The Smith Group presentation of the Cahoon Memorial Park Lakefront Master Plan

Mr. Jason Stangland, the Smith Group presented the Cahoon Memorial Park Public Access Study for Council review. The study is available on the City of Bay Village website, at: www.cityofbayvillage.com/DocumentCenter/View/2639/2021-0201-Cahoon-Public-Access-Study-Council-Review.

Mr. Clark welcomed Mr. Stangland and advised that Mr. Stangland has been involved in working with the City of Bay Village for the county-wide initiative of shoreline improvements.

Mr. Stangland moved through the review, noting that it has been a great project and it is a good opportunity to partner and leverage some of the broader thinking that is happening within the county about public access. The process used has included on-line survey feedback, a few public meetings and a lot of stakeholder discussions about what specifically should occur in the park, focused on the northern portion. He noted that there has been a lot going on in terms of planning for the park itself, and there are other projects and works going on, whether that be the water trail itself or the connectivity study that was done by the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency or the Bay Village Master Plan. These are all important guiding documents that have a lot to say about what should happen in Cahoon Memorial Park, and ultimately things that should be built on rather than being thought of as being replaced through this process. A majority of the time emphasized on the lakefront itself. There were a lot of issues there with coastal erosion that were primarily the emphasis and effort when looking at geo-technical explorations and things of that nature.

They did want to also think about how this relates to the southern portions of the park, and heard a lot from the stakeholders about the importance of connection. There are way finder sign recommendations, trail recommendations, and some parking modifications or recommendations, particularly in the Rose Hill area.

The document itself (available through the link above) gives four major sections. One is an overview of the project, and a sort of description of the background of the process including some of the site investigations including the coastal analysis as well as considerations like the geo-technical exploration specifically looking at cost-ability, which is a concern. Some of the recommendations specifically are identified in Section C, dealing not just with the north, but some of the south, and the final section, or Section D really focuses on the implementation section. How are the dollars figured out, how can we move ahead? There are some phases that make sense to move ahead in front of others, or maybe more dependent on other projects or other things moving forward.

Mr. Stangland pointed out stream restoration areas, connections that are complete or are important to think about completing, possibly connections over to the Huntington Reservation and a number of improvements along the creek itself, which include creating a slightly narrower channel toward the mouth but creating a flood plain that will allow for some ecological enhancements through that corridor. Ultimately, they created a plan that is very similar to today, with a little different form and a lot of different uses that build upon what there currently is.

Mr. Stangland noted that this is a fifteen to twenty year vision but gives an idea of what can be. The Boat Club area, just east of the Cahoon Creek, is one of the pieces that could interface with the water trail. He pointed out an idea of what Bay Point might look like and how spacious it can be with opening it up and removing some of the trees, adding different vegetation, and creating some cobble areas and habitat that starts to create ecological benefit but is also some protection for the bluff area behind it.

Mr. Stangland continued reviewing the study, pointing out the area looking over Bay Point, a meet area where Cahoon Road basically ends with a pause of space that looks out over the lake front, a view down towards the water, the idea that there may be some pieces along the west side that give a mini-solstice type of experience. They heard from a lot of different users that it was important to have not just sunset views, but sunrise views as well and celebrate those moments.

The Implementation section of the study will be focused on mostly this evening. Mr. Stangland stated that it is a big number and those big numbers come with big things to understand, most specifically that there is a series of costs associated with bluff stabilization. When looking at the geo-technical investigations they wanted to make sure they understood what a stable bluff profile means. One of the things that needs to be done is to stop toe-erosion, which is being seen even in the shale bluffs. There is undercutting that occurs and that results in loss of the bluff at the top of the bluff. The recommendation from the geo-technical engineer was bluff stabilization at the toe, but also pulling it back a little bit, 30 feet at the top of the bluff, laying it back very steeply, but now there is a situation where it is overhanging in some areas. The important part of that is that you can do nothing, but the reality is things will continue to evolve. It is how proactive you want to be with respect to that. The improvements can be left back a little bit, or continue to move back the fence that exists there today, but there will need to be a response in some way. They are assuming that they are being ultimately proactive and there is probably $14 million or $15 million of shoreline stabilization that includes pulling back the bluffs and creating some toe protection of the large $43 million number for the entire project. The number of $43 million does carry some contingencies because of working at a master plan level and making a series of logical assumptions at this point in the process. Mr. Stangland stated that he would like to make it clear that there are ways to implement this project incrementally. While he does not want this to be a plan that is seen and something insurmountable and will be stuck on a shelf, there are some pieces and parts that can be done independently. Each of the nodes can be done independently. Areas C and E are primarily the most dependent upon something else happening. For example, the Bay Boat Club area could be enhanced without doing the rest of the areas. Similarly, the west side could be changed by enhancing Bay Point and the lake front, pulling back the top of the bluff a little bit and adjusting things, but keeping a lot of what exists. Areas C and E are primarily the areas that can’t be finalized until the adjacent ones are done.

Where to start is the biggest question. Mr. Stangland stated that the Mayor has done a good job of talking with the county about the goal of the lakefront public access plan that the county is leading. Is the initiative about a few little investments, or is it significant investments that change the character of public access to the lakefront? The way it has been spoken about is that these are sizeable investments, something akin to three or four “Euclid’s” (what has been done in the City of Euclid). If you think about Euclid as a $10 to $12 million project, they are looking at substantial projects. Is this an opportunity to potentially partner with them? Maybe. This is what the Mayor has been having discussions with them about and will continue to have more discussions with them about. Section A seems like a great opportunity to greater public access. There is already a trail that goes under the newly constructed bridge that could provide that immediate access to the lakefront. Then the bluff could be pulled back and stabilized and create lakefront access along the whole edge. That seems like a logical goal, with respect to the lakefront access plan that the county is advancing. That total investment for this Phase 1 of this area might be somewhere around $17 million or $18 million with 25% contingency included and a lot of that is just coming from how the bluffs are addressed. That can be broken down further. Going back to where the project started it was about Bay Point itself and if that piece can be better utilized. This is one area where you could have a complete project and almost leave the entire portion of the upland area on the north part of the park alone as it stands today and just enhance access on the western portion which is a little bit more toward a project scale like the City of Euclid. That might be the logical place to start.

Mr. Stangland stated that they appreciate the City’s efforts to review the plan and make it read like they like with the information they need. He stated that his hope is that this is not the end of a project but the beginning of the next phase. This is a great opportunity to serve as a model for the county, and there have been many hands within their offices to make this something that is a reality with the visualizations of logical investments.

Mr. Clark called upon comments or questions from the Council members.

Mr. Clark asked Mr. Stangland to comment on this being part of a larger initiative that the county is undertaking. There have been a couple of resident segments over the past few weeks, talking about improving about thirty miles of shoreline.

Mr. Stangland stated that on January 12 and January 14 there were meetings with lakefront property owners and the focus is that if there are lakefront property owners that are interested in a public/private partnership that may expand public access, similar to a model that the City of Euclid has employed, there is that opportunity. If they are not interested then there is no opportunity or partnership, or intent to be adversarial and try to take land. There were two meetings that talked about making sure that the landowners understand what the initiative is. It is about making better connections from the existing access points, two of which are located within Bay Village. On January 28 there was a public meeting that focused on helping the Smith Group understand what improvements may be better connected so that if there are lakefront access points that exist already are there better opportunities to connect them either along the lake or along existing rights-of-way or roads like Lake Road that might provide multi-mobile access. There are two different perspectives – one is land owner and one is the public in general. Hopefully they can find a marriage where there is interest in increasing public access from both groups. By July or August there should be some recommendations coming out relative to where the county would seek to make initial investment in two to four priority investment areas. When you look at what this plan is about and the opportunity this plan has, the Mayor is having discussion with folks there to see if this is the right fit for them to participate in, in some way.

Mr. Tadych asked how much of a lift there would be in Section A.

Mr. Stangland stated the recommendation from the geo-technical engineer has been is that if the bluff is thirty feet high it would be laid back roughly thirty feet. It is a one to one situation. It is a steep profile and they would never do something like that on the east side of the county where it is much more sand, gravel and clay. With the shale bluffs here it would be something you could lay back with a steep profile. They said conservatively to figure 1.25 the height of the bluff. It might be up to 1 to 1 or even steeper than that.

Ms. DeGeorge addressed Mr. Stangland and thanked him for including in this iteration a lot more language about bluff stabilization and protection. She noted that she saw that more and more throughout the pages than what was in the packet received last December. She does not want to underestimate that and stress to any residents who may be paying attention that this is not all going to happen at once. We need to stabilize the bluff before we look to anything else, while understanding that sometimes those things will have to go in tandem. An approval of this this evening would simply mean, just like the City Master Plan, we are using this as a guide. It doesn’t mean it is a “have to” and I do not residents to think that we are spending $49 million tonight, which we are not. This is going to be a pieces/parts deal. I just wanted to make these points because I know there is a lot of confusion out there.

Mr. Stangland thanked Ms. DeGeorge for emphasizing the importance of the bluff stabilization. In order to maximize public access and take advantage of some of the partners and funding that may be available, that is a great way to do it.

Mr. Tadych stated that he assumes the dollars Mr. Stangland is talking about are today’s dollars, or is there some type of protection built in based on a certain amount of growth?

Mr. Stangland stated that it does not include projections, although they would typically include two to three percent annually following the consumer price index. It does include a fairly hefty contingency at this point and they have been relatively conservative because they do not have detailed surveys yet. It is hoped that those numbers will be able to come down and we have been appropriately conservative at this point.

Mr. Winzig thanked Mr. Stangland and his team for the quality of work. Throughout the process they have done a terrific job of listening to all the different constituents here in Bay, not only in the administration, but from the community. You have done a lot of problem solving. There were people that were walkers and bikers, there were people that were boaters, people that loved the sunset and recreation, and many others involved. You answered those questions and brought us ideas that on our own we would not have thought of. Mr. Winzig expressed again appreciation to Mr. Stangland and his team.

Mr. Stangland said that the administration and Council represent the community well. This community loves this place and you can tell how special it is. They are proud to have been a part of it and hope to in the future.

Mr. Tadych asked Law Director Barbour if this project must go before the State of Ohio, if you change the slope and make other changes.

Mr. Barbour asked if Mr. Tadych meant the court. He stated that there would probably be several regulatory approvals that would have to be made. When you build close to the water you usually need the approval of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR).

Mr. Stangland responded that there is certainly the Cahoon Will aspect which he would leave to Mr. Barbour. From a regulatory standpoint, all of these projects that touch the water in some way, creek or lake, typically have Army Corps of Engineers, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife, all play a role in that. Those processes for permitting are not fast. The permitting process for something like this would more than likely run twelve to fourteen months.

Mr. Barbour stated that as far as the Cahoon Will, things like changing the trail and reconfiguring the parking lot, entrances, and things like that would infringe on the will. We would have to think about that if it becomes a reality. We are a ways away from having to put pencil to paper on these issues.

Mr. Clark stated to Mr. Stangland that, on behalf of Council, the Smith Group did an outstanding job of listening to the residents, taking into consideration all the different opinions and the finished project is A-1. Dimensions to this project have been brought forward that we were not aware of six months ago.

Ms. Maier stated that she thinks that was a very creative and well-intentioned way of dealing with the bluff stabilization because we all have a responsibility as trustees of Cahoon Memorial Park and if you are going to do a major infrastructure work whatever else that can be gained at the same time helps the park get to the point where it is a little bit more cohesive and more of it can be used, and can accommodate future uses with water sport access. The Smith Group did an outstanding job of stitching it all together.

Mr. Clark stated that this will likely be done in component parts over time. Not everything happens at once. Mr. Clark thanked Mr. Stangland for his work and presentation.