notice and call of a special meeting of the trinidad

TRINIDAD CITY HALL Steve Ladwig, Mayor

P.O. Box 390 Gabriel Adams, City Clerk 409 Trinity Street Trinidad, CA 95570

(707) 677-0223

Posted: Thursday, October 15, 2020

NOTICE AND CALL OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE

TRINIDAD TRAILS COMMITTEE The Trinidad City Council Trails Advisory Committee will meet on

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2020 at 5:00 PM By Video/Audio Conference, hosted on the Cisco Webex Platform

In accordance with Executive Order N-29-20 this meeting will be held via videoconference, and will be hosted on the Cisco Webex Platform. Learn more about Webex here: https://www.webex.com/ PUBLIC COMMENT: Public comment may be submitted via email in advance of the meeting, or accepted in an orderly process during the conference. If you do not have access to the internet and would like to provide a written statement, please deliver your comment to 409 Trinity Street, Trinidad CA, by 2:00pm, Monday, October 19, 2020. Email to [email protected] Comments will be accepted during the meeting, and included in the public record.

HOW TO PARTICIPATE: The meeting link and participant code is located on the calendar page of the City Website: https://trinidad.ca.gov/calendar Click on the appropriate date to access all the information.

I. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – 08-18-2020, 09-21-2020

III. ITEMS FROM THE FLOOR

IV. STAFF/COUNCIL REPORTS

V. COMMITTEE MEMBER REPORTS VI. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS

1. Discussion/Action: Status on Trail Maintenance Projects Vis-a-vis Recommendations Made in Annual Plan.

2. Discussion/Action: Budget Allocations/Budget Remaining. 3. Discussion/Action: Signage

VII. REQUEST FOR FUTURE ITEMS VIII. ADJOURNMENT

Angela Zetter Trinidad Administrative Assistant

https://www.webex.com/

mailto:[email protected]

https://trinidad.ca.gov/calendar

08-18-2020 DRAFT Trails Committee Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 6

MINUTES OF THE QUARTERLY MEETING OF THE TRINIDAD TRAILS COMMITTEE

TUESDAY, AUGUST 18, 2020 VIA WEBEX

I. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL (5:00 pm)

Committee Members Present: Davies, Kenny

Committee Members Present (Late Arrival): Kelly

Alternate Committee Members Present: Laos

Committee/Alternate Members Absent: Morehead, Brown, Clayburn, Myers, West

City Staff: Zetter, Parker, Naffah

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

May 27, 2020

Motion (Laos/Kenny) to approve the May 27, 2020 minutes as submitted. Passed (4-0). Passed

unanimously.


None.


City Planner Parker stated the draft Trails Policy is on the Planning Commission’s agenda tomorrow

(August 19, 2020), and expects a decision to be made. Additionally, she noted that Planning

Commissioner Kelly advised she wants the Trails Committee to schedule a special meeting, before

the quarterly meeting.

City Council member and Committee Chair Davies briefly explained the importance of the items on

tonight’s agenda. Committee members Laos and Davies briefly discussed the process, such as how

the Trails Committee should discuss items that require clarification, by recommendation of the City

Council and/or Planning Commission.

V. COMMITTEE MEMBER REPORTS

Committee member Kenny commented that she was grateful that the trails that had been closed, due

to COVID, have been reopened. Additionally, she has noticed individuals have been having fires on

Trinidad State Beach and Old Home Beach.

VI. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS

1. Discussion/Action: Recommendation for the Temporary Closure of a Portion of the Van Wycke

Trail Due to Hazardous Conditions.

Committee Discussion City Council member and Committee Chair Davies explained that the Planning Commission is

requesting the Trails Committee provide a recommendation regarding a CDP for the temporary

closure of a portion of the Van Wycke Trail. City Planner Parker explained that the closure of the

Van Wycke Trail was at the request of the City’s insurance company, PARSAC, who had completed

a risk assessment report in 2018. The report included a recommendation to close the VWT due to

hazardous conditions, and if it not closed they may not be able to provide the City insurance should

an accident occur. Additionally, City Manager Naffah met with PARSAC representative Ken Ong for

a site visit. Parker discussed the history of the closure, and explained that the California Coastal

Commission advised that a CDP is required because the closure is labeled as development, as it was

a change in the intensity of the use. Parker also explained that the City’s ordinances do not have


standards for projects that only require a CDP, so she looked at general conformance with the

General Plan policies/regulations and Coastal Act policies. She noted that public access is prioritized,

but public safety, private property rights, and environmental impacts are also all taken into

consideration. Additionally, there is alternative access to this site, which minimizes the area of

closure. She also advised that the snow fencing currently located at the site is not a part of the

approval.

City Manager Naffah clarified that the ski fencing has been taken down for several weeks, and what

remains is what PARSAC recommended. He discussed the site visit with Ong, and provided

information surrounding the signs that were placed at the location based on PARSAC’s

recommendation. Naffah touched on the Axel Lindgren Memorial Trail, as concern had been raised

on why that trail had not been closed. To provide clarification, he noted that PARSAC did

recommend that the Axel Lindgren Memorial Trail be closed, but explained it was dependent on

certain factors, specifically exposed rebar and loose planks. He advised these issues were fixed, so

the trail remained opened with recommended signage. Naffah redirected the discussion back to the

VWT, advising that if a closure is approved, he is hopeful the Van Wycke Bicycle and Pedestrian

Connectivity project will reroute pedestrians along Edwards. However, he added that it is beneficial

to have an extension approved, as it will buy the City enough time to get input from the community

and repair the trail.

Davies stated that the trail has been closed for over a year, and if it is going to be closed it should

have had a CDP at time of closure. He questioned what had taken so long to bring it to a public

hearing. He stressed that when trails are closed, for an extended period of time, it makes it difficult to

reopen. Additionally, he is concerned with the lack of public engagement, due to the delayed process.

Naffah addressed the concern regarding the length of time it took to come before the public, advising

that the City has been working on a few projects which caused delays. He discussed his meetings

with the CCC and explained that initially he didn’t know that it required an after-the-fact CDP. He

also added, that multiple residents advised that walking along Edwards Street doesn’t provide the

same experience as walking on the trails. Thus, the City, via the Connectivity project, has added vista

points as we want people to enjoy the beauty of our area.

Public Comment Written comments were received from K. Lake (Trinidad), G. Kenny (Trinidad/Trails Committee),

and D. Bruce (Trinidad) in opposition of the temporary closure of a portion of the Van Wycke Trail.

Written comment was received from K. Tays (Arcata) requesting clarification, regarding the

information surrounding the closure of the Van Wycke Trail.

B. Kenny (Trinidad) stated that with just a little shovel work the trail can be made more useable. He

added that he doesn’t believe the City needs a CDP to perform maintenance on a trail.

A comment was received via chat from J. Beaupre (Trinidad) advising he would like the Van Wycke

Trail to remain open. He noted it is rough, but useable. He added that Edwards Street is dangerous

for pedestrians.

D. Bruce (Trinidad) stated he wants the trail to remain open, as adding steps is easy. He noted that

years ago, a resident would maintain the trail by use of driving his jeep over the trail. He advised that

the City gets into a slippery slope if a public access easement is closed, as it makes it easier to

continue the closure permanently.


In response, City Planner Parker made a few clarifications. First, it is a City right-of-way, so public

access wouldn’t be lost. Second, if the trail is moved upslope it would require working with the

neighbors. Third, cutting vegetation and creation of steps is not considered repair and maintenance,

as the trail is in a sensitive area, so it would require review and the temporary closure would remain.

Lastly, the goal is to save the trail.

B. Kenny (Trinidad) stated he disagrees with Parker. He also questioned if a survey had been done.

Parker confirmed a survey was completed.

Committee Discussion

The committee decided to provide individual comments regarding the recommended temporary

closure of the Van Wycke Trail.

Committee member Kenny advised she is in opposition of the trail closure. While she acknowledged

repairs are needed, she advised that the Van Wycke Trail is passable. She stated that the City’s

insurance company, PARSAC, should be challenged on their position of directing the City to close

the Van Wycke Trail. She wants to see the trail remain open.

Committee member Laos stated she is in favor of a temporary closure, but only if the City does its

due diligence and ensures the appropriate public process is followed. She noted that public input is

vital. However, she acknowledged that the fact remains that PARSAC did make a written

recommendation for a specific outcome. She suggested that it’s may be worth entering into a

discussion with PARSAC torevisit their reasons for recommending closure as opposed to warning

signs and see if there are alternatives to closure that would maintain the City's coverage. She noted

that regardless of the outcome, the same process needs to be followed with all trails. She suggested

developing standards to evaluate trail condition which will guide decisions on closures and/or

repairs. She noted that if a process with standards is followed, it is easier to come to a reasonable and

defensible recommendation for closure (or remaining open) of a trail. She stated the City needs to be

consistent and base decisions on facts, noting temporary and permanent closures are two very

different things. She advised that she can support the continuance of a temporary closure until an

alternative plan for closure or repair is developed.

Planning Commissioner Kelly stated that the City needs to be better prioritizing trail repairs, because

the current conditions reflect poorly on the City. She added this needs to occur on both the Van

Wycke and Axel LindgrenMemorial Trail, as well. She acknowledged that liability is a concern, but

noted that the City is entitled to immunity under the California trail immunity statute (Government

Code section 831.4, subdivision (b)1). However, she is unsure about the City’s liability now that

PARSAC has notified the City that the trail is unsafe. She stated that her current position is to close

Van Wycke temporarily. She also agreed that the City needs to be consistent on all trails.

City Council member Davies stated that a process needs to be created and followed for a trail closure

to occur. He advised that he is not in favor of temporarily closing the Van Wycke Trail, because it is

not currently necessary; he feels the ALMT is in worse condition. In addition, he suggests that a plan

for repair should be in place prior to closure. He noted that when a trail is closed temporarily without

a plan, the length of closure will continue, as it is easier to not make a plan than to proceed with

repair. He advised that he would like a plan of repair, before making a decision regarding a

temporary closure. He discussed the similarity between the Van Wycke Trail and the Parker Creek

Trail, noting that a similar repair could be done. He stated that the City should look more into the


California trail immunity statute. He also stressed the importance of transparency, and that public

input is vital.

Public Comment

B. Kenny (Trinidad) stated there is a double standard upon examination of the risk assessment report,

in regards to the closure of the Van Wycke Trail and not the Axel Lindgren Memorial Trail.

City Manager Naffah clarified that hazards, noted by PARSAC, on the Axel Lindgren Memorial

Trail were repaired. Thus, a closure was no longer needed. In response to the closure of the VWT,

Naffah reiterated that the City is following PARSAC’s recommendation due to insurance protection.

He made note, that they may cover the City for the first accident, but it’s questionable if they would

cover the City if a second accident occurred. He stated he doesn’t want to put the City in jeopardy.


City Council member Davies suggested the City research California State code for trail recreation

liability. Additionally, he added that all public comments regarding this issue should be brought to

the Planning Commission’s attention. Further noting that all of information needs to be made public,

so the public understands why certain recommendations are being made. He voiced the need for

transparency.

City Manager Naffah advised that the City has had meetings with the owners of the adjacent

properties. He explained that one of the property owners wants the trail open, the 2nd is only

concerned about the trees being trimmed, and the 3rd is fine with the trail is open, but wants the trail

lowered. Additionally, he added that all property owners conditioned their wants on how Tsurai felt.

Naffah stated it was speculated that the property owners wanted the trail closed, but that wasn’t the

case.

Committee member Kenny stated that she has noticed that someone is piling dog fecal matter on the

trail. She stated she believes an adjacent property owner is being hostile. Parker stated the property

owners have showed concerned about people trespassing, as it becomes a liability for the owner.

Planning Commissioner Kelly questioned the utility work on the Van Wycke Trail, specifically

asking if there is a timeframe. Naffah discussed the information Kelly was questioning.

Staff advised that the Trails Committee’s comments will be passed onto the Planning Commission.

2. Discussion/Action: Discussion Regarding Galindo Street Trail.


City Council member Davies stated there has been a lack of documentation regarding the potential

closure of the Galindo Trail, due to it passing over culturally sensitive areas. He advised that he has

provided the easement agreement, which has been posted as supplemental material online.

City Planner Parker explained that the Galindo Trail has a complicated history, adding that the

records aren’t clear. She advised that she tried putting a history of the trail together, but it doesn’t

match up with what people remember. She noted recent agreements and discussions have been

relatively verbal, and the City hasn’t taken formal action. In order for formal action to occur, the City

Council would have put it in motion. She also advised that a closure would require a Local Coastal

Program amendment, adding there could be some other access rights in play. Parker stated that


alternatives need to be considered, and what would be beneficial would be to acquire comments from

the Committee on how to move forward, but not a formal recommendation.

Committee member Kenny advised she would like to see alternatives to closing the trail fully

discussed with all parties. She noted that she attended the City Council meeting when it was recently

discussed. Kenny questioned if the trail could be rerouted farther from the gravesites, and if not, why

not? She acknowledged that she is sensitive to native culture, and wants to see due process done.

However, she wants to know why the City cannot reroute.

Commissioner Kelly stated that Galindo trail is one of the nicer trails in the City, and if it is unable to

rerouted, she questioned if it could become a lookout point. She stated that if studies are done and it

shows there is a gravesite, she would be in support of a closure. She added that Sarah Lindgren

started a petition on change.org and it currently has 3,000 signatures to close the trail.

Committee member Laos stated that the Yurok, BIA, and Trinidad Rancheria supported trail closure.

She advised that as a member of the Trails Committee she recognizes that there is more to take into

account, than just those voices. However, she added that native voices should carry more weight

during the discussions, but acknowledged that there are still unclear issues. In regards to the Galindo

Trail, she stated she doesn’t see a level of clarity yet, even with the current studies, such as walking

over a gravesite.

Laos continued to explain that due process and due diligence needs to be done. She added that she

has personal feelings regarding the petition with 3,000 signatures, as she spoke to many signers who

advised they were only given one side of the story. Those individuals were told they were stepping

on graves, but that is not clear yet. She stated that is not full disclosure, and more investigation

surrounding the site needs to be done. Laos also discussed the importance of compromise. Further

stating that all that’s been done so far has been different parties giving their opinions, and that if

compromise is sought a facilitator or mediation is needed.

Public Comment Written comment was received by D. Bruce (Trinidad) in opposition of a permanent closure of the

Galindo Trail.

B. Kenny (Trinidad) stated that while a lookout is fine, he noted that the Galindo trail has utility, and

it’s beautiful. He added that when Axel Lindgren Jr, saw the trail he stated not to move the trail, but

did note however that the trail location wasn’t ideal. Kenny added that no one knows where the grave

is presently. However, the museum has a photo of a grave with a white picket fence. Also, if the

grave is on public property it triggers action by California Native American Heritage Commission.

D. Bruce (Trinidad) questioned if it is possible to reach out to Humboldt State University and have a

student group perform the research to find the grave. He stated that the university may have the

equipment to perform a non-invasive study. Bruce advised that he is sensitive to closing the trail, but

stated that if the grave is on the trail it should be closed. He would like to see an open discussion

between all parties.

Committee Discussion Kelly stated that if a grave is found, one should err on the side of caution regarding marking the

grave, as one runs the risk of grave robbing.


Laos stated it might be worth requesting the tribal governments to provide a summary or

recommendation regarding trail closure.

Kenny noted that the Galindo Trail is an escape route for tsunami warnings.

Laos also addressed D. Bruce’s comments regarding having an HSU student group perform a student

project to find the gravesite. She stated this needs to be handled by professional archeologists.

Additionally, finding the location of the gravesite should be done in consultation with the tribe and

performed by the tribes. She also provided some clarity surrounding the gravesites in question. The

gravesites are occupied by a married couple - a Caucasian man, and a local Native woman. At the

time of their death, they were buried near where their home was. Laos stated it is not a historic grave,

but nonetheless it is still a gravesite. She added that a majority of the individuals that signed the

petition believe this gravesite to be a part of the Tsurai Village, but it is not. This misinformation

caused individuals to be emotionally stirred up.

Davies stated the City needs to explore rerouting the trail, if able to do so. He also noted that he

would like all comments surrounding the Galindo Trail to be kept in one place, and provided to the

Planning Commission and City Council when relevant. Davies also agreed with Laos that mediation

is a great idea to helping all parties come to a compromise.

VII. REQUEST FOR FUTURE ITEMS

Trails Policy

Confirm to present their annual report to the City Council.

VIII. ADJOURNMENT

Meeting adjourned at 7:01 pm. Special meeting scheduled for August 21, 2020 at 5:00 pm.

Submitted by: Approved by:

Angela Zetter Tom Davies

Administrative Assistant Council Member


MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE TRINIDAD TRAILS COMMITTEE

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2020 VIA WEBEX

I. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL (5:00 pm)

Committee Members Present: Davies, Kenny, Kelly

Alternate Committee Members Present: Laos, West

Committee/Alternate Members Absent: Brown, Clayburn, Myers

City Staff: Zetter, Parker, Mateer

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

None – minutes will be reviewed at the next scheduled regular meeting


None


City Planner Parker provided an update about trail repair; stating there has been discussion with the City

Manager about repairing the stairs at the bottom of the Trinidad Head Trail, but noted that the stairs at the

base of the Axel Lindgren trail will require a CDP. She also stated that the City should create a trail

maintenance plan, either for all of City trails or individual trails, as well as beginning the process to

acquire a CDP that will be valid for 10-15 years, as it would allow the City more time to complete

necessary trail repairs.

City Councilmen and Committee Chair Davies advised that the Connectivity Project was discussed at the

September City Council meeting.

V. COMMITTEE MEMBER REPORTS

Planning Commissioner and Committee member Kelly thanked the Trinidad Coastal Land Trust and City

staff for repairing the Parker Creek Trail. She noted that she is still waiting to hold a discussion with State

level staff regarding interconnected State trails within City limits.

Davies advised that TCLT representative Morehead has resigned from his role with the TCLT and the

committee. Davies added that the TCLT is holding a meeting on Wednesday to float the idea about who

would want to volunteer to fill the vacancy on the Committee. He also mentioned that the City may need

to revisit the appointment of the visitor services representative, as clarification regarding appointment

may be warranted.

Committee member Laos reminded the Committee that she is on the TCLT board, so for now she can

share information.

VI. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS

1. Discussion/Action: Draft Trails Policy Review.


Committee member Davies requested clarification on why the draft policy has come back to the

Committee. He advised that when the Trails Committee presented it to the Planning Commission, he was

under the impression it was not coming back for further review.

Committee member Kelly explained that the Planning Commission’s feedback was for the Trails

Committee to clarify what type of document the draft Trails Policy is. The Planning Commission

suggested the draft Trails Policy be a master plan, instead of a policy. Kelly also disclosed that she

exchanged an email with Davies, regarding that the document was meant to be a stand-alone document.


She added the Committee, during a past meeting, removed the purpose of the document. She stated the

purpose should be integrated back in. Kelly also advised that there was a larger discussion with the

Planning Commission about trail descriptions and how much they align with the General Plan, noting

they should be similar. Kelly opined that once the Committee makes its comments at the meeting, the

document should be passed to the City Council.

Parker built upon the summary provided by Kelly, stating that the draft trails policy, seems like a hybrid

document. She added that something what would be useful is to make sure that the trails are described as

how the Committee wants them to exist. She explained that it would help the City more easily acquire

grants. Parker went on to state that another suggestion is that the draft policy be consistent with the

General Plan. She explained the importance of consistency between the two documents. She also advised

that, per the Planning Commission, the Committee needs to work on separating the codified rules from

the recommended rules and policies.

Parker explained that the Planning Commission’s discussion was relatively broad. Kelly clarified that

Planning Commission read the document and reviewed Parker’s comments, and they agreed with agreed

her suggestions/changes. Committee member Laos advised that she agrees with Parker’s comments and is

inclined to accept them.

Kelly also added that in terms of specificity, the Committee should err on the side of caution, because

things change over time. She suggested having SHN (C. Mateer) edit the document and bring a clean

copy forward to the Trails Committee for one final review. After the final review it will then be passed on

to the City Council. Davies agreed with Kelly, and added that the trail definitions need to match what is in

the General Plan.

Committee member Kenny advised that she reviewed the edits, but noticed the appendix and monitoring

report were no longer included, possibly by mistake.

Council member and Alternative Committee member West suggested changing “Any additions,

restrictions, or amendments…” in the 4th paragraph of section A. Introduction – Background, as it reads

awkwardly. Parker agreed with West, and added that she wants to clean up the paragraph because City

procedures need to be followed. However, she was unsure if the City has a specific policy or procedure

for this. She also explained that she left in the part about how public comments will be accepted, but she

acknowledged it could be developed further. Parker also suggested stating the process for amendments,

but it may not be necessary.

West also questioned who is a part of the discussion when signage is placed next to adjacent properties of

cultural significance. Davies stated signage must follow the City’s legal public process. Laos opined that

the bigger issue is the lack of having a signage plan. She also pointed out that certain groups don’t attend

the meetings, or even use the opportunity to comment via email.

Kelly disclosed that she reached out to Mayor Ladwig and City Manager Naffah about creating a master

signage plan, which is a project that would come before the Planning Commission. She noted the

importance of giving the community an opportunity to weigh in on signage.

Public Comment

R. Clompus (City Councilmen) suggested the possibility of adding a map of the trails to the draft Trails

Policy document, and include what an individual might see when using the trails in the trails descriptions.


Laos stated a map could be added to the appendix. However, the committee disagreed with City

Councilmen Clompus regarding adding detail to the trails descriptions, as it is better suited for trail guides

which are in brochures.


A discussion regarding whether the document is a policy or master plan occurred. Kelly also added that

her recollection is that if the document is to be a policy, it needs to be codified with ordinances. Parker

circled back to the question of what is the intent of the document, and she clarified this will not be a part

of the LCP. The Committee concluded that SHN (Parker or Mateer) needs to comb through the policy and

clarify what the recommendations verses policies are, as the initial purpose of the document started out as

something that staff could use to guide them on trail maintenance.

Parker stated reorganization of the document is needed, and once done it will help guide what the

document’s purpose will be. Davies questioned whether or not rules/laws/codes need to be included if it’s

a recommending document. Parker clarified that they wouldn’t be needed, as the document is setting a

starting a point for where the City’s trails are at and where the City wants them to be. The document

provides a road map, which will help the City consider a more comprehensive trail ordinance, and help

set the budget for the trails each year. Laos noted commented that the Trails Committee’s annual report

will help dictate how maintenance funds are spent.

Kelly commented that it seems like the Trails Committee is making some rules for the trails, so she

suggested that the statement motorcycles aren’t allowed on the trails be added to the document.

Motion (Kelly/Kenny) that the Trails Committee accept the substantive changes suggested by the

Planning Commission and City Planner, and that the Trails Committee review a clean copy of the

document one final time with the intention that it will then be moved to the City Council. Passed (4-0).

Passed unanimously.

Parker added that she will provide two copies of the document, one with track changes and a second clean

copy.

VII. REQUEST FOR FUTURE ITEMS

Trails Repair Priorities and Preparation for annual report

Status on suggestions from 2019 prioritization plan

Update on Budget allocation and renewals

Initial discussion of signage

VIII. ADJOURNMENT

Meeting adjourned at 6:15 pm. Regular quarterly meeting scheduled for at October 20, 2020 5:00 pm.

Submitted by: Approved by:

Angela Zetter Tom Davies

Administrative Assistant Council Member

DISCUSSION AGENDA ITEM 1

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ATTACHED 0 Pages

1. Discussion/Action: Status on Trail Maintenance Projects Vis-a-vis Recommendations Made in Annual Plan.



2. Discussion/Action: Budget Allocations/Budget Remaining.

Discussion Item #2:

Budget Allocations/Budget Remaining

FY 2019-2020

Budget: $10,000.00

Expenditure: $97.34 – Miller Farms – Replacement equipment used to maintain trails.

Remaining Balance: $9,902.66

FY 2020-2021

Budget: $10,000.00

Expenditure: $42.88 – McKinleyville Ace Home & Garden Center – Chain barricade for Van Wycke Trail

Remaining Balance: $9,957.12



3. Discussion/Action: Signage.

notice and call of a special meeting of the trinidad

Documents