223
79 of 322
DISCUSSION AGENDA ITEM 1

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ATTACHED

1. Discussion/Decision whether to confirm the Planning Commission’s recommended approval of the Yurok Indian Housing Authority Housing Project, 2025-01: Coastal Development Permit (CDP) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the development of five (5) single-story, single-family residences (approximately 1,440 square feet (sq. ft.) each) with related infrastructure on a 3.1-acre undeveloped parcel. The Planning Commission approved the Design Review and Grading Permit for the project and recommended approval of the CDP/CUP on June 18, 2025. Located on the eastern edge of Trinidad City Limits, situated between Highway 101 and North Westhaven Drive; APN: 515-151-066. 80 of 322

CITY OF TRINIDAD STAFF REPORT
DATE: Tuesday July 1, 2025
TO: Trinidad City Council and Planning Commission
FROM: Trever Parker, City Planer
AGENDA ITEM: YIHA 2025-01: Discussion/Decision whether to confirm the Planning Commission’s recommended approval of the Yurok Indian Housing Authority Housing Project, 2025-01: Coastal Development Permit (CDP) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the development of five (5) single-story, single-family residences (approximately 1,440 square feet (sq. ft.) each) with related infrastructure on a 3.1-acre undeveloped parcel. The Planning Commission approved the Design Review and Grading Permit for the project and recommended approval of the CDP/CUP on June 18, 2025. Located on the eastern edge of Trinidad City Limits, situated between Highway 101 and North Westhaven Drive; APN: 515-151-066.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the below, attached, and previous analysis, and as conditioned by the Planning Commission, the proposed use can be found to be consistent with the City’s Local Coastal Program and other applicable regulations, and the required Use Permit findings can be made. The project also provides much needed housing in the City and helps the City meets its state-mandating housing obligations. Upon approval of the Use Permit, the CDP will also be approved. If the City Council agrees with staff’s analysis and the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the Use Permit can be approved by the City Council with the following motion:

Suggested Motion:

Based on the information submitted in the application, included in the staff report and public testimony at the hearing, I find that the project is consistent with the City’s LCP and other applicable regulations, and I move to adopt the information and Use Permit findings in or referenced in this staff report and approve the Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit for the project as described in this and Planning Commission staff reports and as conditioned therein.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were prepared for the project, circulated for public review, and considered and adopted by the Planning Commission on May 21, 2025. A Notice of Determination was filed on May 28, 2025. The CEQA documents can be accessed here: https://www.trinidad.ca.gov/public-notices/page/yurok-housing-draft-ceqaismnd, and here: https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/Project/2025040996 81 of 322
APPEAL STATUS:

This project is ___ / is not _X_ appealable to the Coastal Commission per the City’s certified LCP, nor per Section 30603 of the Coastal Act. Therefore, the City Council’s action on the project will be final.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Project description
The proposed Trinidad Housing Development Project, led by the Yurok Indian Housing Authority (YIHA), involves the construction of five, three-bedroom, single-story, singlefamily residences (approximately 1,440 square feet (sq. ft.) each) with related infrastructure on a 3.1-acre undeveloped parcel. This infrastructure includes site access, emergency vehicle turnaround, parking, stormwater drainage improvements, onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS), utilities, and mitigation measures for the conservation and protection of natural resources and sensitive areas in the vicinity.

Additionally, the project includes the removal of up to 424 trees over an area of approximately one acre. A more detailed project description can be found in the attached Planning Commission staff report.

Permit Approvals
The project requires approval of: (1) a Coastal Development Permit (CDP), because it constitutes development in the Coastal Zone; (2) a Grading Permit because it is excavating and filling more than 1,000 sq. ft. of surface area and / or 50 cu. yds. of material; (3) Design Review due to visual changes that will occur as a result of the project; and (4) a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), because all uses in the Planned Development (PD) Zone require a CUP. Approval of the CUP will constitute approval of the CDP. The Use Permit must also be approved by the City Council, so the Planning Commission action on the Use Permit was in the form of a recommendation to the City Council. The Use Permit findings required for the City Council approval are included in this staff report.

Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the project at their May 21, 2025 meeting. At that meeting, the Planning Commission approved and adopted the CEQA document but continued the permit hearing to obtain additional information from the applicant. This included the applicant working with the neighbors to address their concerns to the extent practicable and to see the results of a cumulative impact study being done for the OWTS. Additional information was provided and the hearing was reconvened at the June 18, 2025 meeting where the Planning Commission conditionally approved the Grading Permit and Design Review for the project and recommended approval of the CUP/CDP. The supporting information for the Planning Commission decision is attached to this staff report.

Public Comment
There has been some public interest in this project and opposition from several neighbors.

Staff provided a specific response to letters that were received prior to the original May 21, 82 of 322
2025 hearing, which were mostly directed at the CEQA document. Staff also provided a supplemental staff report for the June 18, 2025 hearing, which addressed the primary issue that the objections are based on—density. Other comments were discussed at the hearings.

The June minutes are not yet available, but the May minutes can be accessed in the June 18, 2025 Planning Commission packet available on the City’s website. Overall, the comments do not bring up substantial issues that have not been addressed by the applicant. The neighbors are understandably concerned about how the project may impact them. However, the project is modest in scale, and the impact of five new single-family homes will be limited. In addition, by clustering the development in a small area, overall impacts are minimized. Several commenters have suggested that three homes would be more appropriate. However, the different between five homes and three homes would be negligible to the neighbors, but would substantially impact the feasibility and usefulness of the project to the applicant. It is staff’s professional opinion that five new homes are appropriate for the site, consistent with the City’s regulations and, as designed and conditioned, will not have significant negative impacts on the neighbors or neighborhood.

Potential Conflicts of Interest
No Councilmembers are known to own property or business interests within 500 feet of the subject property.

ZONING ORDINANCE/GENERAL PLAN/LCP CONSISTENCY

The project parcel contains both SE – Special Environment and PD – Planned Development zoning, but the development will all occur within the PD zone. The purpose of PD zone is for "residential areas where limited commercial activity may be appropriate, subject to special integrating design, or they are areas where design flexibility is needed to adapt appropriate uses to the site and to surrounding uses." There are no principally permitted uses in the PD zone; all uses require a Use Permit and that they be approved by the City Council. Allowable uses include single- and multi-family dwellings, motels, gift shops, restaurants, professional offices, personal services, retail sales, rest homes and day cares. Since a new use (multifamily residential) is being proposed, a Use Permit is required.

The project proposes a use that is an allowable use in the zone and meets all of the requirements and standards of the PD zone and other applicable standards of the zoning ordinance and Local Coastal Program (LCP) as described in the original staff report. The project also meets the City’s stormwater, grading, and design review requirements. The OWTS has been designed to meet Humboldt County Division of Environmental Health (DEH) requirements, and DEH staff have reviewed the reports and design found it to be acceptable. The project provides adequate setbacks and protections for the riparian corridor and wetlands found on the site. And the applicant has addressed all the applicable agency requirements and concerns.

In addition, the City has obligations under State laws to provide housing. The CA Department of Housing and Community Development has certified the City’s adopted Housing Element. This project provides much needed housing in the City and helps the 83 of 322
City meet its local housing allocation. Under the most recent Regional Housing Needs Allocation, the City is expected to provide a total of 18 housing units during the 2019 to 2027 cycle. The City has approved one new residence during this time, so this project would be a significant boost towards the City meeting its housing goals, particularly affordable housing. This parcel was estimated to have the potential to accommodate 11 dwelling units in the inventory of vacant land in the City’s Housing Element based on having a little over two acres of PD zoning.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS

Because there are no principally permitted uses in the PD zone and all uses require a Use Permit, the proposed multi-family residential use requires a Use Permit in accordance with Section 17.36.020. Approval is subject to the requirements of Section 17.72.040, which allows a CUP to be granted for any conditionally permitted use in the applicable zone, provided the facts support the use and written findings are adopted demonstrating compliance with the criteria below. Recommended Use Permit Findings are written in a manner to allow approval. However, if information is submitted at the public hearing or public comment received indicating that the proposed use is not consistent with the neighborhood or presents safety hazards, for example, the findings should be reworded accordingly. The Planning Commission has considered the findings and recommended approval to the City Council.

The density is higher than that of some of the surrounding parcels, but the adjacent parcel to the northwest is an RV Park (approximately 50 spaces on two acres, or one unit per 2,000 sq. ft.) and other nearby parcels have small parcel sizes or multiple dwellings (also see supplemental staff report of June 18, 2025 for additional density information). The project parcel is within City limits and therefore helps concentrate development within and adjacent to already developed areas. And by clustering the development in a small area on the parcel, impacts to the surrounding areas are minimized. Additionally, the project does not require road extensions or infrastructure improvements, and is consistent with planned density, and therefore not growthinducing.

B. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property, improvements, or potential development in the vicinity, including but not limited to the following:

84 of 322

1. The nature of the proposed site, including its size and shape, and the proposed size, shape, and arrangement of structures. Response: The nature of the proposed site can adequately accommodate the proposed development due to its size, topography, and natural features. The five single-story, single-family residences, each approximately 1,440 sq. ft., are modest in scale and are clustered and arranged to maintain appropriate spacing between structures, preserve site functionality, and minimize visual and environmental impacts. The placement of homes and related infrastructure, including access, parking, stormwater improvements, and the OWTS, have been designed to meet all safety requirements and fit the site’s physical characteristics without requiring excessive grading or encroachment into sensitive areas. The total development footprint, approximately 25,540 sq. ft. (0.58 acres), represents a small portion of the three-acre parcel, ensuring the project remains consistent with the site’s capacity.

2. The accessibility and traffic pattern for persons and vehicles, the type and volume of traffic, and the adequacy of proposed off-street parking and loading. Response: The layout and spacing of structures, along with associated infrastructure, have been planned to minimize impacts and ensure safe and convenient access, including emergency vehicle turnaround and off-street parking. Each residence will have two dedicated parking spaces, with additional spaces for parking overflow for a total of 13 parking spaces, one of which will be ADA compliant, which is above the number of spaces required for the proposed development. The applicant will be required to obtain an encroachment permit for the driveway accessing North Westhaven Drive, which is in Humboldt County’s jurisdiction. The driveway will be a Category 4 road meeting the requirements of Humboldt County Code Title III: Design standards for road categories for slow speeds and limited parcel access. Based on sight lines and distances, no hazards are anticipated as a result of the new driveway. No new hazards or incompatible uses will be created because of the proposed project.

Operational emission impacts from five single-family residences are minimal.

Mitigation measures and conditions of approval, such as dust control during construction, have been incorporated as necessary to ensure these effects are minimized, and no significant adverse impacts are anticipated.

4. Treatment given, as appropriate, to landscaping, screening, open spaces, parking and loading areas, service areas, lighting, and signs. Response: Although trees will be cleared for the project, significant tree cover will remain on the property, including the northern two-thirds of the property and the trees within the Highway 101 and Westhaven Drive rights-of-way, except at the site access point on Westhaven Drive. 85 of 322
The remaining trees will provide visual screening, consistent with surrounding development patterns. All outdoor lighting shall be dark sky compliant, including but not limited to being downcast, and shielded to prevent light from shining offsite or into the riparian habitat northwest of the project. No signs are proposed.

C. The proposed use or feature complies with the applicable provisions of this title, is consistent with the policies and programs of the General Plan, and assists in carrying out and conforms to the Trinidad Coastal Program. Response: As discussed in the staff report, the proposed project complies with the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and other applicable regulations, and the project is consistent with the policies and programs of the General Plan, and assists in carrying out and conforms to the Trinidad LCP.

The analysis determined that the project will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts with the implementation of identified mitigation measures. All feasible mitigation measures required under CEQA have been incorporated into the project to reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, no additional alternatives or mitigation measures are necessary to substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts.

E. If the property is located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea, or within 300 feet of the inland extent of any beach or the mean high tide line (whichever is greater), the following must also be met: Response: NA. The project is not located within 300 feet of the inland extent of any beach or the mean high tide line

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

1. The applicant is responsible for reimbursing the City for all costs associated with processing the application. Responsibility: City Clerk to place receipt in conditions compliance folder prior to building permits being issued.

2. Based on the findings that community values may change in a year’s time, design review approval is for a two-year period starting at the effective date and expiring thereafter unless a building permit is obtained or an extension is requested from the Planning Commission prior to that time. Responsibility: City Clerk to verify prior to building permits being issued.

3. The applicant shall direct stormwater drainage from impervious surfaces away from septic system tank and leachfields. Responsibility: Building Official to confirm at time revised building permits are issued.
86 of 322

4. (a) The applicants shall verify adequate sewage disposal capability by obtaining a valid OWTS Permit from DEH prior to building permits being issued. (b) Documentation that the sewage system was installed as per the County of Humboldt division of Environmental health permit will be indicated by DEH sign-off for construction on the permit after final inspection. Responsibility: (a) Building Official to verify prior to issuance of building permits. (b) Building Official shall verify prior to final inspection.

5. After site clearing and preparation activities, construction related activities are to occur in a manner that will not impact the integrity of the septic system. The leachfield area shall be staked and flagged to keep equipment off the area.

Alternatively, a written description of techniques/timing to be utilized to protect the system will be required from the contractor. If the proposed system area is impacted by construction activities, an immediate Stop-Work Order will be placed on the project. The contractor will be required to file a mitigation report for approval by the City and DEH prior to permitting additional work to occur. Responsibility: Building Official to verify during construction.

6. The applicant is responsible for submitting proof that a statement on the deed, in a form approved by the City Attorney, has been recorded indicating that any increase in the number of bedrooms above a total of 15 bedrooms, or number of dwelling units above five, will require City approval of adequate sewage disposal capabilities and other applicable standards. Responsibility: Building Official to verify prior to building permits being issued.

7. Construction related activities are to occur in a manner that incorporates storm water runoff and erosion control measures in order to protect water quality and prevent tracking of sediment onto public roads. An erosion control plan that conforms to the City’s grading ordinance will need to be prepared and submitted as part of the building permit process if construction is proposed to occur between October 15 and April 15. Specific water quality goals include, but are not limited to:
a. Limiting sediment loss resulting from construction
b. Limiting the extent and duration of land disturbing activities c. Replacing vegetation as soon as possible
d. Maintaining natural drainage conditions
Responsibility: Building Official to confirm at time building permits are issued and during construction.

8. Recommendations of the City Engineer shall be required to be met prior to building permits being issued. Grading, drainage, and erosion control need to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to work commencing. The City Engineer must find that the proposed grading will not adversely affect the drainage or lateral support of other properties in the area and will not be detrimental to the public 87 of 322
health, safety, or the general welfare, and is consistent with the Trinidad Municipal Code. Responsibility: Building Official prior to building permits being issued.

9. Construction-related activities shall comply with the approved grading and erosion control plan. Responsibility: Building Official to confirm at time building permits are issued and during construction.

10. Recommended conditions of the City Building Official shall be required to be met as part of the building permit application submittal. Grading, utilities, drainage and street improvements will need to be specifically addressed at the time of building permit application. Utilities will be shown on the building plans. Responsibility:

Building Official prior to building permits being issued.

11. Water service connections and meters to be shown on the building plans and reviewed and approved by Public Works staff. There shall only be one connection to the City’s water main if feasible. Responsibility: Building Official to confirm prior to building permits being issued.

12. New exterior lighting shall be the minimum lighting necessary for its intended use, and the lighting shall be: (a) recessed, and/or shielded so as not to be directly visible from nearby streets, (b) downcast, (c) not casting light into adjacent property, adjacent roadways, or adjacent environmentally sensitive habitat areas, and (d) lowwattage. Responsibility: Building Official prior to issuing building permit and during construction.

13. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Humboldt County Public Works for any work occurring within the County right-of-way including the driveway. Responsibility: Building Official to confirm prior to building permits being issued.

14. All the CEQA mitigation measures as outlined in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are hereby incorporated into the project as conditions of approval. Responsibility: See MMRP

15. If the cultural monitor chosen by the applicant/contractor is not from the Trinidad Rancheria, their THPO will be kept informed of the construction schedule for all ground disturbing activities and be allowed to send their own cultural monitor. Responsibility: Building Official to confirm note included on construction plans.

ATTACHMENTS
• Final PC Staff Report and Attachments
88 of 322
Filed: January 6, 2025
Staff: L. Brotherton/T. Parker
Staff Report: May 5, 2025
Commission Hearing Date: May 21, 2025
Commission Action: Conditionally Approved/
Recommended Approval
STAFF REPORT: CITY OF TRINIDAD
APPLICATION NO: 2025-01
APPLICANT (S): Yurok Indian Housing Authority
AGENT: NA
PROJECT LOCATION: The proposed project site is located on the eastern extent of Trinidad City limits, situated between
Highway 101 and North Westhaven Drive (APN:
515-151-066). The latitude and longitude of the
project site is 41.0611°N, and -124.1361°W
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

Coastal Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Design Review and Grading Permit for the development of five (5) single-story, single-family residences (approximately 1,440 square feet (sq. ft.) each) with related infrastructure on a 3.1-acre undeveloped parcel. This infrastructure includes site access, emergency vehicle turnaround, parking, stormwater drainage improvements, onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS), utilities, and mitigation measures for the conservation and protection of natural resources and sensitive areas in the vicinity. Additionally, the project includes the removal of up to 424 trees over an area of approximately 25,540 sq. ft. (0.58 acres).

ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER: 515-151-066
ZONING: PD – Planned Development / SE – Special
Environment
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: PD – Planned Development / SE – Special Environment
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) have been prepared for the project and for
consideration and adoption by the Planning
Commission
89 of 322
APPEAL STATUS:

Planning Commission action on a Coastal Development Permit, Variance, Conditional Use Permit, and/or Design Review approval application will become final 10 working days after the date that the Coastal Commission receives a “Notice of Action Taken” from the City unless an appeal to the City Council is filed in the office of the City Clerk at that time.

Furthermore, this project is ___ / is not _X_ appealable to the Coastal Commission per the City’s certified LCP, but may be appealable per Section 30603 of the Coastal Act.

STAFF COMMENTS:

The proposed Trinidad Housing Development Project, led by the Yurok Indian Housing Authority (YIHA), involves the construction of five (5) three-bedroom dwellings along with supporting infrastructure, including off-street parking, access driveways, sidewalks, utility connections, and provisions for both primary and reserve leach fields for wastewater disposal. Multiple actions are required by the Planning Commission for approval of this project.

Approval of the Design Review and Grading Permit will constitute approval of the CDP.

The Use Permit must also be approved by the City Council, so the Planning Commission action on the Use Permit will be in the form of a recommendation to the City Council. The findings required for each of the approvals are included in this staff report.

CEQA
The project also requires review and approval in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA mandates that all state and local agencies evaluate the environmental consequences of proposed projects over which they have discretionary authority prior to taking action. Because the project is subject to discretionary review by the City of Trinidad—including a CDP, Conditional Use Permit, and Design Review—a CEQA determination is required as part of the project approval process. The project does not qualify for a categorical exemption under CEQA. To comply with CEQA requirements, a project-level Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared under the oversight of the City of Trinidad at the request of Mad River Properties Inc., acting on behalf of Trinity Valley Consulting Engineers, for the benefit of YIHA. The Planning Commission will make the CEQA determination prior to acting on the permits.
90 of 322
Referrals
In addition to the required notifications sent for the CEQA document and standard permit notifications, project referrals were sent to City staff and departments, relevant regional and state agencies, including the Department of Fish & Wildlife (DFW), the California Coastal Commission, Humboldt County Planning and Building Department, Humboldt County Division of Environmental Health (DEH), Trinidad Rancheria, Tsurai Ancestral Society, and the Yurok Tribe. No major concerns were identified. The project will require approval of a Building Permit and an OWTS Construction Permit from DEH. A detailed grading and erosion control plan will need to be prepared as part of the Building Permit process and approved by the City Engineer. A representative from CDFW visited the site and requested a minor change in the recommended timing of the pre-construction nesting bird surveys, which has been incorporated into the CEQA mitigations and conditions of approval.

Potential Conflicts of Interest
No Commissioners are known to own property or business interests within 500 feet of the subject property.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

A CEQA Initial Study (IS) is used by the Lead Agency to assess whether a project may result in significant environmental impacts. The IS serves as a public information document that describes the project, outlines the existing environmental setting, and assesses the potential environmental impacts associated with the project's construction and operation. It ensures transparency and helps demonstrate the Lead Agency’s compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. If potentially significant impacts are identified but can be reduced to less-than-significant levels through project revisions or mitigation measures, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is prepared, which is what is proposed for this project.

Several background studies were completed for the project, including biological reports, an archaeological investigation, a hazards report, an air quality assessment, soil testing, an OWTS design report, and a stormwater management plan. Note that the archaeological report is not posted publicly due to its confidential nature. Consultation was offered to Tribal entities pursuant to AB52, but no responses were received; standard mitigation requiring cultural monitoring and inadvertent discovery protocols as recommended in the archaeological report have been included as mitigation. The IS and background studies can be found here: https://www.trinidad.ca.gov/public-notices/page/yurok-housingdraft-ceqa-ismnd.

The IS analyzes the project’s impacts on 21 resource topics. CEQA Guidelines §15074 requires that the decision-making body, in this case the Planning Commission, consider the MND prior to approving the project. The Planning Commission adopted the MND 91 of 322
because it found “on the basis of the whole record before it (including the initial study and comments received) that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant impact on the environment.” The IS/MND prepared for this project identifies mitigation measures for potential impacts related to air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, geology and soils, and hydrology and water quality (see the IS/MND, https://www.trinidad.ca.gov/media/7891, pp. 96–100). These impacts and mitigation primarily concern short-term construction activities. No potentially significant impacts were identified; all impacts were found to be “less than significant with mitigation,” “less than significant,” or “no impact.”
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073(d), the IS/MND was submitted to the State Clearinghouse (SCH#: 2025040996) and circulated for public and agency review from April 18, 2025, to May 18, 2025. The notice was distributed to a variety of state agencies. In addition to the agencies included in the referral and local notifications, this included CalTrans, CAL FIRE, the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Department of Housing and Community Development, and more (a full list can be found on the SCH CEQAnet page: https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2025040996).

Furthermore, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15072(a), a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was distributed to the public, responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and the County Clerk. Notices were sent directly to owners and occupants of nearby properties, posted in three public locations in the City, and emailed to relevant regional and state agencies, including the Department of Fish & Wildlife (Region 1), the California Coastal Commission, Humboldt County Planning and Building Department, Humboldt County Division of Environmental Health, Trinidad Rancheria, Tsurai Ancestral Society, and the Yurok Tribe. The notice was also filed with the Humboldt County Recorder’s Office and posted from April 18, 2025 through May 18, 2025.

No comments were received from any state, federal, or local agencies. Three public comments were received and are included as attachments to this staff report along with a response from City staff. No edits or additions to the IS/MND were needed, and the comments received did not warrant changes in the conclusions of the IS/MND. Some were not related to environmental impacts, and some were already incorporated into the mitigation and conditions of approval. The letters did not provide any substantial evidence that there will be significant CEQA related impacts resulting from the project.

SITE CHARACTERISTICS:

The project area is located at the eastern edge of the Trinidad City limits, situated between Highway 101 and North Westhaven Drive. The property features a mixed zoning designation: the northern third (approximate), closest to Parker Creek, is zoned Special Environmental (SE), while the southern two-thirds fall under Planned Development (PD) zoning. All proposed development will occur within the PD-zoned portion of the 92 of 322
property. The surrounding land uses are primarily rural residential. Immediately to the northwest, within the City of Trinidad, is a parcel zoned Visitor Services (VS), which contains an RV park. To the north and east, lands under Humboldt County jurisdiction are zoned Residential Single Family (RS), and to the south, the adjacent property is zoned Rural Residential Agriculture (RA). Highway 101 borders the project site to the southwest.

The approximately 3.1-acre (135,640 sq. ft.) parcel is currently undeveloped and densely forested with second- and third-growth trees, primarily redwoods. The northern portion of the site slopes steeply into the Parker Creek riparian corridor, which is excluded from the proposed development area. The property is accessible via a pullout off Westhaven Drive, and an old dirt access road loops around a stand of alders, redwoods, and stumps located in the central part of the southern third of the site.

The terrain generally slopes to the northwest, with gradients between 0% and 3% within the PD area. Moving into the northern portion of the project site, the land descends into a gully at a slope of approximately 10-25% leading to Parker Creek, which flows from northeast to southwest through the property. Two springs and a wetland are situated on the southern slope above and south of Parker Creek. The riparian area is heavily forested with second growth redwood and red alder, and the understory consists of a sparce cover of mostly ferns. The riparian area occupies approximately half of the parcel.

The site has been previously disturbed by logging and grading activities. Historically, it was logged, and more recently, additional trees were removed, stumps were extracted and piled near the center of the parcel, and the land was partially graded. Since then, natural regrowth of trees and vegetation has occurred throughout the site.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The proposed project for this parcel consists of the development of five (5) single-story, single-family residences (approximately 1,440 sq. ft. each) with related infrastructure. This infrastructure includes site access, emergency vehicle turnaround, parking, stormwater drainage improvements, onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS), utilities, and mitigation measures for the conservation and protection of natural resources and sensitive areas in the vicinity. Additionally, the project includes the removal of up to 424 trees (214 of which are less than 10 in. in diameter at breast height (DBH)) over an area of less than an acre.

Each residential building will have three (3) bedrooms and two (2) bathrooms, a kitchen, laundry, fireplace, rear and front covered patio, and a storage/utility room located at the rear of the residence. Of these five residences, one will be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which will include, but is not limited to, dedicated ADA parking, exterior access, and various interior building features. Each residence will have 93 of 322
two (2) dedicated parking spaces, with additional spaces for parking overflow for a total of 13 parking spaces, one of which will be ADA compliant.

Applicant Need for the Project
The YIHA’s primary mission is to provide affordable, safe and sustainable housing to lower-income tribal members. It also provides supportive services and resources to ensure that these developments have the means necessary to ensure ongoing functionality and aesthetic maintenance.

A high percentage of tribal members have substandard housing. This housing development is needed to provide members of the native community with access to affordable safe housing. Based on the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development determinations, households with up to 80% Average Medium Income would qualify for these homes. The construction funding source is a complexity of governmental agencies and maintenance will be subsidized by the YIHA.

One of the five (5) houses will be fully ADA compliant to accommodate an individual or family with accessibility needs. This is a desirable goal for this project, since YIHA does not have many ADA units available for tribal members.

Site Development
The parcel currently has no developed access. The project will need to obtain a Humboldt County encroachment permit to access the site from North Westhaven Drive. Based on initial assessments, there is adequate site distance for traffic pullout. Access to and from the parcel will be solely through the single paved driveway entrance off North Westhaven Drive. The access road will be a two-lane road, 20 feet in width, in compliance with Humboldt County and City of Trinidad Public Works’ standards, and where required for emergency accesses purposes, California Fire Safe Regulations for ingress and egress (14 CCR § 1273.00).

There will be a dedicated emergency vehicle turn-around located at the center of the hammerhead access and circulation layout within the development. The turn-around will be stripped and marked with “No Parking” signage. Sidewalks throughout the development will provide pedestrian access. The total paved area, including the driveway, concrete sidewalks, and parking spaces is approximately 12,723 sq. ft. (Figure 1).

Onsite stormwater management will be designed to comply with the regulations outlined in the latest edition of the Humboldt Low Impact Development Stormwater Manual (LID) and Trinidad MS4 permit requirements, as outlined in the Stormwater Control Plan (grading/stormwater/drainage section of the staff report for more information). 94 of 322
Structures
The building development consists of a total of five (5) individual single-family residences.

The floor area of each residence is approximately 1,438 sq. ft. The houses will be wood framed single story, with a slab on grade foundation and truss roof system. The combined square footage of the five (5) buildings will be approximately 7,192 sq. ft.

Figure 1. Proposed Site Layout
95 of 322
Utilities
Electrical utilities are currently available adjacent to the property. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) will provide the electrical needs of the development. Each house will have an individual meter. There will be one extra electrical meter installed for site infrastructure needs such as septic pumps and street lighting. The sixth meter will be subsidized by the YIHA as part of their support services. Once initial permitting for the project is approved, an application with the utility company will come immediately after due to the extensive timeline for PG&E design and installation of services. Due to the limited electrical demand for each individual house, it is foreseeable to have only singlephase electrical demand for the site. However, it is unclear if a transformer will be placed onsite. This will be up the PG&E design parameters.

Phone/Internet/Cable will be supplied by a local provider on an individual basis.

Water services are also adjacent to the property. There is a City of Trinidad water main along North Westhaven Drive that the housing project will tap into to obtain domestic potable water. The City of Trinidad Water Department provides potable water in this vicinity. Coordination with Trinidad Public Works agency will also take place soon after initial approval process to facilitate installation of water connections and meters. Each house will have a dedicated water meter. At this time, no added meters are proposed for whole site purposes.

Fire suppression services are provided by the City of Trinidad Volunteer Fire Department with mutual aid from the Westhaven Volunteer Fire Department and CAL FIRE. It will be up to the jurisdictional agencies whether a fire hydrant is to be installed at the site. The closest hydrant is at the intersection of Westhaven and Frontage Road. Per regulation of the CA Building Code, each house will have a fire suppression residential sprinkler system installed.

Septic services will be located onsite with no connection to a municipal-type wastewater treatment facility (see below for further information).

Gas service to the property are currently not proposed. Gas is provided via individual propane tanks in the Trinidad area. The applicant is assessing the feasibility of having all components and appliances be electric. In that case the propane tank will only feed the backup generator for the septic system.

Construction
The project construction will begin as soon as the permitting process is complete and the project has received approval from all jurisdictional agencies. The project owner and stakeholders are hoping to start site clearing and grading operations by summer 2025. The 96 of 322
overall construction process is estimated to take approximately 1.5 years until obtaining certificate of occupancy for the proposed homes. Figure 2 shows the tentative construction project schedule.

There is no phasing contemplated for the project. Sequence of events are linear, as shown above, with some overlapping of activities. The project delivery system will be a traditional design, bid, build.

A 50% design plan-set for the site layout and all components have been produced. The design reflects the required setbacks and regulations from applicable codes and agencies.

The following is a summary of the different elements of the construction activities that are to take place.

Site Clearing
A tree clearing plan for the development part of the site has been created. This plan determined tree types, size and number of each species to be removed. Prior to the clearing and grubbing phase, a survey team will be deployed to flag the extents of the project to ensure that nothing beyond what is needed for the development will be disturbed. The applicant will obtain an exemption for timberland conversion of less than three acres from CAL FIRE.

Grading
Per the engineering plans, approximately 400 cubic yards of dirt are anticipated to be mobilized onsite to obtain the desired grades for the development. It is the aim of the design team to balance the cut and fill quantities so that no dirt will need to leave the site.

Grading limits and grading elevation benchmarks will be established to ensure that no Figure 2. Project Construction Timeline
97 of 322
excess disturbance is to take place. Equipment that will be used for these activities will vary from bulldozers, excavators, haul trucks, water trucks, rollers, and miscellaneous equipment per the contractor’s discretion. As part of the grading scope, road access, encroachment, driveway, and residential site preparation will fall under this item. A grading permit from the City of Trinidad is required.

Vertical Construction
This portion of the project will take place after a substantial amount of the utilities, site access, and driveway are installed. The construction of the residences will follow a sequential order – as one residence is completed or in process, the same will occur with the next residence, and so forth, until all units are finished. This process will require the greatest amount of onsite workforce, it can be estimated upwards of 20 to 25 workers onsite any given day.

Site Finishes and remaining utilities
Near the completion of the vertical components of the project, the installation of the remaining utilities, paving of the access road, concrete pouring of the parking and sidewalk, will take place. Other items in the list of finishes will be landscape, stripping of the driveway and parking, outside lighting, street and stop signs, among others.

Concurrent actions will be punch-list items for buildings, utilities, site elements among others, striving for final completions and certificate of occupancy. Landscaping shall be native, drought-tolerant vegetation. All outdoor lighting shall be dark sky compliant, including but not limited to being downcast, and shielded to prevent light from shining offsite or into the riparian habitat northwest of the project.

ZONING ORDINANCE/GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
As noted above, the project parcel contains both SE – Special Environment and PD – Planned Development zoning, but the development will all occur within the PD zone. The purpose of PD zone is for "residential areas where limited commercial activity may be appropriate, subject to special integrating design, or they are areas where design flexibility is needed to adapt appropriate uses to the site and to surrounding uses." There are no principally permitted uses in the PD zone; all uses require a Use Permit. Allowable uses include single- and multi-family dwellings, motels, gift shops, restaurants, professional offices, personal services, retail sales, rest homes and day cares. Since a new use (multi-family residential) is being proposed, a Use Permit is required.

The minimum lot size allowed in the PD zone with five or more dwellings is 2,500 sq. ft (§17.36.030). The maximum density is one dwelling per 8,000 sq. ft. (§17.36.040). The property is approximately 135,640 sq. ft. (3.1 acres), and PD zone accounts for at least two thirds of that area. However, the recommended buffers to protect the riparian and wetland 98 of 322
habitat identified on the northern portion of the property limits developable area to approximately one acre (or 43,560) sq. ft. on the southern portion of the site. Therefore, the Zoning and General Plan consistency analysis for the proposed project is limited to the developable footprint of the project. Five dwellings on one acre (~8,700 sq. ft. per dwelling) is consistent with the one unit per 8,000 sq. ft. limit in the PD zone.

The proposal involves the development of five (5) single-story, single-family residences (approximately 1,440 sq. ft. each) with related infrastructure. This infrastructure includes site access, emergency vehicle turnaround, parking, stormwater drainage improvements, OWTS, and utilities. Please refer to the table below for a summary of the square footage.

Floor plans and elevations have been provided.

TABLE 1 – AREAS (SQ. FT.)

ENTIRE PARCEL DEVELOPMENT
AREA
LOT AREA 135,600 43,560

FLOOR AREA
Residences (each) 1,440 1,440
Total Residential Footprint 7,200 7,200
Paved Surfaces 12,700 12,700
IMPERVIOUS FOOTPRINT 19,900 19,900

FLOOR TO LOT AREA RATIO
Total Residences 5.3% 16.5%
Total Footprint 14.7% 45.7%
When the minimum lot area is 2,500 sq. ft. per dwelling unit (with five or more dwellings), no minimum yard setback is required within the PD zone, except where the property is adjacent to a different zoning district. In such cases, the yard setback must conform to the requirements of the adjacent zone (§17.36.050). The subject parcel is adjacent to multiple properties with differing zoning designations: (1) immediately to the northwest is a parcel within the City of Trinidad zoned Visitor Services (VS) and SE, which contains an RV park; (2) to the north and east are parcels under Humboldt County jurisdiction zoned Residential Single Family (RS); and (3) to the south and southeast are Humboldt County parcels zoned Rural Residential Agriculture (RA).

While the project site is adjacent to both City and County properties, only the zoning standards of the City of Trinidad are applicable. There are no setback requirements in the SE zone, because very limited development is allowed primary subject to site constraints.

Therefore, the required yard setbacks must conform to the standards of the VS zone, which requires minimum front, rear, and side yard setbacks of 10 feet (ft) (§17.40.060). The 99 of 322
proposed project meets or exceeds these setback requirements. The front yard setback is a minimum of 13 ft., the southern side yard setback is minimum 10 ft., the rear setback is a minimum of 12 ft., and the northern side yard setback exceeds 100 ft. Section 17.56.110 allows eaves and overhangs to extend 2.5 ft. into side yards and 4 ft. into front, street-side and rear yards. Decks and stairways, landings, balconies and uncovered porches are allowed to extend up to eight feet into front, rear or street-side yards and three feet into side yards; these standards are also met. In addition, there is a significant amount of undeveloped right-of-way both along Highway 101 and Westhaven Drive that increases the functional front and rear setbacks.

The proposed five (5) residential dwelling units are 15 ft. in height, which complies with the 25 ft. maximum height limit outlined in §17.36.060.

The PD zone includes minimum open space requirements for both common and private areas, with at least 25 percent of the project site to be dedicated to common open space when residential dwellings are included (§17.36.070). Approximately two acres of the approximately 3-acre parcel will remain undeveloped, providing ample space to meet this requirement.

In addition, the PD zone requires a minimum of 800 sq. ft. of common usable open space per dwelling unit. With five (5) residences proposed, a total of 4,000 sq. ft. of usable common open space is required. The project includes a proposed leach field covering approximately 5,625 sq. ft., which satisfies this requirement. Although it is a leach field, it is designed as a passive, grassy area that remains open and accessible, thereby meeting the criteria for usable common open space.

Furthermore, private open space must be provided adjacent to each dwelling unit and must equal at least 10 percent of the unit’s gross floor area (§17.36.070). Each residence is approximately 1,440 sq. ft., requiring a minimum of 144 sq. ft. of private open space per unit. The project proposes a front covered patio (approximately 136 sq. ft.) and a rear covered porch (approximately 75 sq. ft.) for each unit, totaling 211 sq. ft., meeting the minimum requirement.

The Zoning Ordinance (§ 17.56.180) requires two (2) off-street parking spaces other than any garage spaces for single-family residences. Each residence will have two (2) dedicated parking spaces, with three additional common spaces for a total of 13 parking spaces, one of which will be ADA compliant.

General Plan
The Trinidad General Plan and Zoning Ordinance protect important public coastal views from roads, trails and vista points and private views from inside residences located uphill from a proposed project from significant obstruction. The project is not readily visible from any public viewpoints, and public views of the site are limited in extent and distance, 100 of 322
and the development will be screened by existing vegetation. Although trees will be removed to make way for the improvements, significant tree cover will remain on the property including the northern two-thirds as well as the trees within Highway 101 rightof-way and Westhaven Drive right-of-way, except for the accessway to the site from Westhaven Drive. The remaining trees will screen the development.

The City’s General Plan emphasizes single-family housing and rural scale development.

But Policy 48 states that “multiple family developments such as condominiums, townhouses and apartments with one to four dwelling units in a building may be appropriate in the Planned Development category provided the density does not exceed that of the Urban Residential category or waste disposal constraints, whichever is more restricted.” With at least two acres of PD Zone, that would equate to 11 dwellings at a density of 8,000 sq. ft. per dwelling. The neighboring County parcels are within the County’s Trinidad Area (Coastal) Plan’s Urban Limit line where densities are generally planned to be 0-2 units per acre when served with community water, which would be up to 6 units (plus ADUs, which are not counted toward the maximum density) on a 3-acre parcel; this project is consistent with those allowable densities.

The City has obligations under state laws to provide housing. The CA Department of Housing and Community Development has certified the City’s adopted Housing Element.

This project provides much needed housing in the City and helps the City meet local housing allocations. Under the most recent Regional Housing Needs Allocation, the City is expected to provide a total of 18 housing units during the 2019 to 2027 cycle. The City has approved one new residence during this time, so this project would be a significant boost towards the City meeting its housing goals, particularly affordable housing. This parcel was estimated to have the potential to accommodate 12 dwelling units in the inventory of vacant land in the City’s Housing Element based on having a little over two acres of PD zoning.

The project is consistent with the following goals and policies of the City’s Housing Element.

Goal HG-1 is to “Assure adequate, safe, cost-effective and energy efficient housing opportunities for all segments of the community, while maintaining the quality living environment and rural character of Trinidad by planning for and enabling the development of balanced residential neighborhoods with access to affordable housing, community facilities and public services.” Policy HP-1.2 of the Housing Element states in part: “Encourage limited multi-family developments on large Planned Development Lots, provided that the density does not exceed the physical limitations of the land.”
Policy HP-1.4 states in part: “Encourage the use of private-initiated and/or publicly funded programs to provide housing for low- and moderate-income families..." 101 of 322
Housing Element Goal HG-2 is to: “Provide for adequate housing for persons with special housing needs such as target income groups of low-income, the elderly, handicapped, and femaleheaded households.” Policy HP-2 is to: “Encourage provisions for access for the handicapped in new or rehabilitated residential and commercial developments by considering exceptions or revisions to City ordinances allowing more flexibility relating to zoning, density, reduced setbacks or other incentives to provide reasonable accommodation or improve living conditions of residents as long as coastal resources are still adequately protected.”
And Policy HP-2.4 (CD-9.8) is to “Encourage new residential development in Trinidad to specifically address the needs of seniors, including projects that have smaller yards, lowmaintenance landscaping, limited mobility fixtures, and appropriately sized parking spaces.” GRADING / DRAINAGE / STORMWATER:

The project does propose grading and ground disturbing activities, including mechanical clearing, cut and fill, base laying and surface application. The area of greatest activity and disturbance will be site preparation, where tree removal, excavation, and other clearing and leveling activities will be required. The area of disturbance will be less than one acre, and primary soil disturbing activities (site preparation, grading, and leach field construction) are anticipated to take approximately six months. Other portions of the project will not require significant soil disturbance.

The project is subject to the City's Grading Ordinance and Stormwater Ordinance. The project will add a total of approximately 19,900 sq. ft. of impervious surfaces due to the paved driveway, parking, sidewalks and structures. Therefore, it falls into the category of “regulated projects.” Onsite stormwater management has been designed in accordance with the most recent Humboldt Low Impact Development (LID) Stormwater Manual as required by the City’s Stormwater Ordinance, as detailed in the submitted Stormwater Control Plan (https://www.trinidad.ca.gov/media/7951). In compliance with these standards, the project will retain runoff from a 2-year, 24-hour storm event onsite.

Stormwater will be directed to infiltration areas adjacent to the residences and not directed toward the leachfield or riparian areas.

A Grading Permit is required, because the project will disturb more than 1,000 sq. ft. of surface area and/or more than 50 cubic yards of material. The Grading Permit is issued by the Planning Commission, but it is up to the City Engineer to ensure that all the provisions have been met. A number of the Grading Permit application requirements are more appropriately addressed at the time the Building Permit is applied for (start date, contractor, etc.). The Grading Ordinance includes a variety of standards and specifications, particularly for things such as excavation, fills and terraces, which this project does not 102 of 322
include significant amounts of after construction. In general, it is the responsibility of the City Engineer to ensure the standards are met, both through review of the plans and also through inspections during and after construction.

Section 15.16.070 of the City’s Grading Ordinance requires the City Engineer to provide recommendations on approval of a Grading Permit. The City Engineer must find that “the proposed grading will not adversely affect the drainage or lateral support of other properties in the area, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or the general welfare, or is not in conflict with the provisions of this chapter, TMC Title 17 and the general plan.” During the building permit phase, the applicant will coordinate with the City Engineer to develop a comprehensive grading, drainage, and erosion control plan, including erosion and sediment control measures, to ensure effective long-term stormwater management. These plans shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) consistent with the City’s Grading Ordinance and the LID Manual. The City Engineer had no comments at this phase of the project, and these requirements are addressed through a condition of approval requiring their final sign-off on the plans prior to construction.

SLOPE STABILITY:

The terrain gently slopes toward the northwest, with gradients ranging from 0-3% within the development area. Moving into the northern portion of the project site, the land descends into a gully at a slope of approximately 10-25% leading to Parker Creek, which flows from northeast to southwest through the property. The project site is not mapped as being unstable or of questionable stability on Plate 3 of the General Plan. The property is also located outside of (though close to) an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone. Therefore, no geologic study is required by the Zoning Ordinance.

SEWAGE DISPOSAL:

All five residences will be served by one onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS) That meets Humboldt County Department of Environmental Health (DEH) requirements. In July 2018 and again in 2020, Pacific Watershed Associates (PWA) of Arcata, California, soil investigations for the site. Five subsurface exploration test pits were excavated by backhoe to depths ranging from seven (7) to eight (8) feet below ground surface. The soil data from the PWA report was used by Trinidad Valley Consulting Engineers (TVCE) to design a septic system consisting of a 6,000-gallon tank, a pressure-distribution leach field, and a reserve area to serve the five proposed residences. TVCE determined that the site is suitable for an OWTS that complies with DEH requirements.

The design will include a sewage connection to each residence, which will flow into the 6,000-gallon septic tank. From there, the effluent will pass through a pump chamber and be disposed of in a pressurized leach field located north of the residences. This location 103 of 322
meets all regulatory setbacks from adjacent creeks and springs in the area. Because the septic system is not gravity-fed and includes mechanical components, a propane-fueled backup emergency generator will be installed to ensure continuous operation during power outages. The leachfield and reserve area will be seeded with a native grass mix.

DEH has completed an initial review of the design and does not anticipate any issues. In accordance with DEH regulations, a cumulative impacts study is required when certain factors occur, including an anticipated daily flow that exceeds 1,500 (2,250 in this case), when there are other high-flow systems nearby (e.g. Hidden Creek RV Park), or when the potential for contamination is high (adjacency to Parker Creek). The report is currently in progress, but based on the initial results, no issues or changes to the OWTS design are anticipated.

The applicant will be required to obtain an OWTS construction permit from DEH, and the system will also be subject to the City’s OWTS Management Program, which mandates periodic inspection and maintenance of all systems. Therefore, the project will have adequate wastewater treatment capacity.

LANDSCAPING AND FENCING:

The site is heavily forested with second- and third-growth trees, consisting mostly of redwoods. The southern portion of the site, where development will occur, is mostly flat and shows signs of previous clearing and grading. The site was historically logged, and more recently, trees were cut, stumps removed, and piled in the center of the property, with partial grading in the area. Since then, trees and vegetation have regrown around the project area. The northern portion of the site drops steeply into the Parker Creek riparian corridor with more mature second growth redwood forest.

The project includes the removal of up to 424 trees over an area of about 25,540 sq. ft. (0.58 acres). Tree and vegetation removal will follow a strict protocol, utilizing a Tree Reconnaissance Overview map to ensure that only necessary trees are removed.

Individual trees within the development area will be left where possible. Also, although trees will be cleared for the project, significant tree cover will remain on the property, including on the northern two-thirds (~2 acres) of the property. There is also a substantial amount of forested right-of-way along both Highway 101 and Westhaven Drive where trees will remain. The remaining trees will provide visual screening, consistent with surrounding development patterns, where large cleared areas around structures are common in otherwise forested settings.

No fences or landscaping are proposed at this time. However, due to the prevalence of English ivy on the property and the potential for it and other non-native and invasive species to impact sensitive habitat on the property, several conditions of approval related to landscaping have been included. The CEQA document contains a mitigation measure 104 of 322
requiring removal and periodic treatment of English ivy. Additional conditions require (1) plantings and landscaping to be drought-tolerant native vegetation that does not require permanent irrigation after initial establishment, and (2) that no plant species listed as problematic and/or invasive by the CA Native Plant Society or the CA Invasive Plan Council shall be utilized or allowed to naturalize or persist on the site.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
Because there are no principally permitted uses in the PD zone and all uses require a Use Permit, the proposed multi-family residential use requires a Use Permit in accordance with Section 17.36.020. Approval is subject to the requirements of Section 17.72.040, which allows a CUP to be granted for any conditionally permitted use in the applicable zone, provided the facts support the use and written findings are adopted demonstrating compliance with the criteria below. Recommended Use Permit Findings are written in a manner to allow approval, without endorsing the project. However, if information is submitted at the public hearing or public comment received indicating that the proposed use is not consistent with the neighborhood or presents safety hazards, for example, the findings should be reworded accordingly.

A. The proposed use, at the size and intensity contemplated and at the proposed location, will provide a development that is necessary or desirable for, and compatible with, the neighborhood or community. Response: The proposed five-unit residential development is appropriately scaled for the sparsely developed, rural-residential area on the eastern edge of Trinidad. The project’s size and intensity are consistent with the zoning of the property. This development supports local housing needs and provides a desirable infill opportunity in the City. By utilizing existing infrastructure and avoiding impacts to established neighborhoods, the project maintains compatibility with the community. The density is higher than that of some of the surrounding parcels, but the adjacent parcel to the northwest is an RV Park (approximately 50 spaces on two acres, or one unit per 2,000 sq. ft.) and other nearby parcels have multiple dwellings. The project parcel is within City limits and therefore helps concentrate development within and adjacent to already developed areas. Additionally, the project does not require road extensions or infrastructure improvements, and is consistent with planned density, and therefore not growthinducing.

1. The nature of the proposed site, including its size and shape, and the proposed size, shape, and arrangement of structures. Response: The nature of the proposed site 105 of 322
can adequately accommodate the proposed development due to its size, topography, and natural features. The five single-story, single-family residences, each approximately 1,440 sq. ft., are modest in scale and are clustered and arranged to maintain appropriate spacing between structures, preserve site functionality, and minimize visual and environmental impacts.

The placement of homes and related infrastructure, including access, parking, stormwater improvements, and the OWTS, has been designed to meet all safety requirements and fit the site’s physical characteristics without requiring excessive grading or encroachment into sensitive areas. The total development footprint, approximately 25,540 sq. ft. (0.58 acres), represents a small portion of the three acre parcel, ensuring the project remains consistent with the site’s capacity.

2. The accessibility and traffic pattern for persons and vehicles, the type and volume of traffic, and the adequacy of proposed off-street parking and loading. Response: The layout and spacing of structures, along with associated infrastructure, have been planned to minimize impacts and ensure safe and convenient access, including emergency vehicle turnaround and off-street parking. Each residence will have two dedicated parking spaces, with additional spaces for parking overflow for a total of 13 parking spaces, one of which will be ADA compliant, which is above the required parking for the proposed development. The applicant will be required to obtain an encroachment permit for the driveway accessing North Westhaven Drive, which is in Humboldt County’s jurisdiction. The driveway will be a category 4 road meeting the requirements of Humboldt County Code Title III: Design standards for road categories for slow speeds and limited parcel access.

Based on sight lines and distances, no hazards are anticipated as a result of the new driveway. No new hazards or incompatible uses will be created because of the proposed project.

3. The safeguards afforded to prevent noxious or offensive emissions such as noise, glare, dust, and odor. Response: The potential impacts of noxious or offensive emissions, such as noise, glare, dust, and odor, were thoroughly addressed in the IS/MND for the project. The analysis concluded that while some of these emissions may occur during construction, they are not expected to result in significant impacts. Operational emission impacts from single-family residences are minimal. Mitigation measures, such as dust control during construction, have been incorporated as necessary to ensure these effects are minimized, and no significant adverse impacts are anticipated.

4. Treatment given, as appropriate, to landscaping, screening, open spaces, parking and loading areas, service areas, lighting, and signs. Response: Although trees will be cleared for the project, significant tree cover will remain on the property, 106 of 322
including the northern two-thirds and trees within the Highway 101 and Westhaven Drive rights-of-way, except at the site access point on Westhaven Drive. The remaining trees will provide visual screening, consistent with surrounding development patterns. All outdoor lighting shall be dark sky compliant, including but not limited to being downcast, and shielded to prevent light from shining offsite or into the riparian habitat northwest of the project. No signs are proposed.

D. The proposed use or feature will have no significant adverse environmental impact, or there are no feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available under CEQA that would substantially lessen any significant impact. Response: The potential environmental impacts of the proposed project were thoroughly analyzed in the associated IS/MND. The analysis determined that the project will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts with the implementation of identified mitigation measures. All feasible mitigation measures required under CEQA have been incorporated into the project to reduce potential impacts to a less-thansignificant level. Therefore, no additional alternatives or mitigation measures are necessary to substantially lessen any significant impacts.

Because the project is located within the Coastal Zone and involves new structures, and because it is not exempt from Design Review or a Coastal Development Permit, §17.60.030 of the Zoning Ordinance requires Design Review and View Protection Findings.

Recommended Design Review / View Preservation Findings are written in a manner to allow approval, without endorsing the project. However, if information is submitted at the public hearing or public comment received indicating that views, for instance, may be significantly impacted, or the structure proposed is obtrusive, the findings should be reworded accordingly.
107 of 322
Design Review Criteria
A. The alteration of natural landforms caused by cutting, filling, and grading shall be minimal.

Structures should be designed to fit the site rather than altering the landform to accommodate the structure. Response: The placement of homes and related infrastructure, including access, parking, stormwater improvements, and the onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS), has been designed to fit the site’s physical characteristics without requiring excessive grading or encroaching into sensitive areas. The area where development is proposed has been previously leveled. Per the engineering plans approximately 400 cubic yards of soil are to be mobilized onsite to obtain the desired grades for the development. It is the aim of the design team to balance the cut and fill quantities so that no dirt will need to leave the site. Grading limits and grading elevation benchmarks will be established to ensure that no excess disturbance is to take place. During the building permit phase, the applicant will coordinate with the City Engineer to develop a comprehensive grading, drainage, and erosion control plan, including erosion and sediment control measures, to ensure effective long-term stormwater management. These plans shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) consistent with the City’s Grading Ordinance and the LID Manual.

B. Structures in or adjacent to open space areas should be constructed of materials that reproduce natural colors and textures as closely as possible. Response: The project is not located near any land zoned open space, but it is located adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas. The houses will be wood framed single story, with a slab on grade foundation and truss roof system. Construction will utilize hardi-plank and hardipanel siding with composite shingle roofing. Although trees will be cleared for the project, significant tree cover will remain on the property, including the northern twothirds and trees within the Highway 101 and Westhaven Drive rights-of-way, except at the site access point on Westhaven Drive. The remaining trees will provide visual screening, consistent with surrounding development patterns, where cleared areas around structures are common in otherwise forested settings.

C. Materials and colors used in construction shall be selected for the compatibility both with the structural system of the building and with the appearance of the building’s natural and manmade surroundings. Preset architectural styles (e.g. standard fast food restaurant designs) shall be avoided. Response: The houses will be wood framed single story, with a slab on grade foundation and truss roof system. Construction will utilize hardi-plank and hardipanel siding with composite shingle roofing. This is compatible with nearby development. Although trees will be cleared for the project, significant tree cover will remain on the property, including the northern two-thirds and trees within the Highway 101 and Westhaven Drive rights-of-way, except at the site access point on Westhaven Drive. The remaining trees will provide visual screening, consistent with surrounding development patterns, where cleared areas around structures are common in otherwise forested settings.
108 of 322
D. Plant materials should be used to integrate the manmade and natural environments to screen or soften the visual impact of new development, and to provide diversity in developed areas.

Attractive vegetation common to the area shall be used. Response: Although some trees will be removed to accommodate the development, significant tree cover will remain on the property, particularly in the northern two-thirds of the site and within the Highway 101 and Westhaven Drive rights-of-way, except at the access point on Westhaven Drive. The preserved trees will provide natural visual screening and help soften the visual impact of the new development, consistent with the surrounding forested residential pattern where clearings around structures are typical. In addition, the project includes vegetated retention areas within the developed portion of the site, contributing to the visual integration of the built and natural environments. Plant materials will reflect vegetation common to the area and will enhance the overall character of the development. Furthermore, all outdoor lighting will be dark sky compliant—downcast and shielded—to prevent glare and avoid intrusion into surrounding natural areas, including the adjacent riparian habitat.

E. On-premise signs should be designed as an integral part of the structure and should complement or enhance the appearance of new development. Response: No on-premise signs are associated with this project.

F. New development should include underground utility service connections. When above ground facilities are the only alternative, they should follow the least visible route, be well designed, simple and unobtrusive in appearance, have a minimum of bulk and make use of compatible colors and materials. Response: The project site is well-suited to support utility and infrastructure needs. Electrical and water utilities are available adjacent to the property, with Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) providing electricity and the City of Trinidad supplying potable water. Each residence will have individual electrical and water meters, with an additional electrical meter serving site infrastructure. Phone, internet, and cable will be provided individually by local service providers. Electrical service is provided via overhead lines along Westhaven Drive. The overhead utilities are obscured by vegetation, most of which will remain along Westhaven Drive.

G. Off-premise signs needed to direct visitors to commercial establishments, as allowed herein, should be well designed and be clustered at appropriate locations. Sign clusters should be a single design theme. Response: No off-premise signs are associated with this project.

H. When reviewing the design of commercial or residential buildings, the committee shall ensure that the scale, bulk, orientation, architectural character of the structure and related improvements are compatible with the rural, uncrowded, rustic, unsophisticated, small, casual open character of the community. In particular:
109 of 322

1. Residences of more than two thousand square feet in floor area and multiple family dwellings or commercial buildings of more than four thousand square feet in floor area shall be considered out of scale with the community unless they are designed and situated in such a way that their bulk is not obtrusive.

2. Residential and commercial developments involving multiple dwelling or business units should utilize clusters of smaller structures with sufficient open space between them instead of a consolidated structure.

Response: The proposed residential development is consistent with the intent of encouraging clusters of smaller structures with adequate open space between them.

The project consists of five single-story, single-family residences, each approximately 1,440 sq. ft. in size, located within a 1-acre portion of a 3.1-acre parcel. The site plan reflects a compact, clustered arrangement that maintains appropriate separation between units and integrates landscaped open areas throughout the developed footprint. This layout avoids a consolidated building form and preserves the surrounding undeveloped portions of the site, supporting the rural, low-density character of the community and maintaining visual openness consistent with established development patterns.

View Protection
A. Structures visible from the beach or a public trail in an open space area should be made as visually unobtrusive as possible. Response: The project site is not readily visible from a beach, trail or open space area. In addition, the structures, along with the exterior materials, have been designed to blend with the site, and the structures will be minimally visible from public vantage points such as Westhaven Drive and Highway 101.

B. Structures, including fences over three feet high and signs, and landscaping of new development, shall not be allowed to significantly block views of the harbor, Little Trinidad Head, Trinidad Head or the ocean from public roads, trails, and vista points, except as provided in subdivision 3 of this subsection. Response: Due to its location and extensive tree cover, the proposed project will not block any public views.

C. The committee shall recognize that owners of vacant lots in the SR and UR zones, which are otherwise suitable for construction of a residence, are entitled to construct a residence of at least fifteen feet in height and one thousand five hundred square feet in floor area, residences of greater height as permitted in the applicable zone, or greater floor area shall not be allowed if such residence would significantly block views identified in subdivision 2 of this subsection.

Regardless of the height or floor area of the residence, the committee, in order to avoid significant obstruction of the important views, may require, where feasible, that the residence be limited to one story; be located anywhere on the lot even if this involves the reduction or elimination of required yards or the pumping of septic tank wastewater to an uphill leach field, or the use of some other type of wastewater treatment facility: and adjust the length-width-height relationship and orientation of the structure so that it prevents the least 110 of 322
possible view obstruction. Response: Due to the project location and extensive tree cover, the proposed project is not likely to block any private views. Neighbors have been notified and will have an opportunity to comment on the project.

D. If a residence is removed or destroyed by fire or other means on a lot that is otherwise usable, the owner shall be entitled to construct a residence in the same location with an exterior profile not exceeding that of the previous residence even if such a structure would again significantly obstruct public views of important scenes, provided any other nonconforming conditions are corrected. Response: There was no residence that was destroyed by fire associated with this project.

E. The Tsurai Village site, the Trinidad Cemetery, the Holy Trinity Church and the Memorial Lighthouse are important historic resources. Any landform alterations or structural construction within one hundred feet of the Tsurai Study Area, as defined in the Trinidad general plan, or within one hundred feet of the lots on which identified historical resources are located shall be reviewed to ensure that public views are not obstructed and that development does not crowd them and thereby reduce their distinctiveness or subject them to abuse or hazards. Response: The proposed project is not within 100 feet of the Trinidad Cemetery, Holy Trinity Church, Memorial Lighthouse or the Tsurai Study Area.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
This project requires the following three separate actions in order to continue through the approval process:

1. Adoption of the CEQA document and findings via Resolution 2025-01;

2. Approval of Design Review and Grading Permit.

3. A recommendation to the City Council on approval of a Use Permit (and CDP); CEQA
In accordance with CEQA, and as provided for in Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq., the Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the YIHA Trinidad Housing Project (project) have been completed in compliance with CEQA. The IS/MND, any comments received during the public review process, and responses to these comments, have been presented to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the IS/MND prior to approving the project. Specific findings are required in adopting the CEQA document, which are included in Resolution PC2025-01.

The Planning Commission reviewed the IS/MND, provided comments and questions to staff, and then opened the hearing to public comment. The Planning Commission agreed with staff’s analysis, the conclusions in the IS/MND, and the findings of Resolution 2025- 01, and adopted the IS/MND with the following motion:
111 of 322
Based on the information contained in whole of the record, the Planning Commission’s independent judgement, I find that there is no substantial evidence in the record as a whole that the project as proposed and mitigated may have a significant effect on the environment. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the approval for the project that mitigate to a less-thansignificant level or avoid the potentially significant environmental effects of the project as identified in the Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. And I move to adopt Resolution 2025-01 approving the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Design Review and Grading Permit
Based on the above analysis, and as conditioned herein, the proposed project was found to meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements, as well as other provisions of the City’s Municipal Code and General Plan, and the applicable findings, including Design Review, View Protection and Grading, were made. The Planning Commission agreed with staff’s analysis, and approved the project with the following motion:

Based on the information submitted in the application, included in the staff report and public testimony at the hearing, I find that the project is consistent with the City’s LCP and other applicable regulations, and I move to adopt the information and Design Review, View Protection, and other findings in this staff report and approve the Design Review and Grading Permit for the project as described in the staff report and as conditioned therein.

Use Permit and CDP
Based on the above analysis, and as conditioned below, the proposed use was found to be consistent with the City’s Local Coastal Program and the required Use Permit findings were made. Upon approval of the Use Permit, the CDP will also be approved. The Planning Commission agreed with staff’s analysis, and recommended approval of the Use Permit to the City Council with the following motion:

Based on the information submitted in the application, included in the staff report, and public testimony, I move to adopt the information and Conditional Use Permit findings in this staff report and recommend approval of the Use Permit to the City Council.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

8. Recommendations of the City Engineer shall be required to be met prior to building permits being issued. Grading, drainage, and erosion control need to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to work commencing. The City Engineer must find that the proposed grading will not adversely affect the drainage or lateral support of other properties in the area and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or the general welfare, and is consistent with the Trinidad Municipal Code. Responsibility: Building Official prior to building permits being issued.

Building Official prior to building permits being issued.

13. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Humboldt County Public Works for any work occurring within the County right-of-way including the driveway. Responsibility: Building Inspector to confirm prior to building permits being issued.

ATTACHMENTS
• Project Plans (five 11x17 pages)
• Public comment and response (7 pages)
• Supplemental June Staff Report (14 pages)
115 of 322
12-31-2026
C100PROPOSED SITE PLAN
N
Feet
0 30 60
116 of 322
TVCE
117 of 322
TVCE
118 of 322

CONCEPT PLAN

SITE RENDERINGS
TVCE
January 2025
119 of 322
!
!
!
!!!
! !
!
!
! ! "
^
!
!
!
! !
!
"
"
!
!
! !
!
"
!
!
! ! "
" "
"
"
"
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
"
"
"
!
!!
!
!
#
!
" "
"
"
"
!
!
!! ! !
!
!!!
!
! !
!!
!
#
!!
!
!!
!!
!!
! ! ! ! !
" "
" " "
"
!
# # #
"
"
"
"
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
! ! !
!
!
!
"
#
!
! !
"
"
!!
! !!
G
G
"
!
#
!
!!
!
!
G
#
#
!
!
!
G
!!
! !!!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!!
!!!!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!! !!!!
!
G
G
#
!! !
!
! !! !!!
!!
!
!
! !!
!!! !!!!
G
!!!
!!! !
! ! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
!
! ! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
G
!
!
!
!!
! ! ! !!
!
! !
! !!
!
!!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!! !
! !
!!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!!!
! ! !
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
! ! !
! !
!
! !
! !
!
! !!
! ! !
!
!!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
! !
! !
!
"
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!!!
!!
!!!
G
#
!
!! !
!!
!
#
!
! ! !
!!
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
^^
^ ^^ ^
^
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
G
!
"
" "
"
"
"
"
!
!
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
" "
!
#
"
!
# #
"
# ! ! ! #
"
"
"
"
"
"
!
!
!
"
"
#
"
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
" #
"
#
"
" "
#
# # "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
!
!
!
!
"
"
^
#
"
"
#
"
!
!
!
!
!
!
"
!
!
!
"
"
"
"
"
# "
#
!
!
!
#
#
!
!
!
!
#
#
!
!
#
"
#
"
"
^
!
"
"
"
!
! !
"
"
!
!
^
#
# #
"
"
"
#
"
"
#
"
"
!
"
"
"
#
"
#
"
"
!
#
#
#
!
! !
# #
# #
#
"
#
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
" G
G
#
#
"
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! "
!
# "
"
" # #
# #
"
# ##
"
"
#
#
#
#
"
"
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
#
# #
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
! !
#
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
"
! !
!
! #
!
"
"
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
Fenced Hwy 101 Right of Way Data Not Collected
Trees in this section of road
right of way may need
removed for drivway and
are included in the table below
14 23
23 24
25 13 28 30
34 36 12 48
12 16
24 26 26
28 10
14 12
17 30
28 45
37 11
13 54 35
16 13
11 10
14 10
14 21
14 17 13
16 27
22 24
15 25 12
16 10
22 24
10 28 24
21 20
25 24
21 29
13 11
10 12
11 21 16
15 10
14 10
11 10
12 10
11 13
20 21
18 19
15 17 15
13 14
15 17
15 13
21 10
28 23 30
18 12 13 16
14 14 11 15
19 11 21
10 10
11 11 11
10 78
10 11 11
11 12
11 10
13 16
11 10
13 20
17 19
17 15
10 16
10 17 13
16 12
20 15
11 15
16 13 26
12 11
18 17
10 16
18 18
21 10
29 12
18 46 12
11 17
36 11
12 10
10 23
15 20
13 23
10 21
23 13
12 18
16 18
22 12 12
26 19
10 30
21 13
19 15
19 27
11 75" Snag
16 34
28 24 16
22 10
23 21
10 13
10 23
24 20
18 18
10 11
15 13 16
28 19
10 23
24 11 14
12 18
18 10
31 21
14 19
12 17
15 15
26 36 11
18 11
22 16
19 27
11 22
21 24
16 10
18 10
13 15
23 28
17 19
20 23
16 12 18
11 16
18 11 26 13
20 24
10 19
16 15
14 17
13 18 23
20 22
14 13
19 10
10 20
16 32
14 10
18 10
12 19
20 18
27 12
20 21
10 12 18 18
10 15
28 16
19 19
18 15 11
10 15
16 19
14 19
95" Snag
20 25
10 23
27 19
23 11
20 16
31 18 18
16 15 14
11 18 13
17 14
16 17 14
11 13
11 10
17 15 18
14 10
16 22 17
12 10
22 18
21 22
23 12
23 20
18 19 16
16 14
15 12
12 22
13 20
16 13 11
17 23
21 23
24 22
34 11
14 28 24
16 15
16 15
12 17
62 23 12
11 28
15 15
30 42
26 24
18 24 16
12 10
20 22
24 12
22 16
28 14 10
26 28
30 28
22 20
24 16
32 26
22 28
24 36
34 22
26 16
36 32
26 15
16 28
15 20
15 24
18 14
24 28
16 26
Mad River Residential Development
Trindad Tree Stem Overview Map
0 45 90 180
Feet 1 inch = 46 feet Date: 1/2/2025
Section 28 T6N; R1E; HB&M; Humboldt County
Located on the Arcata North 7.5' USGS Quadrangle
Legend
Species for trees less than 10" DBH (not labelded)
G df
" ra
^ rc
! rw
# ss
Species for 10" DBH & Over (DBH labaled on map)
G df
" ra
^ rc
! rw
# ss
Class III Stream
Class II Stream
Class II WLPZ
100' stream protection zone
Parcel Boundary
Approximate project footprint where tree removal is proposed ¯
Number of Trees Proposed For Removal By Species & DBH Class DBH <=6" 7"-9" 10"-14" 15"-19" 20"-24" 25"-29" >=30"
RW 40 29 48 49 38 17 10
RA 48 49 33 0 0 0 0
SS 25 12 9 1 0 0 0
DF 2 0 0 2 1 0 1
RC 8 2 1 0 0 0 0
Total 123 91 91 52 39 17 11
HWY 101
Westhaven Dr.
120 of 322
May 15, 2025
To: Trever Parker
City of Trinidad Planning Department
P.O. Box 390
Trinidad, CA 95570
Kenneth and Karen Parker
207 N Westhaven Dr.

P.O. Box 506
Trinidad, CA 95570
Public Comment on Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration - Yurok Indian Housing Authority Housing Project, Trinidad, CA
Dear Trever Parker,
We are writing to respectfully submit the following comments on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed five-unit housing development by the Yurok Indian Housing Authority (YIHA) in Trinidad, California.

While we support the goal of providing housing for Yurok tribal members, the current scope of the project raises significant concerns that are not adequately addressed in the MND. These concerns relate to the project’s scale, environmental and cultural impacts, infrastructure burden, and lack of enforceable commitments on key claims.

1. Prevalence of Substandard Housing
The MND references a "high percentage" of tribal members living in substandard housing, yet provides no source. According to a 1996 HUD report, approximately 40% of Native Americans live in overcrowded or physically inadequate housing, compared to only 6% of the U.S. population. However, this statistic is nearly three decades old. Updated, localized data specific to Yurok tribal members in or near Trinidad is necessary to justify the project scale and urgency.

2. Unsubstantiated Designation to Tribal Elders
According to a representative from Trinity Valley Consulting Engineers, the proposed homes are intended to be designated for "Tribal Elders." However, this designation is not reflected in the official MND, nor is there any documented policy, selection criteria, deed restriction, or enforceable mechanism to ensure or sustain this intended use. Without binding legal or programmatic assurances, this stated purpose remains speculative and may be subject to change at any time.

3. Funding and Long-Term Maintenance Uncertainty
The MND notes that YIHA will subsidize both construction and maintenance of the units, but it provides no information about the amount of funding, its source, or the duration of the maintenance commitment. For example, in a previous project, YIHA received $1.48 million annually in federal tax 121 of 322
credits to finance housing. Similar transparency is needed here. Without clear, long-term funding commitments, the sustainability of this project is uncertain.

4. Environmental and Cultural Resource Impacts
The project is located in a highly sensitive coastal zone, where Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs) and culturally significant lands are present. The area supports native flora and fauna and holds deep spiritual and ancestral importance to the Yurok people. The potential for disturbance to sacred sites and the degradation of fragile habitats is significant. A full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is necessary to properly assess these risks.

5. Disproportionate Population Growth Impact
The City of Trinidad has a current population of approximately 307 residents (U.S. Census). Adding five new homes—each potentially housing multiple residents—could increase the population by an estimated 25 people, a growth of 8.14% in a single development. This is not a minor infill; it represents a substantial demographic and infrastructure shift for a small, rural coastal community. Is this kind of growth realistic, responsible, or compatible with local planning values and ecological limits? Conclusion and Request
For the reasons outlined above, we respectfully urge the City of Trinidad to:
- Reject the MND as currently drafted;
- Require a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to study cumulative environmental, cultural, and infrastructure impacts;
- Consider a reduced-scale alternative (1–2 homes) to better balance housing needs with environmental protection, infrastructure capacity, and community character; - Provide clear documentation on funding mechanisms, long-term maintenance commitments, and housing allocation criteria.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important matter. We urge you to proceed with caution and require a deeper, more transparent environmental review before approving this project.

Sincerely,
Kenneth and Karen Parker
207 N Westhaven Dr.

P.O. Box 506
Trinidad, CA 95570
122 of 322
Carl Anderson
221 Westhaven Dr. N
Trinidad, CA 95570
[email protected]
May 14, 2025
City of Trinidad Planning Commissioners
RE: Concerns Regarding Yurok Indian Housing Authority Subdivision – Trinidad, CA Dear Commissioners and Planning Staff,
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed subdivision by the Yurok Indian Housing Authority, near my property at 221 Westhaven Drive in Trinidad, CA. The project raises several significant issues related to parking adequacy, archaeological sensitivity, and mischaracterizations in the environmental documentation.

1. Inadequate Parking for the Proposed Density
The proposed development includes five homes of approximately 1,400 square feet each on a 0.58-acre parcel—equivalent to 25,540 square feet. The plan includes just 13 total parking spaces: 2 per home and 3 shared guest spots. Only 12,723 square feet of the overall 3.1-acre project area would be paved.

This limited parking does not realistically support the additional vehicles typically associated with families, visitors, and service providers. Overflow parking onto Westhaven Drive—a narrow, rural county road—would likely create safety and congestion problems, as this road is not designed for on-street parking or urban-level traffic.

2. Archaeological and Cultural Sensitivity
123 of 322
Although the archaeological report states that no cultural resources were found directly onsite, it acknowledges that 14 prehistoric and historic resources have been documented within a quarter-mile of the area. Given the known cultural significance of this region, it is critical that a qualified archaeologist or tribal monitor be present during all grounddisturbing activities to ensure that potential undiscovered resources are protected.

3. Misleading Statement in the MND About Community Division The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) asserts that the project would not divide an established community. This is misleading. The development would, in fact, impact the cohesion of the North Westhaven neighborhood—an area defined by low-density, forested residential lots and a quiet, rural atmosphere.

Inserting five homes and accompanying infrastructure into such a small space would impose a level of urbanization that is incompatible with the existing character of the neighborhood.

Conclusion
I urge the Commission to reconsider the scale and scope of this project. I would support a significantly reduced version—perhaps one or two homes—but the current plan for five homes on 0.58 acres constitutes a mini-subdivision that does not fit this setting.

The project, as currently proposed, is inconsistent with the values of environmental stewardship, cultural respect, public safety, and community preservation.

Sincerely,
Carl Anderson
[email protected]
707-834-4903
124 of 322
Renata Olczak and Ian Macdougall
254 N Westhaven Dr
Trinidad, CA 95570
[email protected]
[email protected]
May 15, 2025
Trever Parker, City Planner
City of Trinidad
RE: Comments on MND for Proposed Yurok Housing Project - Trinidad, CA Dear Ms. Parker,
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed housing project by the Yurok Indian Housing Authority near Westhaven Drive in Trinidad.

My family lives at 254 N. Westhaven Dr. and we are concerned about this build. We bought this property because we love the quiet, serene nature of it, with not much traffic. This new build will add noise, dust, and a lot of traffic to a quiet area. The speed at which cars already drive on Westhaven is worrisome as well. Therefore, we believe there is a need for speed bumps currently but even more should be added with this potential build. The safety of pedestrians including our children is of immense concern due to speeding traffic and with more houses an increase of traffic safety is imperative.

While we understand the need for housing, we have concerns regarding the scale of the project and its potential impacts on our neighborhood’s environment, infrastructure, and cohesion.

1. Parking and Traffic Impacts
With five homes proposed on just 0.58 acres and a total of 13 parking spaces, overflow parking is likely to spill onto Westhaven Drive, a narrow county road not built for highdensity traffic. This could disrupt pedestrian safety, and add to congestion to this quiet road.

Mitigation Suggestions:
- Reduce the number of proposed homes or bedrooms to lessen parking and traffic demand. 125 of 322
- Add a secondary access road or designate a turn-out for overflow vehicles. - Include conditions for off-street guest parking and enforceable restrictions on on-street parking.

2. Neighborhood Character and Visual Screening
The proposed density is out of character with the surrounding rural neighborhood, which is defined by large lots, native vegetation, and quiet conditions. Introducing five homes on such a small parcel would visually and functionally disrupt the existing road and community pattern.

Mitigation Suggestions:
- Require natural vegetative screening, fencing, or landscaping buffers. - Lower the number of homes or limit total square footage per lot to reduce visual impacts.

3. Construction Impacts
Construction of this scale in a quiet rural setting will inevitably generate noise, dust, and traffic, especially if all homes are built concurrently.

Mitigation Suggestions:
- Limit construction to specific hours (e.g., 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday). - Require dust control measures and noise-reducing equipment. - Stagger construction phases to reduce peak disruption.

Conclusion
Lastly we are concerned about the impact on wildlife. The vacant land is home to many animals such as racoons, foxes, a variety of birds, skunks etc. we can see daily and on our cameras. This project is literally in our backyard and scope of this build will definitely deter an already thriving ecosystem.

We believe that these issues can be reasonably addressed through project modifications and additional mitigation measures. We support thoughtful housing development, but it must be scaled appropriately to the context and sensitive to existing residents. We respectfully request that the project be reconsidered with these mitigations in mind.

Conclusion and Request
For the reasons outlined above, we respectfully urge the City of Trinidad to:
126 of 322
- Reject the MND as currently drafted due to inadequate analysis and mitigation of neighborhood and environmental impacts;
- Reassess the scale and density of the project in light of surrounding community character; - Require enforceable mitigation measures to ensure safety, preserve community aesthetics, and protect rural quality of life;
- Consider a reduced-scale alternative (1–2 homes) to better balance housing needs with environmental protection, infrastructure capacity, and community character; We support sustainable and culturally respectful housing efforts and believe thoughtful project revisions can lead to a better outcome for all stakeholders.

Sincerely,
Renata Olczak
Ian Macdougall
[email protected]
[email protected]
127 of 322
p. 1
Yurok 2025-01 Comment Responses May 21, 2025 PC Meeting

CITY OF TRINIDAD STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM
DATE: Tuesday, May 20, 2025
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Trever Parker, City Planer
AGENDA ITEM: YIHA 2025-01: Response to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

No action needed. The comment letters do not raise any substantial issues that need to be further addressed in the IS/MND. Accept the staff report and ask questions or request additional information as needed.

DISCUSSION/BACKGROUND:

Three letters have been submitted regarding the proposed MND for this project. None of the letters raise substantial issues that need to be further addressed in the MND. I have provided brief responses herein. Although the letters reference the MND, some of the comments would be more appropriately directed to the permit approvals and findings for the project rather than the MND. Note that although the official comment period for the MND ended on May 18, comments may be submitted up to and including at the public hearing. No comments from agencies were submitted, though Trinidad Rancheria has expressed that they may be submitting comments.

One thing that is relevant to note in terms of these letters is that CEQA requires conclusions to be based on “substantial evidence,” which is defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15384 as “facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.” Further: “Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly erroneous or inaccurate, or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to or are not caused by physical impacts on the environment does not constitute substantial evidence.” Parker Comment Letter
Purpose and need for the project (Comments 1 and 2)
The applicant’s stated purpose and need for the project are not relevant to the analysis and conclusions in the CEQA document. A purpose and need statement is not required in an MND. A purpose and need are required to be outlined in an Environmental Impact Report in order for decision makers to weight the potentially significant impacts against the need for the project and to evaluate alternatives. In this case, the impacts are less than significant, and the project complies with all applicable regulations and requirements.

Therefore, the purpose and need are irrelevant. In addition, if the City based its decision 128 of 322
p. 2
Yurok 2025-01 Comment Responses May 21, 2025 PC Meeting on some of the issues brought up (affordability, elder housing) it could be considered discrimination in violation of state and federal fair housing laws.

Long-Term Maintenance
Neither CEQA, nor the City’s land use regulations require provisions for long-term maintenance of projects. There is no reason this project is more likely to fall into disrepair than any other project. Because the property will be managed by the YIHA, it is more likely to be well-maintained than privately funded projects. The project site would be subject to the City’s nuisance abatement ordinance should future lack of maintenance cause a public nuisance.

ESHA and Cultural Resource Impacts
The letter presents no evidence that the analysis and conclusions in the MND are incorrect.

The analysis was supported by several background reports and studies conducted by qualified professionals. The project design and mitigation measures follow the recommendations of the qualified professionals. The project has been reviewed by relevant agencies, including the CA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, and the CA Coastal Commission, which expressed no concerns about the project as designed and mitigated.

Growth Inducement
Growth inducing projects are most commonly those that create or extend infrastructure and services such as new roads or sewer lines. Large housing or commercial projects can also be growth inducing, but this is not a large housing project. It is within the growth and development levels anticipated and planned for in the City’s land use plans and regulations. In fact, past analyses (e.g. Housing Element, Water Demand Assessment) assumed more units on this property, because the extent of the ESHA was not known, and the PD zoning covers at least two acres.

Trinidad’s population in the 2020 Census was 307, down 60 people from the 2010 Census.

The average household size in Trinidad is 1.85 people per dwelling (2020 Census). Though tribal household sizes may be larger, it is unlikely that there would be 25 people living on the property. But even if there were two people per bedroom and 30 people lived onsite, that still doesn’t reach Trinidad’s 2010 population and does not constitute significant population growth over the long-term.

Anderson Comment Letter
Parking
Parking is not a CEQA issue. It used to be a checklist question in the IS, but the State is trying to reduce reliance on vehicles and has removed parking from consideration of environmental impacts. However, it could still be considered a project impact, and overflow parking could create safety hazards. But that is speculative. The project meets the City’s parking standard of two off-street spaces per single-family dwelling unit. The project includes three additional parking spaces for overflow. Additional parking would 129 of 322
p. 3
Yurok 2025-01 Comment Responses May 21, 2025 PC Meeting require additional tree removal and would increase the amount of impervious surfaces and stormwater runoff.

Cultural Resource Impacts
As recommended by the archaeologist who investigated the site, standard protocols for requiring cultural monitoring during construction and inadvertent discovery procedures have been included as mitigation in the MND and incorporated into the project conditions of approval.

Community Division
The project is located on the edge of the City. Humboldt County rural residential parcels are located adjacent to the subject property to the south, and across Westhaven Drive to the east. However, Highway 101 abuts the parcel on the west, and Hidden Creek RV Park is to the north. Due to its location, the project in no way divides an existing community.

Stating that the project includes five homes on 0.58 acres is misleading, since the entire parcel is 3.1 acres, with at least two-thirds of that zoned as Planned Development since 1980. As can be seen from the attached aerial photo, the proposed project is not inconsistent with the scale of nearby development that includes clusters of structures along roadways with large clearings around them.

Olczak and Macdougall Letter
This letter is from the closest neighbor, located adjacent to the project parcel to the south, so they are the most likely to be impacted. The letter points out impacts more related to the conditional use permit findings than CEQA, and suggests several project modifications that may be considered by the applicant and the Planning Commission for incorporation into the project through conditions of approval or otherwise. The mitigation measures outlined in the MND and conditions of approval included in the project are enforceable with specific responsibilities and accountability that are tracked as part of the grading and building permit procedures.

Parking and Traffic
As previously noted, the off-street parking provided for the project meets the City’s parking standards with three additional “overflow” spaces. Although this is not a CEQA issue, it is a project issue and could affect one or more of the conditional use permit findings that can be further discussed at the hearing. In particular, use permit finding B.2 is related to the “accessibility and traffic pattern for persons and vehicles, and the type and volume of such traffic, and the adequacy of proposed off-street parking and loading.” Westhaven Drive does not have shoulders that can accommodate overflow parking. However, overflow parking is unlikely to be necessary except in limited circumstances such as if a resident has a gathering. It may be possible to add additional parking within the project or along Westhaven Drive subject to an encroachment permit from Humboldt County. But, as previously noted, additional parking may result in additional impervious surfaces and tree removal.
130 of 322
p. 4
Yurok 2025-01 Comment Responses May 21, 2025 PC Meeting Neighborhood Character and Visual Screening
Landscaping and screening are design review issues (DR finding D). Vegetation, including trees, will be left along the undeveloped Highway 101 and Westhaven Drive rights-ofway. However, there is limited space between the development area and the property to the south. Fencing or landscaping along this property line could help screen the development from the adjacent property.

Construction Impacts
Mitigation Measure AQ-1 requires dust control measures. Trinidad Municipal Code §15.16.210 limits grading/construction activities to the hours of 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. It is also not uncommon to limit construction to Monday through Friday or Saturday. The City’s pipeline project limited construction to 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday along Westhaven Drive with construction on Saturday only as needed to keep on the construction schedule. The Planning Commission can discuss and add reasonable limits on construction activities to ensure that that use permit findings can be made. Note that more limited daily construction windows will generally result in longer construction schedules. Other mitigation that could be considered to reduce noise include:
 Semi-stationary equipment (e.g., generators, compressors, etc.) will be located as far as possible from residences.
 Quietest available equipment and electrically-powered equipment will be used, rather than internal combustion engines where feasible.
 Equipment and on-site trucks used for project construction will be equipped with properly functioning noise control devices such as mufflers, shields, and shrouds. All construction equipment will be inspected by construction personnel at periodic intervals to ensure proper maintenance and resulting lower noise levels.  Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, rock drills) used for project construction will be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed-air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools.

Wildlife
At least two thirds (2 acres) of the property, encompassing riparian and wetland areas, will remain undeveloped open space. The project requires removal of invasive ivy and that any landscaping be native, drought tolerant species that will help improve and protect habitat. The recommendations from the biological reports that were completed for the project are being followed, and no significant impacts were identified. During site visits, illegal camping, rogue trails, and other disturbances were seen to exist throughout the ESHA areas. Having the proposed development outside the ESHA may help discourage this haphazard disturbance.

ATTACHMENTS:
• Aerial photo with parcels and development area (from Humboldt County GIS) 131 of 322
Sources: Humboldt County GIS
Maxar
Place Labels
Blue Line Streams

HYDFLOW,

STREAMORDE
Perennial 1-3
Perennial >4
Intermittent
Subsurface
Major River or Stream
Highways and Roads
Functional Class
Principal Arterials
Minor Arterials
Major Collectors
Minor Collectors
Local Roads
Private or Unclassified
Counties
City Boundary
Parcels (no APN labels)
Humboldt County Planning and Building Department
Humboldt County WebGIS
Printed: 5/19/2025 3:57 PM
Map Disclaimer:

While every effort has been made to assure the accuracy of this information, it should be understood that it does not have the force & effect of law, rule, or regulation. Should any difference or error occur, the law will take precedence.

Web AppBuilder 2.21 for ArcGIS
RF=1:4,514 1 inch equals 376 feet µ
Center of Map: 124°8'1"W 41°3'38"N
0 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.1 0.01
mi
132 of 322
Molly Wood
May 21, 2025
City of Trinidad Planning Commission
RE: Public Comment on YIHA 2025-01 - Request for Enhanced Documentation and Analysis Dear Planning Commissioners and City Staff,
I respectfully submit these comments regarding the proposed Yurok Indian Housing Authority development. While supporting appropriate housing development, I believe this project requires additional documentation and analysis to ensure sound planning decisions.

Need for Enhanced Project Documentation
The current application lacks several key elements typically required for projects of this scale and community impact:

Housing Needs Assessment: The MND references housing needs but relies on decades-old national statistics rather than current, localized data. For a project representing an 8% population increase in Trinidad, current documentation of specific housing demand is essential for appropriate scale determination.

Project Purpose and Commitment: While representatives have indicated the homes are intended for tribal elders, this designation appears nowhere in the official documentation. Without binding commitments, deed restrictions, or enforceable criteria, the stated project purpose remains unverified and subject to change.

Financial Sustainability Analysis: No information is provided regarding funding sources, amounts, or long-term maintenance commitments. Given the project's stated reliance on YIHA subsidies, documentation of financial sustainability is necessary to prevent future maintenance issues that could impact the community.

Scale and Alternatives Analysis
The current proposal lacks adequate justification for the specific number and density of units:

Density Justification: Five homes on 0.58 acres creates 8.6 units per acre in a neighborhood characterized by large lots and rural density. The application should demonstrate why this specific density is necessary rather than alternatives such as 2-3 homes that would better match neighborhood character.

Infrastructure Capacity: The project provides minimal parking (13 spaces for 5 homes) in an area where public transit is unavailable and overflow parking would impact a narrow county road not designed for additional traffic. A traffic impact analysis would help evaluate realistic parking needs and overflow management.
133 of 322
Cumulative Impact Assessment: As a community of 307 residents, Trinidad has limited experience with developments of this relative scale. The potential for 15-25 new residents represents a significant demographic shift requiring analysis of cumulative impacts on infrastructure, services, and community character.

Environmental and Cultural Resource Documentation
Given the coastal location and cultural significance of the area:

ESHA Interface: While development is proposed outside mapped ESHA areas, the interface between development and sensitive habitat requires more detailed analysis of edge effects, lighting impacts, and long-term habitat protection measures.

Cultural Monitoring: The archaeological report identifies 14 resources within a quarter-mile.

Enhanced cultural monitoring protocols during construction would demonstrate appropriate stewardship of this culturally significant landscape.

Construction Impact Management: The rural setting and proximity to existing residences warrant detailed construction management plans addressing noise, dust, traffic routing, and work hour limitations.

Recommendations for Enhanced Review
To ensure thorough evaluation of this significant development:

1. Require Current Needs Documentation: Request updated, localized housing needs assessment to justify the specific scale proposed.

2. Establish Binding Commitments: If the project serves specific populations (elders) or purposes, incorporate these into enforceable conditions or deed restrictions.

3. Analyze Scale Alternatives: Evaluate alternatives with 2-3 homes to determine if project goals can be achieved with reduced community impact.

4. Develop Comprehensive Mitigation: Create detailed construction management, parking overflow, and ongoing maintenance plans with clear enforcement mechanisms.

5. Consider Phased Development: Evaluate constructing homes in phases to reduce peak construction impacts and allow assessment of actual vs. projected impacts.

Conclusion
These comments are offered in the spirit of ensuring thorough analysis for a project with significant community implications. Enhanced documentation and alternative analysis would strengthen the decision-making process and help balance housing needs with community character preservation.

The Planning Commission has an opportunity to establish precedent for how developments of this scale are evaluated in Trinidad. Requiring comprehensive documentation and analysis will serve both the applicant and community by ensuring projects are appropriately scaled and impacts are fully understood.
134 of 322
Thank you for your consideration of these planning analysis concerns.

Respectfully submitted,
Molly Wood
(707)298-0855
135 of 322
Subject: Opposition to High-Density Housing Project
Dear Trinidad Commissioners,
As a neighbor directly affected by the proposed high-density project, I — along with my neighbors — strongly oppose proceeding with this plan.

Simply put, .58 acres is not large enough for 5 homes. We ask you to reconsider and reduce the project to 3 homes or less.

Perhaps this development isn’t the best way to meet tribal needs. Please consider focusing time and resources on a more appropriate location.

Respectfully Karen and Ken Parker
136 of 322
From: Renata MacD <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 9:31 AM
To: Ahakenen Trinidad <[email protected]>
Subject: Westhaven subdivision

Good morning! I am writing in regard to the subdivision which is being proposed to be built directly next to our family home on North Westhaven Drive. I, as well as my partner Ian MacDougall and our 2 children age 2 and 6 live here. We, as well as my neighbors strongly oppose the building of the proposed 5 houses. The limited space of only .58 acres is not large enough to accommodate 5 houses on a busy road, in a rural area. At the last meeting it was said that each house can house 6 people. If even half of these people owned cars, that will be 15 cars and 5 houses parked on only .58 acres. There are no garages, so where are all these cars going to be parked? There is no parking available on Westhaven Drive so this is concerning. This seems way beyond the scope of what should be acceptable on such small plot of land. 3 or less houses makes much more sense. We understand housing is important, but so is the location and neighbors involved. We are frustrated that we aren’t being heard or even recognized. Not one mention of a privacy fence last time has led us to believe our extreme proximity to the property is not being considered at all. If it is already not being considered, we are extremely worried what the future could hold for our home and our family. Thank you. Renata Olczak and Ian MacDougall
137 of 322
138 of 322

CITY OF TRINIDAD STAFF REPORT
DATE: Wednesday June 18, 2025
TO: Trinidad Planning Commission
FROM: Trever Parker, City Planer
AGENDA ITEM: YIHA 2025-01: Coastal Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Design Review and Grading Permit for the development of five (5) single-story, singlefamily residences (approximately 1,440 square feet (sq. ft.) each) with related infrastructure on a 3.1-acre undeveloped parcel. This infrastructure includes site access, emergency vehicle turnaround, parking, stormwater drainage improvements, onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS), utilities, and mitigation measures for the conservation and protection of natural resources and sensitive areas in the vicinity.

Additionally, the project includes the removal of up to 424 trees over an area of approximately 25,540 sq. ft. (0.58 acres).

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
The project description and staff recommendation have not changed. The applicant has provided a summary of the findings of the OWTS cumulative impact report and their efforts to reach out to the neighbors. I did not include the cumulative impact report in the packet, but it is available upon request and in the City file. In general, the neighbors still want fewer homes, which is not being proposed.

Staff still recommends approval of the project as proposed, because the project is consistent with the City’s land use regulations. The property is zoned PD, and has been for decades. The owners have a reasonable expectation to be able to develop the property consistent with City and other applicable requirements. The project provides additional housing in the City and helps the City meet its housing policies and obligations. And the project is not inconsistent with neighborhood character or density. No evidence has been submitted that indicates impacts to the neighborhood are likely to be significant.

Density
The following additional information regarding density is provided due to it being a primary concern for both the neighbors and the Planning Commission.

It is commonly misstated that the project consists of five homes on 0.58 acres (25,265 sq. ft.), but that is incorrect. The actual development area, including the OWTS and setbacks, is approximately one acre (43,560 sq. ft.). That equates to one unit per 8,700 sq. ft., consistent with the Planned Development zoning requirements. However, that does not account for the entire 3.1-acre (135,036 sq. ft.) parcel. Overall, that equates to one unit per 27,128 sq. ft. (0.62 acres). For comparison, the minimum lot size in the SR zone, which 139 of 322
includes most of the eastern portions of the City, is 20,000 sq. ft. The parcel immediately to the south of the subject parcel is approximately 14,000 sq. ft. It also should be recognized that there is an RV park immediately adjacent to the north of the project parcel, and the PD zoning allows commercial uses including motels, restaurants, retail, visitor services, and mixed residential and commercial projects. The proposed project is modest in its scale. The neighbors should have been aware of the development possibilities of this vacant parcel.

The attached aerial photo with parcel lines provides some perspective on the proposed project area compared to surrounding development. The approximate 1-acre development area is outlined in blue. (Note that the City limit line erroneously includes the County parcel to the southeast.) It can be seen that the development area and tree clearing are moderate compared to clearings and structures in the surrounding area. In addition, just 1,000 feet east of the project along Westhaven Drive is a cluster of parcels that have a higher density than the proposed development. The six residential parcels outlined in red total 2.67 acres, or one unit per 0.45 acres (19,600 sq. ft.). If the three parcels to the north, adjacent to the tall parcel, are included, it equals nine dwellings on 4.91 acres, or one unit per 0.55 acres (23,950 sq. ft.). The proposed project has fewer dwellings at less density.

And they are clustered, which substantially reduces impacts on the environment and the overall neighborhood.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Design Review and Grading Permit
Based on the above and previous analysis, and as conditioned herein and in the original staff report, the proposed project can be found to meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements, as well as other provisions of the City’s Municipal Code and General Plan, and the applicable findings, including Design Review, View Protection and Grading, can be met. If the Planning Commission agrees with staff’s analysis, the project may be approved with the following motion:

Based on the information submitted in the application, included in the staff report and public testimony at the hearing, I find that the project is consistent with the City’s LCP and other applicable regulations, and I move to adopt the information and Design Review, View Protection, and other findings in this staff report and approve the Design Review and Grading Permit for the project as described in the staff report and supplement and as conditioned therein.

Use Permit and CDP
Based on the above and previous analysis, and as conditioned herein and in the original staff report, the proposed use can be found to be consistent with the City’s Local Coastal Program and the required Use Permit findings can be met. Upon approval of the Use Permit, the CDP will also be approved. If the Planning Commission agrees with staff’s analysis, the Use Permit can be recommended to the City Council with the following motion:

140 of 322
Based on the information submitted in the application, included in the staff report and supplement, and public testimony, I move to adopt the information and Conditional Use Permit findings in this staff report and recommend approval of the Use Permit to the City Council.

ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
As noted at the last meeting, the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) for the Trinidad Rancheria requested that a cultural monitor from the Rancheria be onsite during ground disturbing activities. Condition 14 already incorporates the cultural monitoring mitigation from the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of the CEQA document. That specifies that the monitor must be from the Yurok Tribe, Tsurai Ancestral Society, Trinidad Rancheria, or a qualified archaeologist. It would be up to the contractor which one they want to hire. In cases where there is interest from multiple tribal entities, the City has required that the applicant hire one of their choosing but let the other(s) know when ground disturbance will take place, so they can voluntarily send another monitor if they choose. That is the purpose of proposed condition #15, which was not included in the original staff report.

ATTACHMENTS
• Revised MMRP (7 pages)
• Applicant supplemental letter (3 pages)
• Aerial Photo (one 11x17)
141 of 322
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The Department found that the project could result in potentially significant adverse impacts unless mitigation measures are required. A list of mitigation that addresses and mitigates potentially significant adverse impacts to a level of non-significance follows.

Air Quality
AQ-1-Fugitive Dust Control.

During short-term construction activities the following dust control measures shall be implemented by the contractor to reduce nuisance dust generation; the measures shall be included as notes on the final construction plans:
• Equipment and activity must not emit dust that is visible crossing the property lines.
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, active graded areas, excavations, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day in areas of active construction.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph, unless the unpaved
road surface has been treated for dust suppression with water, rock, wood chip mulch, or other dust prevention measures.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes. Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications.
• Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. NCUAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Timing for Implementation/Compliance: During construction.

Person/Agency Responsible for Monitoring: Contractor and City Engineer.

Monitoring Frequency: Plans reviewed prior to construction and during periodic site visits.

Evidence of Compliance: Notes on construction plans; site inspection logs.
142 of 322
Biological Resources
BIO-1 Best Management Practices:

During the development and construction of this project BMPs shall be used to prevent sediment, fuels or contaminantes from entering the surrounding terrestrial and aquatic environments/habitats. Complete lists of BMPs for project specific actions can be found at California State Water Resources Control Board BMP Databases and Humboldt County: Title III – Land Use and Development - Division 3 - Building Regulations (Ch. 7 § 337-13)7. The implementation of specific BMPs will be dependent on the project construction methods and timing and shall be explicitly described in the construction plan to be approved by the City of Trinidad.

Essential BMPs for this project shall encompass the installation of erosion control measures such as silt fences, berms, and waddles. Additionally, construction equipment fueling and maintenance activities will be centralized at a designated location on the project site, or off-site if feasible, situated at least 200 feet away from any wetland or other aquatic habitat. This designated area shall be clear of vegetation, level, and equipped with fuel mats to contain potential spills. Construction activities shall be limited to daylight hours. A thorough inspection of equipment for hydraulic fluid, oil, or fuel leaks will be conducted every morning and periodically throughout the day during construction. If any leaks are identified, they must be promptly repaired before any further work is carried out to prevent the release of pollutants into nearby watercourses.

Timing for Implementation/Compliance: During construction.

Person/Agency Responsible for Monitoring: Contractor and City Engineer.

Monitoring Frequency: Plans reviewed prior to construction and during periodic site visits.

Evidence of Compliance: Notes on construction plans; site inspection logs.

BIO-2 100 ft Aquatic Resource Setback:

To protect the wetland features and other aquatic habitats in the Study Area, it is essential to maintain the 100-foot Aquatic Resource Setback shown in Figure 2 herein and as detailed in the Biological Resources Assessment (Naiad, 2025). This buffer has been strategically delineated around identified habitats to safeguard ESHA. Maintaining this setback throughout all phases of project planning and implementation is critical to preserving the aquatic resources, as well as the plants and animals that depend on them.

Additionally, to prevent project-related activities or equipment from encroaching on the setback, an exclusion fence shall be installed along the 100-foot line from the top of 143 of 322
the bank prior to construction. This will ensure that no equipment or activities enter the ESHA or disturb the aquatic habitats.

Timing for Implementation/Compliance: Prior to and during construction.

Person/Agency Responsible for Monitoring: Contractor, City Planner and City Engineer.

Monitoring Frequency: Plans reviewed prior to construction and during periodic site visits.

Evidence of Compliance: Documented on construction plans; site inspection logs.

BIO-3 Preconstruction Visual Encounter Surveys for Amphibians:

Given the presence of perennial water in the Study Area and the potential for special status amphibian species to inhabit adjacent upland areas, preconstruction visual encounter surveys for amphibians shall be conducted within three days before any construction begins. These surveys are designed to identify and document amphibian species that may be affected by the proposed project.

Qualified biologists or herpetologists, experienced in amphibian identification and habitat assessment, shall carry out these site-specific surveys in accordance with established protocols. The surveys should involve a systematic search using techniques such as visual observations, dip netting, and trapping, while also documenting overall habitat conditions—including vegetation cover, water quality, and other critical features. If special-status amphibian species are detected, consultation with CDFW staff will be initiated to develop and implement appropriate mitigation measures.

In addition, to ensure that no amphibians enter the construction area during project activities, an exclusion fence shall be installed along the 100-foot buffer from the top of the bank shown in Figure 2 herein and as detailed in the Biological Resources Assessment (Naiad, 2025). This fence must be constructed from durable, noncorrosive materials, stand at least 4 feet tall, and feature mesh openings no larger than 1/4 inch.

The fence's base will extend at least 6 inches into the ground or incorporate an L-shaped barrier to prevent burrowing. Regular inspections and maintenance are critical to ensure the fence remains intact and effective throughout the construction period.

Timing for Implementation/Compliance: Prior to construction.

Person/Agency Responsible for Monitoring: Contractor and City Planner Monitoring Frequency:

Once, pPrior to construction and during periodic
site visits.

Evidence of Compliance: Notes on plans; report on findings from qualified biologist.

BIO-4 Preconstruction Nesting Bird Surveys: Prior to any ground disturbance or vegetation clearing, preconstruction nesting bird surveys must be conducted to confirm 144 of 322
the absence of bird species within the proposed project area and its potential impact zone within the Study Area. A qualified biologist shall undertake these surveys within approximately 500 feet of the project area, no sooner than 7 days prior to construction commencement and prior to any vegetation removal. These surveys should be conducted during the breeding season, typically spanning from February 1 to August 31, to identify active nests and nesting behavior, thereby enabling the avoidance or mitigation of impacts to nesting birds during construction.

Experienced biologists proficient in identifying and documenting nesting bird behavior utilize various survey techniques, including visual and auditory surveys as well as nest searches. These methods are designed to minimize disturbances to nesting birds, ensuring no loud noises or excessive light disrupt their nesting activities.

If active nests are discovered during the survey, temporary exclusion zones must be established to protect them from construction activities. The size of these exclusion zones will be determined based on the specific species, the type of activities occurring nearby, and the location of the nest. These zones should be clearly marked and remain in place until the birds have fledged and vacated the nest. Biologists should continuously monitor active nests during construction to ensure that activities do not adversely affect them. They should also work closely with the construction team to adjust activities as needed to minimize impacts on nesting birds.

Timing for Implementation/Compliance: Prior to construction.

Person/Agency Responsible for Monitoring: Contractor and City Planner Monitoring Frequency: Once, prior to construction, periodically thereafter as needed if nests are found.

Evidence of Compliance: Notes on plans; report on findings from qualified biologist.

BIO 5- Preconstruction Surveys for Special-Status Mammal Species:

Preconstruction surveys for all special-status mammal species with the potential to occur within the Study Area will be conducted prior to any grading or habitat alteration that could be suitable for denning/nesting. These surveys aim to identify and document the presence of these species within or in proximity to the proposed project area. These surveys must be carried out by qualified biologists with expertise in identifying these special-status mammal species and their specific habitat requirements. The surveys shall be tailored to the site and adhere to established protocols and methodologies. During the surveys, biologists will systematically search the project area for signs of these special-status mammal species, including burrows, tracks, and other indicators of activity. If any of these special-status mammal species or signs of their presence are discovered within or near the project area, CDFW staff shall be notified immediately, and appropriate mitigation measures will be developed and put into practice to mitigate potential impacts. These measures may involve project design adjustments to avoid disturbing their habitats or implementing protection.
145 of 322
Timing for Implementation/Compliance: Prior to construction.

Person/Agency Responsible for Monitoring: Contractor and City Planner Monitoring Frequency: Once, prior to construction.

Evidence of Compliance: Notes on plans; report on findings from qualified biologist.

BIO 6- Treatment of Invasive English Ivy: Manual removal of English ivy will occur to prevent its further spread and establishment. Manual removal entails physically pulling or cutting the ivy vines at their base and is particularly effective for small infestations that require precision to avoid harming surrounding vegetation. However, manual removal can be labor-intensive, especially in larger areas. Diligent efforts are essential to ensure the complete removal of the plant, including its roots, to prevent regrowth. This method aligns with environmentally friendly practices, minimizing chemical use, making it suitable for projects with ecological concerns. Regular monitoring and maintenance are typically required to prevent ivy resurgence, emphasizing the importance of ongoing vigilance throughout the removal process.

All climbing English ivy within the project area shall be cut 6 feet above the ground so that it cannot re-root into the substrate. Vines shall be collected and taken to a greenwaste facility. Young plants and runners on the ground shall be hand-pulled when the soil is moist, to ensure all roots are removed. Repeated treatments of removal over multiple years are required for successful management.

Timing for Implementation/Compliance: At the time of CDP/DR permit application.

Person/Agency Responsible for Monitoring: City Planner, and City Engineer.

Monitoring Frequency: Plans reviewed once during project review and once after construction.

Evidence of Compliance: Issuance of CDP/DR and site inspections.

Cultural Resources
CUL-1 Cultural Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery Protocols:

To ensure that the proposed project does not cause adverse impacts to historic and prehistoric archaeological resources, the applicant and its construction contractors shall be responsible for implementing the following mitigation measures:

Monitoring of ground disturbing activities by a qualified cultural monitor or tribal cultural resource specialist from either Trinidad Rancheria, Yurok Tribe, or Tsurai Ancestral Society, and/or a qualified archaeologist shall be required for this project during ground disturbing activities. The Monitors must be kept informed by the 146 of 322
contractor and understand the ground disturbance schedule. Field notes shall be kept by the Cultural Resource Monitor and a brief letter report of the monitoring effort filed with the North Coastal Information Center. The Monitors need only be present during ground disturbing activities.

The qualified archaeologist and tribal cultural resource monitors shall have the authority to stop all work if archaeological materials are discovered. If buried archaeological resources are discovered during project implementation, all work shall be halted within 100 feet of the find and tribal representatives, city officials and qualified archaeologists shall be contacted immediately by the monitoring tribal cultural resource professional and qualified archaeologist to evaluate the find.

If human remains are discovered during project implementation, all work shall be halted, and the permitting agency shall be contacted immediately. The City shall contact the County Coroner immediately and the coroner will evaluate the find to determine the subsequent course of action. Inadvertent discovery procedures included below.

If suspected archaeological resources are encountered during the project:

1. The Cultural Resource Monitors, archaeological or tribal, shall have the authority to stop work within 100’ of the find.

2. Call the City project representative, a professional archaeologist and representatives from the Trinidad Rancheria, Big Lagoon Rancheria, Resighini Rancheria, Tsurai Ancestral Society and the Yurok Tribe.

3. The Tribes, professional archaeologist and City officials will coordinate to provide an assessment of the find and determine the significance and recommend next steps.

If human remains are encountered:

1. All work shall stop and per CA Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5:

2. Call the Humboldt County Coroner: (707) 445-7242.

3. The Coroner will determine if the remains are of precontact/historic Native American origin. If the remains are Native American, then;

4. The Humboldt County Coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours.

5. The NAHC is responsible under CA PRC 5097.98. (a) for identifying the most likely descendent (MLD) immediately and providing contact information. Within 48 hours the MLD may contact the landowner, and with landowner permission inspect the location, making subsequent recommendations regarding the most appropriate disposition of their descendent.

Timing for Implementation/Compliance: During ground disturbing activities.

Person/Agency Responsible for Monitoring: Contractor and City Planner Monitoring Frequency: Prior to construction, during grounddisturbing activities 147 of 322
Evidence of Compliance: Note on plans; report on findings from cultural monitor.

Geology and Soils
GEO-1-Paleonological Resources.

If a paleontological discovery is made during construction, the contractor shall immediately cease all work activities in the vicinity (approximately 100 feet) of the discovery and shall immediately contact the County. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to observe all subsequent grading and excavation activities. The paleontologist shall establish procedures for resource surveillance and establish, in cooperation with the project developer, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of fossils. If major resources are discovered that require temporarily halting or redirection of work, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the City. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant and City that ensure proper explorations and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall first be offered to a state-designated repository such as the museum of Paleontology, University of California, Berkeley, or California Academy of Sciences. Otherwise, the finds shall be offered to the City for purposes of public education and interpretive displays. The paleontologist shall submit a follow up report to the County that shall include the period of inspection, an analysis of the fossils found, and the present repository of fossils.

Timing for Implementation/Compliance: Prior to and during construction Person/Agency Responsible for Monitoring: Contractor and City Planner Monitoring Frequency: Prior to and during construction
Evidence of Compliance: Note on plans
148 of 322
June 12, 2025
City of Trinidad CA Planning Commission (PC)
Re: Yurok Trinidad Multi-house Development
Trinidad CA
APN: 025-320-058
Post May 21st, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting - Action Items Based on the requests and comments made by the City of Trinidad Planning Commissioner at the May 21st meeting, this letter addresses and provides a completed respond to these. The following is a summary of the actions taken to satisfy these requests. • On Site Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS)
There was a request to have the completed OWTS Cumulative Study and Analysis done prior to next meeting, This to ascertain no long-terms impacts due to wastewater would be experienced onsite.

Trinity Valley Consulting Engineers (TVCE) did an analysis and study of these impacts. The report and findings have been presented to City of Trinidad to be included in the Staff Report for the upcoming meeting.

The results of the cumulative analysis are as follows:

Mounding Groundwater: Based on modeling, mounding height of groundwater under the leachfield resulting from the project was estimated to be 0.136 feet. Groundwater was found to be a minimum of 8 feet deep based on monitoring wells, and the leachfield trenches will be 3 feet deep. This would provide a minimum separation from groundwater to the leach system of 4.86 feet. The minimum required separation is 2 feet. Results meet Humboldt County LAMP requirements.

Nitrate Weighted Average: The nitrate level resulting from the project was estimated to be 3.10 mg/L. The maximum allowed concentration amount is 10 mg/L. Results meet Humboldt County LAMP requirements.

This report and design were sent to Humboldt County Environmental Department for review. Mr. Adam Molofsky did a review of the submittals. He provided preliminary approval of the overall design and cumulative report, pending a couple of small updates to the design. These will be coordinated and updated for the final submittal. 149 of 322
• Neighbor Outreach
A sign-up list was passed out after the last meeting and the following community members provided their contact information:

Ken and Karen Parker
Paula Levine
Ian McDougall
Carl Anderson
Susan Rotwein
These neighbors were contacted via email and/or phone to discuss their concerns and provided feedback. The comments received echoed the meetings, without anything added. Mainly neighbors in favor of the project, but with reduced impacts.

TVCE is still to meet in person with Ian McDougall (the most immediate neighbor to the south) to discuss mitigation enhanced separation and privacy. As part of the project, an 8-ft tall ceder fence will be installed separating the development from his parcel. This will be a second fence in addition to the one existing on his parcel line. We will also discuss, and physically mark, the Cherry Tree they want saved, in addition to other privacy enhancements we can propose. TVCE will meet with Mr. McDougall prior to the Wednesday meeting.

Lastly, we have been in contact with Humboldt County Public Works to begin discussing the County’s interest in having a speed bump installed on Westhaven Drive to mitigate traffic speed. Mrs. McDougall, will be providing a signed support letter from the adjacent residents to submit to the county.
• Miscellaneous Concerns
There were other items of concerned mentioned by the Commission. These were addressed immediately at the last meeting which include the following: underground utilities, only essential tree removal, emergency vehicle access and turnaround, erosion control enhancements and inspections, parking on Westhaven Drive, among others.

We have taken all of these items into account and are in the process of updating the civil plans and specification to address and mitigate any risks associated with these. Once the official Grading Plan and Building Permits are submitted to the City, they will ensure these are adhered to.
150 of 322
As it is evident from this letter, the requested items have been addressed, and further actions are being taken to assist the neighbors with their concerns. If there are any further questions we will be glad to address and comment on these on the upcoming meeting.

Thank you Commissioners for your consideration and the work you do. Your time is greatly appreciated.

Respectfully submitted,
Richard Hoard, Project Engineer
Trinity Valley Consulting Engineers
151 of 322
Sources: Humboldt County GIS
Maxar
Place Labels
Blue Line Streams

HYDFLOW,

Web AppBuilder 2.21 for ArcGIS
Site Aerial
RF=1:4,514 1 inch equals 376 feet µ
Center of Map: 124°7'55"W 41°3'39"N
0 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.1 0.01
mi
Humboldt County Planning and Building Department
152 of 322
DISCUSSION AGENDA ITEM 2

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED

2. Discussion/Decision regarding Participation in a Feasibility Study to Join the Trinidad Rancheria in a Drinking Water Pipeline Connection project with Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District.
153 of 322

CITY OF TRINIDAD STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 10, 2025
TO: Mayor Kelly and City Council
FROM: City Manager Joe Tagliaboschi
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Receive staff report and provide direction on Humboldt Bay Municipal Water Services District (HBMWD) Engineering Study.

DISCUSSION/BACKGROUND
This discussion and staff report are driven by a few different factors. In late May staff had a meeting with the new General Manager of Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District Michiko Mares. This meeting was at the request of staff to meet the new GM and to better understand HBMWD operations and plans as they pertain to Trinidad.

The GM made it very clear that any discussion or questions that the city of Trinidad has about HBMWD services should be addressed ASAP. The reason for this is The Trinidad Rancheria is moving ahead with plans to connect with HBMWD, and decisions are being made for that project to move ahead with plans and permitting processes and changes that might need to be made are better done sooner than later.

When The Trinidad Rancheria moves onto the HBMWD system, the city will lose one of the largest customers on the system and that will have consequences for our remaining customers who must fund the operations, maintenance, and capital replacement of the system. There have been multiple meetings on these topics dating back to 2019 and most recently in 2021.

There were multiple meetings in 2021 to discuss Humbold Bay Municipal Water District (HBMWD) services and at the top of that list- a feasibility study to determine design parameters and cost estimates in August of 2021, and then again in October of 2021
There were multiple studies by consultants presented with an Overview of Luffenholtz Creek Water Resources and Water Availability (PWA) and a GHD Report on HBMWD Water Main Options and a 2019 GHD Report on Raw water options discussed at length in these meetings in 2021.

During the August 2021 meeting there was also a report by a member of the Water Advisory Committee (WAC) member (and former Councilmember and Mayor Dwight Miller on the WAC vote to explore and fund a feasibility study on HBMWD Servies to Trinidad.

At the time the discussion was out of concern for the drought conditions that were prevalent at the time and a cause for water reliability concerns. The discussion included what could be done to provide water for Trinidad if the city was not able to draw water from the source at Luffenholzt Creek.

While flows were diminished in the creek during this drought period the city was able to continue to draw water as allowed by our state permit and did not reach the curtailment stage, where the city would have been required to stop drawing water for treatment and divert water back to the creek to support downstream flow requirements.

The urgency at the time for the recommendation by WAC and a Council decision was driven by The Trinidad Rancheria’s plans to engage HBMWD for a mainline extension as noted in the Miller report “ Furthermore, once HBMWD enters into a Mainline Extension Agreement with the Trinidad Rancheria, the City of Trinidad would have to deal directly with the Rancheria and obtain their approval for any modifications to their waterline extension project.”
The report included some studies on options to adequately maintain drinking water supplies. Such as trucking water during curtailment, additional storage capacity on privately owned land that could be leased for tank construction and raw water storage and additional reservoirs in the watershed area.

In 2021 the city still had an internal T3 and Chief Plant Operator (CPO) this changed in 2023 when our CPO resigned. In the interim the city has used a consultant CPO and tried to hire (unsuccessfully) and now grow in house talent to manage the plant and system.

The CPO vacancy created a whole new urgency as the city realized that a person with the state required credentials and skillset to manage and operate a treatment plant and water distribution system were very difficult to hire and retain.

In 2024 the city went through the rate adoption process while using interim consulting services to staff the CPO position as required by state for our water permits. During the initial 18-month period of this situation the Water Capital Reserve Fund went from a $1.7 million dollar balance to a $400k deficit. The newly adopted rate plans a $300K gift from the city reserves, and a change in CPO services has reduced that deficit, but the rate increase will not help restore the Capital reserve Fund to those previous balances.

The city has been working on building a bench of capable credentialed “homegrown” staff, but that takes time, and the city is still vulnerable should another change in staff occur. This and the increasingly expensive rate to fund the operations, maintenance, and replacement for our water system needs will become a difficult burden given the relatively small pool of rate payers who participate in the city water system. Add to that our biggest customer - The Rancheria - will be leaving our system and that will put even more strain on the rates for the remaining customers.

The current rate structure was adopted on September 24, 2024, with new rates starting October 1,2024.

The initial base rate of 66.20. The rate is set to run for five (5) years, and the base rate will be 96.92 in 2029. The rate will increase each year on July 1 through July 2029.

In conclusion, while according to the recent studies City of Trinidad water supplies appear to be sufficient to meet current demand and a recent agreement and project with Westhaven Water Community Services District provide additional resources for temporary water needs, will help alleviate some concern for water reliability.

The lager concern based on recent examples is adequate and reliable staffing at a cost that can be borne by the customers who use Trinidad water. The need for credential staff who meet the legal requirements and regulations will only be more difficult as the years go on. In the short term our in-house staff should provide this need and adequately perform the duties and responsibilities, but the regulatory environment is not kind to agencies who cannot respond to all the reporting and safety requirements and regulations and that too will become more onerous as time goes on.

It should also be noted that when The Rancheria leaves the Trinidad System as our largest customer it will certainly be more challenging for the remaining ratepayers who are still on the Trinidad system.

Staff requires additional directions of the Council on if, or how to proceed with future HBMWD interests.

FISCAL IMPACT
Is there a Fiscal Impact? N/A
Is it Currently Budgeted? Yes
Where is it Budgeted?
Is it Mandatory or Discretionary? N/A
Is there a Staff Resource Impact? No

DISCUSSION TOPIC BACKGROUND ATTACHMENT INDEX
- Water Production Memo, May 01, 2019 - GHD
- Conceptual Hydro Assessment of Luffenholtz Creek Watershed, September 06, 2019 – GHD - City of Trinidad Alternative Raw Water Source Evaluation, September 06, 2019 - GHD - Resolution 2020-16 Declaring Drought Emergency, Adopted by City Council on September 08, 2020. - Improving the Trinidad Municipal Water System: Fixing Leaks. July 22, 2021 – Richard Clompus WAC - Report on Humboldt Bay Pipeline, August 10, 2021 – Dwight Miller, WAC - Ordinance 2021-03 Water Shortage Regulations, Adopted by City Council on August 21, 2021 - Trinidad-HBMWD Water Main Connection Option Memo, October 06, 2021 – GHD - Overview of Luffenholtz Creek Water Resources and Water Availability, October 12, 2021 - PWA - Water Storage Contingency Plan (current situation with tables and maps), June 28, 2022 – PWA - Prop 218 Public Notice for Proposed Water Rate Increase – July 15, 2024 - 2024 Water Rate Study
May 1, 2019
To: Eli Naffah Ref. No.: 11185172
From: Patrick Sullivan Tel: (707)267-2238
CC: Becky Price-Hall, Bryan Buckman, Ryan DeSmet
Subject: Water Treatment Plant Production Rate Test and Analysis

1. Purpose
The purpose of this memo is to provide an analysis to determine the theoretical effective maximum water production capacity of Trinidad’s drinking water production facility under current conditions.

This analysis does not address policy issues related to providing additional connections or obligating the City to provide additional water. This analysis did not consider or address potential water storage needs, distribution network needs, nor any risk analysis of different system components. It is recommended that the City evaluate their policy for considering new service requests. Additional evaluations are needed before making obligations for additional water to meet additional service requests.

2. Background
The City of Trinidad serves treated water to approximately 1,000 people within the City service area. The City’s diversion and water plant is located at 1313 Westhaven Dr. Trinidad CA, adjacent to Luffenholtz Creek. Water for the plant is pumped from a wet well that is filled through an infiltration gallery located approximately 10 feet below the creek bed. The point of diversion is just upstream of the Westhaven Dr. culvert. The City has current water rights limiting the rate of diversion, the annual maximum diversion, and required bypass flow requirements, which is the minimum flow rate that must be allowed to bypass the water intake. In addition to water right limitations, the effective water production rates are currently limited by physical constraints in the processing of the water which include: infiltration gallery limitations, flocculator flow rates, filter fouling rates, backwash periods, and chlorine contact time requirements.

3. Water Rights
The City can extract a maximum of 0.56 cubic feet per second (cfs) (251 gallons per minute) from Luffenholtz Creek through appropriative water rights permit numbers 15984 and 17255, which corresponds to a daily maximum extraction of 361,440 gallons per day. The City’s water right permit 17255 stipulates that the City shall bypass 0.25 cfs except when the natural flow in Luffenholtz Creek is lower than 0.86 cfs and then the City must leave at least 0.15 cfs in the creek, including enough flow for the 0.0054 cfs worth of water rights downstream from the City. This results in a total of 0.1554 cfs or approximately 70 gpm that must bypass the City’s water intake during low flows below 0.86 cfs. 157 of 322

4. Water System Process
The raw water from Luffenholtz Creek is extracted through an infiltration gallery that feeds a wet well. The infiltration gallery is made up of three perforated pipe buried approximately ten feet below the surface of Luffenholtz Creek and flows into a wet well with intake pumps. When the intake pumps are not running, the water surface elevation in the wet well matches the water surface elevation in the creek. When the pumps operate, the level in the wet well drops and the difference in hydraulic head between the water surface elevation in the creek and the elevation in the wet well provides the force to drive the water through the gravels in the creek bed and into the wet well. As gravels become clogged with sediments, the rate at which water can travel through the gravel for a given head is reduced. The dry season elevation of water in the creek is lower than in the wet season and hence reduces the static elevation in the wet well.

Water is pumped from the wet well to a flocculator where polymer is added to aid in particulate clumping and settling, which reduces turbidity. The water is then pumped through a series of mixed media filters with additional polymer and then through a chlorine contact pipe prior to entering the water delivery system.

One of the factors limiting the capacity of the system is the turbidity of the raw water that flows into the wet well from the infiltration gallery. The turbidity in the creek varies seasonally and with rain events the turbidity is generally higher. The water entering the wet well is naturally pre-filtered through the creek bed to some degree, but raw water turbidity in the wet well typically increases with higher creek flow rates. Higher turbidity rates require more polymer and a slower feed rate to the flocculator and also results in more frequent backwashing of the mixed media filters. During a backwash cycle, clean water from the distribution system flows backwards through the filters to flush out sediment. The backwash water is routed to a holding tank where the sediment is allowed to settle to the bottom of the tank. Backwash water is decanted of the top of the holding and routed back into the water processing filter train.

5. Evaluation Approach
Production of potable water from the treatment plant is a function of three factors: legal water right conditions including bypass flow requirements, infiltration gallery intake limits, and treatment plant component limits.

This evaluation focuses on the infiltration gallery intake limits and treatment plant component limits.

The approach to evaluating the maximum potable water production rate under current conditions is to operate the treatment plant at various discrete flow rates for a period of time and monitor, record and evaluate performance measurements to determine the limiting factors to water rate production. The highest sustainable flow rate is the rate that does not violate the water right constraints or system limitations. The parameters monitored to evaluate the system capacity include: flow rate, wetwell water levels, chemical addition, and pressure drop across the filter trains, and turbidity of the raw and processed water.

The capacity tests consisted of operating the system at a specified pumping rate to meet the existing daily water demand. The tests were performed and data recorded by the City staff. To perform each test City staff performed the following steps:
• Back wash the system,
158 of 322
• Set the pump speed to produce the desired flow rate,
• Run the test for 7 days or until failure to meet normal performance criteria, • Monitor the pressure across the filter trains multiple times daily, • Monitor plant parameter for normal system compliance: chlorine residual, turbidity, bypass flow, filter train pressure, wet well water level,
• Compile data and measurements.

5.1 Evaluated Flow Rates
The flow rate of water through the treatment plant is instantaneous flow through the system typically considered in gallons per minute (gpm). How much water can be made in a day depends on how long the system can run and how much finished water must be used for backwashing. The flow rate through the system dictates the velocity or speed at which water moves through the flocculator, filters and chlorine contact basin. The length of time that the plant runs in any given day determines the daily volume of water produced. The amount of time that the plant typically runs varies with the daily fluctuations in demand and the ability to operate the system during high turbidity in the creek.

The flow rates evaluated in this analysis were determined based upon interviews and consultation with City treatment plant operators. The City can extract a maximum of 251 gpm from Luffenholtz Creek based on water rights; however, the existing pumps can only achieve a maximum flow rate of 175 gallons per minute.

However, the operators report that when the plant runs at flow rates greater than 120 gpm the raw water increases and the wetwell level drops significantly. Therefore, 120 gpm was established as the maximum test flow rate and the following eight flow tests were performed:
• Test #1 - 120 gpm
• Test #2 - 115 gpm
• Test #3 - 110 gpm
• Test #4 - 105 gpm
• Test #5 - 100 gpm
• Test #6 - 95 gpm
• Test #7 - 90 gpm
• Test #8 - 85 gpm
The highest flow rate test was performed first, when the flows in Luffenholtz Creek were the lowest and draw down in the wetwell would be greatest.

6. Flow Test Results and Analysis
The flow rate tests were performed over a period of several months starting in mid-November and ending in February. The runtimes of each test was determined by the time between filter backwash cycles. Each test started directly after a filter backwash cycle and was ended when the next backwash was required or 7 days, which ever was less. The first test was performed prior to the first rains of the season and at the highest 159 of 322
pumping rate when the bypass flows would be most critical. A summary of all the test run rates and dates is shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Treatment Plant Flow Rate Tests and Dates.

Test Flow Rate (gpm) Start Date End Date
Test # 1 120 11/13/2018 11/19/2018
Test # 2 115 11/20/2018 11/21/2018
Test # 3 110 11/26/2018 12/2/2018
Test # 4 105 12/4/2018 12/6/2018
Test # 5 100 1/28/2019 2/3/2019
Test # 6 95 2/4/2019 2/9/2019
Test # 7 90 2/12/2019 2/18/2019
Test # 8 85 2/19/2019 2/25/2019

160 of 322
Table 2. Summary of Flow Study Data.

Test
Number
Flow
Rate
(gpm)
# of
Days
Testing
Total
Water
Volume
Produced
(gallons)
Amount of
Flocculants
Added
(gallons)
Amount of
Chlorine Added
(gallons)
# of
Backwashes
Required
Test # 1 120 5 411,614 2.50 7.89 1
Test # 2 115 2 96,830 1.25 1.93 1
Test # 3 110 5 269,970 5.75 7.37 1
Test # 4 105 3 141,540 3.50 4.05 1
Test # 5 100 5 292,077 3.25 4.67 1
Test # 6 95 5 241,303 2.75 4.06 1
Test # 7 90 4 218,055 2.25 3.87 1
Test # 8 85 6 324,755 2.50 5.73 1

6.1 Water Rights Compliance Assessment
The existing water right provides a substantial source of water when there is ample water in the creek. It is low flow conditions and the requirements for bypass flows that can significantly restrict the amount of water the City is allowed to extract. As discussed above, the City’s water right permit stipulates that the City shall bypass a total of 0.1554 cfs or approximately 70 gpm.

Based on previous analyses, there is no known documentation indicating that the creek flow has previously decreased to the point that the City’s intake rate needed to be reduced. However, periods of drought, long term changes in the climate, and increased extractions in the upstream watershed could result in restrictions in the future. It is important for the City to remain mindful of these future potential changes in creek flow, and not over commit the water supply, which could become restricted due to low flow in the creek at some point.

To demonstrate compliance with water right requirements, the City measures the flows in Luffenholtz Creek with a stream gauge located directly below the City’s point of diversion, below the Luffenholtz Creek culvert on Westhaven Drive.

The first significant rains of the season started on November 20th, 2018. The average flow below the City’s diversion was 1.2 cfs. The lowest bypass flow observed was 0.81 cfs and occurred November 13th, 2018, during Test #1. The bypass flow is therefore greater than the required 0.25 or 0.1554 cfs. The Luffenholtz Creek flows are presented in Figure 1 along with an indication of when each pumping rate test was performed. Note that the stream flow data was not reported during Test # 8, however, the creek flows were observed to be “significantly higher than normal” for that time of year. This indicates that the bypass requirements are not the limiting factor for diversion during normal water years. 161 of 322
Figure 1. Luffenholtz Creek Bypass Flows below City of Trinidad Water Diversion, Winter 2018-2019

6.2 Wetwell Water Level Assessment
The wetwell for the water treatment plant is located adjacent to Luffenholtz Creek, just east of the Westhaven Drive culvert. Water for the treatment plant is pumped from the wetwell into the treatment plant.

Water flows from Luffenholtz Creek and into the infiltration gallery made up of a series of perforated pipes and flows into the wetwell. The top of the wetwell is located above the bank full elevation of the creek at that location. There is depth gauge in the wetwell that records the water level and it is reported as a percent of the total wetwell height. Typically, the wetwell is recorded at roughly 47% to 50% capacity prior to starting the pumps for a production run after a period without pumping. The level of the wetwell is expected to typically decrease with increasing pumping rates and length of time that water is pumped into the treatment plant. The operators typically stop pumping when the water in the wet well decreases to 18% to 20%.

The observed drawdown in water level of the wetwell varied for each test. During the limited test runs, the drawdown does not appear to be correlated with pumping rates. The lowest wetwell water level observed was not coincident with the highest pumping rate. The water levels did not appear to decrease with the increase in duration of the pumping test either. The lower pumping rates required a longer pump run time to generate the daily water demand and resulted in lower wetwell level. The variability in wetwell drawdown is 162 of 322
likely due to the cumulative effect of pumping at higher rates from previous tests. Test #4 had the lowest recorded percent wetwell level and was recorded during a pump run lasting 14 hours. However, previous pumping test were performed at higher pumping rates. The previous tests coincided with storm events when turbidity in the stream (raw water) was elevated and pumping at the higher rates may have introduced additional fine sediments into the subsurface gravels, reducing subsurface flow in the creek bed to the wetwell. When the creek sediments become clogged or fouled with creek sediments the system may be back flushed with water and air to flush the fine sediments out of the gravels. The creek gravels are backwashed only when needed. Typically, backwashing is needed more frequently during the winter wet period when the turbidity in the creek is naturally higher. In future analysis a flushing of the creek sediments should occur prior to each test.

A summary of the average decrease in percent of wetwell volume and the minimum percent of wetwell volume is presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Percentage of Wetwell Drawdown per Pumping Rate Test.

Test # Flow Rate
(gpm)
Average Decrease
(% of Total Wetwell
Volume)
Minimum % of
Wetwell Level
Test #1 120 4.94 41.31
Test #2 115 4.80 41.7
Test #3 110 6.34 26.26
Test #4 105 13.15 19.9
Test #5 100 5.65 40.15
Test #6 95 9.13 34.11
Test #7 90 5.60 32.92
Test #8 85 11.37 24.75
The apparent lack of correlation between the pumping rate and wet well level suggests there may be an instrumentation problem resulting in faulty elevation readings. There may also be other factors affecting headloss in the creek bed, but such headloss is not expected to change in such a sporadic way to result in the wet well readings recorded during the tests. The cause of these apparent characteristics should be investigated further by the City.

6.3 Flocculent and Chlorine Assessment
One of the factors to consider when evaluating the capacity of the system is how flow rate affects the need for dosing of treatment chemicals to achieve the required finished water standards. This is primarily chlorine for disinfection and polymer added as a flocculants for turbidity reduction.

The chlorine contact time is defined by the amount of time it takes for a volume of water to pass through the chlorine contact pipe. The higher the pumping rate the lower the chlorine contact time. The existing chlorine contact pipe was designed to provide 30 minutes of contact time at flow of 175 gpm. The maximum testing 163 of 322
rate of 120 gpm is much less than the 175 gpm maximum design, therefore, chlorine contact time is not a limiting factor for any of the evaluated pumping rates.

The amount of chlorine and polymer required is dependent on the quality of the raw water and flow rate.

These conditions will vary based on weather patterns and flow conditions in the creek. In general, the higher the flow, the more organic matter and particulates contributing to the raw water turbidity. This requires more polymer and chlorine during treatment. It is also possible that higher pumping rates could increase the water velocity of the water entering the wetwell. Higher velocities could mobilize sediments in the gravels and increase turbidity in the raw water, thus increasing the chemical demand.

To assess the potential effects on chemical demand, the amount of chlorine and polymer used per 1,000 gallons of water produced was calculated for each test. The resulting rate of chemical usage varies by test run, but there does not appear to be a correlation with production rates. The usage is more likely affected by the turbidity of the raw water from the conditions in the creek. The results are graphically depicted in Figure

2. Figure 2. Flocculent and Chlorine Usage per Volume of Water Produced.

6.4 Pressure Drop
As stated above, during the processing of potable water, the raw water is pumped through mixed media filters. The filters are container vessels that are filled with sand, gravel and anthracitic carbon. Particulates are trapped in the filter as the water passes through the filter. The more particulates in the water (measured as higher turbidity), the faster the filters will become clogged. As the filters become clogged the pressure 164 of 322
drop across the filter will increase. A filter train is comprised of two filter vessels aligned in series. The treatment plant has three filter trains that are run in parallel. The pressure on the inlet and outlet of each filter train was periodically recorded for each filter train during each pumping rate test.

If the pressure drop across a filter train is too great, the filter will not function correctly and will need to be backwashed to remove the accumulated sediment in the filter. The maximum pressure drop per 1,000 gallons of water produced was calculated and the results are graphically presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Maximum Pressure Drop across the Filter Trains.

6.5 Turbidity Assessment
The turbidity of water is a measure of the amount of suspended particles or sediment and is reported in Nephelometric Turbidity Unit (NTU). An NTU is a measure of light scattered through a liquid. At the City’s treatment plant, the turbidity is measured at various location throughout the treatment process, but of primary concern is the raw water turbidity and the finished water turbidity. The City is required to produce water that is less than 0.3 NTU. The more turbidity in the raw water the faster the filters either clog or fail to produce water that meets their requirements.

The raw water turbidity observed during the pumping rate tests ranged from 0.38 NTU to 50 NTU. The highest turbidity measurements coincided with storm events where runoff into the creek increases the amount of suspended solids in the water. The turbidity of the processed water is also monitored. When the turbidity of the processed water is greater than 0.3 NTU the processing of potable water is stopped and the filter trains are back washed and flushed prior to restarting potable water production. Each of the pumping rate tests were ended due to processed water turbidity being greater than 0.3 NTU. 165 of 322
The observed turbidity during the test period is shown in Figure 4. The raw water turbidity is represented with the green dots and references the scale on the left. The finished water turbidity is represented with the blue dots and references the scale on the right.

The filter run time is determined by the amount of water filtered between a backwash of the filters and when the turbidity of the finished (filtered) water reaches 0.3 NTU, which triggers another backwash cycle. The turbidity of the finished water gradually increases as the volume of water filtered increases during a filter run.

There was variability in the filter run times during the tests. Two trends were observed during the tests: the higher the turbidity of the raw water the shorter the run times, and the higher pump rates the shorter the run times.

Figure 4. Raw Water and Processed Water Turbidity at the City of Trinidad Water Treatment Plant.

6.6 Filter Train Backwash
When processed water fails to meet the required levels of turbidity or the pressure drop across the filters is too great, the filter trains need to be backwashed to remove the trapped suspended solids and flocculants.

This process requires the treatment plant to stop producing water. Potable water that is already in the distribution system is fed back through the filters at a rate of 300 gpm. Each filter is back flushed for 15 166 of 322
minutes (4500 gallons) with the backwash water routed to a 20,000 gallon backwash holding tank. After the backwash, raw water is then processed until it meets the 0.3 NTU requirement. This process water is also discharged to the backwash holding tank. The backwashing of all three filter trains produces between 15,000 and 18,000 gallons of backwash water. This water is allowed to settle and is then decanted off the top of the tank. The decanted water is then re-introduced into the raw water filter process or appropriately land applied.

Alternatively, the decanted backwash water may be disposed of on the surface and allowed to infiltrate. The surface disposal is not allowed to cause erosion or runoff from the disposal area which prohibits surface disposal during the wet season when the ground is saturated. The backwash tank can be discharged at maximum rate of approximately 10 gpm. At this rate, the disposal of the backwash water requires between 25 and 30 hours of water plant operation.

With the treatment plant operating for 16 hours per day it would require approximately two days of operations to dispose of the backwash water between filter backwash processes.

Another factor to consider with the backwash process is the accumulation of sediments, or sludge, in the backwash tank. Periodically the sediment needs to be removed from the backwash tank, which is completed by washing down with a hose and pumping the solids to a truck and hauling off for drying.

7. Maximum Production Rate Estimate
In determining the current maximum water treatment plant production rate, the factors presented and discussed in Section 6 need to be considered. Based upon the eight pumping rate tests the limiting factors are daily pumping times and the turbidity of the processed water.

The City currently produces enough water to meet the daily demand for existing customers. The demand fluctuates from day to day and is typically higher in the summer and fall months. The staff at the treatment plant adjust water production to meet the demand by lengthening or shortening the time when the pumps are running. Staff have found that the overall treatment process operates most effectively when operated at the lowest flow rate that meets the overall system demand. Therefore, the operators pump at the lowest rate possible and adjust the pumping time to meet the demand. They typically will produce water for the longest period possible that allows time for backwashing the filters and infiltration gallery in creek bed. The required time for backwashing the filters and the infiltration gallery varies with the raw water quality, and more time is required when the turbidity in the raw water is higher (i.e. during the winter storms). When the turbidity in the creek is higher the operators need to backwash more frequently. Based on operational experience, City staff have found that the plant can produce water for approximately up to 18 hours per day November through April, up to 20 hours per day May through June, and up to 22 hours per day July through October.

The turbidity is the primary limiting factor and it is associated with the required time to perform filter train backwashes and then process the backwash water. The results of Test #4, at a pumping rate of 105 gpm, and when the turbidity of the raw water was the highest, allowed for over 30 hours of pumping (which occurred over 3 consecutive days of operation) between filter train backwashes. At this rate there is adequate capacity to process and dispose of backwash water during the normal process runs. 167 of 322
With a pumping rate of 105 gpm and the pumping hours as specified above the maximum daily water production is: 113,400 gallons per day November through April, 126,000 gallons per day May through June, and 138,600 gallons per day July through October.

The average daily production between 2013 and 2018 is estimated at 68,600 gallons per day. However, it is important to consider that this is averaged for the whole year and water demand varies through the year. The highest average water demand by month is 85,300 gallons per day and occurs in August. A summary of production by month is presented in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Average Daily Water Production 2013 through 2018.

The surplus water supply may be estimated by subtracting average daily water production from the maximum daily water production rate. The surplus water amount will vary by month based upon the expected demand and daily pumping run time. A summary of the theoretical water production surplus by month is shown in Figure 6. The smallest surplus daily production was estimated to be 48,578 gallons per day and occurred in June. The largest surplus daily production was estimated to be 67,356 gallons per day and occurred in October.
168 of 322
8 Figure 6. Theoretical Daily Production Surplus by Month.

It is important to keep in mind that these projected surplus capacities are approximate averages over typical months. Actual available surplus on any given day will depend on the actual characteristics at the time. The other factors evaluated (water right allocation, pump theoretical maximum rates, bypass flow rates, chlorine contact time, additive requirements, and pressure drop across the filter trains) do not appear to be limiting factors to water production rates.

8. Conclusions
The Trinidad Water Treatment Plant and treatment process was evaluated under multiple production rates to identify factors limiting production and to determine the theoretical effective maximum water production capacity of Trinidad’s drinking water production facility under current conditions. Of all the factors evaluated, turbidity breakthrough in the filters (and associated filter backwash) and decreases in the wetwell water elevations were limiting factors. Turbidity breakthrough on the filters stops the production of water and necessitates the backwashing of the filters. This condition is most noticible during the winter storm period when the turbidity of the raw water from the creek is higher. Faster pumping rates cause the filter trains to foul quicker and shorten the runtimes of the filters before they need to be backwashed. The flow rate of 105 169 of 322
gpm allowed for sufficient runtime on the filter trains and allowed enough time between backwash cycles to process and discard the backwash water.

When turbid water from the creek is drawn into the creek bed the suspended sediments clog the void spaces between the gravels and causes a restriction to subsurface flow. The restriction of creek water migrating through the creek bed gravels and subsequently flowing into the wetwell leads to the lower water levels in the wetwell. This condition is exacerbated during the higher pumping rates. Restrictions on the flow into the wetwell is exacerbated by higher raw water turbidity from the creek, especially during storm events.

With a treatment plant production rate of 105 gpm and a maximum daily production run time that varied from 18 to 22 hours per day the daily maximum treatment plant production is between 48,578 and 67,356 gallons per day. This is much less than the City’s annual allocation of water under the two appropriative permits of 337 acre-feet per year (just under 110 million gallons per year). Based upon a demand and production analysis, there is a theoretical surplus of up to approximately 48,000 gallons per day of supply to meet future service requests. How many and what type of service request can be accommodated will depend on how many and what type of requests there are as well as long term raw water supply characteristics, City water facilities characteristics, and operational practices.

It should be noted that current water demand are met with the existing water treatment plant staff and facilities. Increasing the pumping rates and total amounts of water produced will certainly require additional efforts in treatment plant staff time, pumping electrical costs, maintenance costs, monitoring costs, and chemical costs. While the increased water production rates are possible the increased costs associated with the increase should be considered. These impacts were not evaluated in this analysis.

The current City water system includes two water tanks. These tanks provide storage that allow the plant to be operated with minimal staffing and does not require multiple daily or night shifts to meet the daily demand.

In the event of a break down at the plant or a break in a water line, there is typically capacity in the tanks to meet the existing daily demand while the problem is resolved. The existing surplus capacity may then be used to “catch up” and refill the storage tanks. This ability to handle emergency situations is decreased when the surplus supply is allocated to other customers and may make recovery difficult or limit service until the problem is resolved.

Future supply allocations should also consider the need for firefighting demand. The existing water tanks and supply lines currently serve the City’s fire demand needs. It is not known if the existing system meets today’s standards for fire protection flows. Any future supply allocations should include an analysis of storage and pipe system capacity to meet the fire demands of the new allocation.

Increased supply and demand through the existing system may impact the disinfection process of the water supply system. While the chlorine contact basin will certainly meet the chlorine contact time requirements, this evaluation did not consider the potential impacts on the chlorine residual or chlorine byproducts throughout the entire water delivery system. The operation of the water delivery system is very dynamic and City staff quite artfully operate the system to ensure a safe chlorine residual throughout the delivery system while minimizing the formation of chlorine byproducts. Any changes to the production, storage, and delivery of new water services should include an evaluation of the delivery and storage system with regards to disinfection and disinfection byproducts.
170 of 322

9. Recommendations
During the process of performing the pumping tests and evaluating the results there were a couple of performance items that should be evaluated.

The fluctuations in the wetwell water levels does not appear to be consistent with our understanding of how water enters the wetwell. This may indicate that subsurface conditions in the creek may vary with stream flow or the water level transducer or volume calculation are not functioning as expected. Erroneous reading from the wetwell level can cause the treatment plant to shut down prematurely. It is recommended that an evaluation of the wetwell water level transducer and volume calculation be verified.

It is also recommended that the flocculator be evaluated. In discussions with City staff it is clear that the flocculator does reduce sediment in the raw water as designed but it is not clear that it is functioning as indicated in the manufacturer’s equipment specifications. Therefore an evaluation of how the flocculator is functioning should be performed to see if there are any modifications that could be made to increase its performance. Increased performance from the flocculator should decrease the turbidity of the raw water entering the filter trains. Less sediment entering the filters will allow longer runtimes between filter backwash cycles. Making changes to increase the performance of the flocculator could decrease operation costs and may increase production rates.

The findings and operational issues presented in this memorandum should be discussed and confirmed with the operators and engineers. This analysis and recommendations were limited to considering the theoretical effective maximum water production capacity of Trinidad’s drinking water production facility under current conditions. This memo does not address policy issues related to providing additional connections or obligating the City to provide additional water. This analysis did not consider or address potential water storage needs, distribution network needs, nor any risk analysis of different system components. It is recommended that the City evaluate their policy for considering additional service requests. Additional evaluations are needed before making obligations for additional water supply to meet future service requests.
171 of 322
GHD
718 Third Street Eureka California 95501 USA
T707 443 8326 F707 444 8330 W
September 6, 2019
To: Eli Naffah, City Manager Ref. No.: 11198797
From: Steve McHaney, Patrick Sullivan Tel: (707) 443-8326 CC: Becky Price-Hall, Bryan Buckman, Ryan DeSmet
Subject: City of Trinidad
Conceptual Hydrological Assessment of the Luffenholtz Creek Watershed

1. Purpose
The City of Trinidad’s (City) water supply is from Luffenholtz Creek, which is subject to limitations based on the terms of the City’s water right as it relates to flows in the creek. The flow in the creek varies significantly throughout the year. Multi-year droughts, other extractions from the creek, and long-term climate change can significantly reduce summer flows. It is possible that stream flows could diminish during dry periods to the point that the City’s legal right to extract water is curtailed or drops to zero. This is not only a potential issue for considering future water supply requests, but it could affect existing customers as well. Treatment system characteristics also affect the City’s ability to produce potable water; and storage and distribution system characteristics affect the City’s ability to distribute water.

Potable water is an important resource and the City is in the process of developing policy related to water supply for both existing customers as well as potential future customers. The policy is expected to consider not only potential changes in demand over time, but also potential supply limitations.

The purpose of this memo is to provide a summary of some of the more significant issues associated with the City’s extraction of water from Luffenholtz Creek. These insights are intended to help inform development of water policy by the City. It is the future policy that should guide the City in reviewing future water supply requests and guide the City during periods of curtailed supply.

This memo is divided into the following sections:
• Summary of Findings and Recommendations
• Background
• Watershed Characteristics
• Water Rights
• Historical Water Supply in Luffenholtz Creek
• Trinidad’s Use of the Existing Water Right
• Future Water Supply in Luffenholtz Creek
• Concepts for Addressing the Extraction Zones
2 • Recommendations

2. Summary of Findings and Recommendations
The following highlights the findings from this analysis:
• The City has a water right for a maximum extraction of 0.56 cfs (251 gpm) • The City typically runs the water plant at about 70 gpm and may push capacity up to about 105 gpm • The water right includes required bypass flows that must remain in the Creek • The City recently installed equipment for continuous monitoring of bypass flows • The flow conditions can be considered as Full Extraction, Curtailed Extraction, and No Extraction based on creek flow
• There is very limited data available for creek flow at the treatment plant and very limited data for extractions of water from the creek up- and downstream from the City extraction • Based on the very limited data, it is known that the creek flows have been in the Curtailed Extraction Zone during very dry periods
• To date, it appears that limitations in the creek gravels, infiltration gallery, and wet well system have been the limiting factor on extraction rather than a curtailed water right • Extracting water becomes increasingly more difficult with lower creek flows • Climate change over the coming decades is expected to change precipitation patterns resulting in more runoff and less percolation as well as higher average temperatures and less fog, which could further reduce dry period flows and may also change demand characteristics.

The following highlights the recommendations from this analysis and the Water Loss Analysis (GHD 2019):
• Maintain continuous monitoring of bypass flows and provide improvements in data management to allow City staff better access to the data
• Further evaluate intake system to better understand limitations and to identify potential system improvements and operational changes to possibly increase intake capacity, especially under low creek flow conditions
• Develop policy for managing shortfalls in water availability (Caused by curtailed water right, practical extraction limitations, treatment limitations, emergencies, etc.) • Consider potential water demands through 2100.
• Consider alternative long term sources of supply that mitigate the flow and extraction issues with Luffenholtz Creek
• Leak detection and replacement in aging distribution system.

3. Background
Luffenholtz Creek is currently the only source of raw water that serves the City of Trinidad system. The City purveys water to approximately 1,000 people inside and outside City limits. The City’s diversion and water plant is located at 1313 Westhaven Dr. Trinidad California adjacent to Luffenholtz Creek. Water for the plant is pumped from a wet well that is filled through an infiltration gallery of perforated pipes located 3 approximately ten feet below the creek bed. The point of diversion is just upstream of the Westhaven Dr. culvert. The City has current water rights limiting the rate of diversion, the annual maximum diversion, and requiring minimum bypass flows. In addition to water right limitations, the effective water production rates are limited by physical constraints in the processing of the water which include: infiltration gallery limitations, flocculator flow rates, filter fouling rates, backwash periods, and chlorine contact time requirements. In addition, the City has a relatively small amount of finished water storage that could supply typical uses for only a few days and is insufficient for bridging long term supply limitations. The treatment system capacity was addressed previously under a separate memo. The focus of this memo is on the watershed itself, which begins with a general understanding of watershed characteristics.

4. Watershed Characteristics
The Luffenholtz Creek watershed is located south of the City of Trinidad, and has a drainage area of approximately 2,880 acres and ranges in elevation from 225 to 1,370 feet (USGS 2019). Mean annual precipitation in the Luffonholtz Creek watershed is 60.8 inches (USGS 2019). Precipitation runs off to the ocean via Luffenholtz Creek or percolates into the ground. Water that percolates into the ground can later emerge into Luffenholtz Creek to sustain flows during the dry season. Soil types are predominantly silty to sandy clay loams derived from marine terrace sediments overlying Franciscan bedrock. Hydraulic conductivity is highly variable and ranges from approximately 1 to 20 meters/day in the marine terrace sediments to essentially zero in the underlying Franciscan bedrock materials. The higher porosity intervals of the marine terraces transmit the majority of the groundwater in the watershed. Groundwater elevations are variable and seasonal, however in the lower portions of the watershed groundwater is generally shallow and ranges from the ground surface to approximately 20 feet below the ground surface (bgs). The upland portions of the watershed have groundwater elevations ranging from approximately 20 to 100 feet bgs, depending on factors such as distance from the creek and the season.

Groundwater percolation is especially important for meeting water demands during low flow periods as it is the groundwater that feeds the stream during dry weather. Percolation and recharge of groundwater depends on many factors associated with the soils and geology as well as the frequency and intensity of storm events. Changes in precipitation patterns, even when the annual total remains the same, can significantly affect groundwater recharge and hence dry season creek flows.

5. Water Rights
California Water Law addresses a number of types of water use. People do not own water, but rather have certain rights to use water for reasonable beneficial purposes. Water use is regulated by the California Water Board. Of most relevance in this analysis of the Luffenholtz Creek watershed is the concept of Riparian and Appropriative water rights for surface water.

A riparian right exists on land that touches a water source and does not generally require an application to receive the benefits of the riparian right. Riparian rights usually come with owning a parcel of land that is adjacent to a source of water, and the rights generally remain with the parcel when it changes hands. Water obtained through a riparian right must be used on the property connected to the riparian right. 4 Riparian rights are not lost by non-use, but rather typically remain with the property adjacent to the water source. An unused riparian right is said to be "dormant" and use can be restarted at any time. All riparian right holders on a surface water source have the same priority. If there is not enough water available for the demands of all riparian users, then all users must share the available supply according to their needs.

Generally, water used for interior domestic purposes, such as drinking, cooking and bathing, has the highest priority.

When water is to be extracted from a stream for use on non-riparian land then an appropriative right is required. Water right permits and licenses are issued by the State Water Board. There is an order of priority of appropriative rights based on the initial date of the water right. For example, an upstream junior water right holder must allow water to bypass to a downstream senior right holder.

The State Water Board in an effort to better understand water use throughout the state and provide information for water management by watershed has a system for reporting water use for all types of right holders. In some cases, the data gathered on water use, plus data from other sources can indicate to the State Water Board that there is a shortage of water in the basin and that all water rights cannot be fulfilled.

The State Water Board can curtail water use of senior water right holders in critically affected basins, which was done during the drought of the late 1970’s as well as during the most recent multi-year drought. These water right curtailments did not affect the Luffenholtz watershed, however the State could curtail the water rights on Luffenholtz Creek if deemed necessary.

A review of the State Water Board database for Luffenholtz Creek indicates there are at least three other appropriative rights holders and at least 14 other riparian parcels that submitted a Statement of Diversion and Use. The information in the database is incomplete as it depends on right holders to self-report, plus the program is relatively new and it is possible that not all water users are reporting or are not reporting accurately or completely. As time goes on, the State Water Board may be able to improve the amount and quality of data available in the database, which will help with watershed planning.

The City of Trinidad has two appropriative rights for a maximum extraction of 0.56 cubic feet per second (cfs) (251 gallons per minute) from Luffenholtz Creek through appropriative water rights permit numbers 15984 and 17255. Theoretically, the City has the right to extract up to a daily maximum of 361,440 gallons if the City extracted water 24 hours per day. The City is also subject to a bypass requirement as there is one senior downstream appropriative right and there is an expectation that a certain minimum amount of water is left in the creek. The City’s water right stipulates that the City shall bypass 0.25 cfs except when the natural flow in Luffenholtz Creek is lower than 0.86 cfs and then the City must leave at least 0.15 cfs in the creek.

From a practical standpoint, this means that the City can generally extract up to 0.56 cfs until the upstream flow drops to 0.71 cfs which is equivalent to 318 gpm (0.56 cfs plus 0.15 cfs) and then the amount the City can extract decreases as flows decrease. If the creek drops to 0.15 cfs or less, the City may not extract any water. The City’s water right can be considered to have the three Zones of Full Extraction, Curtailed Extraction, and No Extraction as highlighted in the following figure. 5 6. Historical Water Supply in Luffenholtz Creek
The water supply in the watershed that feeds Luffenholtz Creek varies throughout the year based on weather patterns, extractions, soils and geologic characteristics, surface and groundwater, characteristics, and other factors. As is typical in the region, winter rains increase the flow in Luffenholtz Creek as directly related to individual storm events and over time as related to seasonal accumulation of precipitation in the region.

The peak flow events and seasonal high flow patterns supply ample water for many uses in the watershed. It is the low flow summer period, however, that is of most interest from a water supply standpoint for that is when water supply could become scarce and the City could see flows drop to a level where the City’s allowable extraction could be curtailed. The City has been operating the water treatment plant under this summer low flow condition for decades and has adapted operations to allow for continued extractions and treatment of water to meet system demands (see previous memo on the current capacity of the water treatment plant). During the decades of operation, creek flows have been observed predominately qualitatively, although a number of periodic flow measurements have been taken over the years.

In 2001 a Water Supply Feasibility Study was completed for the City of Trinidad, and Technical Memorandum No. 8, Surface Water Technical Feasibility, highlighted a number of factors relating to water supply in Luffenholtz Creek. A summary of water supply characteristics are presented in this memo and the 2001 Technical Memorandum should be referenced for additional details. 6 Several previous studies have estimated the critical low flow in Luffenholtz Creek. A 1968 water supply feasibility study for the relocation of the Trinidad Water Plant from Mill Creek to Luffenholtz Creek by Winzler & Kelly, forecasted critical low flow in the Creek with a recurrence interval of 100 years. This value was estimated at 290 gallons per minute (0.646 cfs, 417,629 gpd) based on comparisons with Little River, which had a longer historical data set to work with. However, the use of Little River data is not necessarily representative of the Lufenholtz Creek critical low flows. The two watersheds vary in several key watershed components. The most obvious difference is size. The Little River watershed is 40.5 square miles, approximately 8.5 times larger than the Luffenholtz Creek watershed. This difference is important because it is likely that the Little River watershed maintains a greater amount of water in storage during periods of low flow. Thus, Little River data may over predict the low flow in Luffenholtz Creek. Additionally, the USGS gauge on Little River is located at a much lower elevation within the watershed than the Trinidad Water Plant’s point of diversion. At lower elevations within the watershed the stream will be supplied with higher rates of base flow (groundwater) during summer months, will tend to have lower velocities, and the channel will widen out more like an estuary resulting in less dramatic high and low flows. In the higher elevations, such as are the characteristics of the Trinidad water extraction location, the drainage area tends to be steeper and the streams travel at a higher velocity and typically in a narrower channel with more dramatic flow variations.

A 1980 Trinidad Citizen’s Report estimated the critical low flow in the Creek at 300 gpm (0.668 cfs, 432,030 gpm) based on 80 years of precipitation data in Eureka and Luffenholtz Creek low flow measurements in 1968 and 1977. The 1980 Citizen’s Report also stated the lowest recorded flow in Luffenholtz Creek in the 1977 drought was 310 gpm. The frequency or method of the collection of these flow data is not known.

The Arcata Union newspaper ran an article about the 1977 drought in its September 8, 1977 issue. The Trinidad Public Works Director at that time, Tom Nelson, told the paper he measured the flow in Luffenholtz Creek at 284 gpm (0.632 cfs) the week prior to the article (confirmation of this could not be found in other sources, however). The City had predicted that Luffenholtz Creek would stop flowing by the end of August, but long periods of foggy weather and small amounts of rain were keeping the creek flowing. This article highlights the potential low flow conditions the City of Trinidad may confront in the future during drought conditions, which could be further exacerbated by climate change and other extractions from the watershed.

A previous search of the Department of Fish & Game files produced three stream surveys for Luffenholtz Creek. They were taken in November 1971, November 1975, and February 1982. These measurements were not taken during the driest part of the year and so they are not expected to represent the lowest flow periods. The lowest flow recorded in any of these surveys is 583 gpm, however this measurement was made in the upper portion of the watershed and may not represent flows at the treatment plant. The next lowest flow was 3,142 gpm near the water plant. The methods used by DFG to measure flows are unknown and the time period of the measurements was not the driest time of the year and so these measurements do not provide further insights into the potential critical low flow.

The City of Trinidad has measured flow on Luffenholtz Creek a number of times over the years. The City set up a weir in the early 1990’s that was destroyed in a 1997 flood. Only one small data set from the fall of 1994 exists. The 1994 data is based on measuring the flow just below the intake of the water plant, and the total 7 flow was calculated by adding the water plant flow to the measured flow. The 1994 flow data ranged from 421 gpm to 466 gpm (0.94 cfs to 1.22 cfs).

A new weir was constructed downstream of the water plant intake in the summer of 2001 for collecting data.

Preliminary data from September of 2001 indicated that without the water plant pumps running, the creek flow was approximately 313 gpm or 0.70 cfs. This flow value is just under the City of Trinidad’s water right plus bypass requirement. The flow in the watershed can continue to diminish in the fall months prior to winter rains and so it is possible that creek flows continued to drop before gaining again after the winter rains began.

Formal continuous flow monitoring over the life of the treatment plant has not been conducted in part due to the difficulty of obtaining continuous accurate measurements of low flow conditions. However, the State Water Board in recent history emphasized the importance of continuous flow monitoring and the City had flow monitoring equipment installed in the summer of 2017. Hence, the continuous monitoring began after the end of the recent multi-year drought, which ended in 2016, and so the data collected so far does not include the recent critical low flow drought period. The City should continue to monitor the flow in Luffenholtz Creek to build a better understanding of the flow characteristics of the creek under a variety of seasonal conditions.

Although the City has a water right to divert up to 0.56 cfs, the City must bypass a certain amount of flow, and low flow conditions may restrict allowable extraction. Periodic monitoring or a number of lower flow conditions over the past decades suggests that the creek flow can drop to levels where the City’s extraction could be curtailed below the maximum water right. Four such low flow measurements are shown along with the water rights allowance in the following figure:
8 Although the City does not have flow data during low flow periods spanning the recent multi-year drought, creek flows may have been in the Curtailed Extraction Zone. Aside from drought, other longer term conditions including additional extractions from the creek as well as climate change could affect creek flows as further discussed in the next section.

7. Trinidad’s Use of the Existing Water Right
The City can extract up to 0.56 cfs from Luffenholtz Creek which is just over 250 gpm. As was outlined in a previous memo, Water Treatment Plant Production Rate Test and Analysis (GHD, May 2019), the City typically extracts at approximately 70 gpm and the operators feel based on their experience that extraction could be increased to approximately 105 gpm during low flow periods. Theoretically, the City could legally extract significantly more water from the creek. However, there are a number of factors that may make this impractical. Aside from limitations in the overall treatment capacity previously highlighted, operational experience indicates that there are limitations in the infiltration gallery extraction system that may reduce the ability of the City to extract water. Operator experience has shown that during low flow periods it becomes increasingly more difficult to extract water. Under low creek flow conditions, water flow through the gravels and into the infiltration gallery and the wet well decreases and cannot keep up with maximum available pumping capacity. Hence the operational experience suggests a current limitation of approximately 105 gpm.

To increase capacity, the operators can backwash the gravels with water and air during the wet season to clean the gravels of some of the sediments. However, this cleaning process is not practiced during low flow 9 periods due to the release of sediments from the gravels which would enter the relatively clean low flow stream.

What is not known is how low flows during Curtailed Extraction could further negatively affect extraction performance of the infiltration gallery. Even if water were available to legally extract, very low flow conditions may further hamper extraction capacity. For example, if creek flow were 0.5 cfs, the City could legally extract

0.35 cfs, which is more than twice the typical extraction rate under normal conditions. However, under such low flow conditions the infiltration gallery may not be able to pass this rate and potentially couldn’t pass even the typical extraction rate. Further study of the capacity of the infiltration gallery under very low flow conditions should be conducted over time to better document the performance of the infiltration gallery and potentially lead to improvements under low flows.

8. Future Water Supply in Luffenholtz Creek
The water supply in Luffenholtz Creek available to Trinidad could be further reduced in the future. It is expected that upstream extractions, future droughts, and climate change could result in flows more frequently dropping into the Curtailed Extraction Zone.

Future extractions in the watershed are very difficult to predict due to the nature of water rights, possible changes in water uses, very limited and incomplete data on historical extractions, and other factors. Riparian rights holders upstream have the right to reasonable beneficial use, which could include domestic and agricultural extractions or other beneficial uses. Although cannabis cultivation does include additional protections for water supplies, typical agriculture does not. Hence, riparian property owners could legally use additional water from upstream in the watershed. At this time, it is simply unknown how other extractions from within the watershed could affect the water supply for Trinidad, but it is assumed that existing upstream extractions are not likely to decrease over time.

The change in climate could likely have a significant long term effect on the amount of water available in the watershed for all beneficial uses. The effects of climate change have already been documented through analysis of historical climate data. A variety of models have been prepared to forecast the effects of continued climate change. Models suggest that average regional temperatures are expected to increase by three or more degrees Fahrenheit by mid-century. Precipitation models indicate a slight decrease in annual totals by the end of the century, but the patterns are expected to change to fewer larger storm events and greater runoff. In addition to precipitation, fog frequency is also projected to decrease. Although future coastal fog modeling is in the early stages of development, a study performed in 2010 found that over the 20th century there was an approximately 33% decrease in fog along the California coast and the occurrence of fog could further decrease this century. Furthermore, burned areas from area wildfires are likely to increase. The overall implication is that climate change over the coming decades will tend to make temperatures warmer, decrease the occurrence of fog, and change precipitation patterns. The change in precipitation patterns may have the greatest effect on Luffenholtz Creek Flows as it is the slow recharge of groundwater during the winter months that feeds the Creek during the summer months. Fewer more intense storms will tend to result in greater runoff and less percolation into groundwater. 10 With a variety of factors that are expected to reduce low flows in Luffenholtz Creek over the coming decades, the frequency of flows being in the Curtailed Extraction Zone are expected to increase. Due to the lack of accurate long term flow monitoring data and the future influence of factors affecting the watershed, the frequency, extent, and duration of such Curtailed Extraction periods is not known. However, it is generally known that flows continue to diminish during dry weather until regular seasonal precipitation events return.

This suggests that if the City enters the Curtailed Extraction Zone early in the summer, that it could progressively become more significant for up to several months until regular rains return.

Also, as discussed in the previous section, although the City of Trinidad’s actual typical water extraction is significantly less than the available legal water right, low flows in Luffenholtz Creek in the Curtailed Extraction Zone may reduce the effectiveness of the infiltration gallery system so that the City cannot practically extract the allowable amount or even the typical amount. Lower flows in the creek can simply reduce the achievable rate of extraction.

9. Summary of Concepts Associated with the Extraction Zones The concept of Extraction Zones was developed to illustrate the range of creek flows and allowable extraction rates based on the City’s existing water rights. The concepts introduced in this analysis are summarized for the three Extraction Zones below.

Full Extraction
Under a full extraction scenario, creek flows are above 0.71 cfs and in general it is expected that the City could reliably extract typical flows in the 70 to 100 gpm range. Even though the City has the legal right to extract at a higher flow rate, historically the City has not needed to extract at a higher flow rate to meet demands. Also, from an operational standpoint, the overall intake system performs better at the lower flow rate. It may be possible to extract at higher than the typical rate of 70 to 100 gpm, but hydraulic restrictions within the gravel bed, infiltration gallery, and wet well system tends to reduce the practical capacity. Based on separate studies, the City could have treatment capacity available beyond current demands when sufficient flow is available in the creek.

Curtailed Extraction
The City’s legal right to extract water from Luffenholtz Creek is curtailed when the total creek flow upstream of the City’s infiltration gallery drops below 0.71 cfs and diminishes as creek flows decrease. Based on the very limited flow data available, it appears that drought conditions of the past have reduced creek flows to within the Curtailed Extraction Zone. However, the allowable extraction associated with these low flow data points is significantly higher than the typical rate of extraction and so such historical low flow occurrences may not have limited the City’s ability to meet water demands at the time. It should be noted, that there was no flow data recorded from the most recent drought and so it is unknown how low the creek flow has recently been. The City’s current monitoring of flows should be continued to comply with State Water Board requirements and to provide the City with ongoing information for operations.

It is also important to note in the flows in the Curtailed Extraction Zone are quite low and the limiting factor may not be the water right, but rather may be the ability of the gravels, infiltration gallery, and wet well intake 11 system to actually convey the water. Quite simply, the intake system does not operate very effectively at very low creek flows.

What should also be noted is that the Curtailed Extraction Zone is a narrow band of low flows and that climate change and associated changes in precipitation patterns along with potential changes in other extractions from the watershed may lead to more frequent low flow conditions that affect the water right and perhaps more significantly, the practical ability to extract water.

Low flow conditions in the curtailed Extraction Zone could last for weeks or months depending on the conditions. Depending on the severity and circumstances, this could result in a reduction in water available to meet customer needs. Such a condition would require rationing so that the water that was available could be distributed to customers as priorities warranted. This is a matter of setting water policy and developing implementation and enforcement measures.

No Extraction
According to the City’s water right, the City must bypass a minimum of 0.15 cfs and if the flow drops below

0.15 cfs, the City is not allowed to extract any water. Although no flows have been recorded below 0.15 cfs, it is possible that climate change and changes in precipitation patterns as well as other extractions in the watershed could lead to this situation under some conditions. If the City was in such a situation, the existing storage would last only a few days and may not be sufficient to bridge the shortfall until wet weather returned and increased creek flow so the City could extract water again.

10. Recommendations
The City’s current water supply from Luffenholtz Creek is subject to the requirements of the existing water right and the ability of the City to make adequate beneficial use of the right depends on creek flow at the City’s intake as well as other factors such as treatment capacity, and storage and distribution capacity. The analysis in this memo was focused on the watershed, flows in Luffenholtz Creek, and extraction from the creek and the following recommendations are proposed to help address raw water supply issues and to better prepare the City for long term water supply:

The City began continuous monitoring of bypass flows several years ago and monitoring and reporting the State Water Board should continue. The data management system in current use is difficult for operations staff to access and it is recommended that improvements be made in data management to allow City staff better access to the data.

Since the intake system has capacity limitations under lower flow conditions, it is recommended that the intake system be further evaluated to better understand limitations and to identify potential system improvements and operational changes to possibly increase intake capacity.

Based on what is known about the watershed, the water rights, historical low flows, performance of the intake system, and the potential for other supply emergencies such as mechanical failures and natural disasters, it is possible there could be a shortfall in supply under some conditions. This potential for shortfall 12 exists today with current customers. It is recommended that the City develop policy for managing shortfalls in water availability. The City should also consider how much additional water to allocate to future customers. It is recommended that the City consider a planning horizon to the year 2100, which is the timeframe for typical climate change planning.

The watershed limitations and issues and extraction challenges under low flows cannot be completely mitigated without considering alternative sources of supply with different characteristics. It is recommended that the City investigate alternative long term sources of supply to improve long term system reliability. This is warranted to provide long term reliability to existing customers as well as future customers. Such an analysis should also include projections to 2100.

GHD
718 Third Street Eureka California 95501 USA
T707 443 8326 F707 444 8330 W www.ghd.com
September 6, 2019
To: Eli Naffah, City Manager Ref. No.: 11198797
From: Patrick Sullivan, Steve Allen Tel: 7074438326
Subject: City of Trinidad alternative raw water source evaluation The City of Trinidad serves treated water to approximately 1,000 people within the City service area.

Currently, Luffenholtz Creek is the only source of raw water utilized by the City. The City’s diversion and water plant is located at 1313 Westhaven Dr. Trinidad CA, adjacent to Luffenholtz Creek. Water for the plant is pumped from a wet well that is filled through an infiltration gallery located approximately 10 feet below the creek bed. The City’s water right on Luffenholtz Creek specifies the rate of diversion, the annual maximum diversion, and required bypass flow requirements. The bypass flow requirement is the minimum flow rate that must be allowed to bypass the water intake. In addition to water right limitations, the effective water production rates are currently limited by physical constraints in the processing of the water. While the City’s current water demand and production rates are far below their existing water rights limits, there may be other limitations to water production that inhibit the City’s ability to continually meet the existing and future water demands. These include: water intake system limitations, production capacity of the existing water treatment facility, capacity of the storage and conveyance system, or limited availability of raw water within the Luffenholtz Creek.

An assessment of the treatment plant was previously performed and presented in a technical memorandum, Water Treatment Plant Production Rate Test and Analysis (GHD, May 2019). An assessment of the limitations of the Luffenholtz Creek watershed is presented and discussed in a technical memorandum, City of Trinidad Conceptual Hydrological Assessment of the Luffenholtz Creek Watershed (GHD, September 2019).

In the event that there is insufficient raw water supply within the Luffenholtz Creek watershed, the City will need to augment the water supply from other sources. The purpose of this memorandum is to identify and evaluate potential alternative water sources for the City. These alternative sources of raw water evaluated in this memo include:
• Recycled/reclaimed water
• Desalination
• Rainwater catchments
• Spring catchment
• Other creeks, such as Mill and Parker Creek
• Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District
2 Recycled or Reclaimed Water
Recycled water is highly treated sewage wastewater, industrial wastewater, and storm water runoff. The recycled water is treated to a high degree through filtering and processing to remove solids and impurities and is disinfected prior to use. Many municipalities utilize recycled or reclaimed water to augment their water supply. In some cases recycled water accounts for more than 20% of the total demand.

The treatment of the recycled water occurs at a wastewater treatment facility. The recycled water treatment facility requires a high level of treatment and filtration which typically have higher capital and operational costs.

Recycled water often has higher levels of total dissolved salts and nutrients. This limits the use of the water to landscape irrigation and some industrial uses. In some cases recycled water is used to recharge groundwater that is later pumped out for domestic use.

For the City of Trinidad, the use of recycled water has several limitations. The main factor is that the City does not currently have a centralized sewer collection and treatment system. Recycled water is not potable (not for human consumption) and would require a separate delivery system.

Desalination
Desalination is the process of removing salts and minerals from sea water to create potable drinking water.

There are several methods for the process of desalination that entail a distillation or membrane filter process.

All of these processes require sophisticated equipment and are very energy intensive. The process would require an ocean intake for the raw sea water and an outfall for the highly saline brine that is created as byproduct of the process.

While desalination is technically possible, it is not currently a viable option for the City due to the high capital and operational costs, intake and outfall permitting, and potential environmental concerns from the brine outfall.

Rainwater Catchments
Rainwater collection systems capture rainwater runoff from impervious areas such as roofs, patios, streets and driveways and convey it to storage tanks or cisterns. These types of systems vary in size and complexity and could range from a simple rain barrel to large filtration and storage tanks. Typically, rainwater is not considered potable without some kind of filtration and disinfection. The most common use of captured rainwater is landscape irrigation as it does not require filtration and disinfection. Some of the benefits of rainwater catchment is that Trinidad gets plenty of rain and it is a simple technique that only requires a water tank (barrel) to be connected to the roof down spouts. Without installing large storage tanks on every property in Trinidad, the impact of rainwater catchment would be limited. With approximately 1000 residents, if every person had a 55 gallon rain barrel that would account for about one days’ worth of the City’s water 3 production. While rainwater catchment is encouraged throughout the City as a conservation measure it will have very limited benefit to the water supply needs.

Springs Catchment in the Trinidad Area
The use of a distributed network of a collection system using natural springs located in the Trinidad area is a potential water source for the City. This possibility has been proposed on multiple occasions by Steve Madrone who is the 5th District supervisor. The basic idea would be to construct a collection and treatment system close to multiple springs, which would then convey the drinking water via separate pipelines for distribution.

The prime benefit of this alternative system is the avoidance of higher turbidity levels, which can be found in both Mill and Luffenholtz creeks (Madrone, 2011). Collecting and treating water with lower turbidity levels would decrease the total amount of treatment necessary to meet the regulations set forth by the EPA.

Additionally, multiple conveyance systems could be strategically placed to efficiently distribute water to the community.

Some of the concerns with this design would be the potential increase in maintenance, access to spring locations (permitting, right-of-way, easements, etc.), and water conveyance. There could be an increase in necessary maintenance due to multiple collection and treatment locations, which would all require scheduled preventative maintenance as well as any necessary repairs. The spring locations need to be further studied and evaluated but they could potentially require permitting and/or easements to access and then develop a water collection and conveyance system.

The water quality of the springs would need to be regularly monitored. As with the existing system on Luffenholtz Creek, springs are susceptible to influences for surface usage and runoff. Water quality and treatment needs to be continually monitored during production. Using multiple springs would require more monitoring effort than is currently being done at existing treatment facility.

The springs in the Luffenholtz and Mill Creek watersheds supply a portion of the water flowing in Luffenholtz and Mill creeks. The proposed distributed collection system would be gathering the same water further upstream than the current collection location, essentially collecting water that would be going to the existing water treatment facility. The hydrology of the creeks would need to be evaluated under the assumption that water collection locations would be further upstream; to determine the impact this could have on the creeks.

A water collection, treatment, and conveyance system could be developed utilizing the springs in Trinidad.

The primary advantages of a distributed spring collection system are ‘cleaner’ source water and potentially more raw water availability due to water from multiple drainages. The amount of additional water would require more study and further data collection in the subject watersheds. Some of the limitations to a distributed spring collection system are: the effort needed to obtain legal water rights to the spring, the costs to install new treatment and conveyance infrastructure, increased monitoring and maintenance requirements.

Additionally, a distributed spring collection system would be subject to the same vulnerabilities of drought and influences of other water users within the drainage, as presented in City of Trinidad Conceptual Hydrological Assessment of the Luffenholtz Creek Watershed (GHD, September 2019). 4 Other Creeks
There are three other creeks, Parker Creek, McMconnahs Creek and Mill Creek, in the Trinidad area that could potentially serve as sources of raw water for the City. There is very limited available flow data on these creeks and the use of these creeks as a supplemental water source would require more study and further data collection in the subject watersheds.

The City currently has a water right on Mill Creek that allows for a 40.4 gallons per minute extraction rate and maximum of 21.244 million gallons per year. The City is not currently exercising this water right. Parker Creek frequently has no measurable flow and there are no known existing water rights on this creek.

McMconnahs Creek has eight water rights and Mill Creek has nine water rights, including the City’s. As with Luffenholtz Creek, the water right does not mean that there is water available in these creeks.

Utilizing either McMconnahs Creek or Mill Creek would require the construction of new diversions on the creeks. They would likely be similar to extraction/diversion of the existing facility on Luffenholtz Creek. After extraction the raw water would either need to be pumped to the City’s Luffenholtz treatment plant or new treatment and disinfection facilities would need to be constructed. Construction of new facilities would entail acquiring land and access to the sites as well as new pipes for a conveyance of the water. Permitting requirements for the diversions would require significant effort and may be within the coastal zone.

Utilizing these creeks for an additional raw water source would be subject to the same vulnerabilities of drought and influences of other water users within the drainage, as presented in City of Trinidad Conceptual Hydrological Assessment of the Luffenholtz Creek Watershed (GHD, September 2019).

Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District Technical Feasibility The concept of connecting the City of Trinidad to the HBMWD has been considered numerous times over the past 50 years. The idea is simple and would require extending the HBMWD system north, connecting it to the existing Trinidad water system (McHaney, 2001, pg. 2). The HBMWD currently serves water to roughly 80,000 people from Ranney wells located in the Mad River. The Mad River has a reliable source of water because it originates from Ruth Lake, which is a 48,000 acre-foot reservoir (McHaney, 2001, pg. 3). In order for water from the HBMWD to reach the City of Trinidad, the McKinleyville Community Services District (MCSD) system would need to be utilized.

The MCSD water system was constructed with this possibility in mind and would be able to handle the increased water capacity. The water system starts at the Grant A. Ramey pump station and winds through McKinleyville until it terminates with a 12-inch pipe on Dows Prairie Road. Homes served by the MCSD system, east of the end of the line on Dows Prairie Road experience low water pressure. This is indicative of the need for an addition pump station if the distribution system is extended (McHaney, 2001, pg. 4). The MCSD has considered extending the Dows Prairie Road main further to connect with more customers, which 5 would require the installation of a new booster pump station and possibly a new storage reservoir. The installation of a new pump station and reservoir would provide the infrastructure necessary to reach the City of Trinidad water system.

The City of Trinidad water system starts at their water treatment plant on Luffenholtz Creek near Westhaven Drive. The most logical approach to connecting the HBMWD to the City of Trinidad would be to construct a pipeline from the MCSD’s Dows Prairie main to the Trinidad Water Treatment Plant, where it would connect to the existing system, shown in Figure 1. This approach would require the implementation of a new booster pump station as mentioned before, as well as the design and construction of a new pipeline. 6 Figure 1: Proposed pipeline routs to connect MCSD water system to the City of Trinidad water system.
7 A 1967 report, conducted for the HBMWD, investigated possible alignments for the construction of a pipeline from Arcata to Trinidad. The report included three alternatives and chose route one as being the most logical of the three. The chosen route would follow county roads from the end of the MCSD system to Little River, where the pipeline would cross the West side of Highway 101 and then continue north to Scenic Drive and then along Westhaven Drive to the Trinidad Water Treatment Plant (HBMWD, 1967). This possible alignment could be developed in the Humboldt County, Highway 101, and PG&E right-of-ways, or new easements could be obtained. A cost estimate was included in the 1967 report and estimated a total cost of $1,940,000, which is broken down in Table 1.1 in the Appendix.

For the City of Trinidad to receive water from the HBMWD, they would have to coordinate with many agencies including HBMWD, MCSD, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), Humboldt County, and Caltrans (McHaney, 2001, pg. 10). A pipeline from the MCSD’s main on Dows Prairie Road to the start of the Trinidad system on Luffenholtz Creek could be constructed. Details regarding the alignment of the new pipeline, right-of-way issues, and modifications to the MCSD pumping capacity would need to be resolved to provide proper operation.

Conclusion
As the City evaluates the viability of the Luffenholtz Creek watershed to continually provide raw water to existing customers and assesses additional service requests it may become necessary to augment the raw water supply to the system. This memorandum summarized several alternatives for raw water sources available to the City, including: recycled/reclaimed water, desalination, rainwater catchment, spring catchment, other creeks near Trinidad (Mill, Parker, and McMconnahs Creek), and connecting to Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District. The advantages and limitations of each was discussed.

Water sources such as recycled water and desalinization may be technically feasible, but the required infrastructure and operational costs could be prohibitively high, thus rendering them infeasible.

Rainwater catchment is an option that should be encouraged throughout the City as a best management practice. Using the stored rainwater to irrigate landscaping will decrease the demand on the potable water system. However, when the amount of rainwater stored and used for irrigation is compared to the total amount of water the City produces the overall impact on system demand is minimal. Rainwater catchment will also help the City achieve the ASBS stormwater runoff prohibition.

The use of springs throughout the Trinidad area or utilizing other creeks has potential to meet the City’s water needs with the continued use of Luffenholtz Creek. Both approaches would require additional studies and significant investment in infrastructure, land acquisition, permitting, operational and maintenance costs.

Purchasing water from HBMWD is a feasible option that would meet the City’s current and future water needs. Some of the drawbacks of this alternative are that it would require significant investment in permitting and installing a conveyance pipeline from McKinleyville to the City’s system. Purchasing water from HBMWD would mean making a regular payment to HBMWD which may have an influence on the current rate system.

Some of the advantages to this alternative are the availability of potable water and the reliability of the water supply and resilience to drought and climate change. HBMWD raw water comes from the Mad River 8 watershed. With a much larger watershed area and storage reservoir (Ruth Lake), the supply of water is much less vulnerable to the challenges of drought conditions and climate change.

References
GHD (2019) ‘City of Trinidad Conceptual Hydrological Assessment of the Luffenholtz Creek Watershed’, GHD Eureka, CA HBMWD (1967). ‘Report Concerning Mckinleyville – Trinidad Area Water Service’, Humboldt Bay
Municipal Water District, Eureka, CA.

Madrone, S.S. (2011). ‘Fine sediment sources in coastal watersheds with uplifted marine terraces in Northwest Humboldt County, California’, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA.

W&K (2001). ‘City of Trinidad Water Supply Feasibility Study’, Winzler & Kelly, Eureka, CA. 9 Appendix
Table 1.1 Pipeline Route One Cost Estimate Prepared in 1967 (HBMWD)
Item Payment Type Cost ($)
Tap existing 27”, valve, box, meter lump sum 7,000.00
9,000’-24” Arcata bottom $23.00 / l.f. 207,000.00
Bridge Crossing (U.S. 101) (500’) lump sum 10,000.00
16,000’-24” to McKinleyville (R.R Ave.) $25.00 / l.f. 400,000.00 2 taps McKinleyville area, valves and vaults lump sum 12,000.00 18,000’-18” to Dows Prairie $16.00 / l.f. 288,000.00
Dows Prairie, tank (elev. 210) (1 MG) lump sum 100,000.00 10,000’-16” to Crannell Rd $13.00 / l.f. 130,000.00
Bridge Crossing (Little River & 101) (400’) lump sum 8,000.00 12,000’-14” to Moonstone $10.50 / l.f. 126,000.00
2 taps Crannell & Moonstone lump sum 10,000.00
Booster Station, Moonstone (3 pump, 1000 GPM & 2 MG) lump sum 60,000.00 16,500’-12” to Trinidad $9.00 / l.f. 148,500.00
Trinidad Meter, tap and vault lump sum 4,000.00
Trinidad Tank (elev. 400) (0.5 MG) lump sum 60,000.00
SUBTOTAL 1,570,000.00
5% Contingency 79,500.00
1,650,000.00
Land & R.O.W. & Appraisals lump sum 30,000.00
Legal 2% (including bonds) lump sum 49,500.00
Topography (Aerial) 15 miles x 1000’ or 2000A (50, scale) lump sum 35,500.00 Engr. plans and specs. @ 5.5% lump sum 90,500.00
Soils & Insp. lump sum 35,000.00
Constr. Int. Admin & Reserve 2% lump sum 49,500.00
SUBTOTAL 290,000.00
TOTAL COST 1,940,000.00
TRINIDAD CITY HALL Gabriel Adams, City Clerk
P.O. Box 390 Steve Ladwig, Mayor
409 Trinity Street
Trinidad, CA 95570
(707) 677-0223
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-16

DECLARING DROUGHT CONDITIONS AND IMPLEMENTING WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES AS DEFINED BY TRINIDAD MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 13.08 TO PREVENT

OR MITIGATE AN EMERGENCY
WHEREAS, California Water Code section 71642 authorizes the governing body of a municipal water district to find the existence or threat of a drought or other threatened or existing water shortage, and that finding is prima facie evidence of the fact or matter so found, and such fact or matter shall be presumed to continue unchanged unless and until a contrary finding is made by the board by resolution or ordinance; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Water Code section 71640, the City may restrict the use of City-supplied water during the drought emergency or other water shortage condition and may prohibit the wastage of district water or the use of district water during such periods for any purpose other than household uses or other restricted uses as the District determines to be necessary; and WHEREAS, the annual rainfall for the 2019-2020 water year was approximately 75% of normal, and the Trinidad area is designated as being in moderate drought conditions.

WHEREAS, preliminary data indicates that Luffenholtz Creek has dropped to its lowest levels since the City started continuously monitoring flows (approximately 4 years).

WHEREAS, in 1977, having declared a water shortage emergency, the City Council adopted Ordinance 160 § 1, 1977 adding Chapter 13.08 Water Rationing; and WHEREAS, a water shortage alert condition prevails in the area served by the City, due to conditions prevailing throughout the state of California, County of Humboldt, and in the service area of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council shall appoint (2) Council members to serve as the Water Committee and work with City staff in the event additional water conservation/rationing measures are necessary in the future; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Trinidad City Council, as follows:

1. Pursuant to Water Code section 71642, and for the reasons set forth herein, the City Council finds the existence or threat of a drought emergency; and

2. Pursuant to Trinidad Municipal Code 13.08, the City Council may adopt restrictions and prohibitions on the delivery and consumption of water within the service area so that the water supply can be conserved for the greater public benefit. To comply with State regulations and to prevent the waste and unreasonable use of water and to promote water conservation, each of the following actions is prohibited, except where necessary to address an immediate health and safety need or to comply with a term or condition in a permit issued by a state or federal agency:
a. The application of potable water to outdoor landscapes in a manner that causes runoff such that water flows onto adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, private and public walkways, roadways, parking lots, or structures;
b. The use of a hose that dispenses potable water to wash a motor vehicle, except where the hose is fitted with a shut-off nozzle or device attached to it that causes it to cease dispensing water immediately when not in use;
184 of 322
c. The application of potable water to driveways and sidewalks; and d. The use of potable water in a fountain or other decorative water feature, except where the water is part of a recirculating system;
e. The application of potable water to outdoor landscapes during and within 48 hours after measurable rainfall;
f. The irrigation with potable water outside of newly constructed homes and buildings in a manner inconsistent with regulations or other requirements; and

3. Pursuant to Trinidad Municipal Code 13.08, the water committee and the City Manager have the duty and are authorized to enforce the provisions of the chapter. Violations and penalties are provided by the Water Rationing codes. Staff has been directed to provide public education about the prohibited water uses, water conservation and the drought conditions.

4. Pursuant to Water Code section 71641 and Government Code section 6061, the City of Trinidad shall publish in a newspaper of general circulation any ordinance setting forth the restrictions, prohibitions, and exclusions determined by the City to be necessary under Water Code section 71640; and

5. This drought alert or water shortage condition shall be presumed to continue unchanged unless and until a contrary finding is made by the board by resolution or ordinance; and PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE TRINIDAD CITY COUNCIL of Humboldt County of the State of California on Tuesday, September 08, 2020.

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Trinidad City Council by the following vote:

Ayes: West, Clompus, Ladwig, Grover, Davies
Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: None
Attest:
________________________ _________________________
Gabriel Adams Steve Ladwig
Trinidad City Clerk Mayor
185 of 322
WATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT July 22, 2021
1 1
JULY 22, 2020

IMPROVING THE TRINIDAD
MUNICIPAL WATER SYSTEM:

FIXING LEAKS
Richard Clompus, Chair
Water Advisory Committee
City of Trinidad, CA
186 of 322
WATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT July 22, 2021

PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS FACE A NUMBER OF

CHALLENGES INCLUDING AGING INFRASTRUCTURE
The City of Trinidad serves treated water to approximately 1,000 people within the City service area. The water system includes conveyance pipes, valves, fire hydrants, customer service meters and storage tanks. The system has been operated and maintained by the City since the early 1970’s. The City’s water delivery and storage system has served the City for close to 50 years.(1)
The City withdraws on average about 2 million gallons of raw surface water each month from Luffenholtz Creek for public use.(2) It is the sole source of water for its water customers. The creek water is filtered, chemically treated and pumped into two 150,000 gallon redwood tanks where it feeds the water distribution system powered by gravity. The municipal water distribution system consists of approximately 40,700 feet of pipe of various diameters (2 inch, 3 inch, 4 inch, 6 inch, 8 inch and 10 inch as follows:(2)
The City’s distribution pipes are primarily constructed of asbestos cement (AC). This type of pipe was commonly used in mid-20th century water distribution systems because of its lightweight, low coefficient of friction and resistance to corrosion. However, after 50 years of service, it can become brittle and prone to leaks. Smaller diameter AC pipe has a greater likelihood of developing breaks or cracks compared to larger diameter AC pipe. Unfortunately, it has been discovered through scientific studies that people who consume water with high amounts of asbestos over extended periods may face an increased risk of developing benign intestinal polyps and an increased risk of cancer, including mesothelioma. Because of this, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated regulations to monitor the level of asbestos in drinking water with the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1974 and amended in 1986 and 1996.(3)
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, asbestos is limited to 7 million fibers per liter (MFL) of water. There are several notable cases of AC pipe failure and potential health issues from detection of high levels of asbestos in the drinking water. The Town of Woodstock, NY experienced AC pipe issues in 1985.(4) Devin, Texas, detected higher than normal asbestos levels in its water in 2016.(5) Schools in Arp, Texas, faced issues with AC pipe last year.(6) Eventually the concern over asbestos in drinking water ended new installation of AC pipe in drinking water systems, but it didn’t necessarily require, or lead to, the replacement of existing AC pipe. When AC pipe reaches the end of its useful life, it will need to be replaced with new and safer pipe materials. In Trinidad, AC pipe has been replaced by PVC pipe in some locations of the system when repairs were made or line extensions were required.

The City is required to test for asbestos structures (>10 microns size) in drinking water every nine years. The most recent test was certified on 12-6-2019. No asbestos was detected.(7) The report summary can be seem below. The next asbestos water test is due in 2028.
1 1
Pipe Diameter (inches) Pipe Length (feet)
2 382
3 1,381
4 8,463
6 12,947
8 10,979
10 6,556
Total 40,708
EMSL Analytical, Inc.
464 McCormick Street San Leandro, CA 94577
Phone/Fax: (510) 895-3675 / (510) 895-3680
http://www.EMSL.com / [email protected]
NORT99
091927358
1912140
EMSL Order ID:

Customer ID:

Customer PO:

Project ID:

Attn: Phone: (707) 822-4649
Fax: (707) 822-6831
Received: 12/06/2019
Analyzed: 12/17/2019
Results
North Coast Laboratories, LTD.
5680 West End Road
Arcata, CA 95521-9202
Proj: 1912140 - 1912140-03C / SITE #4 - 1210018-901 DBP-AZALEA WAY TRINIDAD, CITY OF Test Report: Determination of Asbestos Structures >10µm in Drinking Water Performed by the 100.2 Method (EPA 600/R-94/134)
Sample
Filtration
Date/Time
Sample ID
Client / EMSL

ASBESTOS
Confidence
Limits
Analytical Concentration
Sensitivity
Fibers
Detected
Asbestos
Types Area
Analyzed
(mm²)
Effective
Filter
Area
(mm²)
Original
Sample Vol.

Filtered
(ml) MFL (million fibers per liter)
12/6/2019 None Detected ND 0.17 <0.17 0.00 - 0.65
12:00 AM
1912140-03C / SITE 125 1322 0.0605
#4
091927358-0001
Collection Date/Time: 12/05/2019 10:30 AM
10 of 11
187 of 322
WATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT July 22, 2021
The following is a map of the water distribution system with pipe diameters in inches: (1)

REDUCING WATER LOSS
The amount of water the City processes each year varies by demand. The demand/usage is highest during the months of July and August. A water loss analysis was conducted by GHD, Eureka, CA, in 2019 that showed the following:(1) Water loss due to leakage is classified as non-revenue producing water (NRPW). The NRPW values for Trinidad are higher than typically expected for water systems of this type and indicate that there is a potential to reduce water demand by identifying and eliminating system losses. Possible causes for the water losses include the following:
metering errors, Illicit connections, bulk water sales and leaks in pipes and connections. 2 2
«¬
«¬
«¬ «¬
«¬
«¬
«¬
«¬
«¬
«¬
«¬
«¬ «¬
«¬ «¬
«¬ «¬ «¬
«¬
«¬
«¬
«¬
«¬
«¬
«¬
«¬ «¬
«¬
«¬
«¬
«¬
«¬
«¬
FIGURE 1
0 0.055 0.11 0.165 0.22
Miles
Project No.

Revision No. Rev 0.1
111-98797
Date 10/08/2019
City of Trinidad
Water System Hydraulic Model
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: North American 1983
Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California I FIPS 0401 Feet
Paper Size ANSI B
o F:\Trinidad Water Model\F1 Water System Base Map.mxd Data source: . Created by: pasullivan Print date: 31 Oct 2019 - 13:10
Distribution System with Pipe Sizes
Legend
Water Tanks
Pipes
Size (inches)
2 3
4 6
8 10
«¬ Fire Hydrant
Water Tanks
Parcels
Monthly Water Pumped, Sold and Lost Summary Statistics, September 2012 through August 2019 Water Pumped (gallons) Water Sold (gallons) Water Lost (gallons) Water Loss Percent Minimum 1,354,490 1,040,922 123,795 8.9%
Maximum 3,314,731 2,434,805 1,117,590 40.1%
Average 2,105,045 1,542,084 562,960 26.6%
188 of 322
WATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT July 22, 2021
The 2019 GHD report reviewed each of these four possible causes for water loss and concluded the following: (1) “The most likely cause for the high water loss rate is leaks in old pipes and connections. The City has made several efforts to locate leaks from connections. They have hired independent leak detection services to isolate individual leaks. While minor leaks were identified and resolved these leaks would have had only minor effect upon the overall losses in the system. The City’s conveyance system of pipes is aging and much of it is constructed of AC (asbestos concrete) pipe. As this type of pipe ages it may become brittle and may form small leaks. When this occurs throughout the system the leaks can add up to a significant loss of water. The solution to this type of problem is to replace the old pipe. Leaks can be detected and sections prioritized for replacement by isolating sections of the system and measuring pressure loss over time.”
Feedback from Steve Allen, GHD engineer, Patrick Sullivan, GHD engineer and Patrick Kaspari, General Manager McKinleyville Community Services District indicated the following steps are most likely needed to initiate repair of leaky water pipes in a municipal water distribution system:

1. Leak testing to identify highest priority sections

2. Develop planning level estimate of distribution system replacement

3. Identify funding options and desired project budget

4. Identify schedule of repairs if multiple bid packages will be developed over multiple years

5. Design and environment review/permitting for project(s)

6. Bidding

7. Construction
The estimated time table to accomplish all steps before the City can begin repair or replacement of leaky pipes is about 12 months. Emergency repairs for major water system leaks would follow a quicker approval process.

FUNDING LONG TERM IMPROVEMENTS OF A

MUNICIPAL WATER SYSTEM
McKinleyville Community Services District recently completed a water rate study that included provisions to modernize their water distribution system. It is designed to be a 50-75 year capital improvement project. The length of the project was determined by the useful life of the components of their water distribution system. The system will need to be replaced every 50-75 years as it wears out.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Trinidad’s water distribution system with its extensive use of asbestos cement pipes is aging and reaching the end of its useful life. A long-term capital improvement project should be initiated to make much needed improvements to the water distribution system by:
(a) identifying areas of greatest leakage and replace asbestos concrete pipe with PVC pipe (b) replacing old valves and installing additional new valves to permit more control of water flow throughout the city

2. The water rate study scheduled for this year must include provisions to fund deferred maintenance to the City’s water system.

3. Portions of the City’s water reserve fund should be used to start the repair process while seeking state and federal grants. The recent SB129 includes funds for drought relief projects. 3 3
189 of 322
WATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT July 22, 2021

REFERENCES
(1) Memorandum - Subject: City of Trinidad Drinking Water System Model, Reference Number 11198797, Patrick Sullivan & Steve Allen/GHD, October 29, 2019.
(2) Memorandum - Subject: City of Trinidad Water Demand and Loss Analysis, Reference Number 11198797, Patrick Sullivan/GHD, September 6, 2019
(3) The Safe Water Drinking Act (SWDA) 1974, www.epa.gov (4) Prose, Francine. “Woodstock: A Town Afraid to Drink Water,” New York Times, April 13, 1986. (5) “Mandatory Language for a Maximum Contaminant Level Violation: MCL, Average/Asbestos,” City of Devine, Texas, November 28, 2016.
(6) Rivers, Brionna. “Arp ISD takes extra precautions after high levels of asbestos reported in city’s water,” KLTV, August 18, 2017.
(7) Test Report of Asbestos Structures in Drinking Water, performed by the 100.2 Method (EPA 600/R-94/134), North Coast Laboratories, LTD, EMSL Analytical, Inc., December 6, 2019. 4 4
190 of 322
Report, With Context, On Findings About Water From A Pipeline From the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District
Dwight Miller
August 10, 2021
Background Discussion ... the context for researching additional water:

Why did most of the Water Advisory Committee vote to look again at additional water? And why HBMWD?
It starts with views about the adequacy of our current supply, Luffenholtz Creek.

Do you believe that Luffenholtz Creek may go “dry” soon ...in the next few years? “Dry” for our usage means that the flow from Luffenholtz will fall below the state minimum required to pump to our water system.

Your answer means that you are placing a bet with major consequences for water customers and for fire protection. No one knows the best answer ... we can only bet on a choice with the least onerous outcomes and most likely gain.

If you decide NO, that Luffenholtz Creek will go NOT go “dry” soon, then:
1) You are betting that the risk level of NO WATER is acceptably low.

You are willing to bet that being wrong will not have huge consequences. 2) You have confidence in the future predictions of those who have assured you that Luffenholtz Creek will go NOT go “dry”.

What is the basis for the predictions that there is a low risk of Luffenholtz “dry”? Previous years’ data and anecdotes ...
or
climate science ... recent computer models of the climate suggest that predictions based on recent-years’ data are becoming increasingly inaccurate. (MICHAEL MANN, Penn State University climate scientist: (paraphrased): “If anything, things are going to get worse. The climate models need updating. Things are changing faster than current climate models predict.” Podcast, THE WORLD, 7/19/21 and “What's happening ...is that some of the impacts are playing out faster than we expected.” NPR Weekend Sunday, 7/25/21)
A POLICY CHOICE from deciding that Luffenholtz is at low risk of going “dry” is OPTION 1 in a list of some OPTIONS (next table ... to be discussed).

You should “harden” our current Luffenholtz supply by plugging leaks and building redundant storage tanks ...

This choice lowers the risk of “MORE WATER = GROWTH”, a concern expressed by many.

This choice increases the risk of NO-TAP-WATER and REDUCED ABILITY TO FIGHT FIRES. 191 of 322
There should be a debate about the relative damages posed by these risks. These concerns are not mutually exclusive... good people have expressed both views.

Do you believe that Luffenholtz Creek may go “dry” soon ...in the next few years? If you decide YES,
1) You are betting that the risk level of NO WATER is unacceptably high. 2) You must decide to get additional water for the dry season.

That means adopting a plan that assures reliably steady and affordable dry-season water, as soon as possible.

This choice lowers the risk of fire damage (always unexpected) and of dry taps.

This choice increases the risk of “MORE WATER = GROWTH”, a concern expressed by many. 3) The following table lists possible POLICY OPTIONS to get additional water. They each have risks and consequences. The additional water of each of these options is equivalent: they each lower the risk of having no water, and they increase the concern that “MORE WATER = GROWTH”.

In the following table of options, please note that NONE of the presented options has current data to support their adoption. No current data was commissioned by the Council ... the Water Advisory Committee was asked, with limited resources and time, to do their best to recommend options.

To choose among these options, you, the Council, must be informed by as much data as you can.

Please direct paid staff resources to find:
• COST of each option
• TIME-to-implement each option
• The risks and consequences of each option for the residents of the City of Trinidad.

Also:

The Council can commission a study on how best to reconcile both additional water
AND
limit growth.
192 of 322
Of the 4 Water Policy Choices below, OPTION 1 means no additional water beyond our current supply.

OPTION 2 means additional water from Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District, as soon as possible ... consistent with the idea that if we bet that Luffenholtz may go “dry” soon, we’d better look for the quickest likely water. It is also a lower cost option than when it was previously researched (2004) because:
a) We can cost-share with the Trinidad Rancheria, IF we act quickly. b) Most of the cost and time-to-completion estimates have been completed by the Rancheria’s staff. We could ask our engineers to check that data in much less time and expense than re-doing the evaluations.

I chose to investigate and report on OPTION 2 because it seemed the quickest and least cost access to additional water. I had no current engineering data for this choice, but an earlier 2004 report seemed a basis for thinking about near-term possibility. There was no data for the other options.

OPTION 3 is a serious proposal, but one deemed “untested” by many with whom I’ve talked, with many unknowns. The unknowns of cost and time-to-completion seemed considerable.

OPTION 4 is a delayed OPTION 2, suggested by many as a “backup” in case Luffenholtz does go ‘dry”.

The time-to-completion and the likely additional cost, without a cost-sharing partner, would likely be greater than OPTION 2.
193 of 322
Summary of discussions and correspondence with Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District (HBMWD) between July 7 and August 3, 2021.

This summary will be followed by a timetable for Council and Staff actions between August 10 and September 9, 2021.

Emailed correspondence will follow as addenda to this summary.

June 21 – Phone conversation, Dwight Miller with John Friedenbach, General Manager of HBMWD. Miller asked whether HBMWD could provide any additional information about a pipeline project to Trinidad. Friedenbach politely said, no. Any additional info would require expenditure of staff resources by the HBMWD. His Board had instructed him to negotiate further with Trinidad if a City Council majority expressed an interest in doing so.

June 21 – follow-up email from Miller to Friedenbach requesting written responses to a few questions.

July 2 – Email from Friedenbach to the WAC.

He specifies that, “HBMWD would need a decision by the Trinidad City Council to participate in our feasibility effort [nearly concluding with the Rancheria]”. “The City Council needs to act expeditiously.”
“Once HBMWD enters into a Mainline Extension Agreement with the Trinidad Rancheria, the City of Trinidad would have to deal directly with the Rancheria and obtain their approval for any modifications to their waterline extension project.”
He clarifies some questions about capacities of different sizes of pipe but notes that the questions are “... irrelevant since minimum fire flow laws require a 6” water line.” July 12 - Phone conversation, Miller with Friedenbach. Miller noted that a WAC meeting was scheduled for July 14 and asked, “was there any additional info from HBMWD?” Friedenbach replied that HBMWD would probably be ready at its August 12 Board meeting to consider a contract for the pipeline with the Rancheria (and the McKinleyville CSD, which approves extensions from the HBMWD pipe).

Miller and Friedenbach then discussed a tight timeline [follows this Summary] which would preserve Trinidad’s option of partnering with the Rancheria at this time.

Friedenbach noted that approval later would likely be more expensive because pipe dimensions were specified to the Rancheria’s needs, and additional needs for Trinidad would require recalculation. The pipe might be sized too small for additional needs, and Trinidad might need to pay for an additional pipeline.

July 26 – WAC members Richard Clompus and Miller met with Friedenbach at HBMWD. We asked for any additional info to help with the WAC report to the City Council.

Friedenbach noted that after completion, ownership of the pipeline would revert to HBMWD, but that “...if Trinidad wished to join later, Trinidad would need to reimburse the Rancheria for a share of its costs.”
194 of 322
July 27 – Email from Friedenbach to Miller. Info about HBMWD’s preliminary analysis of a pipeline to the Rancheria was provided. He suggested that the City Council could request our City Engineer to use (considerable) attached info leading to a quote for services by the HBMWD to the City.

Essentially, HBMWD outlined how a 3-week study period might lead to a partnership for a pipeline with the Rancheria. The documents attached would greatly assist our Engineer to verify pipe sizes, connection points, or other requirements.

All of the discussions and emails focus on a timeline to be considered by the city Council:
195 of 322
D Miller <[email protected]>
HBMW for Trinidad ... planning for another look by the Trinidad City Council 1 message
Dwight Miller <[email protected]> Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 4:39 PM To: John Friedenbach <[email protected]>
Cc: Paula Levine <[email protected]>, Richard Clompus <[email protected]>, Dwight Miller <[email protected]>
Hello JohnThank you for the time you took this morning, discussing the vagaries of Trinidad's water decisions vis-a-vis HBMWD.

I failed to note a specific communication that Paula Levine sent me a week ago ... I found it while reviewing correspondence with her. She wrote:
"Mr. Friedenbach (HBMWD) has offered to write a written description [as stated in phone conversations] detailing the purpose and cost of the proposed "Feasibility Study" that was hotly argued at a past City Council meeting at the request of any WAC or Council member."
The WAC abbreviation in her memo to me is our just-established Water Advisory Committee.
.

She also wrote:
"Have a WAC member volunteer call Mr. Friedenbach, request the letter, and post the letter in City Documents. The important reasons for this: It may answer public concerns about wasting money on unnecessary reports, it may provide useful information to help WAC achieve its mission, and it may provide critical information about missing an important deadline. It will take a few moments of WAC time." Pursuant to Paula's suggestion, I am the WAC member who is requesting such a letter, and we will post it in City Documents.

I imagine that a simple focused response is best. In addition to whatever simple description of what HBMWD would do, with "ball-park" estimate of cost study, related to connecting with a planned line to the Rancheria, please note some specifics about water volume (or rate) deliverable by specific line diameters. Perhaps you (or staff) can address Steve Madrone's estimates in a recent email reply to our WAC:
"the HBMWD Manager said last week at his board meeting that they would likely use a 6" or 8" pipe to Trinidad Rancheria. A 2" pipe can deliver 1,224,000 gallons per day. A 4" pipe can deliver 4,896,000 gpd. The City uses on average 90,000 gpd and the 196 of 322
rancheria at buildout is estimated to use 40,000 gpd. So as you can see if with a 2' pipe there would be enough water for the Rancheria, Trinidad, Westhaven and Pats Pt [Patricks Point]. That excess capacity of even a small pipe is the stuff of growth inducement."
Are his numbers correct? And, you might note in your reply, as you noted in our phone conversation, that population growth control has many more tools than just water volume: zoning, sewage/septic limitations, etc.

Also, can you address the possibility of a really small pipe to Trinidad that would not be a direct replacement of our current consumption, but would be a base emergency amount that we could use to "get by" when Luffenholtz supply is not available, but which would be a minimal portion of our normal consumption when Luffenholtz is flowing? In our call today, you were very clear that the next step for further planning between Trinidad and HBMWD would be a formal decision by the City Council to request a Feasibility Study by the HBMWD. You would then need to get permission from your Board to proceed.

My request here is for a letter, as noted by Paula (above), that we can post as part of our WAC report to the Council, urging them to collect data on all options before deciding our water future.

Thank you for your efforts,
Dwight Miller
Member, Trinidad Water Advisory Committee
Former Mayor and former City Councilor
cell: 646-703-4836
197 of 322

HUMBOLDT BAY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

SHERI WOO, PRESIDENT

NEAL LATT, VICE-PRESIDENT
J. BRUCE RUPP, SECRETARY-TREASURER

MICHELLE FULLER, DIRECTOR

DAVID LINDBERG, DIRECTOR

GENERAL MANAGER

JOHN FRIEDENBACH
Water Advisory Committee (WAC)
City of Trinidad
828 SEVENTH STREET, PO Box 95 • EUREKA, CALIFORNIA 95502-0095 OFFICE 707-443-5018 ESSEX 707-822-2918
FAX 707-443-5731 707-822-8245
EMAIL [email protected]
Website: www.hbmwd.com
July 2, 2021
Via Email to Dwight Miller: [email protected]
Dear Mr. Miller:

During our telephone conversation on June 21, 2021, you posed several questions regarding HBMWD's water supply and availability. Additionally, you requested some information from the HBMWD about how to re-initiate conversations between the City of Trinidad and HBMWD regarding possible water supply. The following is provided in response to your inquiries.

I explained to you that the Trinidad City Council had voted twice to not participate in the feasibility study regarding a possible water mainline extension from McKinleyville CSD to the Trinidad Rancheria. HBMWD would need a decision by the Trinidad City Council to participate in our feasibility effort. This may be a mute issue as we have concluded our internal study and preliminarily determined the necessary pipeline size to supply the Trinidad Rancheria with their site buildout water demand. Obviously, a pipeline to the Rancheria has not been constructed, but as they say, the train is leaving the station. If the Trinidad City Council wants any possibility to join in a mainline extension project, they need to act expeditiously.

You also requested that several questions from the WAC be addressed.

1. How soon, from now, would HBMWD need for a City Council request-to-study to ensure a minimal estimate, before plans are finalized for the likely extension of HBMWD water to the Trinidad Rancheria? As I state above, we have completed our internal analysis of the pipe size necessary to service the Trinidad Rancheria based on their project specific water demand needs. Any incremental project sizing costs to accommodate water demand by the City of Trinidad would need to be borne by the City. We can provide our preliminary calculations to the City and it can engage the services of an engineering firm to perform the necessary calculations for incrementally sizing the preliminary draft project pipeline size of the Rancheria to suit the City's water needs. Furthermore, once HBMWD enters into a Mainline Extension Agreement with the Trinidad Rancheria, the City of Trinidad would have to deal directly with the Rancheria and obtain their approval for any modifications to their waterline extension project.

2. What is the minimum-sized line that could "T" from the proposed Rancheria line to supplement the present Trinidad supply from Luffenholtz Creek? The question addresses the concept of minimal supplementary water in times of severe drought, when Luffenholtz Creek is "dry" for Trinidad's needs, since Trinidad is required to spill some water for riparian needs.

That was the question that we had hoped to answer by engaging the City of Trinidad in our initial feasibility study.

The City Council voted twice to not participate. So, the answer to this question remains unknown and until the Council reverses its previous decisions, will remain unanswered. 198 of 322
199 of 322
200 of 322
201 of 322
HBMWD Internal Memo Regarding Calculation Assumptions
May 14, 2021 email from Dale Davidsen
John,
See attached information. There are a lot of assumptions in this as the route and elevations have not been determined. I use the 6” line at Clam beach as the starting point for this exercise. And I see there is a 8” pipe line feeding this 6” line not too far upstream. With an engineering look, it may be better to upsize this 6” section under the freeway to 8”. Starting at the 12” pipeline option might make more sense if the 8” pipeline is preferred. C-factor for pipe fittings and valves have not been calculated, only the run length. And as you can see, on the smaller pipelines the C-factor is huge. Since there is 95 PSI at Clam Beach, the Clam Beach BPS could possibly be eliminated but the other booster pump station would need to be much lower in elevation and pump size would increase. A couple of the reasons I located the BPS near Moonstone is the possibility of power being nearby and roughly in the middle elevation wise. I used pump curves I could find online without “registering” with a manufacture to access their data. I am sure these are not the ideal pumps but at least it gives us an idea of needs. I attached a map of the pipeline route calculated in the spreadsheet, and pump curves I used.

Call me and I will explain the spreadsheet.

Dale Davidsen, Superintendent
Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District
202 of 322
PRELIMINARY DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Red Line – Mainline extension from MCSD to booster pump station.

Blue Line – Mainline extension from booster pump station to Trinidad Rancheria storage tanks.

Yellow Line – Highway 101.
203 of 322
Knowns / Estimates Units
Total Estimated Daily Demand by Rancheria 37,800 Gallons Minutes GPM Minutes GPM Total Estimated Length of run 23,755 Feet Time / GPM 1440 26 360 105 Elevation at Clam Beach parking lot 23 Feet Velocity 2.66 Ft/S 2.68 Ft/S Elev. at "Moonstone BPS" (MS BPS) 158 Feet PSI Feet Head Flow GPM PSI Feet Head Flow GPM Elev. at Rancheria storage Tank 290 Feet Clam Beach inlet. 95 219.45 95 219.5 Clam beach BPS
outlet. 150 346.5 105 120 225
Run length - Clam Beach to MS BPS (Section 1) 13,375 Feet 135 Feet C-factor Head loss
from Clam beach to
MS BPS.
82 189.4 37 85.5
Run length - MS BPS to Rancheria (Section 2) 10,440 Feet 132 Feet Elev. / Head loss 58.5 135.0 58.5 135.0 Hazen-Williams Coefficient for PVC 150 Section 1 Head loss 140.5 324.5 95.5 220.5 PSI at Clam Beach - Per McSD 95 PSI MS BPS Inlet. 9.5 22.0 24.5 56.7 PSI per foot head 0.433 PSI
Foot of head per 1 PSI 2.31 Feet MS BPS outlet. 150 346.5 120 277.2 Pump notes Approx
HP
C-factor Head loss
from MS BPS to
Rancheria Tank.
73 168.6 32 73.9

1. Aurora 2" x 2-1/2" x 9" 340 or 360 3500 RPM 25 Elev. / Head loss 57.2 132.0 57.2 132.0

2. Aurora 3" x 4" x 9B" 340 or 360 3500 RPM 40 Sec 2 total Head loss 130.2 300.7 89.2 206.0 Rancheria Storage
tank elevation head 20 45.8 31 71.2
Minutes GPM Minutes GPM
Time / GPM 120 315 120 315
Velocity 3.6 Ft/S 2.0 Ft/S
PSI Feet Head Flow GPM PSI Feet Head Flow GPM
Clam Beach inlet PSI 95 219.5 95 219.5
Clam beach BPS
outlet. PSI 120 277.2 375 120 277.2 375
C-factor Head loss
from Clam beach to
MS BPS. PSI

39.5 91.2 9.75 22.5
Elev. / Head loss PSI 58.5 135.0 58.5 135.0
Section 1 PSI Head
loss 98.0 226.3 68.2 157.6
MS BPS Inlet. PSI 22.0 50.9 51.8 119.6
MS BPS outlet. PSI 120 277.2 120 277.2
C-factor Head loss
from MS BPS to
Rancheria Tank. PSI
34 78.5 8.5 19.6
Elev. / Head loss PSI 57.2 132.0 57.2 132.0
Sec 2 total Head loss 91.2 210.6 65.7 151.7
Rancheria Storage
tank elevation PSI 29 66.6 54 125.5
Trinidad Rancheria Mainline Extension Section 1 Section 2 Recommended options
Section 1 Section 2
Not really feasible
Feasible Feasible

PRELIMINARY DRAFT - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES

PRELIMINARY DRAFT - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES
Elev. Change
8 Inch line
2" line 4 inch line
6 Inch line
Possible but longer BPS run times
204 of 322

Page 1 of 14 ends

Trinidad City CouncilJuly 8, 2025

Trinidad City Council
July 8, 2025