04-14-2026 City Council Meeting Minutes Page 1
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TRINIDAD CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 2026 (LIVE/HYBRID)
I. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Kelly called the live-hybrid meeting to order at 6:00pm. Council members in attendance: Breckenridge, Kenny, and Waskiewicz. Tuttle was absent. City Staff in attendance: City Clerk/Interim City Manager Gabriel Adams, Special Project Manager Angela Cather, Administrative Assistant Anton Souza. Approximately (5) participants were present by video-conference, and (16) 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 (Kelly/Kenny) to approve the agenda as submitted. Passed 4-0.
VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – 03/10/2026 cc
Motion (Kenny/Breckenridge) to approve the minutes as written. Passed 4-0.
VII. COUNCIL REPORTS/COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS
Waskiewicz: Attended RREDC meeting, welcomed Alaska Airlines back to Humboldt with service to Seattle, and also discussed small community disaster funding programs. Early January was a tough month for Humboldt County dealing with environmental disasters, but there are no programs available to provide us with financial assistance.
Kenny: Attended the HCAOG meeting; MCSD granted a seat on the Technical Advisory Committee. Also discussed regional housing needs and Eureka’s appeal of HCAOG’s decision.
Breckenridge: Nothing to report.
Kelly: Attended the Hazardous Materials Response Authority meeting and reviewed training conducted last quarter.
VIII.PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT – City Manager & Law Enforcement HCSO Lt. McCall was unable to attend, so City Manager Adams summarized the March 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.) Ian McDougall & Renata Olczak – Trinidad area resident/water customers Read from a prepared statement, explaining his wife and children do not feel safe in their home after the tree fallen incident as a result of the exposure created by the Yurok Indian Housing Authority’s recent tree clearing.
Invited staff and officials to visit the property and discuss the issue. It appears that the clear cut area was larger than planned, and that there is another large tree that will be removed. We would like that tree to remain.
Karen Parker – Trinidad area resident
Submitted a prepared statement for the record, addressed to the City Council and Yurok Indian Housing Authority, formally raising concerns regarding forestry operations conducted under the Calfire Conversion Exemption associated with the YIHA land clearing. The permit obtained was not a waiver of responsibility. The registered forester and landowner are legally responsible for ensuring compliance. Tree felling and activities should be performed to avoid unreasonable damage to adjacent property. Forester and landowner should be 04-14-2026 City Council Meeting Minutes Page 2
held liable for any resulting property damage. Request that the City and YIHA recognize and enforce accountability where these violations have occurred and ensure that responsible parties are required to remedy damages caused.
Ana Davis – Greater Trinidad Chamber of Commerce
Announcing summer camp scholarship program. Encourage the public to reach out and learn about how the Chamber can provide support for youth summer camp programs.
X. CONSENT AGENDA
1. Financial Statements – February 2025
2. Financial Statements – March 2026
Motion (Kelly/Waskiewicz) to approve the consent agenda as submitted. Passed 4-0.
Xl. DISCUSSION/ACTION AGENDA ITEMS
1. Proclamation 2026-01; Acknowledging April 2026 as Sexual Assault Awareness Month.
Interim City Manager Gabriel Adams explained that this request was made by the North Coast Rape Crisis Team and read the proclamation aloud. Adams introduced counselor/advocate Mel Pena.
Pena explained that the program is expecting 50% of their budget to be cut this year. Annual gala will held at Arcata Community Center on May 02, and provided supporting background information on the program including contributing partners, survivor data, and ways to support the program.
There were no public comments.
Council thanked Pena for attending, sharing the proclamation, and doing great work for the community.
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.
Interim City Manager Gabriel Adams explained that the Main Street, Patrick’s Point Drive, and Westhaven Drive Rehabilitation Project RPL-5036(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. 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 04-14-2026 City Council Meeting Minutes Page 3
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.
Council questions included:
Kenny: Berry Road additive bid is not eligible for funding. Also concerned about thermoplastic failures and microplastics in the environment. Adams explained that Berry Road is not on the eligible road list, but if the overall project cost comes in under budget there’s a chance it may be considered. Regarding thermoplastics, Adams suggested getting more information from the City Engineer on this technology and reporting back.
Breckenridge: Will the contractors be held responsible for product failure post installation? Adams explained that warranty repair terms are listed in the contract specifications.
Public comment included:
Aaron Hakenen – Trinidad
Please include in the bid documents adequate screening of construction staging site behind Murphy’s Market – if that area is intended to be used.
Motion (Waskiewicz/Kenny) to 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, with an added condition to enforce good construction staging hygiene for areas used during the project. Passed 4-0.
3. Update/Discussion regarding 2026 Planning Commission Projects & Priorities City Planner Trever Parker explained that 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.
A 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:
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. 04-14-2026 City Council Meeting Minutes Page 4
- 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 the matrix of elements and status/next steps, included in this meeting packet. - 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.
- 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.
Council questions included:
Kelly: The City is required by law to have a General Plan. There are at least 8 elements that I’m aware of. This is a big job for a small town, with excellent progress made so far. Suggestion to combine Design Element with the Land Use Element, and also understand that the General Plan is also the City’s LCP since Trinidad is entirely within the City, but there will pieces of the plan that will not be certified by the Coastal Commission – Noise, Safety, and Housing. Regarding annexation, we may want to consider an Ad Hoc Committee formation for strategic discussion, prioritization, and outreach, before it reaches the Planning Commission and City Council.
Kenny: Any information on the development project planned for the area behind Murphy’s Market? Are we able to seek additional help from outside consultants for Housing Element update? ADA website overhaul? Annexation priority? RV parks as visitor serving?
Parker explained that applicant generated projects come up, and this one is in a very preliminary phase. A soils study is currently underway to determine septic capacity. Expecting an application later this year, along with an another one for a new home construction at the bottom of Edwards. Regarding outside consultants, the Housing Element is complicated so finding outside, specialized support may be helpful. Regarding ADA website compatibility, the issue is primarily based on content accessibility. Regarding annexation, Mill Creek and 04-14-2026 City Council Meeting Minutes Page 5
Langford Road, and lot adjacent to the Cemetery priorities are based on existing water service and practicality.
Regarding RV parks, State Housing and Community Development does not consider RV’s as affordable housing, so these areas don’t count towards the City’s affordable housing inventory.
Public comments included:
Aaron Hakenen – Trinidad Planning Commission Chairperson The Planning Commission is very pleased with Parker’s service. Limited budget, backlog of projects, staff capacity, seeking outside help are recurring annual themes. We decided this year not to encourage a joint meeting because they don’t provide enough meaningful ‘bang for the buck’. The desire to offload work to inhouse city staff is admirable. The Commission is not making progress due to the lack of surge capacity to push projects along. Finding outside consultants to execute tasks is important. We are asking for Council’s support to find additional capacity to handle more tasks to avoid the merry-go-round of incomplete projects.
Richard Johnson – Trinidad Planning Commissioner
As you can see from the general plan matrix provided by the City Planner and included in the meeting packet, there are many in a final stage that can be handled individually by the Council, with input provided back to the Commission as needed.
Council comments included:
Kelly: I am disappointed to hear that the Council is not supporting the Planning Commission. I suggest the PC send a short-list of items that need support. The Council asked for this at the last joint meeting but has not received it. We don’t need to wait for meetings to do this. Please send it to the City Council or City Manager anytime, so we can prioritize it during the budget process. We are currently working to fill a vacant position that will help in the long-run, but I want to make sure the PC receives the support needed. Please be clear with what is needed from the Council.
There were no public comments.
Presentation item only. No decision was made.
4. Update/Discussion regarding the April 04, 2026, Westhaven Drive Water Main Leak and Extended Service Outage.
Interim City Manager Gabriel Adams explained that 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 with aging infrastructure, challenged by increasing costs, regulatory, and environmental pressures. 04-14-2026 City Council Meeting Minutes Page 6
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.
Challenges to the timeline complicating water restoration included; • The break occurred after 5:00pm on Friday.
• The City was unable to access the site for excavation and repair until after 8:00pm Saturday (24-hour later) when the tree clean up and overhead line work was complete. • 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.
• 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.
Fiscal Impact: Not including in-house staff overtime, the contractor repair invoice will cost approximately $15,000..
Community & Business Impact: 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.
Council thanked staff for the report and hard work during the incident.
Presentation item only. No decision was made.
5. Continued Discussion/Decision regarding Edwards Street Crosswalk Safety Improvements.
Interim City Manager Gabriel Adams explained that 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 04-14-2026 City Council Meeting Minutes Page 7
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.
04-14-2026 City Council Meeting Minutes Page 8
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.
Council questions included:
Kelly: Have we been able to get the usage data from the signal activation logs? Adams explained that unfortunately we were unable to retrieve that data.
Breckenridge: Can the signs be reused? Wasting city resources is not desirable. Can we take them down and put up stop signs? We could reuse the signs at Trinity & West/Parker intersection. Adams explained the signs can be reused, with the cost primarily being for installation design (street marking, safety codes, location, etc.).
Highway and transportation safety codes determine how signs are installed in certain areas.
Waskiewicz: Is there any sign that can replace the flashing beacons to alert pedestrians and vehicles to use caution when approaching the intersection? I think it’s worth keeping the signage up at the Marine Lab crossing, but support removing the signs at Hector. I walk my dog regularly but there can be a lot going on near these intersections on a busy day.
Kenny: Design immunity has been determined in the findings presented in the staff report for consideration tonight.
Kelly: I agree with Waskiewicz, to remove the signs at Hector and leave Galindo in place, and revisit Galindo in the future after further review and consideration. Trinidad School requested and supported the Galindo Street intersection improvements, and I am considerate of that as well.
Public comments included:
Tim Needham – Trinidad
Lights are a glaring solution to a non-existent problem. There was no traffic study done to install this. Driving a boat up the hill requires a vehicle to gun it up hill, putting pedestrians at the crosswalk in danger. Lights aren’t needed to improve safety at an intersection. Having been a plaintiff’s attorney, I look for prior accident history.
There is no history of prior accidents to support this level of signage.
Aaron Hakenen – Trinidad
I have one regret as a Planning Commissioner, and this solution for crosswalk safety enhancement was a miss.
We should do the right thing and remove them. There is a way to reuse these signs somewhere. There are seven well-written findings supporting removal. We can’t be afraid of everything. Signs don’t stop bad drivers or bad behavior.
Jeff Bairey – Trinidad
I spoke out against these signs many times. They are ugly and ruin views of the ocean. There has never been a traffic study done. The idea that the area will be unsafe without the signs is non-sensical. There was much more input in January and February. There were 18 voices heard in person and by email. 13 people said remove signs, but 5 said keep them. This is a democracy and the comment vote was a landslide in favor of removal.
04-14-2026 City Council Meeting Minutes Page 9
Ana Davis – Trinidad
Thanks for the thorough report. The signs were conceived with goodwill, but may not have been presented to the community very well. We can assume that drivers don’t want to hit pedestrians, and we don’t have history of accidents, drug use, or conditions that cause pedestrian accidents. Thanks for considering removing both signs.
Chris Slay – Trinidad
I’ll lose friends tonight, but I adore these signs. My kids do too because they are empowering. They know drivers bend to our will when the lights are activated and enhance our safety. I was crossing the street, pushing a stroller around sunset across the intersection. As a driver approached, I could read the passenger’s lips saying “it’s flashing”, and at that moment the driver slammed on the brake and stopped. As unbelievable as this sounds, it is true, and it highlights another issue here that people haven’t mentions, which is that Edwards runs due east-west. For somewhere between 30-50% of the year, the sun is setting at a 15-degree azimuth which has the potential to blind drivers. People don’t want to hit pedestrians, but they also have to see pedestrians to avoid them. I have stood in front of the Planning Commission before arguing about detriments to our viewshed, but these signs make our community and children safer. The folks that think these signs are out of character for our community, there is no more distinguishing character to our community than its walkability.
Pete Alcorn – Trinidad
No one wants to see bright blinking lights. Everybody drives slow, and there’s plenty of time to stop when someone is in the crosswalk. The signs are ugly, horrible, and we hate them.
Andrew Davis – Trinidad
There’s not only a financial cost at risk to the City, but also the homeowners. We believe that the value of our home is hampered by these signs. Secondarily, there also could be a financial cost to the town if the signs don’t come down. This has been communicated quietly, but needs to be public.
Council comments included:
Waskiewicz: Marine Lab has many students attending and it might be worth reaching out to them for input from a safety standpoint.
Kelly: We need to move this along, and close this out. I’m frustrated we weren’t able to execute some of the more creative suggestions considered last year.
Kenny: Thanked Chis Slay for presenting a dissenting opinion. His case didn’t convince me to change my viewpoint, but it is very good input. When I’m blinded by the sun, I slow way, way down. I’m not sure the flashing lights are even visible during that time. There was no traffic study done to support the sign installation.
The issue that moved me the most was that the Edwards Street residents did not get the same opportunity for input as we allowed others for speed hump enhancements.
Motion (Kenny/Waskiewicz) to adopt all seven findings listed in the staff report and remove both flashing beacon intersection signs, to be kept in a safe and usable condition for possible future placement in alternative locations that do not have the same aesthetic concerns. Passed 3-1. No-Kelly.
6. Staff Activity Report – February 2026.
Interim City Manager Adams included the full report in the packet, but highlighted challenges and problemsolving hours dedicated to fulfilling the needs of the community, ongoing commitments, partnerships, and projects including:
- Emergency Intertie project update.
- Cash flow and investment monitoring.
- Meeting and discussions with the new Trinidad Coastal Land Trust Director. - Wildlife encounter reporting and education.
- Handling complaints
- Long range water source alternative planning
- Expanding water service connections.
- Neighborhood & resident safety coordination.
04-14-2026 City Council Meeting Minutes Page 10
- Water Customer Financial Hardship Assistance.
- Public Health cooperation.
- Staff support, and Long-range fire service planning.
There were no public comments.
Report only. No decision was made.
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
- Dark Sky Ordinance consideration.
ADJOURNMENT: 8:45pm.
Submitted by: Approved by:
_____________________________ _____________________________ Gabriel Adams Cheryl Kelly
Trinidad City Clerk Mayor