Trinidad City Council
April 14, 2026

City Council Meeting Agenda: 04-14-2026 cc Page 1
Posted: Friday, April 10, 2026

NOTICE AND CALL OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE

TRINIDAD CITY COUNCIL
The Trinidad City Council will hold a regular meeting on TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 2026, at 6:00 PM
at the Trinidad Town Hall, 409 Trinity Street, Trinidad, CA.

CLOSED SESSION BEGINS AT 5:00PM
For your convenience, this meeting will also be held via videoconference, hosted on the Zoom platform. Learn more about Zoom here: https://zoom.us
PUBLIC COMMENT: Public comment may be submitted via email in advance of the meeting, or in an orderly process during the meeting. If you do not have access to email and you would like to provide a written statement, please deliver your comments to 409 Trinity Street, Trinidad CA, by 2:00pm on the meeting day, or email to [email protected] HOW TO PARTICIPATE: You are invited to participate in person at the Trinidad Town Hall, or by Zoom. The City will publish a direct link to the Zoom teleconference, along with the participant code, on the City Calendar page online at https://www.trinidad.ca.gov/calendar
To phone in, dial 1-888-278-0296, Conference Code: 685171 Meeting ID: 859 1701 1644 Passcode: 207493 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 IV. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION
V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – 03/10/2026 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.

City Council Meeting Agenda: 04-14-2026 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 – February 2026

2. Law Enforcement Report – March 2026.

DISCUSSION/ACTION AGENDA ITEMS

1. Proclamation 2026-01; Acknowledging April 2026 as Sexual Assault Awareness Month.

2. Discussion/Decision to Award Construction Contract for Main Street, Patrick’s Point Drive, and Westhaven Drive Rehabilitation, State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Project RPL5036(022) to GR Sundberg, Inc.

3. Update/Discussion regarding 2026 Planning Commission Projects & Priorities.

4. Update/Discussion regarding the April 04, 2026, Westhaven Drive Water Main Leak and Extended Service Outage.

5. Continued Discussion/Decision regarding Edwards Street Crosswalk Safety Improvements.

6. Staff Activity Report – March 2026.

X. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
XI. ADJOURNMENT
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR:

MARCH 10, 2026 CC
Supporting Documentation follows with: 6 PAGES
03-10-2026 City Council Meeting Minutes Page 1

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TRINIDAD CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 2026 (LIVE/HYBRID)
I. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Kelly called the live-hybrid meeting to order at 6:00pm. Council members in attendance: Tuttle, Breckenridge, Kenny, and Waskiewicz. City Staff in attendance: City Clerk/Interim City Manager Gabriel Adams, Special Project Manager Angela Cather, Administrative Assistant Anton Souza. Approximately (12) participants were present by video-conference, and (15) were present live at the beginning of the meeting.

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ADJOURN TO 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 IV. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION – No reportable action taken.

V. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Motion (Breckenridge/Kenny) to approve the agenda as submitted. Passed unanimously.

VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – 02/10/2026 cc
Motion (Kenny/Waskiewicz) to approve the minutes as written. Passed 4-0-1 (Kelly was absent).

VII. COUNCIL REPORTS/COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS
Tuttle: Nothing to report.

Waskiewicz: Deferred to consent agenda item 3, updating the RREDC JPA.

Kenny: Attended the February HCAOG meeting.

Breckenridge: Nothing to report.

Kelly: Attended LAFCO. Term expires in June.

VIII.PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT – City Manager & Law Enforcement HCSO Lt. McCall was unable to attend, so City Manager Adams summarized the February stats. Adams noted the low call volume, and thanked the City’s public safety team (HCSO and Pacific Coast Security) for proactive service to this community.

IX. ITEMS FROM THE FLOOR.
(Three (3) minute limit per Speaker unless Council approves request for extended time.) Ana Davis – Trinidad resident
Requested the HSIP crosswalk signs to be on a future agenda for removal.

X. CONSENT AGENDA

1. Financial Statements – December 2025

2. Financial Statements – January 2026

3. Law Enforcement Report – February 2026.

4. Resolution 2026-01; Humboldt County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update.

5. Redwood Regional Economic Development Commission JPA Update.

6. SHN On-Call Planning Service Agreement Three Month Contract Extension.

Motion (Kelly/Breckenridge) to approve the consent agenda as submitted. Passed unanimously. 03-10-2026 City Council Meeting Minutes Page 2
Xl. DISCUSSION/ACTION AGENDA ITEMS

1. Discussion/Decision regarding Resolution 2026-02; Affirming Trinidad’s Commitment to Inclusivity and Support for Due Process in Immigration Enforcement
This item was brought forward by request from Indivisible Trinidad. Interim City Manager Adams read the resolution aloud as requested. Councilmember Breckenridge noted that many of our long-standing assumptions about the moral way to treat others about their entitled humane treatment and due process of law are being tested across the nation. The entire framework of meaning in our communities threatens to disappear. By this proposed resolution, we are affirming values that have been part of Trinidad’s foundation for a long time. If I don’t stand up for the humane and the lawful treatment of everyone, then in a passive way I am responsible for inhumane and unlawful treatment of others myself.

Council comments included:

Kenny: I’m abstaining from voting on this one. I don’t think it’s our role to use our meeting process to criticize, shape, or pushback on federal policy. I’m not a big DEI person. In my lifetime I’ve seen diversity of this country increase tremendously, and it is increasing. You have to let the river flow at its own pace. You can’t push the river. Start finding ways to bring both sides closer together.

Kelly: I helped write the resolution. It reaffirms a core value of local government that everyone in our community should be treated with dignity and respect, and feel comfortable participating in civic life. It also provides a very clear statement for both residents and visitors, at a time where immigration issues are being widely discussed. The resolution doesn’t change the law or City’s authority, it clarifies our values. It simply asks that people are treated appropriately.

Waskiewicz: I agree 100% with everything said, but don’t think it belongs as a resolution of the City Council.

Do we have to restate our beliefs every time a new administration comes into office? Public comment included:

Tina Freeland – Trinidad
My family and neighbors support this resolution as a statement of our commitment to the people in our community. This is a non-partisan political action taken as a statement of allegiance to our Constitution and to democracy. I want all residents and visitors to feel safe. It’s our moral obligation. I have seen bigotry and ugliness through my years living in Southern California. Trinidad is a caring, safe, and humane place to live. I want it to remain that way.

Elaine Weinreb – Trinidad area resident
I agree with Freeland. Symbols are extremely important. It helps to know you’re not alone.

Unknown resident
I was born in Canada, but have lived in Trinidad for 10 years. People go out of their way to be kind to others.

It’s been a source of inspiration for me. We should be looking into being a sanctuary city.

Debbie Rumberger – Trinidad area resident
Submitted comments in writing. I recently relocated to Trinidad and am happy to call it home because the people are kind, inclusive, and welcome here.

John Webb – Trinidad area resident
Encourage Council to adopt the resolution. We have ethnic variety in Trinidad, and a thriving native community.

I don’t want to see ICE here doing what they did in Minnesota.

Ana Davis – Trinidad
I’m a naturalized citizen from Poland, brought here as a child. Things have changed. May people remind us we were not born here. This helps.

Marsha Hughes (online) – Trinidad area resident
I fully support this resolution.
03-10-2026 City Council Meeting Minutes Page 3
Jonna Kitchen – Trinidad
I didn’t expect to feel so moved by the comments, but I support this resolution and want to speak out as a Jewish person. Not speaking out would feel remiss. I hope that our sweet town of Trinidad would see more benefit to harm in adopting this resolution.

Betsy Musick – Trinidad Bay Eatery & Gallery owner.

With an LGBTQ staff, it would be appreciated knowing that the City makes this statement.

Council comments included:

Kenny: The list of inclusive characteristics does not include political party affiliation. Are we really thinking about a bigger picture here, or are we aligning ourselves with current political divisions. Is there a presumption that we need to rebut that we’re not inclusive? Have we done something wrong? Breckenridge: If/when I see disrespect in the street, I would weigh in. Leaving anything off the list doesn’t negate the message of inclusivity.

Motion (Breckenridge/Tuttle) to approve Resolution 2026-02. 3-yes, 2-abstain (Kenny, Waskiewicz).

2. Discussion/Decision to Appoint Two Councilmembers to Represent the City in Ad-hoc Government-toGovernment (G2G) Meetings with the Trinidad Rancheria and Yurok Tribe.

Interim City Manager Adams explained that the Council conducted a round of G2G consultations in January 2026 with both the Trinidad Rancheria and Yurok Tribe.

Several ongoing items of mutual interest would benefit from continued G2G consultations. No meetings have yet been scheduled, but preparing in advance with appointed members will make the scheduling process more convenient. Staff requests the Council appoint two (2) members to participate in G2G consultations, with dates and topics yet to be determined.

Upon appointment, Staff will notify both tribal entities that City representatives have been selected and the logistics to settle on consultation dates can begin.

Public comment included:

Jacque Hostler-Carmeson – Trinidad Rancheria Executive Director Request Councilmember Kenny not be appointed for G2G with Rancheria due to prior legal disputes he was involved in against the Rancheria.

Motion (Kelly/Waskiewicz) to appoint the following Councilmembers as follows, passing unanimously:
- G2G with Yurok Tribe: Kenny (primary), Waskiewicz/Tuttle (alternates). - G2G with Rancheria: Kelly (primary), Waskiewicz/Breckenridge (alternates).

3. Update/Discussion regarding January 03, 2026 Scenic Drive Water Leak Post Incident Report.

Interim City Manager Adams explained the emergency that occurred as a result of the January 03, 2026, Scenic Drive water leak has provoked community interest in the City’s water system’s resiliency. The Council was provided a detailed account of the incident on January 13, less than a week after the boil water notice was lifted. That discussion included management, technical, and operational staff to answer questions and help cap and bookmark the incident allowing staff to return to other priority tasks.

The purpose of this update is to acknowledge customer expectations of the City to operate a reliable water system, identify hindsight perspectives learned, and apply knowledge gained to short and long-term strategies to improve operational resiliency.

Adams full report, included in the meeting packet, was organized into several sections:

Accountabilty: Referencing several reasons prompting this follow up report including the public records request submitted by a local freelance reporter conducting her own investigation for the Lost Coast Outpost, a 03-10-2026 City Council Meeting Minutes Page 4
quote referenced by the County Fifth District Supervisor during a Board of Supervisors meeting referring to the incident as a comedy of errors, comments made by residents and business owners warning not to use the incident as an excuse to consider alternative water sources, and the request by Councilmember Waskiewicz for staff to return to Council with lessons learned.

Initial incident response: Detailing the leak location, pipe material that ruptured, weather conditions during the leak and following the repair, the water plant alarm and SCADA system data, mobilization, and analysis that included the following summary:
• While running numerous scenarios and analysis evaluating the minimum time this incident would have required under optimal circumstances, staff determined that it would have taken at least 3 hours from first alarm notice to sufficiently review the data and gather input needed to determine the gravity of the situation and execute a response plan.

By comparison, it took water department staff just over 4.5 hours from initial response to stabilization, during the overnight hours in extreme weather conditions. Considering the unprecedented set of circumstances surrounding the incident, including the fact that our team of young operators have never experienced a leak of this size and scope, the response was outstanding.

Stabilize and Evaluate: In order to stabilize the system, staff acted quickly to analyze variables and challenges ahead, starting a thorough evaluation to rule out further damages to system components, verifying the water quality remaining in the distribution system, replenishing water storage, and restoring service to all customers affected by the line break. “All-hands” staff and Council participated in the response. The following summary was provided:
• Considering that the City has been working diligently since 2023 to rebuild the entire operation staff from scratch, with three of the four operators have less than 2.5 years of experience in this profession, and three of the four receiving their T2 certifications within the last 18 months, this dedicated team responded fast, professionally, thoughtfully, and in a manner that deserves recognition by the community it serves.

Recover and Report: Adams noted that the boil water notice was lifted after state water regulators required two consecutive, bacteria-free samples in the 72-hour sampling period spanning January 04-07. Water operators maintained 24-hour coverage of the treatment plant from January 03-11 when the conservation alert was lifted.

Several staff meetings were held to evaluate the incident, focus on areas of improvement, and identify possible grant projects that aim to prevent or minimize incidents and recovery time. A full report was presented to the Council on January 13 with all staff present for questioning. • In summary, the water system recovered from a full storage loss in 7.5 days. Although equipment failure added approximately one day to the optimal recovery timeline, the maximum pumping intake and treatment rating for this plant, under a conservation alert in January, with Luffenholtz Creek in a highly turbid condition, would have taken a minimum of six (6) full days to recover from, leaving the water storage in a vulnerable state for at least four (4) days following a full storage system loss.

Furthermore, incident reporting transparency provides leadership the best tools for governing when impacts ripple beyond convenience. The economic impacts of these situations are real, and provide excellent reference for capital improvement prioritization, budgeting, and long-range planning.

Improvements/Enhanced Procedures: Several internal procedure improvements have been initiated following the January 03 event, along with short and long-term equipment improvements identified:
- Operators have updated their procedure requiring the on-call operator to carry an independent water alarm phone.
- Enhanced pre-storm checklists reviewed in preparation incoming weather that has real potential to damage the facility, distribution system, and spike raw water turbidity. - Continued collaboration with the City Engineer and Grant team to consider developing infrastructure improvements that;
o Will help make trucking water to the tanks more efficient. 03-10-2026 City Council Meeting Minutes Page 5
o Provide power to the tank site to enable remote valve operation. o Reduce treatment complications during periods of extreme turbidity. - Develop procedures with detailed troubleshooting outlines for unprecedented, rapid loss of pressure response protocols.

Conclusions: The unprecedented nature and magnitude of this event was a learning experience for all of us.

There has not been a pipe rupture of this significance in several decades. The City’s water treatment plant was built in 1970, and the distribution system is a mix of pipe ranging from new, to over 70 years old, with segments along Scenic Drive being vulnerable to erosion.

The City lost a T3 Operator in 2021 who was the last in a 40-year institutional wisdom chain, leaving the City with no choice but to hire an outside contractor at the tail end of the Covid pandemic. The City chose to not spare any expense that would compromise public health, and in doing so depleted the reserves in a short period of time.

In 2023 the City began hiring a new bench of water operators in training, led by a homegrown employee Kyle Shipman, to rebound from the dark period and shortage of qualified T3 operators that were skilled enough and willing to handle the demands of the aging Luffenholtz Creek treatment facility. The City began training operators in 2024, and in 2025 three of the four obtained T2 status, with one achieving T3 level certification in February.

In October 2024, following six months of conducting the first water rate study since 2012, the City knowingly implemented a new rate structure that did not achieve the financial goals necessary to meet operating benchmarks, reserve targets, and capital improvement needs, due to strong affordability concerns expressed by customers. The rates were characterized as sufficient to “stop the bleeding”, but would not achieve necessary funding to adequately meet medium and long-range improvement needs.

The City water team is young, engaged, creative, dedicated, and hard-working. They are heroes in the sense that they utilize the resources they are given to do everything in their power to deliver safe, reliable drinking water to every customers tap, 24/7, 365 days a year. The City is invested in their success, and situations like this, although unfortunate, cultivate experienced operators that will be more valuable as a result.

Council questions included:

Breckenridge: Supervisor Madrone was quoted in the Lost Coast Outpost article stating the town should be upset at how the water system has been managed. I thought this was unfair.

Kenny: Would like to know more about improvements that will help trucks fill the tanks with water in an emergency.

Tuttle: We need power to the tank site, and battery service to bridge power outage interruptions. WCSD just got a grant for solar and battery service. Adams noted power to the site was a component of the original tank and pipeline grant project, but the scope had to be reduced due to rising costs and supply chain issues.

Waskiewicz: Thanks for diving into the post fire incident reports and using them as a guide to help our city respond and learn.

Kelly: We need to be constructive about the fact we have an aging water system, we’ve been successful at getting grants for upgrades, but we have serious challenges. I disagree that the system has been mismanaged.

That is not fact based. We have had challenges finding management. Our fiscal responsibility was to handle the recent transition, and we did. I was there first thing in the morning when I learned about the break. Public Works team was working frantically to resolve it. Implementing some procedures to make sure this doesn’t happen again is crucially important. The Council has been discussing whether or not to continue with the feasibility study to connect to Humboldt Bay Municipal, and there are a number of members of the community who do not think we should do that. There’s a desire to make sure that the City is held accountable for how we’re managing water, as opposed to make the case that the infrastructure is aged and outdated and we need to connect to Humboldt Bay. I have no intention to use this situation to argue one way or another, but this is 03-10-2026 City Council Meeting Minutes Page 6
what we’re seeing in the news reporting. People should be more considerate of how hard our staff works. We need to revisit our water rates. I’m also concerned about the revenue lost by businesses as well.

Public comment included:

Henry Cox – Trinidad
The water system cannot afford to have 24/7 staff coverage, but there are very simple flow meters that can be installed to monitor leaks and automate parts of the system. Backflow devices would be required if residences and businesses had storage tanks for use in emergency situations. Businesses that experience loss typically insurance for business interruption.

Elaine Weinreb – Trinidad area resident
What is the status of the emergency intertie project? Adams explained that the leak occurred prior to the final construction completion deadline of January 15. In an emergency, WCSD could only provide the City with 20,000 gallons per day. The City received this amount of water in less than 4 hours from the trucking company.

Paula Levine – Trinidad (via video-conference)
Some people do not want Trinidad to connect to Humboldt Bay Municipal. It’s a complicated issue. There are no guarantees with anything in life. Waskiewicz pointed out very important fire resiliency issues. People who live near vacant lots don’t want them developed. The Council has not clarified, in depth, a response for this.

People are also in fear of what the Rancheria plans to build. The Trinidad water system is in need of major improvements.

Andrew Davis – Trinidad
I didn’t see in the report a critique of the communication system and how it can be done better. We are conditioned to look at the website, but we feel it was updated slowly. This highlighted the need to have better ways to reach out to the community. Why are we still talking about the HBMWD feasibility? Didn’t the Council already agree to it? Our infrastructure is aging. If the rates won’t cover aging infrastructure, why aren’t the rates increasing?
Ana Davis – Trinidad
As the Greater Trinidad Chamber of Commerce President, I too echo the real business loss concerns, and offer support during emergencies to share information. We have Cal Poly as a resource to help plan for resiliency in terms of water, fire, and emergencies. This is the kind of problem solving the university is interested in.

Jonna Kitchen – Trinidad
Resident, owner of Trinidad Retreats. Thanked staff for the detailed report. My house nearly burned to the ground many years ago, but was saved because we had water at the spigot to help put it out. Leaks happen.

Human error was catastrophic. The on-call dilemma was concerning. I applaud the solutions presented, but the transparency was an issue. People could lose their job for things like this. Prevention is huge.

Communication was slow. Is Trinidad too small to exist anymore? As a stakeholder (business owner and homeowner) water reliability is too important to ignore. Good to hear we’re looking into all sustainable options.

Revenue streams are also important. The Rancheria’s accomplishments are phenomenal. There are benefits to change.

Jacque Hostler-Carmeson – Trinidad Rancheria Executive Director The rapid growth of data centers for Ai are drastic drains on California’s water resources. Planting this seed for the next discussion of feasibility.

Betsy Musick – Trinidad Bay Eatery & Gallery Owner
Jonna Kitchen’s comments hit home. Everyone was hit hard by this incident. Everyone knows how disappointed I am, as are you, as you should be, of the lost revenue that happened. We fund you. We fund this city. It’s your job to keep staff accountable. Their response was quick and efficient. We can grow and learn from this experience. These things will happen again. It’s your responsibility to not forget what we already know. This water system needs to become resilient, quickly. We need to start upgrading our system.

New Council needs to understand the history and current situation. We should be paying higher water rates. I didn’t create this problem. I don’t like it. I don’t like the money spent managing this system, but we need to solve the problem. Businesses are suffering because you don’t have anything to give us. We’re not going to 03-10-2026 City Council Meeting Minutes Page 7
get anywhere if we push things under the rug. I’ll continue to be here to make sure you don’t, whether you like it or not.

Steve Madrone – Trinidad area resident, 5th District County Supervisor I have a lot to offer. Fiasco was a word used when talking to the community. I did my master’s thesis on Luffenholtz Creek and lived in the headwaters for 40 years. I bill out at $100/hour but offer my expertise for free. I apologize if my comments felt severe. There was recognition that operator communication errors occurred. It doesn’t matter where your water comes from, leaky pipes need to be fixed. I helped start the Watershed Council responsible for helping you get your grants. I also have been an advocate for distributed storage, with everyone having a 5,000-gallon storage tank on their properties with a check-valve. Pipes will break in a big earthquake. A pipeline doesn’t mean you’re ready for a big fire event. There are no more hazard mitigation grants for this community. Arcata fire consumed 9,000 gallons per minute. When the creek is turbid you can’t produce water rapidly. I advise you do the study on upper watershed springs to improve your resiliency. I offer my services for free to secure more money to complete the study. I spoke with your prior T3 operator who said he left because his recommendations were not being received, and he wasn’t being compensated well enough. A second operator advised the City to install new flow sensing valves, but this technology is not in your report.

There were no further comments from the Council.

Presentation item only. No decision was made.

4. Mid-Year Budget Review/Discussion/Update.

Interim City Manager Adams explained that the purpose of this discussion is to provide a mid-year review of the FY2026 Budget approved on June 10, 2025, and to allow for questions or budget adjustments as needed.

Many of the line-item revenues and expenses are shown proportionate to this point in the fiscal year (6 months out of 12 or 50%). However, many revenues or expenses that don’t appear to be reported may only occur at certain times during the year. The statements are very useful but may require additional insight to fully understand. This is your opportunity to ask questions as needed.

Overall, the Council’s efforts in June 2025 to recognize approved budget are mostly following the expected trend with a few exceptions. The good news is the FY2026 revenues budget is as forecasted and will likely remain predictable and on track through the remainder of the year for both the General Funds and Special/Restricted accounts. Of course, there is always the caveat that unforeseen events could change this forecast.

GENERAL FUND: Four primary expense funds (Administration, Police, Fire, and Public Works) are supported by discretionary revenue received through taxes and fees for service.

One hot spot to monitor is the City Attorney and consultant fees (Planning & Engineering) related to the trial litigation, with expenses projected to bloom considerably in advance and during the court hearings. These line items are projected to nearly double from what was originally budgeted, with substantial offsets being carried by management and special projects positions carrying a large portion of the consolidated staffing loads.

WATER FUND: One of the main areas of focus for the FY2026 budget was to provide a continued effort to stabilize the Water Fund. As a reminder, the Water Fund is considered an “enterprise” or “special revenue” fund. This means that it must sustain itself completely through user (customer) rates. The Council, by resolution, made a very rare, one-time $300,000 infusion of general fund revenues to the stabilize the Water Fund in FY2025 after high operating costs depleted the 1.2 million the capital reserve.

Also in FY2025 the Council implemented new water rates beginning October 01, 2024. The rate increased 10% nine months later on July 01, 2025. The rates are scheduled to continue to increase 10% on July 01 for the next three years.

The City has continued its reliance on the contracted T3 Interim Water Plant Operator service, hired on March 19, 2025 to replace Coleman Engineering. Relief will soon come when in-house operator Carl Anderson 03-10-2026 City Council Meeting Minutes Page 8
receives confirmation back from the State Water Board that his certification application has been issued. The City is currently paying interim, contracted CPO Eric Sanders $4,000/month.

An in-depth technical analysis of the water fund is currently underway, so before sharing any thoughts or preliminary conclusions with this report, staff will wait to provide this information when RCAC completes their study.

REVENUES: Sales and Occupancy taxes are reporting slightly below projections. Sales Tax as of January 31: $174,193 (Approved budget of $385,000). Transient Occupancy Tax: $92,613 (Approved budget of $225,000). Property Taxes (first installment) have not been received and recorded to the financial statements yet.

MID-YEAR FY2026 BUDGET AMENDMENTS: The following budget amendments were approved by the Council in FY2025, and FY2026. Budget adjustments will be made and reflected in the quarter ending March 31 statements to aid in final FY2027 budget development; - Town Hall Building Fund 201/78160, $140,000 (Windows, Rot Repair, Painting, etc.) - Fire Fund 401/75300, $20,000 contribution to CSA 4 Fire Planning - Water Fund 601/78190, approximately $40k offset to expenses from Measure Z grant award. - Water Fund 601/75300, approximately $30k over due to bulk water purchase on January 03 leak.

There were no public comments.

Council received the report and continued budget discussions to May.

5. Staff Activity Report – February 2026.

Interim City Manager Adams included the full report in the packet, but highlighted several focus points:
- AT&T/Verizon cell phone connectivity issue has been resolved. - PG&E streetlight issue is being addressed. We are hoping to have all streetlights retrofitted soon. - Measure Z grant application for $17,000 in water system improvements was not successful. - Town Hall sign is currently being painted.

There were no public comment.

Report only. No decision was made.

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
- CSA 4 North County Fire Planning Update
ADJOURNMENT: 8:45pm.

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

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ATTACHED

1. Financial Statements – February 2026

CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 2

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ATTACHED

2. Law Enforcement Report – March 2026.

DISCUSSION AGENDA ITEM 1

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ATTACHED

1. Proclamation 2026-01; Acknowledging April 2026 as Sexual Assault Awareness Month.

Trinidad City Hall Cheryl Kelly, Mayor
P.O. Box 390 Gabriel Adams, City Clerk
409 Trinity Street
Trinidad, CA 95570
707-677-0223
PROCLAMATION 2026-01
IN RECOGNITION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS MONTH APRIL 2026 WHEREAS, sexualized violence affects children, youth, adults and elders of all genders from all racial, cultural and economic backgrounds with public health and social justice implications for every person in Trinidad; and
WHEREAS, staff and volunteers of the North Coast Rape Crisis Team provide 24- hour emergency response services to survivors and their significant others and believes that prevention and intervention are essential to a healthy community; and
WHEREAS, no one person, organization, agency or community can eliminate sexual assault on their own but can, through collaboration and partnership, work together to support those impacted, improve responses and ensure that survivors are not re-victimized.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that the City Council of the City of Trinidad reaffirms its commitment to the North Coast Rape Crisis Team and its values HEAL:

Help Survivors by meeting them where they’re at
Empower them throughout their healing journeys
Affirm their choices
Listen to and believe their truths
and acknowledges April 2026 as Sexual Assault Awareness Month. _________________________
Cheryl Kelly
Mayor
DISCUSSION AGENDA ITEM 2

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED

2. Discussion/Decision to Award Construction Contract for Main Street, Patrick’s Point Drive, and Westhaven Drive Rehabilitation, State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Project RPL-5036(022) to GR Sundberg, Inc.

DISCUSSION AGENDA ITEM
Date: April 14, 2026
________________________________________________________________________ Item: AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR
MAIN STREET, PATRICK’S POINT DRIVE, AND WESTHAVEN DRIVE REHABILITAION PROJECT RPL-5036(022) TO GR Sundberg, Inc.

Summary
The Main Street, Patrick’s Point Drive, and Westhaven Drive Rehabilitation Project RPL5036(022) is funded through the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and includes pavement rehabilitation and pedestrian accessibility improvements on three City roadways. The bid package was released and publicly advertised on February 19, 2026. The bid period closed on March 16, 2024 at 2:00 pm, at which time the City received six (6) responsive bids. The bid results are summarized in the table below.

Bidder
Bid Schedule
Base Bid Alternate 1 Alternate 2
S. T. Rhoades Construction Inc. $584,996.50 $37,000.00 $22,116.50 RAO Construction Co., Inc. $519,426.50 $50,000.00 $48,197.00 Mercer-Fraser Company $501,501.00 $38,700.00 $35,374.00 GR Sundberg, Inc. $484,397.70 $49,000.00 $50,299.25
Kernen Construction $536,502.20 $23,750.00 $22,371.25
Hooven & Co., Inc. $599,180.00 $64,650.00 $44,885.00
As stipulated in the Information for Bidders, the award is made to the lowest, responsive, responsible bidder based on the lowest Base Bid amount.

Project Scope
The Base Bid includes the full scope of pavement rehabilitation and pedestrian accessibility improvements on Main Street, Patrick’s Point Drive, and Westhaven Drive. Work includes sidewalk, curb ramp, and driveway replacement and widening along the south side of Main Street between Trinity Street and View Avenue; pavement dig-outs, cold planing, and repaving on Main Street and Patrick’s Point Drive; and an asphalt overlay on Westhaven Drive. The Base Bid also includes associated concrete work, drainage improvements, utility cover adjustments, thermoplastic striping and pavement markings, signage, traffic control, water pollution control, mobilization, and final cleanup. All work is located within City limits and outside of Caltrans right-of-way.

Additive Bid Item No. 1 provides for additional spot pavement dig-out repairs to address failed subgrade areas that may be identified during construction. Inclusion of this additive item allowed the City to establish a unit price in advance that can be used if these localized repairs are required.

This approach provides cost certainty, reduces construction risk, and minimizes the need for negotiated change orders associated with unforeseen subgrade failures encountered during construction.

Additive Bid Item No. 2 adds pavement rehabilitation work on Berry Road, which is not included in the Base Bid. This additive includes replacing the placement, along with related striping and markings, for approximately 190 feet of Berry Road near Trinidad Frontage Road. This work is not eligible for reimbursement through the STIP and would need to be funded entirely with City funds. As such, staff does not recommend awarding Additive Bid Item No. 2.

Award Recommendation
The apparent low bidder is GR Sundberg, Inc., with a Base Bid of $484,397.70. Additive Bid Item No. 1 is in the amount of $49,000.00, resulting in a recommended construction award total of $533,397.70. Additive Bid Item No. 2 is not recommended for award due to funding eligibility constraints.

The City’s Engineer, GHD, has reviewed the bid submitted by GR Sundberg, Inc. and confirmed it is responsive and that the contractor holds the required active licenses and bonding. GHD recommends awarding the construction contract for GR Sundberg, Inc. for the Base Bid and Additive Bid Item No. 1 only, both of which are eligible for the STIP funding. If approved, construction is anticipated to begin in June 2026.

Financial
The City has a total construction budget of $710,000 funded through the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The budget includes construction capital in the amount of $620,000, construction engineering services totally $87,060, and City administration costs of $2,940.

Staff Recommendation:

Authorize the City Manager to award the Main Street, Patrick’s Point Drive, and Westhaven Drive Rehabilitation Project RPL-5036(022) to GR Sundberg, Inc. for the Base Bid and Additive Bid Item No. 1 in the amount of $533,397.70, and authorize the City Manager to execute contract change orders up to a maximum contract amount of $620,000.

Attachments:

1. Detailed Bid Summary
Agency:

Project Name:

Project No.:

Bid Opening:

Engineers Estimate:

Unit Cost Total Unit Cost Total Unit Cost Total Unit Cost Total Unit Cost Total Unit Cost Total Unit Cost Total 1 Traffic Control System LS 1 $ 60,000.00 $ 60,000.00 $ 83,000.00 $ 83,000.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 34,521.30 $ 34,521.30 $ 22,000.00 $ 22,000.00 $ 40,950.00 $ 40,950.00 $ 24,950.00 $ 24,950.00 2 Water Pollution Control Program LS 1 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,600.00 $ 3,600.00 $ 2,825.00 $ 2,825.00 $ 1,787.00 $ 1,787.00 3 Shoulder Backing CY 22 $ 360.00 $ 7,920.00 $ 219.00 $ 4,818.00 $ 150.00 $ 3,300.00 $ 300.00 $ 6,600.00 $ 90.00 $ 1,980.00 $ 165.00 $ 3,630.00 $ 216.00 $ 4,752.00 4 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) TON 935 $ 220.00 $ 205,700.00 $ 210.00 $ 196,350.00 $ 225.00 $ 210,375.00 $ 225.00 $ 210,375.00 $ 230.00 $ 215,050.00 $ 175.00 $ 163,625.00 $ 255.00 $ 238,425.00 5 Place Hot Mix Asphalt Dike (Type F) LF 11 $ 450.00 $ 4,950.00 $ 353.00 $ 3,883.00 $ 250.00 $ 2,750.00 $ 30.00 $ 330.00 $ 100.00 $ 1,100.00 $ 120.00 $ 1,320.00 $ 186.00 $ 2,046.00 6 Cold Plane Asphalt Concrete SY 4660 $ 10.00 $ 46,600.00 $ 5.70 $ 26,562.00 $ 10.50 $ 48,930.00 $ 7.50 $ 34,950.00 $ 5.25 $ 24,465.00 $ 4.50 $ 20,970.00 $ 6.50 $ 30,290.00 7 Drainage Inlet (Type GO) EA 1 $ 5,500.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 3,300.00 $ 3,300.00 $ 5,950.00 $ 5,950.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00 8 Drainage Trench LF 62 $ 250.00 $ 15,500.00 $ 105.00 $ 6,510.00 $ 100.00 $ 6,200.00 $ 200.00 $ 12,400.00 $ 65.00 $ 4,030.00 $ 70.00 $ 4,340.00 $ 141.00 $ 8,742.00 9 Underdrain LF 22 $ 300.00 $ 6,600.00 $ 475.00 $ 10,450.00 $ 680.00 $ 14,960.00 $ 700.00 $ 15,400.00 $ 470.00 $ 10,340.00 $ 155.00 $ 3,410.00 $ 1,280.00 $ 28,160.00 10 6-Inch Perforated Plastic Pipe LF 5 $ 200.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 100.00 $ 500.00 $ 100.00 $ 500.00 $ 275.00 $ 1,375.00 $ 470.00 $ 2,350.00 $ 210.00 $ 1,050.00 $ 529.00 $ 2,645.00 11 Minor Concrete (Curb) F LF 10 $ 50.00 $ 500.00 $ 100.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 100.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 75.00 $ 750.00 $ 200.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 186.00 $ 1,860.00 $ 140.00 $ 1,400.0012 Detectable Warning Surface SF 36 $ 60.00 $ 2,160.00 $ 45.00 $ 1,620.00 $ 47.00 $ 1,692.00 $ 47.00 $ 1,692.00 $ 42.50 $ 1,530.00 $ 72.00 $ 2,592.00 $ 118.00 $ 4,248.00 13 Minor Concrete (Curb and Gutter) LF 350 $ 65.00 $ 22,750.00 $ 130.00 $ 45,500.00 $ 60.00 $ 21,000.00 $ 60.00 $ 21,000.00 $ 85.00 $ 29,750.00 $ 107.00 $ 37,450.00 $ 185.00 $ 64,750.00 14 Minor Concrete (Driveway) SF 1140 $ 30.00 $ 34,200.00 $ 42.00 $ 47,880.00 $ 30.00 $ 34,200.00 $ 25.00 $ 28,500.00 $ 35.00 $ 39,900.00 $ 62.50 $ 71,250.00 $ 47.00 $ 53,580.00 15 Minor Concrete (Sidewalk) SF 1865 $ 25.00 $ 46,625.00 $ 30.00 $ 55,950.00 $ 20.00 $ 37,300.00 $ 13.00 $ 24,245.00 $ 14.00 $ 26,110.00 $ 48.50 $ 90,452.50 $ 36.00 $ 67,140.00 16 Minor Concrete (Curb Ramp) SF 195 $ 30.00 $ 5,850.00 $ 30.00 $ 5,850.00 $ 30.00 $ 5,850.00 $ 28.00 $ 5,460.00 $ 32.00 $ 6,240.00 $ 65.00 $ 12,675.00 $ 16.00 $ 3,120.00 17 Adjust Box and Cover (Water or Monument) EA 15 $ 1,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 1,350.00 $ 20,250.00 $ 700.00 $ 10,500.00 $ 1,350.00 $ 20,250.00 $ 500.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 900.00 $ 13,500.00 $ 568.00 $ 8,520.00 18 Paint Curb (2-Coat) LF 150 $ 10.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 6.00 $ 900.00 $ 14.00 $ 2,100.00 $ 11.50 $ 1,725.00 $ 11.50 $ 1,725.00 $ 11.50 $ 1,725.00 $ 14.00 $ 2,100.00 19 Pavement Marker (Retroflective) EA 112 $ 11.00 $ 1,232.00 $ 10.00 $ 1,120.00 $ 14.00 $ 1,568.00 $ 12.50 $ 1,400.00 $ 12.50 $ 1,400.00 $ 12.50 $ 1,400.00 $ 23.00 $ 2,576.00 20 Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe LF 5229 $ 4.00 $ 20,916.00 $ 1.50 $ 7,843.50 $ 1.50 $ 7,843.50 $ 1.30 $ 6,797.70 $ 1.30 $ 6,797.70 $ 1.30 $ 6,797.70 $ 2.00 $ 10,458.00 21 Thermoplastic Pavement Marking SF 763 $ 16.00 $ 12,208.00 $ 15.00 $ 11,445.00 $ 17.00 $ 12,971.00 $ 15.00 $ 11,445.00 $ 15.00 $ 11,445.00 $ 15.00 $ 11,445.00 $ 21.00 $ 16,023.00 22 Remove Thermoplastic Pavement Marking SF 51 $ 4.00 $ 204.00 $ 15.00 $ 765.00 $ 37.00 $ 1,887.00 $ 35.00 $ 1,785.00 $ 35.00 $ 1,785.00 $ 35.00 $ 1,785.00 $ 68.00 $ 3,468.00 23 Mobilization LS 1 $ 60,000.00 $ 60,000.00 $ 46,300.00 $ 46,300.00 $ 52,000.00 $ 52,000.00 $ 51,000.00 $ 51,000.00 $ 60,000.00 $ 60,000.00 $ 35,500.00 $ 35,500.00 $ 14,000.00 $ 14,000.00 $ 580,915.00 $ 584,996.50 $ 519,426.50 $ 501,501.00 $ 484,397.70 $ 536,502.20 $ 599,180.00 24 Replace AC Surfacing CY 50 $ 600.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 740.00 $ 37,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 774.00 $ 38,700.00 $ 980.00 $ 49,000.00 $ 475.00 $ 23,750.00 $ 1,293.00 $ 64,650.00 $ 610,915.00 $ 621,996.50 $ 569,426.50 $ 540,201.00 $ 533,397.70 $ 560,252.20 $ 663,830.00 25 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) TON 72 $ 220.00 15,840.00 $ $ 213.00 $ 15,336.00 $ 400.00 $ 28,800.00 $ 325.00 $ 23,400.00 $ 570.00 $ 41,040.00 $ 195.00 $ 14,040.00 $ 338.00 $ 24,336.00 26 Cold Plane Asphalt Concrete SY 408 $ 10.00 4,080.00 $ $ 6.00 $ 2,448.00 $ 34.00 $ 13,872.00 $ 15.00 $ 6,120.00 $ 13.50 $ 5,508.00 $ 10.00 $ 4,080.00 $ 32.00 $ 13,056.00 27 Adjust Box and Cover (Water or Monument) EA 2 $ 1,000.00 2,000.00 $ $ 1,350.00 $ 2,700.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 650.00 $ 1,300.00 $ 950.00 $ 1,900.00 $ 945.00 $ 1,890.00 28 Reset Roadside Sign EA 1 $ 380.00 $ 380.00 $ 350.00 $ 350.00 $ 1,300.00 $ 1,300.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 1,435.00 $ 1,435.00 29 Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe LF 12.5 $ 4.00 $ 50.00 $ 15.00 $ 187.50 $ 2.00 $ 25.00 $ 1.52 $ 19.00 $ 1.30 $ 16.25 $ 1.30 $ 16.25 $ 40.00 $ 500.00 30 Thermoplastic Pavement Marking SF 36 $ 16.00 $ 576.00 $ 15.00 $ 540.00 $ 20.00 $ 720.00 $ 15.00 $ 540.00 $ 15.00 $ 540.00 $ 15.00 $ 540.00 $ 32.00 $ 1,152.00 31 Remove Thermoplastic Pavement Marking EA 37 $ 4.00 $ 148.00 $ 15.00 $ 555.00 $ 40.00 $ 1,480.00 $ 35.00 $ 1,295.00 $ 35.00 $ 1,295.00 $ 35.00 $ 1,295.00 $ 68.00 $ 2,516.00 $ 23,074.00 $ 22,116.50 $ 48,197.00 $ 35,374.00 $ 50,299.25 $ 22,371.25 $ 44,885.00 $ 633,989.00 $ 644,113.00 $ 617,623.50 $ 575,575.00 $ 583,696.95 $ 582,623.45 $ 708,715.00 $600,000.00

BASE BID SCHEDULE TOTAL
S.T. Rhoades Construction,
Inc. Hooven & Co., Inc. R.A.O. Construction Mercer-Fraser Company G R Sundberg, Inc. Kernen Construction Low Bidder
Detailed Bid Summary
Main Street, Patrick's Point Drive, and Westhaven Drive Rehabilitaion Project City of Trinidad
RPL-5036(022)March 16, 2026 @ 2pm
Total BASE BID PLUS ADDITIVE NO. 1 PLUS ADDITIVE NO. 2
Engineers Estimate

BASE BID SCHEDULE
Item No. Description Final Pay Item Units Total Quantity ADDITIVE BID NO. 1 SCHEDULEADDITIVE BID NO. 2 SCHEDULE
BID ADDITIVE NO. 2 SCHEDULE TOTAL
BASE BID PLUS BID ADDITIVE NO. 1 SCHEDULE TOTAL
1 of 1
DISCUSSION AGENDA ITEM 3

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS WERE PROVIDED

3. Update/Discussion regarding 2026 Planning Commission Projects & Priorities.

2026 Planning Projects April 14, 2026 CC Meeting

CITY OF TRINIDAD STAFF REPORT
DATE: Tuesday, April 14, 2026
TO: Trinidad City Council
FROM: Trever Parker, City Planer
DISCUSSION AGENDA ITEM:
2026 Planning Projects and Priorities: Update on 2025 projects and discussion and prioritization of planning related projects in 2026.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION / SUMMARY
No action is necessary, but the City Council should consider the following:
• Provide input on these projects and their prioritization for further direction to staff and the Planning Commission.
• Add other potential projects for consideration and discussion as desired. • These projects and priorities in terms of upcoming budget discussions.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Staff periodically provide the Planning Commission and City Council with a summary of current and upcoming planning-related projects. This is especially important when there are a lot of projects, particularly ongoing ones such as the general plan update. The intent is to provide an update on the status of ongoing projects, to provide perspective about what staff is working on, and to provide a mechanism for prioritizing limited budget and staff time.

One of the things that is apparent is that there is a backlog of important projects. There are a variety of reasons for this, but staff capacity has been a significant component. Even when projects are prioritized, more pressing issues tend to come up and divert staff time away from them; a good current example is the ALMT. Also, permit applications are usually unpredictable, and complex projects can take significant staff time. Staff are anticipating several project applications this year, including the development of the vacant lot behind Murphy’s. Although permit applications take up staff time, the costs are borne by the applicant.

The attached staff report was provided to the Planning Commission for their January meeting (continued to the February meeting). Some of their comments and recommendations are summarized below (the minutes are not yet available).

2026 Planning Projects April 14, 2026 CC Meeting
The following acronyms are used in this and the attached staff report but are not defined, because they are commonly used in planning reports.

ADA – Americans with Disabilities Act
ADU – Accessory Dwelling Unit
ALMT – Axel Lindgren Memorial Trail
CC – City Council
CCC – CA Coastal Commission
GP – General Plan
IP – Implementation Plan (land use ordinances, including zoning, that are part of the LCP) LAFCo – Local Agency Formation Commission
LCP – Local Coastal Program (certified by the Coastal Commission) LUP – Land Use Plan portion of the LCP (e.g. general plan) OWTS – Onsite Wastewater Treatment System
PC – Planning Commission
RFP – Request for proposals
STR – Short Term Rental
VWT – Van Wycke Trail
Planning Commission Comments/Recommendations
General Plan
• The Planning Commission emphasized completion of the general plan/LCP update as a priority. They are encouraged that the Coastal Commission now seems amenable to a piecemeal approach.
• The PC wants the City Council’s support, input, and involvement in the general plan update.
• Suggest seeking outside help on the Housing Element update. • Requested a matrix of elements and status/next steps, which is provided below. • The Planning Commission would like to prioritize setting policy to implement the design guidelines drafted as part of the new design element without having to amend the design review regulations (which could be a significant undertaking).

STR Ordinance
• The Planning Commission is not aware of any complaints or pressing issues. While there has been discussion of making some tweaks, such as to the lottery system, much can be accomplished through the use of administrative rules issued by the City Manager rather than the effort required to amend the ordinance and obtain certification from the Coastal Commission.

Annexation
• The Planning Commission would like this to be a priority discussion and analysis item and want to ensure it does not fall through the cracks.

2026 Planning Projects April 14, 2026 CC Meeting
• The two new water service customers will contribute $5,000 each. This should provide some initial information to help determine the feasibility of annexation, but would not get the City through the entire annexation process, which would likely take multiple years with everything else that is going on.
• Suggested developing a plan with steps and triggers.
• Consider formation of an annexation committee.

Other
• PC wants to ensure that efforts are followed through to implementation to ensure the benefits of the work put into it.
• Website needs updating and needs to be more user friendly. This work could be outsourced. (Note that changes to the ADA will require most web content to be accessible by April 26, 2027 for small jurisdictions. This will be a significant undertaking.)
• OWTS enforcement isn’t necessarily a planning task. Develop a prioritized approach.

Tie enforcement into licensing (e.g. business licenses). Suggest publishing a list of noncompliant properties (public shaming).
• Staff capacity has been a significant hindrance. SHN has had trouble recruiting and retaining planning staff, but seems to have adequate capacity now. But it will depend on City budget considerations and the capacity of City staff to provide support. (Note that the City will need to put out an RFP for planning services in the next couple of months and negotiate a new contract for planning services; SHNs rates, along with most companies, have increased substantially in the last 5 years to keep up with the market.)
• City staff support is necessary to implement planning projects, so lack of City staff capacity affects planning projects. Additional City staff could also take some of the pressure off professional staff and complete some of the simpler and more routine tasks, possibly at a cheaper rate.

Element Content Status Next Steps
Introduction Provides an
overview of the
general plan and
a vision for the
future of the City.

Does not set
policy except for
interpretations of
the GP.

PC Recommended
September 2019 with
CCC comments
incorporated.

CC Reviewed December
2021.

September 2019 version
on the website.

This element is essentially
complete but may need minor
updating as needed based on
changes to other elements.

The figure needs to be updated
and corrected.

Need to find out how this would
fit into piecemeal certification
process.

Land Use Mandated
element that
creates the
general
framework for
PC Recommended June
2020 with initial CCC
comments incorporated.

This element is essentially
complete, but there are still some
issues with proposed land use
changes that need to be discussed
with CCC staff. This will likely be

2026 Planning Projects April 14, 2026 CC Meeting
the future pattern
of growth,
development,
and
sustainability.

CC Reviewed December
2021.

June 2020 version on the
website.
one of the last elements submitted
to CCC for certification, because it
needs to be consistent with every
other element and because it
overlaps the most with the current
certified LUP.

Conservation,
Open Space,
Recreation
This element
addresses
environmental
protection.

Conservation and
Open Space are
elements required
by state general
plan law, and
recreation/
public access is
an element/ topic
required by the
Coastal
Commission.

PC reviewed January
2021 with CCC
comments and
responses.

CCC had substantial
comments, which have
been addressed, and a
new draft was
resubmitted in February
2023.

CC reviewed August
2021 (current) draft (w
CCC comments and
responses) in January
2022.

August 2021 version on
the website.

This large and complex element
could be separated into 2 or 3
elements.

It will need minor updates, and it
should be simplified as well.

New implementing regulations
will need to be developed for this
element. Some have already been
drafted, but not reviewed by PC
or CCC.

This would be a priority to get to
the CCC along with new
implementing regulations,
because current City ordinances
lack much in the way of
environmental protection.

Circulation This is a state
mandated
element that
addresses
transportation,
public services
and utilities, as
well as energy,
air quality, and
GHG emissions.

PC reviewed April 2021.

CCC comments and
responses incorporated
and resubmitted in
February 2023.

Reviewed by CC
September 2022.

April 2021 version on
the website.

This element is essentially
complete. It needs to be updated
based on new information and as
needed to address changes to
other elements prior to submittal
to CCC.

Necessary regulatory updates
need to be assessed. Many issues
are not Coastal Act related, so
implementing ordinances do not
necessarily need to be certified by
the CCC as part of the LCP.

Design This optional
element is
intended to
protect scenic and
visual qualities.

Views to and
along the
coastline are
protected by the
Coastal Act, but
Final draft last reviewed
by the PC February
2023.

Design guidelines
developed concurrently.

CCC review and certification of
this element will be complicated
by the differences in view
protection approaches.

In the short-term, the PC would
like to look at the possibility of
implementing some or all of the
new design guidelines as policy as

2026 Planning Projects April 14, 2026 CC Meeting
private views are
not.
long as they are consistent with
existing regulatory criteria.

Cultural &
Historic
Resources
This optional
element is
intended to
protect cultural
resources and
provide guidance
for consultation.

September 2022
updated draft sent to
tribes for review and
comment. Comments
received from Trinidad
Rancheria and Yurok
Tribe and incorporated
into element.

The draft and tribal
comments have been
forwarded to the CCC.

This element is included
as part of the LCP
update grant.

Litigation and other issues have
slowed and complicated
continued consultation and
finalization of the document.

In the meantime, staff will await
comments from the CCC.

Housing State mandated
element
addressing
housing that
must be updated
every 8 years and
certified by HCD.

Adopted in April 2020.

Found legally adequate
by HCD in May 2020.

City is behind in
implementing housing
policies, but is working
diligently on them.

The Housing Element will need to
be updated in the next year with
more stringent state requirements.

See PC staff report for additional
information.

Noise State mandated
element to protect
the community
and noise
sensitive land
uses from
exposure to
excessive noise
levels.

Currently under review
by the PC, most recently
in November 2025.

Staff is working on a
revised draft for an
upcoming PC meeting.

Noise is not a Coastal
Act issue, so this
element does not need
to be certified by the
CCC.

This element is nearing
completion, and staff will
continue to work with the PC
until they feel they can
recommend it to the CC.

There have been suggestions for
the City to adopt a noise
ordinance (this would not be
directly related to the noise
element).

Safety This is another
state mandated
element and is an
important
element for
coastal resource
issues as well.

PC reviewed last in May
2025 (emergency
response section in
September 2025, which
is not a Coastal Act /
LCP issue).

Submitted to CCC staff
July 2025. Comments
Staff are working to incorporate
CCC comments, which were
relatively minimal and plan to
bring a revised draft back to the
PC this month (April).

Staff are also working on
implementing regulations for the
safety element which will be

2026 Planning Projects April 14, 2026 CC Meeting
The purpose is to
protect
community
members,
property, and the
environment
from hazards. It
also addresses
emergency
preparedness and
response.
were prioritized due to
LCP grant and were
provided in January
and April (fire) 2026.
brought to the PC within the next
few months.

The emergency response section
of the safety element still needs
some work, as planning staff is
not fully familiar with this area of
City operations.

Submittal of the Safety Element
and implementing regulations is a
CCC priority under the grant.

Figures Some figures
have been
updated and
reviewed out of
sync with the
text.

Figures for the
Introduction, Land Use,
Conservation, Open
Space and Recreation,
and Circulation Element
updated in 2022.

Safety Element Figures
updated/created in
2025.

The 2022 figures need to be
updated in some cases (e.g. the
City limits need to be revised to
remove the Rancheria trust
property) and the 2025 safety
figures are still under review.

ATTACHMENTS
• 2026 Planning Projects PC Staff Report with Attachment

2026 Planning Projects January 21, 2026 PC Meeting

CITY OF TRINIDAD STAFF REPORT
DATE: Wednesday, January 21, 2026
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Trever Parker, City Planer
AGENDA ITEM: 2026 Planning Projects and Priorities: Update on 2025 projects and discussion and prioritization of planning related projects in 2026.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
• Provide input on these projects and their prioritization and add other potential projects for consideration and discussion as desired.
• Consider making recommendation(s) to the City Council for budget discussions and/or a potential future joint meeting.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
To start off the new year, I have been thinking about some upcoming projects and obligations, and I wanted to review the status of the projects we discussed and prioritized in 2025. There continues to be a lot of planning related projects in progress and on the horizon in Trinidad. It is beneficial for the City Council, the Planning Commission, and the public to understand those projects and how or why they have been prioritized. This is especially important when the Council discusses the City’s budget. It should be recognized that there is likely not enough staff bandwidth or budget to complete all of these tasks, which is why prioritization is important.

This is primarily an informational item and an opportunity for the Planning Commission to ask questions about projects and provide input as to what tasks should be prioritized. The Planning Commission and City Council have held a joint meeting annually for the past few years, primarily associated with the STR Committee. But there may be value in continuing that practice periodically. The Planning Commission can also make recommendations to the Council without a joint meeting. 2025 Projects & Status
The following list of projects is from the 2025 projects and priorities discussed by the Planning Commission in February 2025. An update on their status is provided below.

ADU ordinance
Based on comments received from the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on the last draft, City staff changed the approach and have

2026 Planning Projects January 21, 2026 PC Meeting
developed a new draft in consultation with Coastal Commission staff. More information and a new draft ordinance are provided as part of the other item on this month’s agenda.

New application forms and guides
These are ready to go. They should be reviewed one more time and presented to the City Council prior to implementing them.

OWTS program
• OWTS Permits: Anton has taken over for Jennifer in coordinating OWTS permit renewals. However, it has taken time for him to get up to speed. But he is now sending out regular renewal letters and sending me the renewal applications. • OWTS Enforcement: Staff have not been able to diligently follow up with those who have not fully complied with the OWTS Management Program. But I think this may be even more important than renewals, because these are the systems that pose the greatest risk.
• OWTS Ordinance Update: One of the primary reasons to update the ordinance is to ensure that ADUs are adequately covered. In addition, implementation of the program has shed light on some sections that should be revised. The Planning Commission discussed this in April 2024. Staff plans to follow up again in 2026.

LCP update grant
• Cultural resources element: This has been on hold pending resolution of several ongoing issues, including litigation. At some point, we will have to move forward with it regardless. But for now, I plan to incorporate comments that have been received from the Yurok Tribe and Trinidad Rancheria and get it to Coastal Commission staff for review. Informal consultation with tribal entities can continue as practicable.
• Safety element: The Safety Element was reviewed by the Planning Commission and submitted to Coastal Commission staff for review. We are still awaiting their comments.
• Studies (new and updated): The previous studies have mostly been updated. This included finalizing the parking study and essentially re-doing the soils report. The biological background report is currently being finalized. • New studies: New studies included a visitor services study and a build-out analysis.

The visitor services study is drafted and has been reviewed by Coastal Commission staff. They requested additional information regarding the RV parks, but I have not been able to get in touch with either owner. There is a possible sale pending for TBTC. After an official inquiry, I did get a response from HCD that RVs do not qualify as dwellings. Prior to completing the build-out analysis, which has also been

2026 Planning Projects January 21, 2026 PC Meeting
drafted, I need a better idea of what the final land use/zoning designations are going to be. The RV parks are a big question mark. And Coastal Commission staff have indicated that it may be difficult to change any existing zoning without detailed site-specific analysis (which defeats the purpose of long-range planning), so I need to discuss that further with them.
• IP update: One positive development is that Coastal Commission staff have agreed, in concept, to updating the LCP in chunks based on general plan elements. Staff have drafted several new IP sections and chapters. Since the grant focuses on safety (climate change and resilience), regulations to implement the Safety Element have been a priority. But new regulations for CDP requirements and procedures and for protecting biological resources have also been drafted. These will be coming to the Planning Commission for review throughout the year. In particular, it might make sense to take a new CDP chapter to the Coastal Commission at the same time as the ADU ordinance.

Non LCP GP updates
All of the general plan elements have been drafted. As they age, they need to be updated. And the entire document needs to be reviewed for internal consistency, including with the existing general plan.
• Noise Element: This is in progress.
• Emergency response: This is in progress.
• Overall consistency: This has yet to be completed. However, completing a comprehensive update of the entire general plan has proven infeasible. Updating it element by element would be more practical, and Coastal Commission staff have agreed to this approach in concept. The existing general plan will need to be reviewed and revised as each new element is adopted and submitted to the Coastal Commission for certification in order to maintain overall consistency.

Trails
• ALMT: City staff continue to cooperate with the Coastal Commission as they work with stakeholders to facilitate solutions for reopening the ALMT. Their ALMT working group includes the City, CA Coastal Conservancy, TAS, and Yurok Tribe.

For a more detailed update on the current status, please see the City Council packets for January 13, 2026 (https://www.trinidad.ca.gov/media/8421) and November 12, 2025 (https://www.trinidad.ca.gov/media/8361).
• Galindo: No work occurred in 2025, but it was recently brought up at a Tsurai Management Team meeting, so there could be movement in 2026. However, needs to obtain an easement from the BIA to repair/rebuild the walkway before closing the trail. And I do not know whether the City would want to take action to close Galindo before the ALMT is reopened, or at least until the appeal is resolved.

2026 Planning Projects January 21, 2026 PC Meeting
• VWT: No work occurred in 2025, and no additional issues came up.

Water service apps / annexation
There has been slow progress on this item. City staff have had a number of discussions with the applicants and with LAFCo staff about the process and what obligations would come with approval of a water service connection. LAFCo staff have agreed to process the applications as Outside Agency Service Requests, which does not require annexation up-front. LAFCo will still require the City to consider annexation, but the connections can move ahead in the meantime. We have now agreed on a process, timelines, and fair share costs for analyzing the feasibility of annexation with both applicants. City staff are preparing the LAFCo application for submittal in time for their March meeting. The City Council will need to discuss how much time, money, and effort will be spent on pursuing annexation during their budget discussions.

Permit processing
This will continue to be ongoing as applications are submitted. I am aware of some projects that are in the design phase.

Enforcement
Staff have not had a lot of bandwidth to pursue enforcement, but important issues are addressed as needed when they come up.

Additional 2026 Projects
Many of the 2025 projects will continue to be part of our workload in 2026. There are also additional projects and issues that will need to be addressed in the coming year and several topics that the Planning Commission has been wanting to discuss for some time as part of their “future agenda items” on each agenda.

Regional Climate Action Plan (RCAP)
The County recently certified the Environmental Impact Report and adopted the RCAP.

All the cities in the County have been participants in the development of the RCAP.

While the participation of all the jurisdictions is important, Trinidad won’t have a significant impact on the County’s greenhouse gas emissions, particularly because most of the emissions are from vehicles. And Trinidad will not likely get to take advantage of the project streamlining benefits, because the City doesn’t get large development projects. However, the City is interested in reducing greenhouse gas emissions to the extent practical and complying with state mandates. The City will be expected to adopt the RCAP and contribute its fair share of costs towards an RCAP coordinator who will monitor its implementation.

Housing Element
You may have seen some news about the new Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers for Humboldt County jurisdictions. HCD sets an overall number of

2026 Planning Projects January 21, 2026 PC Meeting
housing units that they estimate need to be built in the County each 7-year housing cycle. That number is divided up between the jurisdictions using certain formulas with the Humboldt County Association of Governments (HCAOG) deciding on the final allocation. The 7th housing cycle is coming up, and the RHNA process is currently underway. These numbers will drive the development of policies and implementation measures for the next Housing Element, which is required to be updated for each 7-year cycle; revised housing elements will be due in July 2027.

This will be an interesting housing element cycle (each County is on a slightly different timeline). The number of required housing units is unrealistically large, and it will be difficult, if not impossible, for each jurisdiction to show that they can accommodate their allocated units. On top of that, HCD has gotten more authority to enforce these housing laws and enact fines and other penalties for noncompliance. So, even though the due date seems far away, some jurisdictions are already issuing or drafting RFPs for completion of their housing elements. There are a lot of specific requirements for housing elements, including detailed analyses, which makes them somewhat tedious. In the 6th cycle, it seemed like HCD did not hold Trinidad to as high of a standard as other jurisdictions, likely due to the known limitations. But the standards are even higher now, and low-income housing is further broken down into low, very low, extremely low, and acutely low. It is hard to imagine where those lower tiers can be accommodated in Trinidad, particularly since RVs don’t count as housing.

Updating the Housing Element will likely take a significant amount of time and staff resources and will need to be started this year at some point. The more Trinidad can meet its current Housing Element implementation measures, that may help make the next one easier. Staff have been working on those based on letters of inquiry from HCD, which includes adopting an ADU ordinance as the biggest priority. It also includes a few other hopefully minor LCP/zoning updates to implement the state’s density bonus law and to add provisions for low-barrier navigations centers.

HBMWD Pipeline/Connection
A potential connection to Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District will be a continuing topic of conversation of conversation in 2026. There are numerous steps required for that process. The City Council has elected to conduct some comparative analysis on connecting to HBMWD versus continuing to operate its water plant. However, that is just a starting point. And regardless of whether the City decides it wants to study that further, the City is an important stakeholder and should be involved in the process. It is unclear at this point what role the Planning Commission may have, but planning staff will continue to be involved.

Resiliency Project(s) Implementation
The City had plans to submit a grant for implementation funding for projects identified and recommended in the 2024 Coastal Resiliency Plan. The Ocean Protection Council,

2026 Planning Projects January 21, 2026 PC Meeting
which funded the plan, has encouraged the City to follow up with a funding request for implementation. But because many of the projects affect the Tsurai Study Area, there hasn’t been a clear path forward for prioritizing projects and applying for funding.

Also, staff capacity has also been an issue. The City plans to put out a job announcement for a new grant administrator very soon. I think this is an important opportunity for the City to follow up on, and I will continue to encourage the development of a grant proposal.

STR ordinance review
This may or may not come up this year. The Planning Commission is supposed to periodically review the STR ordinance and recommend changes. There is no longer an STR committee. Staff have talked about making some revisions to the lottery process, but some of that can be implemented administratively. The Planning Commission should let me know if there are any pressing STR issues that should be considered.

Other
There are a couple of items that are high on my priority list, but that aren’t really planning projects. I just thought I should mention them here, since they do affect planning issues and projects.

One is finalizing and implementing the new MOA with Humboldt County Division of Environmental Health (DEH). DEH implements a variety of state mandated programs and regulations in the City, including OWTS permitting, hazardous waste management, food safety and restaurant inspections, and the new edible food waste requirements, among other things.

Another project I would love to see implemented is to get Trinidad’s online ordinances recodified. That process has been started, but City staff haven’t had the time to get the web host everything they need. The online code was last updated in 2012 and is severely out of date, since a number of important amendments have been passed since then. Hopefully staff can get this process moving again.

Future agenda items
The following list is from the future agenda items that have been included on the Planning Commission’s agenda, some for several years. One of the easiest ones would probably be to review the draft design guidelines in conjunction with the existing design guidelines and set policy for implementing the new guidelines as further refinement of the existing guidelines. They would not be enforceable except as conditions of approval, which an applicant can accept or appeal, but it would avoid the need for an LCP amendment for the time being. It is common to implement design guidelines as policy anyway. Commissioner Hakenen suggested reviewing new sign regulations as the next priority. That is an important task, but will likely take some

2026 Planning Projects January 21, 2026 PC Meeting
time, and there will be public interest in it. Commissioner Hakenen is researching sign ordinances that could serve as a good model for Trinidad. • Vegetation regulations
• Signage Master Plan/Sign regulations
• Annexation (added 09/20/23)
• Addressing cultural resources in project reviews (added 10/18/23) • Implementation of new design guidelines (added 03/20/24) • Noise ordinance (added 11/19/25)

ATTACHMENTS
• 2025 Project List and Staff Report (8 pages)

2025 Planning Projects February 19, 2025 PC Meeting

CITY OF TRINIDAD STAFF REPORT
DATE: Wednesday, February 19, 2025
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Trever Parker, City Planer
AGENDA ITEM: 2025 Planning Projects: Discussion and prioritization of planning related projects in 2025.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
• Provide input on these projects and their prioritization • Add other potential projects for consideration and discussion at a joint City Council-Planning Commission meeting

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
As part of getting two new City Councilmembers, a new Planning Commissioner, and a new City Manager up to speed, there has been some talk about having a joint City Council-Planning Commission meeting. We have done that annually for the past few years with the STR Committee. But there is likely value in continuing that practice periodically.

In addition, there are once again a lot of planning related projects in progress and on the horizon in Trinidad. It would be good for the City Council, the City Manager, the Planning Commission, and the public to understand those projects and how or why they have been prioritized. This is especially important when the Council discusses the City’s budget. The following is a description of current, ongoing, and anticipated planning projects for 2025.

ADU Ordinance
The Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance was drafted with grant funding from the Dept of Housing and Community Development (HCD). However, we did not get it all the way through the approval process before the grant ran out. This ordinance requires approval from both the Coastal Commission and HCD. The State’s second unit laws change every year, so it would be nice to get it done soon. Once the ordinance is certified by the Coastal Commission as part of the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP), the City is somewhat insulated from changes in the law. Planning staff considers this a high priority.

2025 Planning Projects February 19, 2025 PC Meeting
City staff have worked through all of the Coastal Commission staff’s comments and concerns. Now we are working on addressing comments from HCD as presented at the January meeting. I have drafted responses, several of which raise additional questions for Coastal Commission staff, which I have sent to them. I have requested a meeting to discuss HCD’s comments and the City’s responses. There will likely also be a few questions for the Planning Commission to address. Eventually, we may need to have a meeting with all three agencies to finalize some details. Once we have HCD and Coastal Commission concurrence, the final ordinance will require a recommendation from the Planning Commission, adoption by the City Council, and then submittal to the Coastal Commission for certification as an LCP Amendment.

New Application Forms
This is another project that was started with grant funding but not quite completed.

City staff have drafted all new planning permit application forms that are much more comprehensive than the current generic form. It is intended that the forms will provide clearer requirements, result in more complete applications, and make the process less confusing for applicants and staff. Although not necessarily essential at this time, they will be necessary once the City updates its zoning ordinance and other land use regulations, which will include more specific application requirements. And since they are essentially done, we may as well start using them so everyone can get used to them; we can always update them as needed. The forms don’t require official adoption, but I did attach them here since you haven’t seen them. The Planning Commission may want to discuss them as part of a future agenda item and provide input. We plan to present them to the City Council along with some proposed updated fees/deposits at an upcoming City Council meeting.

OWTS Program
City staff will continue to implement the Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) program. Although I have had indispensable support from other City staff to finally get the program implemented City-wide, the City Planner is the designated OWTS Administrator. There are several facets to this task.
• Keep up with OWTS Operating Permits: The City now has a system in place to keep track of permit expiration dates and notify property owners when their permit will soon expire. We will also continue to monitor property sales and improvements to ensure that OWTS are upgraded as needed at appropriate times. • Follow-up on enforcement: There are still a few outstanding property owners that have not submitted complete applications and obtained OWTS permits for one or more systems. Staff have slowly ramped up our correspondence and have tried to work with the hold-outs on an informal basis. It is likely that the City will have to take more formal enforcement steps in the coming months to achieve compliance.

Unfortunately, enforcement can be very difficult and time consuming.

2025 Planning Projects February 19, 2025 PC Meeting
• OWTS Ordinance update: As noted at the January meeting, I want to make sure that adequate requirements and protections for OWTS are in place prior to implementation of the ADU ordinance. And as part of any amendments, it would make sense to make at least a few other minor updates to the OWTS ordinances based on lessons learned as we have more fully implemented the OWTS Management Program. Although the OWTS ordinance was originally drafted by the Planning Commission, it is not truly a land use ordinance and does not require Planning Commission review or recommendation prior to adoption of amendments by the City Council.

LCP Update Grant
Completing the LCP update is staff’s biggest priority. One, the LCP Update Grant that we have from the Coastal Commission will be done at the end of this year. And two, we have been working towards a general plan/LCP update for many years, and it is important to get that accomplished. We are behind on most of the grant tasks, but we have been making good progress over the last several months and have them all well in progress at this point. The following is a summary of grant tasks and progress. • Cultural Element: City staff need to incorporate the Rancheria and Yurok Tribe’s comments on the draft element. We will also make another attempt to get comments from the Tsurai Ancestral Society. Some of this general plan element, particularly policies related to the Tsurai Study Area, are complicated by the ongoing litigation, but we still need to move forward on it to the extent possible. We can amend it later as needed. In addition to the Cultural and Historic Resources Element, the City needs to conduct formal Tribal Consultation on the entire General Plan once all the elements are complete and near their final form.
• Safety Element: We have discussed the safety element at the last couple of meetings.

The next step is to incorporate the Planning Commission comments from the last meeting and get a draft submitted to Coastal Commission staff. • Studies: Coastal Commission staff have requested several background studies as part of the City’s LCP update. Some have been previously drafted and need updating, and some are new studies. These are tasks staff have been working on, but they haven’t all shown up on agendas, so the Planning Commission, City Council, and the public may not be aware of all of these efforts. The results and recommendations of these (and other) studies have been or will eventually need to be integrated into the general plan update as needed.
o Visitor Service Facilities: The VSF study is focused on overnight visitor accommodations. The Coastal Act identifies visitor services as a priority land use in the Coastal Zone. This issue is of particular importance considering the fact that the two RV parks in town (and the only properties zoned Visitor Services in the City) have mostly converted to long-term tenancy. The study is generally complete and has been reviewed by Coastal Commission staff. However, they

2025 Planning Projects February 19, 2025 PC Meeting
would like more information specific to the RV Parks and I have not been successful in obtaining the information, including contacting the property owners and HCD to get additional information. I will continue to work on that. o Build out: This study is an assessment of the build-out development potential in the City under the proposed land use designations/zoning and the City’s capacity to provide the services necessary to accommodate that development.

The study focuses on water supply, stormwater/groundwater, wastewater/OWTS and traffic/parking. Coastal Commission staff want a specific analysis of how land use changes proposed in the LCP update affect the development potential and service capacity. The Planning Commission has discussed several land use changes with minor impacts, and I have identified a few more that would make sense. I still need to review these changes with Coastal Commission staff. And the RV parks are still a big unknown in terms of future land use designation. I can’t finalize the build-out analysis until the land use changes are better solidified.
o Updates: A number of the City’s old reports have been more recently updated, such as with the Community Climate Resilience Plan (CCRP). However, the soils and biological resources background reports are currently being updated with the LCP grant funding.
o Parking: This study was drafted under a previous grant. It was reviewed by the Planning Commission but never finalized. I need to incorporate Planning Commission and Coastal Commission comments and finalize the report. This should qualify as a report update under the LCP grant to the extent that funding is available.
• IP Update: The Implementation Plan portion of the LCP consists of the subdivision, grading, building, and zoning ordinances, all of which have significant gaps and need substantial updates. These ordinances were originally written in the late 1970’s and have not been substantially updated since. We have worked on some pieces of the zoning ordinance in particular (e.g. developing provisions for administrative permits and new design guidelines), most of which were never adopted. One of the issues with the ordinances being so old, is if you update or make changes to one section, it often results in the need to make changes to other sections, so we haven’t been able to make minor updates. We are currently working on compiling all the previous updates and adding new chapters and sections where deficiencies have been identified. I am going to start putting pieces of the zoning and other ordinances on the Planning Commission agendas. To that end, I suggest the Planning Commission start familiarizing yourselves with the zoning ordinance, Title 17 of the Municipal Code, which can be found here:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Trinidad/
o Pending amendments: There are a few zoning amendments that have been recently adopted and submitted to the Coastal Commission for certification. Although

2025 Planning Projects February 19, 2025 PC Meeting
these should not demand much staff time in 2025, I wanted to provide an update to the Planning Commission. The amendments include the codified numbering update, which will be critical for drafting the comprehensive zoning update, because it reconciles the codified numbering system found in the Trinidad Municipal Code and the one that was originally certified by the Coastal Commission. The other two are related to housing and were funded by a previous housing grant. They include the update of housing related definitions and allowable uses in residences as provided in state law, and addition of a process for responding to reasonable accommodate requests for persons with disabilities. Finally, there was a private application for a zone/land use designation change on Berry Road that was approved by the City. All of these amendments are still pending certification by the Coastal Commission. The applications have been deemed complete, and the City has not received any requests for additional information related to the applications.

Other GP Updates
The City’s General Plan also functions as the Land Use Plan portion of the City’s LCP. It consists of the seven State required elements as well as a couple of optional elements.

The seven required elements are land use, conservation, open space, circulation, housing, safety, and noise. There is also a separate section for public access and recreation, because that is a Coastal Act requirement. The optional elements are cultural and historical resources, and community design. All of these elements have been updated since 2020, and many of them have been reviewed by Coastal Commission staff. The Housing Element has been adopted and certified by HCD, but is not part of the LCP, so it doesn’t need Coastal Commission approval. The Land Use, Conservation, Open Space, and Circulation Elements are essentially complete, but will likely need some minor updates based on the new and updated background studies, to ensure consistency between all elements, and as a result of formal Tribal Consultation. Current and draft general plan elements can be found here:
https://www.trinidad.ca.gov/document-library?search=general%20plan • Noise: The noise element is probably the smallest element and is generally not included as part of the LCP. That means is it less of a priority, because it does not fall under the LCP grant. The Planning Commission reviewed an updated draft in September 2022. I need to incorporate the Planning Commission’s comments and obtain some updated noise readings.
• Overall consistency: The general plan must be internally consistent. Once all of the elements have been drafted, they need to be reviewed again for any final updates and internal consistency. This is also the point where formal Tribal Consultation will need to occur.

Trails
There are several ongoing trails projects described below.

2025 Planning Projects February 19, 2025 PC Meeting
• ALMT: The City continues to work with the Tsurai Management Team (TMT) to look at both short and long-term repairs to the Axel Lindgren Memorial Trail and ways to address the bluff instability. The trails memo provided as part of this packet provides additional details and current updates.
• Galindo Trail: The City Council directed staff to work on a plan for closing the Galindo Trail. City staff worked closely with the TAS and Coastal Commission staff in 2022 and into early 2023 to plan a small parklet that serve as a memorial and an overlook at the top of the bluff along the trail as part of the closure. The City was also working on coordinating repair of the boardwalk along lower Edwards, which is a critical alternative pedestrian access route. We were to the point of having draft plans close to being ready to present to the public. Unfortunately, we all got pulled away in the spring of 2023 to deal with the erosion along Old Home Beach. And we have continued to be busy with other trail issues so that we have not gotten back to working on Galindo. In addition, there have been delays with the boardwalk repair, so the project could not have moved forward anyway. It is anticipated that there will be movement again on this project in 2025.
• Van Wycke Trail: 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. This topic may or may not come up in 2025, but I will keep the Planning Commission abreast of any updates.

Annexation/Water Service Apps
The City received two applications for water service along Mill Creek Lane outside City limits. The City developed policies for responding to water connection requests outside City limits that were approved in 2023. These requests are both fairly straightforward residential connections that can be approved by the City Manager. However, the City also has to apply to the Humboldt County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) for permission to provide water outside City limits. Although LAFCo have relaxed their standards somewhat so that annexation is not necessarily required, they still expect the City to consider and pursue annexation unless it is not feasible.

Unfortunately, staff have been very busy, and these applications have not been prioritized. Now that some of our other obligations have been taken care of and the City has a new City Manager, I hope to make some real progress on these applications. The City needs to do some legwork to look at the feasibility of and desire for annexation.

Staff met on February 10 to discuss next steps. I have requested the City Engineer’s office to evaluate the impact to the City’s water system from connecting all the properties along Mill Creek Lane, because that area has relatively low water pressure,

2025 Planning Projects February 19, 2025 PC Meeting
and improvements may be necessary. The City has also requested LAFCo staff to present some general information regarding annexation at an upcoming City Council meeting—likely the April meeting. Annexation is not a simple process and would take significant staff time. However, there has been interest from the Planning Commission and City Council in learning more about the process, and staff needs to address the water connection applications, so we need to consider it at some level.

Permit processing
Staff have an obligation to process permit applications as they are received in a timely manner. There was a significantly higher than average number of applications in 2024.

Besides the application on tonight’s agenda, there are two additional pending applications in addition to the water service applications mentioned above. One is a residential addition similar to a previously approved project that was never constructed. In addition, a relatively large (for Trinidad) application for five residential units has been submitted.

An application has been submitted by the Yurok Housing Authority to develop the property just east of Hidden Creek RV Park with five single-family dwellings. The applicant has submitted plans, a detailed project description, a septic report, biological reports, and a draft Initial Study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Some additional information is still being prepared. But staff are starting to review the documents and will work on the CEQA document over the next month or so. The CEQA document will need to be circulated for a 30-day review period prior to the hearing and adoption, so it will be at least a couple of months before you see this project.

Enforcement
In addition to following up on OWTS permits, there are always a few enforcement issues that come up. Enforcement can be difficult, time consuming, and expensive, and the City has not generally made enforcement a high priority except in certain specific cases, usually as the result of complaints. It is important for the City to follow-up on known violations if we expect people to follow the rules. We have a couple of pending issues where we are attempting to work with the property owners on an informal basis to gain compliance. Staff will continue with these efforts as needed and/or as directed by the City Manager.

Future Agenda Items
These are items that have been added to the Planning Commission’s “future agenda items” on the agenda. Some have been on there for quite some time. Several of them will be addressed through the LCP update. However, getting that through certification by the Coastal Commission will still take time, so we can consider interim measures, such as how to implement the new design guidelines. The topic of annexation will be addressed to some degree through the processing of the water connection applications

2025 Planning Projects February 19, 2025 PC Meeting
mentioned above. The following is the current list of future agenda items from the agenda.
• Vegetation regulations
• Signage master plan/regulations
• Annexation
• Dealing with cultural resources in project reviews
• Implementation of new design guidelines
• Land acknowledgment

ATTACHMENTS
• Draft Planning Application Forms and Guides (14 pages, not included) DISCUSSION AGENDA ITEM 4

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS WERE PROVIDED

4. Update/Discussion regarding the April 04, 2026, Westhaven Drive Water Main Leak and Extended Service Outage.

CITY OF TRINIDAD STAFF REPORT
DATE: Tuesday, April 14, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Gabriel Adams, Interim City Manager

DISCUSSION AGENDA TITLE

1. Update/Discussion regarding the April 04, 2026, Westhaven Drive Water Main Leak and Extended Service Outage.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION / SUMMARY
No action requested. Presentation item only, with operational staff present to provide a post-incident summary, current status update, help answer questions, and receive feedback that will help guide future decisions regarding the water system.

STAFF PRESENT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS DISCUSSION
City Manager Gabriel Adams (Management/Outreach)
Public Works Supervisor Kyle Shipman (Operations)

DISCUSSION/BACKGROUND
A water main service line break occurred on Friday, April 03, 2026 at approximately 6:00pm, on a 4” section of pipe located in the southbound shoulder at 254 North Westhaven Drive. The break was caused by the impact of a large redwood tree that fell across the road. The tree also took out overhead power and communication lines and completely blocked the road for nearly 36 hours.

The leak occurred on an older segment of mainline that
provides a circulation loop in the distribution system, traveling from Westhaven Drive, diving under the freeway to serve customers on Langford Road, and joins the Scenic Drive
main. The valving for this segment is complex. The 4”
asbestos concrete (AC) line splits off and runs parallel to the 10” main on Westhaven Drive, then reconnects in town at the Main and View Street intersection. At least one of the control valves are inoperable, another is questionable, and others are not intuitively located. The scope of the break, in conjunction with the complex isolation process, severely impaired the Water Department’s ability to minimize the number of customers impacted and duration of the outage.

A precautionary Boil Water Notice was issued on Saturday when the line was isolated and depressurized so utility crews onsite could remove the tree and perform overhead and
underground repairs. The break interrupted service to approximately 30 customers connected to the Westhaven Drive and Langford Road 4” distribution segment. The unprecedented, extended outage lasted approximately 76- hours, from 10am Saturday morning, April 04, through 2:00pm Tuesday, April 07.

The incident further emphasizes ongoing concerns about the vulnerability of a small water system challenged by increasing costs, regulatory, and environmental pressures.

The discussion is intended to open the conversation with the Council and community, provide access to management and operational staff for questions, capture feedback, identify areas that can be improved, and recognize how this situation compared to the January 03 incident for reference purposes.

LEAK LOCATION, TIMELINE, DETAILS
The water department was notified of the leak by phone from the owner of 254 North Westhaven Drive who witnessed the tree fall shortly after 6:00pm on Friday, April 03. The water operator notified routed calls to all Public Works and City Management staff at approximately 7:15pm. The City Manager arrived on the scene, assessed the situation, identified the leak point coming from under the large redwood approximately 4’ in diameter, and relayed the information to water operators that were enroute. After the initial assessment of water storage supply levels and the rate in which water was being lost, staff determined the severity was not critical but needed to be stabilized based on the overall site condition. Public Works contractor GRS, Inc. was contacted and confirmed availability Saturday to assist the Water Department with excavation and repair.

Three Shift Operators and the City Manager executed troubleshooting procedures that included valve closures and hydrant flushing from between 8:00pm-11:00pm to stop the leak and isolate the compromised distribution segment. Two Shift Operators and the City Manager continued troubleshooting after 11:00pm and concluded at 1:00am. Flow to the leak had been reduced, but not completely stopped. Water operators increased production at the plant to offset the loss and stabilize tank levels at approximately 70% capacity. The weather had been fair for several weeks so the creek condition was ideal for production. Preliminary overall water loss estimate is approximately 40,000 gallons.

Staff returned to the site at approximately 8:00am Saturday to continue locating valves that would fully control the leak point. The Langford Road valve was shut off shortly after 10:00am, successfully reducing the flow rate at the leak point. Water department staff contacted the City’s contracted T3 Chief Plant Operator Eric Sanders with a detailed incident timeline and report. Sanders advised to issue a Boil Water Notice to all affected customers that lost service. The notice was issued as a standard precaution due to depressurized lines and the extended period of time that we were unable to identify the size and scope of the line break.

The tree and overhead lines were cleared by PG&E just after 6:00pm. The City proceeded to excavate the leak point, assess the damage, and completed the repair just after 8:00pm. The good news was that the pipe was not crushed and was able to be repaired with a clamp, under low pressure, minimizing the introduction of contaminants down-stream. The bad news was that Boil Water Notices, once issued, could not be lifted without lab testing of bacteriological contaminants (Bac-T), and a release order from State drinking water officials.

Challenges to the timeline complicating water restoration included; 1) The break occurred suddenly after 5:00pm on Friday
2) The City was unable to access the site for excavation and repair until after 8:00pm Saturday (24-hour later)
3) Despite every effort made to reach State Drinking Water Regulators and County Public Health Officials on Sunday, it was Easter and no one responded, postponing testing
and water restoration efforts until Monday.
4) Bac-T tests require a 24-hour period. Samples were
delivered first thing Monday morning. Results were
received at 1:00pm Tuesday. The Boil Water Notice was
lifted one hour later at 2:00pm.

STAFF RESPONSE & RECOVERY
Public Notification: An “all-hands” response occurred within 1-hour of receiving notification of the incident.

Management implemented the communication and emergency response notification systems (website, phone calls, email lists, social media outlets). With power, internet, and phone lines out to many of the water customers affected, management published the first outage notice on the City website at 9:00am Saturday, followed by an SMS (text) notification to all water customers that subscribe to the City’s emergency notification system.

Continued progress updates were published as follows;
• 4:00pm Saturday
• 9:00am & 5:00pm Sunday
• 9:00am & 5:00pm Monday
• 2:00pm Tuesday
https://www.trinidad.ca.gov/water/page/water-service-outage-04-04-2026-westhaven-drive Water Plant Production/Treatment: Water operators increased production at the plant to offset the loss and stabilize tank levels at approximately 70% capacity. The weather had been fair for several weeks so the creek condition was ideal for production. Preliminary overall water loss estimate is approximately 40,000 gallons.

Staff Impacts: Friday night initial assessment and inconclusive troubleshooting lasted from 7:00pm-1:00am (6) hours, and (19) total staff hours. By comparison, the January 03 Scenic Drive leak was discovered, isolated, and completely repaired in under (8) hours.

On Saturday, continued valve testing, hydrant flushing, coordination and distribution of Boil Water & High Turbidity Notices, and an all-day standby with the line break repair contractor concluded at approximately 8:00pm, requiring approximately 36-hours of overtime, and 16-hours of regular time.

On Sunday, shift operators and management staff worked regular and overtime hours.

Monday-Tuesday hours were overtime for operators that did not get the required break following their 40-hour work week ending the prior Friday.

FISCAL IMPACT // STAFFING
Payroll for the period affected is underway. No conclusions reached prior to this staff report publication.

FISCAL IMPACT // LEAK REPAIR
The city has not yet received an invoice from GRS for the emergency repair. The preliminary estimate is approximately $10-15,000.

COMMUNITY / BUSINESS IMPACTS

This incident is unique. The extended outage duration (76-hours for approximately 30 customers, all residing outside city limits) is unprecedented.

Re-pressurizing the water line serving the affected customers, without receiving clean tests from the lab and concluding the Boil Water Notice first would have severe consequences to downstream users. The management decision to minimize the number of affected customers shielded the entire system, including Trinidad School and businesses downstream from quarantined water that remained isolated until cleared by lab testing and State drinking water officials.

ATTACHMENTS:
- Boil Water Notices (BWN)
- Emergency Update Log published on the city website.

Staff Login 409 Trinity Street, PO Box 390 | Trinidad, CA 95570 | (707) 677-0223 Government Websites by CivicPlus® Water
Department
Consumer
Confidence
Reports
Water Service
Outage -
Westhaven Drive
04-04-2026
Emergency Water
Shortage Alert: 01-
03-2026
Emergency Water
Shortage Alert: 11-
21-2024
Water Notices and
Notifications
Water Rates
Water Advisory
Committee
Water Storage
Tank Replacement
Project
Water Service Outage - 04-04-2026 Westhaven Drive
News Release Date:04-04-2026 Back to News
Tuesday, 2:00pm Update: Microbac confirmed all water quality samples taken were clear (negative) of any bacteriological contaminants. The City's State Water regulator has authorized the water department to restore service. The Boil Water Notice has been lifted, and Public Works is currently in the field pressurizing and flushing the affected lines! Monday, 5:00pm Update: We anticipate receiving water sample results back from Microbac Labs sometime before noon (hopefully earlier) Tuesday morning. If the results are good and the regulator authorizes the City to restore water service, we will do so immediately. In preparation of water service restoration, we want all affected customers to ensure that all water valves in the home are closed. Prolonged outages can cause sinks or garden hose taps to be left open by accident. Restoring water service can also cause air in lines that must be bled, and also discoloration in the initial water flowing through the system. This discoloration is due to minerals or sediments that have collected in the distribution pipes over time, and disrupted when water service is reactivated. We recommend bleeding this air and any discolored water out through a garden hose located closest to where your service line connects a the house. City water staff will be monitoring meters during the process, and also go door to door to assist anyone that may need assistance bleeding air from their lines.

Customers near leak site such as Te-Pah and on Westhaven Drive that did not lose water may experience air and or discoloration in their lines as well.

All customers without water are encouraged to sign up through this website to receive future water notifications, and also reach out to Town Hall and make sure your contact information is updated in our billing system. Thanks again for your continued patience.

Monday, 9:00am Update: Spoke with State Water regulator this morning at 8:00am who confirmed the City has done everything by the book to protect the health and safety of the customers affected, and is managing the outage in a manner that is minimizing the impact to the entire system. Water samples were delivered to the lab at 9:00am. Chlorine residuals of all samples taken were normal or above average. We are now waiting for the results of the bacteria tests which typically take up to 24 hours. Upon receipt of negative test results and confirmation from regulators, the City will begin restoring service immediately. Please keep in mind that the water quality testing is being taken in an abundance of caution due to the line break scenario - not because there is evidence of contamination. This is the standard protocol for this type of incident. More information will be provided in an update later today.

Sunday, 5:00pm Update: Water Department staff strategized every possible scenario to restore water to the 30 customers affected by Saturday's outage, but unfortunately this segment of line cannot be pressurized without the possibility of introducing untested water to the rest of the system. The labs were not open today, and our regulators did not respond to our outreach. As a result, our current estimate is for customers to prepare for up to an additional 48- hours for the test results and for State Regulators to lift the notice and authorize the city to restore service. More information will be shared as soon as we receive it on Monday. We sincerely apologize for this delay, and appreciate your patience. Please contact the City directly if there's anything we can do to help while we wait this out... [email protected], or 707-677-0223.

Saturday, 9:00pm Update: Due to the duration and scope of the break, along with the hydrodynamics of the North Westhaven Drive segment of the distribution system, the City had to issue a precautionary Boil Water Notice (BWN) directly to 30 customers on that line this morning just prior to isolating it for construction late this afternoon. The water line was successfully repaired shortly after 8:00pm. In order to reactivate the water line and lift the Boil Water Notice, the Water Department must test and receive negative bacteriological contaminant results over a 24-hour period. The results must be confirmed by the State Drinking Water regulator who will then lift the BWN. The timing of this incident with Easter weekend has impaired the City's ability to expedite the test, but we are doing everything we can to restore service as quickly as possible to the customers affected.

Saturday, 4:00pm Update: At approximately 9:45am the section of distribution line affected by the down tree along Westhaven Drive was isolated. Water storage tank level was not compromised during the incident, however, due to a large segment of distribution lines being shut down, a Boil Water Notice was issued as a precaution to approximately 32 customers on the impacted area at approximately 12:00pm Saturday afternoon. Tree debris has been removed and overhead utilities are in the process of being restored. The City water line repair will begin as soon as the overhead utilities are complete. The Water Department will work as quickly as possible to restore water service. An additional 24 hours may be required to repair and ensure the quality of water introduced into the isolated segment of line meets or exceeds state of California drinking water standards. The City appreciates your patience as we do everything possible to restore water service to all affected customers.

Saturday, 9:00am Update: Water service to customers on Westhaven Drive, lower Quarry, and Langford Road on the affected distribution line was interrupted just after 6pm last night when a large redwood tree fell across the road near 207 North Westhaven Drive. The tree took out PG&E, AT&T, and Optimum overhead utilities. Trinidad Public Works responded within 30 minutes of receiving notification of the water leak, worked throughout the night to prevent loss of storage capacity, and is still working to isolate the affected section of the distribution system. The leak is located under the large redwood tree that must be removed before any utility restoration work can begin. Once the site is cleaned up, overhead utilities will be restored. Water line repair will follow shortly after. Monitor your PG&E and Optimum alert notifications for a more exact restoration timeframe, or check back to this site for updates later this afternoon.

Supporting Documents
Boil Water Notice 04-05-2026.pdf
331.79 KB
BWN Cancellation - Trinidad 04-07-2026.pdf
257.87 KB
View PDF of Page
Contact Information
Phone Number
707-677-0223
Email
Contact Group
Office Hours
Contact the City of
Trinidad mainline at 707-
677-0223, Monday-Friday,
or email
[email protected] for
assistance setting up a
water service account,
questions about your bill,
questions about drinking
water quality, or to report a
water leak.

Contact the Water
Treatment Plant at 707-
677-3862, if you have
questions about water
quality or to report a leak
on the weekends.

CITY OF

TRINIDAD

CALIFORNIA
Home Contact Us Search
City Government Community Departments and Services Doing Business Este aviso contiene informacion muy importante sobre su agua potable. Para una copia en español, favor de llamar al sistema de agua(818)404-4470. [CITY OF TRINIDAD ](1210018)

BOIL WATER NOTICE
Boil Your Water Before Drinking or Food Preparation to Avoid Illness Due to a recent water main break, which occurred 04/03/26], the water distribution system was depressurized, the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water, and the [City of Trinidad Water Department] are advising all its customers to only use boiled tap water or bottled water for drinking and cooking purposes as a safety precaution to avoid stomach or intestinal illness. The affected area
includes: Residents between 751 N Westhaven Dr. to the
intersection of Westhaven Dr. and frontage road, 2
residences on Quarry Rd., and all of Langford Rd.)
We will inform you when tests show that water is safe to drink and you no longer need to boil your water. We anticipate the power to return and the distribution system to be re-pressurized by Saturday evening. Afterwards, we will be collecting special bacteriological samples to ensure the bacteriological water quality of the water.

If you have questions about other uses of tap water, such as bathing and dish washing, please call your water system or read this guidance: https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/emergency/ dwa-comm-toolbox/before/tools/What-to-Do-During-a-BoilWater-Advisory.docx Do not drink the water without boiling it first
• Boil all water for one (1) minute
(rolling boil).
• Let water cool before drinking.
• Use boiled or bottled water for drinking,
brushing teeth, and food preparation
until further notice.
• Boiling water kills bacteria and other
organisms in the water.

If you are unable to boil your water:

Household unscented liquid bleach
• For clear water, use 8 drops (1/8 tspn.) of
bleach for 1 gallon of water. For cloudy water,
filter through a clean cloth and use 16 drops
(1/4 tspn.) of bleach for 1 gallon of water.
• Mix well. Allow to stand for 30 minutes
before using.
• Water may taste or smell like chlorine.

This means disinfection has occurred.

Water disinfection tablets
• Please follow the manufacturer’s instructions.

If you are concerned about your health or the health of a family member, contact your health care provider.

For more information, call:

Water Utility contact: [Carl Anderson 707-834-4903 or 707-677-3862] State Water Resources Control Board District Office: [Scott Gilbreath 530- 224-4876 or 831-566-7490]
Please share or post this information with others who drink this water, especially those who may not have received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes, schools, and businesses). You can do this by posting this notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.

CANCELLATION OF BOIL WATER NOTICE

CITY OF TRINIDAD
04/07/2026
On April 03, 2026 residents between 751 N Westhaven Dr. to the intersection of Westhaven Dr. and Frontage Rd., 215 Quarry Rd., 171 Quarry, and all of Langford Rd were notified of the need to boil/disinfect all tap water used for drinking and cooking purposes.

The CITY OF TRINIDAD Water System in conjunction with the State Water Resources Control Board has determined that, through abatement of the health hazard and comprehensive testing of the water, your water is safe to drink. It is no longer necessary to boil your tap water or for you to consume bottled water.

For more information call:

Water Utility contact:

CITY OF TRINIDAD TOWN HALL: 707-677-0223
CITY OF TRINIDAD WATER TREATMENT PLANT: 707-677-3862
Visit https://trinidad.ca.gov
State Water Resources Control Board:

Email: [email protected]
Phone: +1 (530) 224-4876
State Water Resources Control Boards
364 Knollcrest Drive, Suite 101, Redding CA 96002
Website: www.waterboards.ca.gov
Local Environmental Health Jurisdiction:

Humboldt County Division of Environmental Health
DISCUSSION AGENDA ITEM 5

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS WERE PROVIDED

5. Continued Discussion/Decision regarding Edwards Street Crosswalk Safety Improvements.

CITY OF TRINIDAD STAFF REPORT
DATE: Tuesday, April 14, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Gabriel Adams, Interim City Manager

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Conclude the continued Edwards Street traffic safety improvements discussion from February and September 2025. Review information, share observations, and decide whether to remove flashing beacon signage installed as designed and recommended by the City Engineer.

DISCUSSION/BACKGROUND:

The Edwards Street HSIP road safety improvements were discussed at length at the January and February 2025 Council meetings. Of particular concern to the nearby neighbors were the flashing beacon pedestrian crosswalk signs installed on Edwards Street at Hector and Galindo Streets as part of the safety enhancements designed by City Engineer Josh Wolf of GHD. Wolf did not recommend removing any of the safety elements, but suggested modification alternatives and associated costs. The City’s insurer and risk manager (CIRA) recommended the City maintain design immunity to avoid exposure in the event of a future traffic incident involving a pedestrians at each crosswalk.

After several meetings where the public expressed their feedback about the signage, the Council directed staff to seek a second opinion from another engineering firm
with the goal of finding an airtight solution that eliminated the crosswalk beacons and preserve design immunity.

Former City Manager searched for a willing engineer to
take on the project. Of the 10 names contacted, only one agreed to review the design and possibly remove the
flashing beacon signage. After many months of
discussion, that engineer informed the City Manager that not only could he not find a way to reverse engineering the installation, but his insurance company had also
refused to cover his work if he were to continue with this project.

The City Manager informed the City Council at the follow up discussion in September 2025, that;

1. Staff was unable to find an engineer that would provide an alternative to GHD’s recommendations.

2. The City was expecting a $630,000 reimbursement from Caltrans to close out the grant by Dec. 31.

3. Any substantial project modifications prior to receiving reimbursement may put the project at risk.

The recommendation at that time was to bring the discussion topic back after the grant program concluded.

RISK EXPOSURE TO REMOVAL:

Legal exposure: Although CIRA (California Intergovernmental Risk Authority Joint Powers Authority) risk managers do not advise removing safety enhancements designed and implemented by City Engineer, they do not explicitly state the crosswalks would be excluded from coverage should an accident occur. The only temporary coverage exclusion imposed on Trinidad was due to the existence of failed improvements on the Van Wycke Trail, which was lifted by the JPA when repairs were made and adequate signage was posted.

Removing the crosswalk signs could increase the City’s legal exposure in the event of a pedestrian accident, with the question being whether the City ignored a known safety risk, nuisance, or hazard. Design immunity provided by the project as designed and certified by your City Engineer, supported by a decade of planning and community feedback, may be lost. A decision to remove existing safety improvements, in the absence of an alternative recommendation approved by a licensed engineer,
should be supported by findings justifying removal.

Financial risk: The Council has been informed that
removing the crosswalk signage will put the City at risk of having to return approximately $10k/intersection =
$20,000 to Caltrans HSIP program fund. Relocating
them to a different location may lower this risk.

Safety risk: The improvements were made to
enhance safety for pedestrians crossing Edwards
Street after several years of feedback received from
the community, project prioritization, public meetings, and Council direction to staff to proceed with the
project. Public comments have been received in favor
of the project from residents with disabilities, children, or challenges they’ve faced when trying to cross at
peak traffic times. Removing the signage may pose a
risk to their safety, and could increase the City’s
exposure to ADA Title II compliance lawsuits.

BENEFITS AND FINDINGS SUPPORTING REMOVAL:

Public feedback has been received arguing that the conditions at these intersections do not warrant such dramatic safety installments, pollute the viewshed, and are out of character of the small-town charm. Should the majority of the Council contemplate removal of one or both sets of RRFB crosswalk signs, the findings below could be made in support of the decision;

1. The area has no significant history of traffic accidents in general and specifically that involved pedestrians crossing the street. The speed limit on the street is very low.

2. The city did not contact neighborhood residents directly, just prior to sign installation to solicit input.

While notice was not legally required because traffic safety signs are exempt from CDP requirements, Ocean Ave. residents were all contacted before speed humps with accompanying signage were placed on their street. The city should have consistent standards of notification when neighborhoods stand to be affected by a planned change.

3. In general, signage is heavily regulated under our local coastal plan and Edwards Street afford views of the ocean to the south and west. The city should be cognizant of protecting such views from sign pollution where possible and reasonable.

4. The state guidelines on the use of RRFB's make them optional, not mandatory.

5. The federal guidelines on the use of RRFB's caution against over use of them that can render them less effective.

6. Our insurer has stated that the city will be covered on claims made from any accident on Edwards Street regardless of the presence of absence of the signs.

7. Under the California statutes on design immunity, a city council decision that is supported by substantial evidence can supersede an engineer's recommendation.

OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER:

A. No change to the project as designed and conclude the discussion indefinitely.

B. Direct staff to remove BOTH sets of RRFB crosswalk safety signs installed at Hector and Galindo, based on one or more findings provided.

C. Direct staff to remove ONE set of RRFB crosswalk safety signage (either at Hector OR Galindo) based on one or more findings provided.

PRIOR DISCUSSIONS & STAFF REPORTS
Public comments submitted in February 2025 (https://www.trinidad.ca.gov/media/7746) STAFF REPORT PROVIDED IN FEBRUARY 2025
The City of Trinidad has been actively working for over a decade on various transportation and safety improvement projects to enhance pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, as well as overall road safety. A significant focus has been on the pedestrian safety and connectivity improvements on Edwards Street which include the installation of new marked crosswalks with enhanced signage and Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) to improve visibility and driver awareness. These enhancements aim to provide a safer crossing for pedestrians, particularly vulnerable users such as school children. However, the Hector Street crosswalk has faced recent public concern over the visual impact of the crosswalk sign system on the coastal viewshed. Some residents have expressed that the sign systems are unsightly and obstruct the coastal views, arguing that the public safety benefits do not outweigh the viewshed impacts. In response, the City staff have been working to identify potential options to minimize the visual impact while maintaining the original design intent. The following staff report provides a summary of previous City efforts over the past 10+ years to improve pedestrian safety and connectivity on Edwards Street which ultimately resulted in the crosswalks enhancements that were recently installed.

Cycle 2 Active Transportation Project – Van Wycke Trail In 2015, the City of Trinidad received a $714,000 Active Transportation Plan (ATP) grant to repair the failed section of the Van Wycke Trail and to make pedestrian and bicycle improvements to create a safer, more pedestrian and bicycle friendly route between Trinity/Edwards Street intersection and the Trinidad Harbor/Beach area. The project included a new crosswalk across Edwards Street at Hector Street and a new sidewalk on the south side of Edwards Street between Van Wycke Street and Trinity Street.

During the development of the application, the project received several letters of support, including from the Humboldt County Association of Governments (HCAOG), the Trinidad Coastal Land Trust, the Trinidad Museum Society, the Greater Trinidad Chamber of Commerce, the Trinidad Rancheria, and the Trinidad Union School District. The letters were consistent in their support for the project objectives, which included providing for a safer route to the beach/harbor area for residents and visitors, to encouraging outdoor activities, and to promoting an active and healthy lifestyle. The letter from the Trinidad Union School District also mentioned that classes often took walking filed trips to the beach/harbor area and the Telonicher Marine Lab and that a safer route was needed for their younger and more vulnerable students. Copies of the letters of support are attached to this staff report.

After award of the grant and during the development the project, concerns regarding the potential impact to tribal resources resulted in the City abandoning the plan to repair the Van Wycke Trail, and staff instead worked with Caltrans to repurpose the ATP grant to extend a new sidewalk down the south side of Edwards Street, between Galindo Street and Trinity Street. However, several adjacent property owners expressed opposition to the project and without the ability to extend the project timeline due to funding requirements, the Council decided to cancel the project in late 2020.

Cycle 10 HSIP Project
In November 2020, prior to the cancelation of the Van Wycke Trail ATP project, the City applied to the Caltrans Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Cycle 10 for the aet-aside funding component that targeted critical safety issues identified by Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) and/or Caltrans. In March 2021, Caltrans notified the City that they had been awarded nearly $800,000 in funds through the HSIP to make specific safety improvements, including striping and signage upgrades, guardrail upgrades, and crosswalk enhancements. The HSIP project included the following safety enhancements Edwards Street to supplement pedestrian connectivity work that was expected to occur as part of the Van Wycke Trail ATP project:
• Edwards Street at Galindo Street – A new marked crosswalk with enhanced signage. The existing crossing was unmarked, lacked signage, and had limited visibility for traffic headed up Edwards Street. The crossing was identified as a critical connection between the existing Galindo Street sidewalk and several points of interest on the north side of Edwards Street, including residences and businesses, on-street parking, and the Cal Poly Humboldt Telonicher Marine Lab. The significance of the crossing, along with the uncontrolled nature of the intersection, the busier nature of the road (with local, commercial and visitor traffic), limited stopping sight distance, and the presence of vulnerable users (e.g. school children), made the crossing a good candidate to receive crosswalk enhancements, including warning signage and RRFBs. • Edwards Street at Hector Street – A new marked crosswalk was already planned for this intersection as part of the Van Wycke Trail ATP project. The HSIP project proposed to further enhance the crossing with enhanced signage and RRFBs. The crossing was considered a critical connection between the existing sidewalk on Edwards Street, which dead ended at Hector Street, and the proposed improvements that were to be included as part of the Van Wyke Trail Project. The significance of the crossing, along with the uncontrolled nature of the intersection, the busier nature of the road (with local, commercial and visitor traffic), limited intersection lighting, and the presence of vulnerable users (e.g. school children), made the crossing a good candidate to receive crosswalk enhancements, including warning signage and RRFBs.

Local Road Safety Plan
Between March 2021 and January 2022, the City developed a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) in order to identify and prioritize potential safety countermeasures to improve safety in town. The LRSP was developed following a data driven planning process that included public outreach, input from community stakeholders and representatives from partner agencies, and a review of collisions patterns and high-risk roadway characteristics.

The development of the LRSP highlighted the need for connectivity improvements and crosswalk enhancements at several locations in town, including on Edward Street. The HSIP project was a central focus during the development of the LRSP (e.g. during public meetings and is referenced numerous times in the document itself) as the proposed improvements addressed some of the critical areas identified in the LRSP, including pedestrian safety, aggressive driving/speeding, distracting driving, intersection safety, and bicyclist safety.

Coastal Commission Requirements for Enhanced Pedestrian Access on Edwards Street In late 2023, following an effort by the City to officially close the Van Wycke Trail due to safety concerns regarding ongoing erosion and instability, the staff from the California Coastal Commission engaged with City staff and requesting that pedestrian connectivity improvements be made to Edwards Street if the Van Wycke Trail was going to be allowed to close. The Coastal Commission had jurisdiction over the trail closure because it provided pedestrian coastal access.

I early 2024 City staff worked to develop potential near- and long-term options to improve pedestrian connectivity and safety on Edwards Street. The preferred long-term improvement included extending a new sidewalk along the north side of Edwards Street between Hector Street and Galindo Street. The preferred near-team improvements identified included the reconfiguration of the road striping on Edwards Street between the proposed crosswalks at Hector Street and Galindo Street. The reconfiguration of the striping would allow for a buffered shoulder area on the south side of Edwards Street for enhanced pedestrian access.

In summer 2024, the proposed shoulder improvements to Edwards Street, in addition to the enhanced crosswalk at Hector Street were accepted by the California Coastal Commission staff as a mitigation measure that would allow the City to close the Van Wycke Trail.

Cycle 10 HSIP Project - Additional Edwards Street Improvements The City’s HSIP construction contract was awarded in February 2024. After award, City staff worked to identify additional eligible improvements that could be added to the project to maximize the benefit of the grant funding to the City. The Edwards Street improvements requested by the California Coastal Commission staff were identified as potential eligible improvements that could be added to the HSIP project. The proposed additional Edwards Street improvements were presented at the July 2024 City Council meetings for consideration where Council directed staff to proceed with adding the work to the HSIP project.

Crosswalk Markings and Signs - Design Requirements
In California, road striping, markings, and signs are governed by the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). This manual provides standardized guidelines to ensure consistency and safety across all traffic control devices used on public roads. The CA MUTCD incorporates specific requirements for the design, placement, and maintenance of traffic control devices. These requirements are designed to promote uniformity and clarity, which helps drivers understand and respond to road conditions consistently.

While the CA MUTCD sets forth detailed standards, it also recognizes the importance of engineering judgment.

This allows engineers to adapt the guidelines to address unique, site-specific conditions. For example, engineers can modify the placement or type of signage and markings based on factors such as road geometry, traffic volume, and visibility. This flexibility ensures that the most effective and safe solutions are implemented in diverse situations.

Although not mandatory at crosswalks, the CA MUTCD provides options for pavement markings and warning signage to enhance crosswalks in order to better alert road users that pedestrians may be crossing the roadway.

The CA MUTCD also includes guidance on suggested sign panel sizes and recommends a minimum 30”x30” pedestrian warning sign (W11-2) panel for single lane conventional roads. However, the CA MUTCD does allow for smaller 24”x24” sign panels subject to site conditions and engineering judgement.

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs)
RRFBs are specialized lights installed at pedestrian crosswalks to enhance safety. When a pedestrian presses a button, the RRFBs emit bright, rapidly flashing yellow lights, alerting drivers to stop and allow pedestrians to cross. RRFBs have been proven to significantly improve visibility and driver awareness, making it safer for pedestrians to cross the street. By increasing driver yielding rates, RRFBs help reduce the risk of accidents. They are particularly beneficial for vulnerable pedestrians, such as the elderly, young children, and individuals with disabilities, who may otherwise find it challenging to cross safely.

The CA MUTCD allows California jurisdictions to optionally use RRFBs as a pedestrian-actuated enhancement at uncontrolled marked crosswalks. RRFBs must be used in conjunction with other pedestrian warning signs located at or near the crosswalk.

RRFBs are recognized as an eligible safety countermeasure under the HSIP due to their proven effectiveness.

For more detailed information on the applicability and benefits of RRFBs at pedestrian crossings, you can refer to the FHWA publication linked here (https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/RRFB_508_0.pdf).

Design Immunity
According to Government Code §830.6, Design Immunity is defined as follows:

A public entity is not liable for injuries caused by a dangerous condition of public property if the following three essential elements are satisfied:

1. A causal relationship between the plan or design and the accident

2. Discretionary approval of the plan or design before construction or improvement

3. Substantial evidence supporting the reasonableness of the plan or design According to the City’s Risk Manager, since the current design was developed by a licensed engineer, is based on CA MUTCD standards, and approved by the City Council, then the City could assert design immunity if a claim was presented in which the accident had a causal relationship.

If the City was to remove the signs or change elements of the approved design, the design immunity would be lost. If the Council was to vote to make changes to the existing design, without the benefit of an engineer providing a design, the design immunity would also be lost. The only way to make changes and keep design immunity would be for a licensed engineer to approve a new/modified design and have it approved by the City Council before any changes were made.

Public Feedback on the Edwards Street Crosswalk Systems and Potential Options to Reduce Sign Height and Visual Impact
The Council and City staff have recently received feedback from several nearby residents regarding the project’s crosswalk sign systems on Edwards Street. Some residents have expressed support and appreciation of the sign systems and safety enhancements, especially for those with disabilities. While others were concerned that the crosswalk sign systems were unsightly and obstructing the coastal viewshed. They also argued the public safety benefit did not outweigh the viewshed impacts that the sign installation has caused to nearby homeowners and that sign systems should be removed.

As a result of the feedback, staff have been working to identify potential options to minimize the visual impact of the sign system on Edwards Street at Hector Street, while maintaining the original design intent. Staff have identified the potential options below for Council’s consideration (note that these options could be implemented separately or together):

Option 1 – Replace Sign Panels with Smaller Size Panels Replace the existing 30”x30” sign panels (W11-2) with smaller 24”x24” panels as allowed by the CA MUTCD. This design change would be allowable for the following reason: 1) Edwards Street is a low-speed (20 MPH posted), lower-volume (ADT<900) two-lane roadway, 2) Edwards Street at the crosswalk is relatively straight with good visibility and adequate stopping sight distance, and 3) the RRFB system enhances the sign visibility. The red curb paint (no parking area) at the intersection with Hector Street should also be extended to be 20’ long to enhance visibility of the sign. The estimated construction cost for this option is approximately $1,500.

Option 2 – Lower Sign on Bluff-Side and Relocate Sign on Hector Street Corner Since the sign on the south (bluff) side of Edwards is in a non-pedestrian area, it can be lowered by approximately 2 feet. The sign on the Hector Street side of Edwards Street can be moved behind the sidewalk and a separate pedestrian pushbutton post assembly (and connecting wiring) installed at the curb ramp where the sign post current stands. The red curb paint (no parking area) at the intersection with Hector Street should also be extended to be 30’ long to enhance visibility of the sign and crosswalk. The estimated construction cost for this option is approximately $10,000.

Option 3 – Replace Solar Panel and Control Cabinet
Replace the separate pole-mounted control panel (that’s currently above the signs but below the solar panel) with an integrated sign/panel system (similar to what’s at the crosswalk in front of Town Hall). This would result in a slimmer profile system and would allow the solar panels to be lowered slightly (by ~1’±). The estimated construction cost for this option is approximately $10,000.

DISCUSSION AGENDA ITEM 6

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS WERE PROVIDED

6. Staff Activity Report – March 2026.

CITY OF TRINIDAD STAFF REPORT
DATE: Tuesday, April 14, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Gabriel Adams, Interim City Manager
DISCUSSION AGENDA ITEM: Staff Activity Report – March 2026 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Review content, discuss, and receive public input.

DRAFT MOTION TO CONSIDER: Accept Staff Activity Report for March 2026.

MARCH 2025 SUMMARY
- STAFF PRODUCTIVITY
o ADMINISTRATION: The first two weeks of March were dedicated to for the March 10 Council meeting, with a focus on the January 03 post-incident water leak report and the routine follow-up required to implement the decisions made. The City of Trinidad vs. Tsurai Ancestral Society lawsuit trial also began that week with considerable time spent by staff at the courthouse under examination as subject matter experts.

The rest of the month was filled with challenges and problem-solving hours dedicated to fulfilling the needs of the community, ongoing commitments, partnerships, and projects including; • Emergency Intertie: Bringing the Trinidad-Westhaven Emergency Intertie project to the finish line • Cash Flow & Investments: Managing the city’s cash flow and investments • Payroll: Coordinating bi-weekly payrolls, proudly as staff is one of the city’s most important assets. • Water Department Team Support: Supporting the water staff in completing annual reports • Wildlife Encounters: Handling outreach following a mountain lion incident on Langford Road • Informing New Leaders: Introducing the new Trinidad Coastal Land Trust Director to the complex partnership arrangements developed between the City, Library, Museum, and Land Trust in the Saunders Park area.
• Complaints: Handling complaints received regarding lighting installed behind the Post Office, and a wood cutting operation occurring in the View Street right-of way across from Murphy’s. • Damage Claim: Processing a damage claim received due to the January 03 Scenic Drive water leak. • Long-Range Water Planning: Met with the State Water Board and consultants to develop an understanding of the City Council’s options to conduct a comparative analysis for the city’s water supply.
• Maintaining Streets and Improving Sidewalk Accessibility: Conducted the public bid process for the STIP, Main Street Improvement Project.
• Community Engagement & Safety Coordination: Coordinated staff support with parade organizers of the No Kings March that took place on 03/28.
• Community Water Service: Attended the LAFCO hearing where the Pierce and Cavanaugh outside city water service connections were approved.
• Street Light Maintenance and Upkeep: Met with PG&E representatives for a street light maintenance walk through town.
• Supporting Public Service Volunteers with State Mandated Filings: Concluded the annual FPPC form 700 filing process.
• Expanding Water Service Connections: Prepared and mailed two in-city residential water service connection invoices for construction completed in February. Now 328 water connections provided by the City, and growing.
• Neighborhood Safety Assistance: Assisted a homeowner with a fast-track application for a hazardous tree removal.
• Water Customer Financial Hardship Assistance: Conducted water system past due account audits and coordinated payment plans for customers having difficulty keeping up with rising costs. • City Environmental and Public Health cooperation: Reviewed recent minor amendments requested for the recent MOU between County Environmental Health and the City, and approved as authorized. • Staff Support: Fielded planning inquiries while the City Planner who was out for several weeks. • CSA 4 Long-Range Fire Planning: Worked with the Fire Chief to review and complete North Coastal Fire Services Study.
o FINANCE: Routine bi-weekly payroll, weekly invoice payables, and monthly cash flow analysis is performed to ensure the City’s revenues are invested appropriately while preserving adequate resources for ongoing construction invoices for the Intertie and Tank & Pipeline projects.

Financial statements included in the April meeting packet indicate business as predicted this time of year, with no anomalies or areas of concern that are not anticipated.

General Fund Admin, Police, Fire, and Public Works are right on target with wages, currently showing expenses proportional to the number of months that have passed since the beginning of the fiscal year, July

01. Some of the savings are attributed to the grant coordinator position that has not yet been filled, and from the currently merged Manager/Clerk positions. The savings will compound further at the end of the fiscal year when the grant payroll allocation is applied.

The Water Fund is currently under an in-depth review which began in late February. The City has been tasked with assembling financial data from the prior and current fiscal years, and sharing it with RCAC to kick-off the analysis. The City Manager will meet with RCAC staff to conclude the analysis on April 16 and will report to the Council in May.
o PUBLIC WORKS: In addition to their daily routine, Public Works staff continued significant oversight to the Intertie Project, maintained city storm drain systems, invested a significant amount of time staying on top of spring mowing and vegetation maintenance.
o STREETLIGHTS: The City’s streetlights have been struggling for the past 2-years to function properly.

Countless troubleshooting calls have been made to PG&E to assess the lights and repair or upgrade as needed. The lights are owned and maintained by PG&E, with energy bills with a built-in maintenance component charge paid for by the City on a monthly basis. PG&E technicians reported the lighting is aged and components are becoming obsolete. With that in mind they have sourced a new, upgraded light head that will be installed and tested as soon as their schedule allows. If it works, then all lights in town will be upgraded. Met with PG&E Government Affairs Liaison and Regional VP on April 03 for a walk-through town. We are expecting meaningful progress on a complete overhaul of every light fixture soon. o WATER: In addition to performing daily routine water sampling, staff focused on delivering high quality water to all customers in March.

The City received news that the current T3 Operator In-Training’s application for certification was denied, requesting that another 750 hours be served before the Water Board would issue the license. This is a major blow to the City’s current operation, and yet another challenge facing the City’s 5-year long quest for in-house T3 independence. We are currently in conversation with contract T3 consultant Eric Sanders who may need to resign in the near future due to other employment opportunities.  Currently operating with T3 Contractor Eric Sanders providing his service for a flat fee of $4k/month.  In-house staff member Carl Anderson (T3 in training) passed exam several months ago, thought he had fulfilled the amount of hours required to qualify for the T3 license but did not, according to a letter received by the Water Board on April 02. Staff will have to dedicate considerable time and resources to strategize the City’s next steps.
 Kyle Shipman (T2) and Say-gep Brown (T2) are studying for their Distribution exam date April 14. o PLANNING: The Planning commission did not meet in March. o ENGINEERING: City Engineer Steve Allen and Construction Manager Dagan Short have been overseeing the Emergency Intertie Project. Grant Administrator Angela Cather has been consumed by the project close-out phase, and complications with final invoicing, construction close-outs, reporting, and a bonus breakout of mold/mildew occurring in the unventilated building has triggered additional chaos at the very last minute. Design Engineer PACE is addressing the issue with WCSD and looking into possible remedies to this very serious issue that has the potential to compromise all the electrical components housed in the structure. This project has been a tremendous drain on staff resources. o BUILDING: City Building Inspector Dan Dimick has kept busy handling routine inquiries, progress inspections on active projects through town. Several construction large construction projects are currently underway. Building has not slowed down this season.
 STOP WORK ORDER: A Stop-Work Order has been issued to Charles Garth at his property located at 1 North Westhaven Drive (corner of Westhaven Drive and Frontage Road). Numerous complaints have been issued regarding unpermitted construction on the property, excessive vehicle storage, and unpermitted/over occupancy of a facility zoned public & religious. (See photo).
o CEMETERY: Routine burial and local plot sale coordination occurred in March.
- FUTURE AGENDA TOPICS UNDER DEVELOPMENT
o Underground Utilities: Staff had a preliminary discussion with PG&E Regional Vice President about underground possibility. The conversation was not optimistic. Staff will investigate further and share information as time allows. o Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District, RFP: On July 08, 2025 the City Council directed staff with the following motion: Motion (Kelly/Breckenridge) to direct staff to proceed with a comparative analysis and feasibility study that evaluates the two options for water provisioning in the City of Trinidad: 1) connection to HBMWD in partnership with the Trinidad Rancheria or independently; 2) continuing to operate its own independent municipal water plant. The study should include comparative long-term costs, developmental (growth) impacts, environmental factors, regulatory/legal guidelines, technical/engineering and operational requirements. Staff will bring the RFP for the study back to the Council for final review and seek grant money to fund. Passed 3-2. Yes – Kelly, Breckenridge, Varela. No – Kenny, Tuttle.

The former City Manager made an attempt to visualize a path forward prior to his resignation effective August 28, but nothing concrete materialized. Staff invested time in September to revisit this topic and strategize next steps. After several meetings with technical staff and a follow up with HBMWD General Manager Michiko Mares, staff has received enough information to reprioritize the task given by the Council on July 08, and assemble the findings into either an actionable item for consideration prior to the end of year, or a meaningful update that will give the Council an opportunity to help fine-tune or steer the proposal.

Certain preliminary tasks have been distributed among staff to begin developing materials to support the next phase of discussion that will support carrying out the motion in the most efficient manner.  City Planner Trever Parker developed some preliminary findings associated with the potential growth inducing impacts (concerns) from a connection to Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District. The report is attached as a supplemental document to this staff activity report, and is intended as an introduction to the research gathered following concerns raised during the July 08 meeting. This document and many others will be added to more information leading up to any actionable item reached during this process.  City Grant Administrator Angela Cather was tasked with narrowing down grant funding opportunities available to the City for comparative analysis, or RFP’s that focus on consolidation projects. Cather’s report is also attached as a supplement to the staff activity report.  City Engineer Steve Allen was tasked with reviewing several prior memos drafted by GHD over the last 20 years specifically comparing operation of the City’s water plant to an alternate source through HBMWD over the long-term.
 Interim City Manager Adams was tasked with an introductory meeting with HBMWD GM Michiko Mares, and to help connect the dots and strategize next steps that are in sync with the July 08 motion, and a realistic timeline and funding options.

November 2025 update: HBMWD General Manager Michiko Mares reached out to the City to notify staff and Council of an upcoming presentation to the Board of Directors entitled “Overview of Next Steps for Proposed North Mainline Extension – Informational Presentation. City Staff will attend. Council and anyone interested in this topic are also encouraged to attend.

HBMWD’s November 13 Board packet and agenda are available on their website, along with the videoconference participation link (on the agenda cover). The meeting begins at 9:00am on Thursday:
https://www.hbmwd.com/2025-11-13-board-of-directors-meeting Staff will consider information presented at this meeting into its formula for determining how best to approach revisiting the Council’s July 08 direction to conduct a comparative/feasibility study.

MARCH 10, 2026 Update: Although the calendar update presented at the February 10 Council meeting included this month to host the feasibility discussion, other priorities have taken precedent along with a need for staff to gather more information. The topic will be postponed at least another month or so.

APRIL 14, 2026 Update: Staff met with Water Board funding representative to investigate options to move the Council’s motion forward at the May 12 meeting.
- GRANT PROJECTS
o Trinidad-Westhaven Emergency Intertie Project: Continued and ongoing mildew issue has limited progress on the anticipated close out date. Building construction and design is currently under review. o Per Capita Parks & Recreation: The Racquet Court improvement project was rejected by Council in July.

Staff shifted attention to utilizing these funds to develop a shovel ready repair plan for the decaying boardwalk-sidewalk surface leading down Edwards Street from Van Wycke to the Harbor. The City failed to achieve a land tenure agreement with the Rancheria due to an issue discussed at the special meeting on August 06. The City filed a right-of-way use application to the BIA as directed by the Rancheria. Staff filed the completed application with the BIA as advised, but without familiarity with such process, we are unable to forecast a timeline for approval. The BIA responded in February, simply confirming receipt of the application and notifying the City that the project has been assigned to a staff member named in the letter.

We will update the Council regularly as information is received. o STIP: (See agenda item for bid award).
- TRIBAL GOVERNMENT CONSULTATIONS: No consultations pending. - TRAILS:
• ALMT: There has been no progress or updated activity on the appeal. Old Home Beach shoreline erosion concerns overshadowed any possible movement towards consensus on this topic, followed by the March trial date for the existing litigation. All discussions with the Coastal Commission on this subject has been tabled as a result.
• GALINDO TRAIL: There has been revived chatter on social media to urge the city to close this trail, but the ongoing, unresolved ALMT issue will overshadow any attention that could be devoted to this discussion. - PUBLIC SAFETY
o HSCO Reports/Statistics: A full list of calls/stats for March are included in the meeting packet. o The call ratio based on all stats is approximately 3:1 County/City for the “Trinidad Coverage Area” included. - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS UNDERWAY
o Town Hall Painting: The Town Hall sign is getting a refresh from Victory Signs. A three-week turn-around time is expected.

STAFF REPORT SUPPLEMENTAL
Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2026
Background Info: The City of Trinidad is responding to the Governor’s Order calling on all Californians to do their part by reducing consumption.

Luffenholtz Creek flow readings are presented to the Council on an as-needed basis - during drought events or when requested. As we enter into the summer low-flow months, the focus of these reports (during the dry season) will be to share and put into perspective how Trinidad’s water consumption metrics compare to those of recent years.

The amounts represent the total water sold, captured by 323 customer meters, measured in cubic feet (7.48 gallons = 1 cubic foot).

July 2021 251,168 cuft January 2022 189,201
July 2022 198,081 January 2023 154,543
July 2023 223,806 January 2024 148,407
July 2024 264,491 January 2025 131,229
July 2025 292,315 (17.37% Water Loss) January 2026 128,006 (16.59% Water Loss) August 2021 269,771 February 2022 154634
August 2022 227,681 February 2023 136,626
August 2023 265,808 February 2024 132,690
August 2024 233,215 February 2025 131,537
August 2025 218,593 (19.53% Water Loss) February 2026 122,728 (18.59% Water Loss) September 2021 227,831 March 2022 184,103
September 2022 216,470 March 2023 152,813
September 2023 200,348 March 2024 125,188
September 2024 200,050 March 2025 136,579
September 2025 208,873 (19.32% Water Loss) March 2026 165,706 (21.57% Water Loss) October 2021 203,176 April 2021 192,287
October 2022 180,065 April 2022 173,115
October 2023 188,335 April 2023 145,504
October 2024 206,875 April 2024 176,413
October 2025 206,839 (23.22% Water Loss) April 2025 171,808 (17.31% Water Loss) November 2021 204,438 May 2021 242,529
November 2022 169,144 May 2022 154,634
November 2023 151,914 May 2023 211,380
November 2024 159,316 May 2024 182,738
November 2025 151,829 (9.13% Water Loss) May 2025 216,497 (10.83% Water Loss) December 2021 201,160 June 2021 269,087
December 2022 170,419 June 2022 233,692
December 2023 122,937 June 2023 209,336
December 2024 159,299 June 2024 229,339
December 2025 157,803 (14.27% Water Loss) June 2025 203,350 (23.71% Water Loss) Water sold (consumed) in March spiked expectedly with the occupancy and weather trends based on prior years. We will continue to monitor consumption each month and report this information (along with summary trends and analysis) to the Council for review, comparison, and questions at each meeting.

CITY OF TRINIDAD STAFF REPORT
DATE: Tuesday, October 14, 2025
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Angela Cather, Grants Department
AGENDA ITEM: Staff Activities Report - Grant Opportunities for a Comparative Analysis and Feasibility Study in Connection with Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

The following information is provided as supplemental information for the staff activities report based on City Council’s direction at the July 8, 2025, meeting regarding a consideration of connecting to Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District.

DISCUSSION/BACKGROUND:

Staff sought out grant funding opportunities in response to the City Council’s motion to: “Proceed with a comparative analysis and feasibility study that evaluates the two options for water provisioning in the City of Trinidad: 1) connection to HBMWD in partnership with the Trinidad Rancheria or independently; 2) continuing to operate its own independent municipal water plant. The study should include comparative long-term costs, developmental (growth) impacts, environmental factors, regulatory/legal guidelines, technical/engineering and operational requirements. Staff will bring the RFP for the study back to the Council for final review and seek grant money to fund. Passed 3-2. Yes – Kelly, Breckenridge, Varela. No – Kenny, Tuttle,” and found two promising funding opportunities: the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program and the SAFER (Safe and Affordable Funding for Equity and Resilience) Program. Both programs are funded by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).
*To ensure full eligibility, City staff sent the full City Council motion to the SWRCB, who confirmed that all items we are seeking to fund are eligible.*
More about the programs:

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: The program is in place to assist public water systems in financing the cost of drinking water infrastructure and planning projects needed to achieve or maintain compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requirements.

The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) – Division of Finance Assistance, confirmed that a comparative analysis and feasibility study are funding eligible items. The SWRCB also confirmed that the City of Trinidad qualifies for up to 100% grant forgiveness for a planning project.

SAFER Program: The program was established from the Safe and Affordable Drinking Water (SADW) Fund that provides yearly funding to aim to reach sustainable operations for all the State’s drinking water systems and is a critical element for achieving the goals of safe, accessible, and affordable water for all Californians. As the City of Trinidad is listed as a small, at-risk water system, we are eligible for up to 100% of planning costs being covered by consolidation and drought resiliency.

Technical Assistance: Additionally, while the City is eligible for grant funding, eligibility does not equal approval of an application. With that in mind, it would be in the City’s interest to submit a Request for Technical Assistance (TA) application. If submitted, a TA provider may be assigned to the City to assist in submitting a planning application and navigating the application portal.

Why are we eligible for both programs?
The City of Trinidad is listed as a small, At-Risk water system (see attachment).

Why are we considered At-Risk?
We fall under all four categories for the “Drivers of Risk” per the State Water Resources Control Board:
• Water Quality (Medium Risk)
• Accessibility (High Risk)
• Affordability (High Risk)
• Technical Managerial Financial Capacity (TMFC) (Medium Risk).

To note, while having an intertie with Westhaven Community Services District in place may decrease our Accessibility Risk Factor, we need to remember that the intertie is only to be used in an emergency. The intertie is not in place to serve as an indefinite replacement to our water system if it fails.

What is the application deadline?
The SWRCB is always accepting applications for both programs, so there is no hard deadline to apply.

Other funding options available:
• USDA – The Water and Environmental Programs – Rural Development. The chance of getting 100% funding is much lower, if at all possible. Additionally, in many cases, funding would be via a loan or require a 25% match. • FEMA – First there would have to be a declared disaster in the area, and then the City would have to explain how our project reduces risk from natural disasters, including a benefit-cost analysis. Clarity of what type of funding is available (a loan or grant) is unclear currently for planning projects. • Department of Water Resources (DWR) – While we did not have a match for either DWR projects, there usually is a required match, and at this time there are no available grants.

ATTACHMENTS
• SAFER Dashboard – City of Trinidad Risk Status

CITY OF TRINIDAD STAFF REPORT
DATE: Tuesday, October 14, 2025
TO: Trinidad City Council
FROM: Trever Parker, City Planer
AGENDA ITEM: Staff Activities Report: Preliminary Staff Findings on Potential Growth Inducing Impacts from Connection to Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District (HBMWD)

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The following information is provided as a supplement to the staff activities report related to subsequent research based on direction given to staff at the July 8, 2025 meeting regarding consideration of connecting to HBMWD. No further discussion or action is required or requested from the Council at this time. However, staff wanted to make this information available to the Council and the public sooner rather than later in order to help stop the spread of misinformation.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
One of the main concerns about a possible HBMWD connection has been the potential for it to lead to growth in the Trinidad area. That is a critical issue, and it is likely that there are circumstances where a parcel may not be developable now but could be developed if connected to municipal water. However, growth and development can and will be controlled in a variety of ways. Many of the comments made about growth have overstated the potential impact and/or are inaccurate. The following information is intended to correct some of the assumptions and misinformation that has been presented at past meetings. This is not meant to be a comprehensive analysis, but an overview of some of the steps in the process and land use considerations that will be made in planning for a potential connection to HBMWD and for controlling growth.

Fact: Bringing HBMWD water to Trinidad will not result in rampant, uncontrolled growth.

Connections to HBMWD water can and will be controlled and restricted in a variety of ways.

There are numerous ways to control growth that are more orderly and equitable than by limiting the overall water supply. These are a few of the primary ones:
• Land use designations and zoning are the primary method of planning for and regulating growth over large areas and long time spans. This is done through general plans and zoning ordinances.
• Much of the developed area is in the Coastal Zone where either the City or County Local Coastal Program (LCP) applies. LCPs include policies and standards that limit and control growth based on the Coastal Act.
• The Coastal Act includes limitations on growth and growth inducing development such as service extensions (e.g. §§ 30250, 30254) and the Coastal Commission will enforce those limits through LCP amendments and the Coastal Development Permit process. • There are and will continue to be specific planned service area boundaries for water providers, and extensions of service outside those boundaries are limited in a variety of ways, including State laws.
• Development density will also continue to be limited based on wastewater treatment (septic) capacity. Current county standards require new lots to be a minimum of 1-acre if using onsite wastewater treatment, even if the property is served by public water.

The water service area(s) can and will be crafted to control growth. • The HBMWD will need to apply to the SWRCB for a change in the place of use for their water right. The new place of use can be narrowly drawn, and water service cannot be provided outside of that area without a new application to the SWRCB. • Similarly, HBMWD will likely need to annex Trinidad and the Rancheria into its service area (if just the Rancheria is being served, it could be an Outside Agency Service Connection without annexation). The service area does not have to be contiguous with other HBMWD service areas, and therefore, does not have to include the pipeline corridor or other areas outside of Trinidad’s existing water service area. Water cannot be provided outside of the service area(s) without additional annexation, review, and approvals, including LCP update(s) and CEQA compliance.
• One of the primary purposes of LAFCo is to ensure that service area boundaries are orderly and well thought out and that services are not extended beyond those boundaries except under specific circumstances.
• LAFCo is required to analyze growth over the next 10 years when reviewing changes of boundaries.
• The environmental review process will analyze growth as well as alternatives to minimize impacts.

The pipeline will not be constructed to serve individual connections; it will feed into existing water system(s).
• HBMWD is not a retail water service provider; they do not provide individual connections. They will wholesale water to Trinidad and/or the Rancheria, and it will generally be Trinidad and the Rancheria, along with LAFCo and other agencies (e.g.

Humboldt County, Coastal Commission), that decide how, where, and when to extend future services.

If the City is a participant in the connection planning, then it will have a significantly greater say in how the process is implemented, how the service area maps are drawn, and how water is distributed in the future.
• As noted above, approval by various agencies is required for both the initial pipeline construction and the future extensions of services. Planning for the water line should be done on a regional scale with a long-term view of community water needs. The City is a stakeholder and should be an active participant throughout the process. • The City’s General Plan / LCP already contains policies related to growth and extension of services that should be considered and amended as needed. • Annexation by HBMWD should include the City’s service area, and then the City would have authority over when and where to extend individual connections via the same LAFCo process as is currently required for connections outside City limits. • The City can choose to not connect to HBMWD at this time and still be an active participant and plan for potential future connection.
• Growth (annexation) may be beneficial to the City now or in the future, and having adequate water supply will allow the City more flexibility to consider if and when that should occur.

Fact: Not participating in the HBMWD planning process will not stop the Rancheria’s hotel • There is no reason to believe that the Rancheria won’t eventually get a connection to HBMWD regardless of whether the City is a participant. And if the City is not a participant, it will have much less say in the process and the final result. • The Rancheria, as a Tribe and a disadvantaged community, has access to a variety of funding sources, and there are currently active funding sources for water supply and consolidation projects.

Fact: Trinidad will not be forced to consolidate with or absorb nearby water service providers • The SWRCB does have some authority to require systems to consolidate:
o https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/programs/compliance/docs/202 1/rfaq-mandatory-consolidation.pdf
• However, in practice, this is not something they do. I spoke with Barry Sutter, District Engineer of District 1 of the Division of Drinking Water of the SWRCB, who oversees more than 400 small water systems throughout Humboldt, Del Norte, Trinity, and Siskiyou Counties. In his almost 10-year tenure, there has never been a mandatory consolidation, even for systems that have been out of compliance (e.g. under boil water orders) for years.
• In the last 10 years, there have only been two mandatory consolidation orders in the entire state, both in the same location.
• SWRCB will encourage, support, and facilitate voluntary consolidations. • Barry would be in support of Trinidad connecting to HBMWD, because he considers Trinidad’s system to be vulnerable, because it is a single water plant with a single source.

Fact: Connection to HBMWD is not expected result in increased septic pollution. • Based on the growth controls discussed above, a connection to HBMWD is not expected to result in significant growth, and therefore, would not contribute to significant additional wastewater.
• Pollution is not expected to occur from modern, permitted septic systems. So even if some growth occurs, that growth will be subject to current standards and requirements for septic systems. Resulting upgrades could benefit water quality. • Although people who go from individual water supplies to a municipal supply tend to use more water, the same level of increase would not be expected from those already connected to the City’s system.
• The City can implement water conservation policies and rate structures for those connected to its system.
• Additional water supply could allow the City to annex some areas thereby expanding the jurisdiction of its OWTS Management Program.

Other considerations
Another important consideration is the current funding landscape. Initial research indicates there are currently grant funds available for this type of project, particularly considering that the Rancheria is classified as a disadvantaged community and the City’s water system is classified as being at-risk. If the City does not participate and the pipe is sized to only serve the Rancheria, there will be fewer options for the City should the existing water supply and/or plant become compromised or too difficult (or expensive) to treat in the future. There would not be a huge difference in the costs for physically installing a pipe sized just for the Rancheria verses a larger one that could also accommodate the City and its water service area. But once a smaller pipe is installed, the feasibility of the City ever connecting to HBMWD in the future would be significantly curtailed, if not eliminated.

Summary
It should be understood that any connection to HBMWD will be a significant undertaking and a complex process that includes many agencies and several checks and balances with opportunities to control growth in various ways. This is a project that should be viewed in the very long term (50+ years) as well as shorter terms. The decisions made now are going to have repercussions for the City’s water supply for decades. This is a regionally important process, and the City is a stakeholder, so should be a part of it. It is to the City’s benefit to be proactive in working with all the various agencies, decision-makers, and stakeholders to plan this regionally important project. Staff’s recommendation would be that the City should be a participant in the process, even if electing not to connect at this time, in order to have some control over the outcome and to preserve a key water supply option for the future.

Home Drinking Water Certlic Drinkingwater Saferdashboard SAFER Dashboard
This dashboard contains data for the 2025 Drinking Water Needs Assessment. The Failing list of systems is updated daily using the State Water Board's Failing criteria. The other SAFER statuses of water systems are based on the results of the Risk Assessment, which is refreshed quarterly as new data becomes available. More information about the dashboard is available in the user guide. Public feedback should be submitted to [email protected] and water systems may submit a data change request if information in the dashboard is inaccurate.
.

Failing At-Risk Potentially At-Risk Not At-Risk Not Assessed Number of Systems Exceeding Risk Indicator Thresholds

Water Quality
Accessibility
Affordability
Technical
Managerial
Financial
Capacity
Percentage of Sources Exceeding an MCL
Number of Water Sources
Absence of Interties
Percent of Median Household Income (%MHI)
Household Socioeconomic Burden
Total Net Annual Income
Operating Ratio
Days Cash on Hand
Drivers of Risk
Total Count of Systems: 1. Total Population: 1,072
© 2025 Mapbox © OpenStreetMap
Service Connections
(All)
CA1200706
CA1210018

TRINIDAD EXTENDED STAY RV

TRINIDAD, CITY OF

HUMBOLDT

HUMBOLDT
DISTRICT 01 - KLAMATH
DISTRICT 01 - KLAMATH
130
1,072
Low Risk
Medium Risk
High Risk
High Risk
Medium Risk
High Risk
Low Risk
Medium Risk
Risk Categories
Search
Trinidad
County
(All)
Regulating Agency
(All)
Population
(All)
Service Area Econ…
(All)
SAFER Status
(All)
Failing
At-Risk
Potentially At-Risk
Not At-Risk
Not Assessed
Overview
Receiving Funding?
(All)
SAFER Status
At-Risk
List of Water Systems - Hide
Legislative District
(All)
Regional Board
(All)
Save Custom View Share
(Page last updated 08/27/2025)
Drinking Water Resources
California Laboratory Intake Portal (CLIP)
Contaminants in Drinking Water
Consolidation and Extension of Service
COVID-19 Drinking Water
Cyanobacteria/Cyanotoxins in Drinking
Water
Consumer Confidence Reports (CCRs)
Drinking Water Branch Districts
Drinking Water Supply Service Area Lookup
Tool
Drinking Water Watch Database
Electronic Annual Reports (EAR)
Environmental Laboratory Accreditation
Program (ELAP)
Funding for Public Water Systems
Information for Public Water Systems
Notification and Response Levels
Operator Certification - Drinking Water
Permits
PFAS: Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances
Public Notification Templates
Public Safety Power Shutoff and Wildfire
Info
Public Water System Monitoring Schedules
Regulations and Statutes
Residential Water Treatment Devices
Safe Drinking Water Plan for California
SAFER Drinking Water
Water Quality Data
Water Recycling
Water is a precious resource in California, and maintaining its quality is of utmost importance to safeguard the health of the public and the environment.

Statewide Campaigns
 EPA Water Sense
 Report an Environmental Concern
 Save Our Water
 Flex Alert
 Register to Vote
Quick Links
 Board Agendas
 Fees
 Make a Payment
 Grievance Procedure
 Help / Business Help
 Uniform Grants Guidance
Resources
OIMA
CEDEN
Data & Databases
Drought Information
FAAST
Language Access Form
Formulario de Acceso al Idioma
My Water Quality
Performance Report
Tribal Affairs
Wastewater Arrearage Payment
Website Index
Working with the Board
Abbreviations and Acronyms
Board Priorities
Decisions Pending &
Opportunities for Public Participation
Employment
Frequently Asked Questions
Grants & Loans
Laws / Regulations
Plans / Policies
Public Records Center
Publications / Forms
Back to Top Conditions of Use Privacy Policy Accessibility Contact Us     Website Accessibility Certification
Copyright © 2025 State of California
The California Water Boards include the State Water Resources Control Board and nine Regional Boards The State Water Board is one of six environmental entities operating under the authority of the California Environmental Protection Agency CalEPA | ARB | CalRecycle | DPR | DTSC | OEHHA | SWRCB
 Share:    About Us Contact Us Subscribe  Settings 
Board

Programs

Drinking Water

Water Quality

Water Rights

Notices

Water Boards

Search
