Agenda packet — Capitola City Council, February 13, 2025 (part 3 of 3)

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 77 1 406 683 726 0 0 644 149 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 77 1 406 683 726 0 0 644 149 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1826 1900 1885 1885 1856 0 0 1870 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 81 1 427 719 764 0 0 678 157
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 501130021
Cap, veh/h 286 1 264 746 2601 0 0 765 177
Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.83 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 1739 4 1607 1795 3618 0 0 2915 653
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 81 0 428 719 764 0 0 427 408
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1739 0 1611 1795 1763 0 0 1777 1698 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.7 0.0 14.8 30.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.7 20.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.7 0.0 14.8 30.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.7 20.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.38
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 286 0 265 746 2601 0 0 482 460
V/C Ratio(X) 0.28 0.00 1.62 0.96 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.89 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 286 0 265 764 2601 0 0 482 460
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.0 0.0 37.6 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.5 31.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 293.9 10.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 20.7 21.6 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.5 0.0 27.3 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.5 11.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 33.2 0.0 331.5 17.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 52.1 53.1 LnGrp LOS C F B A D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 509 1483 835
Approach Delay, s/veh 284.1 8.4 52.6
Approach LOS F A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 42.0 29.0 19.0 71.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 * 4.6 4.2 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 38.3 * 24 14.8 66.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 32.6 22.8 16.8 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 0.5 0.0 2.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 71.1
HCM 7th LOS E
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 536
Item 9 A.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Bay Ave & Hwy 1 SB Off-Ramp 01/06/2025
Year 2045 PM Bay-Hill Analysis 10:46 am 06/28/2024 Signal Synchro 12 Report

Page 2 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 417 208 640 0 0 0 0 992 104 370 351 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 417 208 640 0 0 0 0 992 104 370 351 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1826 1900 1856 0 1885 1856 1870 1856 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 366 500 483 0 1044 109 389 369 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 5 0 3 013230
Cap, veh/h 498 545 451 0 1138 119 468 2336 0
Arrive On Green 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.44 1.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1739 1900 1572 0 3357 340 1781 3618 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 366 500 483 0 573 580 389 369 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1739 1900 1572 0 1791 1812 1781 1763 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 17.1 22.9 25.8 0.0 27.5 27.6 17.4 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.1 22.9 25.8 0.0 27.5 27.6 17.4 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.19 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 498 545 451 0 625 632 468 2336 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.73 0.92 1.07 0.00 0.92 0.92 0.83 0.16 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 498 545 451 0 625 632 468 2336 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.67 1.67 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.55 0.55 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.0 31.1 32.1 0.0 28.0 28.1 23.5 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.9 20.3 62.8 0.0 20.5 20.5 6.6 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln7.5 13.1 17.2 0.0 15.0 15.2 6.7 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 33.9 51.3 94.9 0.0 48.5 48.5 30.1 0.1 0.0 LnGrp LOS C D F D D C A
Approach Vol, veh/h 1349 1153 758
Approach Delay, s/veh 62.2 48.5 15.5
Approach LOS E D B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 64.2 28.2 36.0 30.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 * 4.6 4.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 55.4 20.3 * 31 25.8
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 19.4 29.6 27.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.1 0.0 0.8 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 46.5
HCM 7th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 537
Item 9 A.

HCM 7th TWSC
3: Bay Ave & Croosroads Loop 01/06/2025
Year 2045 PM Bay-Hill Analysis 10:46 am 06/28/2024 Signal Synchro 12 Report

Page 3 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 49 2 38 4 1 59 4 988 9 92 787 112
Future Vol, veh/h 49 2 38 4 1 59 4 988 9 92 787 112
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 0 - - - 50 - - 50 - 0
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 52 2 40 4 1 62 4 1040 9 97 828 118
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1551 2080 828 2076 2193 525 946 0 0 1049 0 0 Stage 1 1022 1022 - 1053 1053 -------
Stage 2 529 1058 - 1023 1140 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.33 6.53 6.23 7.33 6.53 6.93 4.13 - - 4.13 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.13 5.53 - 6.53 5.53 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.53 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.519 4.019 3.319 3.519 4.019 3.319 2.219 - - 2.219 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 84 53 370 35 45 498 723 - - 661 - -
Stage 1 284 312 - 243 302 -------
Stage 2 502 301 - 283 275 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 61 45 370 25 38 498 723 - - 661 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 61 45 - 25 38 -------
Stage 1 242 267 - 241 300 -------
Stage 2 435 299 - 214 235 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v119.07 29.77 0.04 1.06

HCM LOS F D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 723 - - 60 370 212 661 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - - 0.889 0.108 0.318 0.147 - - HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 10 - - 195.9 15.9 29.8 11.4 - - HCM Lane LOS B - - F C D B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 4.1 0.4 1.3 0.5 - -
538
Item 9 A.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: Bay Ave & Retail Dwy/Hill St 01/06/2025
Year 2045 PM Bay-Hill Analysis 10:46 am 06/28/2024 Signal Synchro 12 Report

Page 4 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 92 45 84 22 33 192 46 717 34 146 634 49 Future Volume (veh/h) 92 45 84 22 33 192 46 717 34 146 634 49 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1811 1900 1900 1900 1856 1885 1870 1885 1767 1900 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 97 47 88 23 35 202 48 755 36 154 667 52 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 6 0 0 0 3 1 2 1 9 0 3 3
Cap, veh/h 200 82 380 63 56 230 76 837 40 191 904 70
Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.04 0.47 0.47 0.11 0.53 0.53 Sat Flow, veh/h 490 341 1573 41 233 952 1781 1781 85 1810 1695 132 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 144 0 88 260 0 0 48 0 791 154 0 719 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 831 0 1573 1225 0 0 1781 0 1866 1810 0 1828 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 3.3 3.2 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 28.8 6.1 0.0 22.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.6 0.0 3.3 15.8 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 28.8 6.1 0.0 22.4 Prop In Lane 0.67 1.00 0.09 0.78 1.00 0.05 1.00 0.07
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 282 0 380 349 0 0 76 0 876 191 0 974 V/C Ratio(X) 0.51 0.00 0.23 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.90 0.80 0.00 0.74 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 287 0 386 355 0 0 123 0 1003 213 0 1072 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.4 0.0 22.5 26.3 0.0 0.0 34.8 0.0 18.0 32.3 0.0 13.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.4 0.0 0.3 8.2 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 10.3 18.1 0.0 2.5 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.4 0.0 1.2 5.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 13.8 3.6 0.0 8.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 26.8 0.0 22.8 34.4 0.0 0.0 43.3 0.0 28.3 50.4 0.0 15.7 LnGrp LOS C C C D C D B
Approach Vol, veh/h 232 260 839 873
Approach Delay, s/veh 25.3 34.4 29.2 21.8
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.3 39.2 22.3 7.6 43.9 22.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.7 39.7 18.1 5.1 43.3 18.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.1 30.8 14.6 4.0 24.4 17.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.9 0.4 0.0 5.3 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 26.5
HCM 7th LOS C
539
Item 9 A.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
5: Bay Ave & Capitola Ave 01/06/2025
Year 2045 PM Bay-Hill Analysis 10:46 am 06/28/2024 Signal Synchro 12 Report

Page 5 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 190 63 8 17 65 73 29 200 23 61 337 171 Future Volume (veh/h) 190 63 8 17 65 73 29 200 23 61 337 171 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 200 66 8 18 68 77 31 211 24 64 355 180 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 528 125 448 172 230 228 437 627 71 212 614 594 Arrive On Green 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow, veh/h 1029 433 1558 86 798 791 865 1646 187 156 1613 1560 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 266 0 8 163 0 0 31 0 235 419 0 180 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1462 0 1558 1675 0 0 865 0 1833 1769 0 1560 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 2.5 0.8 0.0 2.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.9 0.0 0.1 2.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 0.0 2.5 4.9 0.0 2.2 Prop In Lane 0.75 1.00 0.11 0.47 1.00 0.10 0.15 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 653 0 448 629 0 0 437 0 698 827 0 594 V/C Ratio(X) 0.41 0.00 0.02 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.34 0.51 0.00 0.30 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1156 0 1032 1243 0 0 681 0 1215 1306 0 1034 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 8.2 0.0 6.9 7.6 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 6.0 6.7 0.0 5.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.9 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.6 1.2 0.0 0.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 8.6 0.0 6.9 7.8 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 6.3 7.2 0.0 6.2 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 274 163 266 599
Approach Delay, s/veh 8.5 7.8 6.6 6.9
Approach LOSAAAA
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.8 12.3 14.8 12.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.8 5.9 6.9 4.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.1 1.4 2.7 0.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 7.3
HCM 7th LOS A
540
Item 9 A.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
6: Monterey Ave & Bay Ave 01/06/2025
Year 2045 PM Bay-Hill Analysis 10:46 am 06/28/2024 Signal Synchro 12 Report

Page 6 ends

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 35 104 305 85 304 251
Future Volume (veh/h) 35 104 305 85 304 251
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 37 109 321 89 320 264
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 48 141 879 244 510 378
Arrive On Green 0.12 0.12 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62
Sat Flow, veh/h 411 1210 1409 391 561 605
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 147 0 0 410 584 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1632 0 0 1800 1166 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 10.3 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 14.1 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.25 0.74 0.22 0.55
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 191 0 0 1123 888 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.66 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 845 0 0 2487 1831 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 14.9 0.0 0.0 3.2 5.4 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 21.3 0.0 0.0 3.4 6.2 0.0
LnGrp LOS C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 147 410 584
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.3 3.4 6.2
Approach LOS C A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 26.2 26.2 8.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 48.0 48.0 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.9 16.1 5.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.9 5.6 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 7.1
HCM 7th LOS A
541
Item 9 A.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
7: Monterey Ave & Park Ave 01/06/2025
Year 2045 PM Bay-Hill Analysis 10:46 am 06/28/2024 Signal Synchro 12 Report

Page 7 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 3 3 203 3 237 1 148 619 202 83 1 Future Volume (veh/h) 5 3 3 203 3 237 1 148 619 202 83 1 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 5 3 3 214 3 249 1 156 652 213 87 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 315 188 142 351 27 290 87 800 679 368 127 679 Arrive On Green 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 Sat Flow, veh/h 533 525 397 632 75 811 2 1868 1585 516 296 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 11 0 0 466 0 0 157 0 652 300 0 1
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1455 0 0 1518 0 0 1870 0 1585 812 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.8 12.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.2 0.0 0.0 11.9 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 16.8 14.2 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.45 0.27 0.46 0.53 0.01 1.00 0.71 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 644 0 0 667 0 0 887 0 679 494 0 679 V/C Ratio(X) 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.96 0.61 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 743 0 0 774 0 0 887 0 679 494 0 679 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 8.7 0.0 0.0 12.4 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 11.7 11.0 0.0 6.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 25.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.1 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 8.9 2.1 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 8.7 0.0 0.0 14.7 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 36.6 13.1 0.0 6.9 LnGrp LOS A B A D B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 11 466 809 301
Approach Delay, s/veh 8.7 14.7 31.0 13.1
Approach LOS A B C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 22.5 19.5 22.5 19.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 18.8 2.2 16.2 13.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 22.7
HCM 7th LOS C
542
Item 9 A.
543
Item 9 A.

Arterial Level of Service
01/06/2025
Existing AM Bay-Hill Analysis 2:13 pm 06/24/2024 Signal Synchro 12 Report Kimley-Horn Page 1
Arterial Level of Service: NB Bay Ave
Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS Capitola Ave IV 25 36.4 9.9 46.3 0.22 17.1 C
Hill St IV 25 36.2 12.0 48.2 0.22 16.4 C
Hwy 1 SB Off-Ramp IV 25 24.9 19.5 44.4 0.14 11.2 D
Hwy 1 NB Off-Ramp IV 25 16.0 3.0 19.0 0.06 11.4 D
Total IV 113.5 44.4 157.9 0.64 14.5 C
Arterial Level of Service: SB Bay Ave
Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS Hwy 1 NB Off-Ramp IV 25 21.0 12.2 33.2 0.10 10.3 D
Hwy 1 SB Off-Ramp IV 25 16.0 5.0 21.0 0.06 10.3 D
Retail Dwy IV 25 24.9 12.2 37.1 0.14 13.4 C
Capitola Ave IV 25 36.2 10.3 46.5 0.22 17.0 C
Monterey Ave IV 25 36.4 18.3 54.7 0.22 14.5 C
Total IV 134.5 58.0 192.5 0.73 13.7 C
Arterial Level of Service: NB Monterey Ave
Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS Park Ave IV 25 19.0 16.9 35.9 0.09 8.6 E
Monterey Ave IV 25 14.9 0.0 14.9 0.06 13.6 C
Total IV 33.9 16.9 50.8 0.14 10.1 D
Arterial Level of Service: WB Monterey Ave
Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS Bay Ave IV 25 19.8 12.1 31.9 0.09 10.2 D
Park Ave IV 25 14.9 19.4 34.3 0.06 5.9 F
Total IV 34.7 31.5 66.2 0.15 8.0 E
544
Item 9 A.

Arterial Level of Service
01/06/2025
Existing PM Bay-Hill Analysis 2:13 pm 06/24/2024 Signal Synchro 12 Report Kimley-Horn Page 1
Arterial Level of Service: NB Bay Ave
Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS Capitola Ave IV 25 36.4 6.8 43.2 0.22 18.4 C
Hill St IV 25 36.2 15.5 51.7 0.22 15.3 C
Hwy 1 SB Off-Ramp IV 25 24.9 17.8 42.7 0.14 11.7 D
Hwy 1 NB Off-Ramp IV 25 16.0 2.5 18.5 0.06 11.7 D
Total IV 113.5 42.6 156.1 0.64 14.7 C
Arterial Level of Service: SB Bay Ave
Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS Hwy 1 NB Off-Ramp IV 25 21.0 13.6 34.6 0.10 9.9 D
Hwy 1 SB Off-Ramp IV 25 16.0 5.6 21.6 0.06 10.0 D
Retail Dwy IV 25 24.9 16.6 41.5 0.14 12.0 D
Capitola Ave IV 25 36.2 9.3 45.5 0.22 17.3 C
Monterey Ave IV 25 36.4 7.8 44.2 0.22 18.0 C
Total IV 134.5 52.9 187.4 0.73 14.1 C
Arterial Level of Service: NB Monterey Ave
Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS Park Ave IV 25 19.0 8.5 27.5 0.09 11.3 D
Monterey Ave IV 25 14.9 0.0 14.9 0.06 13.6 C
Total IV 33.9 8.5 42.4 0.14 12.1 D
Arterial Level of Service: WB Monterey Ave
Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS Bay Ave IV 25 19.8 9.8 29.6 0.09 11.0 D
Park Ave IV 25 14.9 9.2 24.1 0.06 8.4 E
Total IV 34.7 19.0 53.7 0.15 9.8 D
545
Item 9 A.

Arterial Level of Service
01/06/2025
Year 2045 AM Bay-Hill Analysis 2:06 pm 06/24/2024 Signal Synchro 12 Report Kimley-Horn Page 1
Arterial Level of Service: NB Bay Ave
Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS Capitola Ave IV 25 36.4 8.7 45.1 0.22 17.6 C
Hill St IV 25 36.2 9.5 45.7 0.22 17.3 C
IV 25 24.9 14.4 39.3 0.14 12.7 D
Hwy 1 NB Off-Ramp IV 25 16.0 1.3 17.3 0.06 12.5 D
Total IV 113.5 33.9 147.4 0.64 15.6 C
Arterial Level of Service: SB Bay Ave
Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS IV 25 21.0 9.9 30.9 0.10 11.1 D
Hwy 1 SB Off-Ramp IV 25 16.0 2.6 18.6 0.06 11.7 D
Retail Dwy IV 25 24.9 13.1 38.0 0.14 13.1 C
Capitola Ave IV 25 36.2 9.0 45.2 0.22 17.5 C
Monterey Ave IV 25 36.4 14.5 50.9 0.22 15.6 C
Total IV 134.5 49.1 183.6 0.73 14.4 C
Arterial Level of Service: NB Monterey Ave
Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS Park Ave IV 25 19.0 13.3 32.3 0.09 9.6 D
Monterey Ave IV 25 14.9 0.0 14.9 0.06 13.6 C
Total IV 33.9 13.3 47.2 0.14 10.9 D
Arterial Level of Service: WB Monterey Ave
Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS Bay Ave IV 25 19.8 10.3 30.1 0.09 10.8 D
Park Ave IV 25 14.9 26.9 41.8 0.06 4.8 F
Total IV 34.7 37.2 71.9 0.15 7.3 E
546
Item 9 A.

Arterial Level of Service
01/06/2025
Year 2045 PM Bay-Hill Analysis 10:46 am 06/28/2024 Signal Synchro 12 Report

Page 1 ends

Arterial Level of Service: NB Bay Ave
Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS Capitola Ave IV 25 36.4 8.4 44.8 0.22 17.7 C
Hill St IV 25 36.2 31.8 68.0 0.22 11.6 D
Hwy 1 SB Off-Ramp IV 25 24.9 43.2 68.1 0.14 7.3 E
Hwy 1 NB Off-Ramp IV 25 16.0 3.5 19.5 0.06 11.1 D
Total IV 113.5 86.9 200.4 0.64 11.5 D
Arterial Level of Service: SB Bay Ave
Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS Hwy 1 NB Off-Ramp IV 25 21.0 36.7 57.7 0.10 5.9 F
Hwy 1 SB Off-Ramp IV 25 16.0 1.2 17.2 0.06 12.6 D
Retail Dwy IV 25 24.9 15.8 40.7 0.14 12.2 D
Capitola Ave IV 25 36.2 11.1 47.3 0.22 16.7 C
Monterey Ave IV 25 36.4 9.4 45.8 0.22 17.3 C
Total IV 134.5 74.2 208.7 0.73 12.6 D
Arterial Level of Service: NB Monterey Ave
Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS Park Ave IV 25 19.0 9.7 28.7 0.09 10.8 D
Monterey Ave IV 25 14.9 0.0 14.9 0.06 13.6 C
Total IV 33.9 9.7 43.6 0.14 11.8 D
Arterial Level of Service: WB Monterey Ave
Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS Bay Ave IV 25 19.8 14.5 34.3 0.09 9.5 D
Park Ave IV 25 14.9 17.4 32.3 0.06 6.3 F
Total IV 34.7 31.9 66.6 0.15 7.9 E
547
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
Attachment E – Existing Intersection Observed Driver Behavior at Bay/Capitola Technical Memo 548
Item 9 A.

DRAFT Existing Intersection Observed Driver Behavior Page 1 of 12 Capitola Avenue at Bay Avenue July 23, 2024

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
RE: Capitola Avenue at Bay Avenue - Existing Intersection Observed Driver Behavior From: Sean Houck, P.E, Kimley-Horn
Derek Wu P.E, Kimley-Horn
To: Kailash Mozumder, City of Capitola
Date: July 23, 2024
This document as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

INTRODUCTION
This Technical Memorandum evaluates vehicle navigation and observes driver behavior at the intersection of Capitola Avenue and Bay Avenue (study intersection) in Capitola, California. The existing, four-leg intersection currently operates as an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC) intersection. The intersection was evaluated using aerial video collected by drone and processed using video analytics (VA). VA is the process of applying artificial intelligence (AI) to define vehicle kinematics in the video for the purpose of extracting time-spatial data, applying prediction kinematic models, and visualizing driver behavior trends. VA were used in this study to evaluate:
• Stopping Rate
• Measured Speed
• Deceleration Rate
• Near Miss Collisions - Vehicles, Pedestrians, and Bicyclists The study intersection is shown below in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Study Location
549
Item 9 A.

DRAFT Existing Intersection Observed Driver Behavior Page 2 of 12 Capitola Avenue at Bay Avenue July 23, 2024

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Capitola Avenue is a two-lane, north-south roadway with a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour (mph). Capitola Avenue is classified as an arterial south of Bay Avenue and a collector north of Bay Avenue. The northbound approach has a dedicated right-turn lane and a shared leftturn/through lane. The southbound approach has a shared left/through/right-turn lane. Bay Avenue is a two-lane, east-west arterial with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. There is a two-way left-turn lane west of the intersection. The eastbound approach consists of a dedicated right-turn lane and shared left-turn/through lane. The westbound approach consists of a dedicated left-turn lane and a shared through/right turn lane.

There are crosswalks and sidewalks located along all legs of the intersection. There are Class II bike lanes along the western leg of Bay Avenue. The north, east, and south legs have Class III bike routes in which bicyclists share the road with the vehicles. There are two (2) schools located within a half-mile radius of the study intersection including one elementary and one middle school.

DATA COLLECTION
Data collection occurred at the study intersection using drone imagery, on May 16th, 2024, during the following time periods:
• AM peak hour/school drop-off
• PM school pick-up
• PM peak hour
• PM evening off-peak
The data collection start and end times of each captured video is identified in Table 1.

Table 1: Video Times
Video Peak Hour Start Time End Time
1 AM Peak/School Drop-off 7:50 AM 8:40 AM
2 PM School Pick-up 2:45 PM 3:30 PM
3 PM Peak 3:55 PM 4:45 PM
4 PM Evening Off-Peak 7:05 PM 7:35 PM

EXISTING CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT
Drone videos were processed using pixel tracing software which identifies and measures vehicle movement as shown in Figure 2. The focus of this assessment was to identify the following of the observed vehicles:
• Deceleration speeds approaching the stop signs
• Heavy braking
• Interaction with other vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists 550
Item 9 A.

DRAFT Existing Intersection Observed Driver Behavior Page 3 of 12 Capitola Avenue at Bay Avenue July 23, 2024
Figure 2: Pixel Tracing Software for PM School Pick-up Video Stopping Rate
Traffic regions were created at each approach to measure the minimum speed of each vehicle before entering the intersection. See Figure 3 for the location of the traffic regions.

Figure 3: Speed Measurement Gates
Traffic Regions
551
Item 9 A.

DRAFT Existing Intersection Observed Driver Behavior Page 4 of 12 Capitola Avenue at Bay Avenue July 23, 2024
The vehicle speed analysis may vary by 0.5 mph or less as compared to actual speeds, therefore the criteria for making a complete stop was determined to be vehicles traveling between 0 and 1 mph. Vehicles traveling at a speed of 0 to 1 mph within the traffic regions identified in Figure 3 meet the criteria for vehicles making a complete stop. Table 2 through Table 6 summarize the number of vehicles that met the complete stop criteria along each intersection approach for each observed period.

Table 2: Intersection Stopping Rate
All Observed Periods
Approach Total Number of
Vehicles
Criteria Met Criteria Not Met
Vehicle Count Vehicle Count Percentage
NB 405 217 188 46.4%
WB 907 342 565 62.3%
SB 270 109 161 59.6%
EB 1227 413 814 66.3%
Table 3: AM Peak/School Drop-off Stopping Rate
AM Peak/School Drop-off Period
Approach AM Peak Number of
Vehicles
Criteria Met Criteria Not Met
Vehicle Count Vehicle Count Percentage
NB 81 36 45 55.6%
WB 331 104 227 68.6%
SB 85 37 48 56.5%
EB 333 95 238 71.5%
Table 4: PM School Pick-up Stopping Rate
PM School Pick-up Period
Approach School Pick-up
Number of Vehicles
Criteria Met Criteria Not Met
Vehicle Count Vehicle Count Percentage
NB 160 104 56 35.0%
WB 300 145 155 51.7%
SB 71 36 35 49.3%
EB 395 171 224 56.7%
Table 5: PM Peak Stopping Rate
PM Peak Period
Approach PM Peak Number of
Vehicles
Criteria Met Criteria Not Met
Vehicle Count Vehicle Count Percentage
NB 116 61 55 47.4%
WB 215 76 139 64.7%
SB 80 32 48 60.0%
EB 378 123 255 67.5%
552
Item 9 A.

DRAFT Existing Intersection Observed Driver Behavior Page 5 of 12 Capitola Avenue at Bay Avenue July 23, 2024
Table 6: PM Evening Off-Peak Stopping Rate
PM Evening Off-Peak Period
Approach PM Off-Peak
Number of Vehicles
Criteria Met Criteria Not Met
Vehicle Count Vehicle Count Percentage
NB 48 16 32 66.7%
WB 61 17 44 72.1%
SB 34 4 30 88.2%
EB 121 24 97 80.2%
The tables above summarize approaching vehicles that did and did not meet the criteria of traveling 0 to 1 mph. The tables identify the percentage of vehicles not making a complete stop at the intersection along each directional approach. The PM evening off-peak period had the highest recorded percentage of 66.3% of vehicles not making a complete stop.

Measured Vehicle Speed
Vehicle speeds within the designated traffic regions were further analyzed to capture the maximum and 85th percentile speed entering the region. These speeds are summarized below in Table 7 for each studied time period combined. The vehicle speeds were further reviewed for each studied time period by directional approach and are graphically shown in Figure 4 through Figure 11.

Table 7: Total Intersection Measured Vehicle Speed
Speed Total Vehicles Speed Total Vehicles Speed Total Vehicles Speed Total Vehicles Speed Total Vehicles 0 235 0 65 0 127 0 39 0 4
2 1088 2 313 2 405 2 307 2 63
4 932 4 299 4 267 4 267 4 99
6 358 6 94 6 76 6 124 6 64
8 113 8 28 8 31 8 32 8 22
10 32 10 10 10 10 10 8 10 4
12 22 12 9 12 4 12 7 12 2
14 15 14 4 14 3 14 3 14 5
16 8 16 3 16 3 16 2 16 0
18 6 18 5 18 0 18 0 18 1
85th Percentile

6.5047956 6.4144871 5.86448425 6.7806282 7.5144739
Max Speed

19.223969 19.223969 17.837877 17.749456 18.966279
All Observed Periods AM Peak/ School Drop-offPeriods PM School Pick-up Period PM Peak Period PM Evening Off-Peak Period 553
Item 9 A.

DRAFT Existing Intersection Observed Driver Behavior Page 6 of 12 Capitola Avenue at Bay Avenue July 23, 2024
Figure 4: Vehicle Speed per Approach (AM Peak/School Drop-off) Figure 5: Maximum Speed and 85th Percentile Speed (AM Peak/School Drop-off) Figure 6: Vehicle Speed per Approach (PM School Pick-up) 0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Number of Vehicles
Speed (mph)
AM Peak Vehicle Speed
NB
SB
WB
EB
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
NB
SB
WB
EB
Speed (MPH)
Approach
AM Peak Vehicle Speed
Maximum Speed 85th Percentile Speed
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Number of Vehicles
Speed (mph)
PM School Pick-up Vehicle Speed
NB
SB
WB
EB
554
Item 9 A.

DRAFT Existing Intersection Observed Driver Behavior Page 7 of 12 Capitola Avenue at Bay Avenue July 23, 2024
Figure 7: Maximum Speed and 85th Percentile Speed (PM School Pick-up) Figure 8: Vehicle Speed per Approach (PM Peak)
Figure 9: Maximum Speed and 85th Percentile Speed (PM Peak) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
NB
SB
WB
EB
Speed (MPH)
Approach
PM School Pick-up Vehicle Speed
Maximum Speed 85th Percentile Speed
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Number of Vehicles
Speed (mph)
PM Peak Vehicle Speed
NB
SB
WB
EB
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
NB
SB
WB
EB
Speed (MPH)
Approach
PM Peak Vehicle Speed
Maximum Speed 85th Percentile Speed
555
Item 9 A.

DRAFT Existing Intersection Observed Driver Behavior Page 8 of 12 Capitola Avenue at Bay Avenue July 23, 2024
Figure 10: Vehicle Speed per Approach (PM Evening Off-Peak) Figure 11: Maximum Speed and 85th Percentile Speed (PM Evening Off-Peak) The table and figures above portray the number of approaching vehicles and vehicle speeds within the approach regions. The percentage of vehicles within the 2 to 6 mph category was 72%, which indicates that majority of vehicles do not meet the complete stop criteria. Furthermore, six (6) vehicles were driving at a speed greater than 18 mph during the AM peak and PM evening off-peak periods.

Deceleration Rate
VA was used to identify vehicles decelerating at a rate equal to or greater than 10 ft/s 2 . Vehicles
decelerating at or above this criteria were classified as Heavy Braking. An example of an observed heavy braking incident was vehicle id 293 shown in Figure 16. The vehicle approached the intersection at a recorded speed of 28 mph and decelerated to nearly 0 mph in under 5 seconds resulting in a deceleration rate of 13 ft/s
2 . Figure 17 illustrates the rapid deceleration of the vehicle over the short period of time.
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Number of Vehicles
Speed (mph)
PM Evening Off-Peak Vehicle Speed
NB
SB
WB
EB
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
NB
SB
WB
EB
Speed (MPH)
Approach
PM Evening Off-Peak Vehicle Speed
Maximum Speed 85th Percentile Speed
556
Item 9 A.

DRAFT Existing Intersection Observed Driver Behavior Page 9 of 12 Capitola Avenue at Bay Avenue July 23, 2024

Figure 16:Heavy Braking Figure 17: Car Deceleration
The number of vehicles identified as meeting the heavy braking criteria are summarized in Table 8 below.

Table 8: Heavy Braking Summary
AM Peak/School Drop-off PM School Pick-up
Approach
Vehicles
Approach
Vehicles
Heavy
Braking Total % Heavy Braking
Heavy
Braking Total % Heavy Braking
NB 14 81 17.3% NB 3 160 1.9%
WB 41 331 12.4% WB 16 300 5.3%
SB 6 85 7.1% SB 4 71 5.6%
EB 36 333 10.8% EB 14 395 3.5%
PM Peak PM Evening Off-Peak
Approach
Vehicles
Approach
Vehicles
Heavy
Braking Total % Heavy Braking
Heavy
Braking Total % Heavy Braking
NB 7 116 6.0% NB 3 48 6.3%
WB 6 215 2.8% WB 8 61 13.1%
SB 3 80 3.8% SB 2 34 5.9%
EB 23 378 6.1% EB 14 121 11.6%
All Observed Periods
Approach
Vehicles
Heavy Braking Total % Heavy Braking
NB 27 405 6.7%
WB 71 907 7.8%
SB 15 270 5.6%
EB 87 1227 7.1%
Figure 12 through Figure 15 illustrate the vehicle position and direction of travel of each identified heavy braking incident. Approach and departure crosswalks are identified to reference the vehicle position.
557
Item 9 A.

DRAFT Existing Intersection Observed Driver Behavior Page 10 of 12 Capitola Avenue at Bay Avenue July 23, 2024
Figure 12: Northbound Heavy Braking Figure 13: Southbound Heavy Braking Figure 14: Westbound Heavy Braking Figure 15: Eastbound Heavy Braking The table and figures above portray the number of vehicles heavy braking along each approach of the intersection. The figures identify where the 200 recorded heavy braking occurrences, over all observed time periods, happened relative to the crosswalk. Of the observed 200 heavy braking incidents, approximately 43.5% of them occurred along the eastbound directional approach.

Crosswalk
Direction of
Travel
Direction of
Travel
Direction of
Travel
Street
Boundary
558
Item 9 A.

DRAFT Existing Intersection Observed Driver Behavior Page 11 of 12 Capitola Avenue at Bay Avenue July 23, 2024
Near Miss Collisions
Post encroachment time (PET) is the time it takes for an object to leave a point that a second object reaches. A near-miss collision occurs when the PET is equal to or less than 1.5 seconds.

Figure 18 shows an example of a near-miss occurrence. Vehicle id 370 makes an eastbound leftturn movement while vehicle id 369 travels westbound, reaching the same point of the left-turning vehicle in 1.5 seconds.

Figure 18: Observed Near Miss
Table 9: Recorded Near Misses
Time Number of
PET ≤ 1.5
AM Peak/School Drop-off 13
PM School Pick-up 10
PM Peak 10
PM Evening Off-Peak 2
Total 35
Table 10: Direction of Travel for Near Misses
Directions Number of
PET Percentage
WBT/EBL 23 65.7%
EBT/WBL 6 17.1%
NBL/EBL 3 8.6%
WBR/EBL 2 5.7%
NBL/EBR 1 2.9%
The tables above summarize the number of near miss collisions and their direction of travel during each observed time period. Of the total recorded 35 near miss collisions, approximately 65.7% of them occurred between vehicles making the eastbound left-turning movement and westbound vehicles traveling through the intersection (WBT/EBL).

EBL Turning
Vehicle
WBT Traveling
Vehicle
559
Item 9 A.

DRAFT Existing Intersection Observed Driver Behavior Page 12 of 12 Capitola Avenue at Bay Avenue July 23, 2024

CONCLUSION
Kimley Horn conducted a study on the way drivers interact with the AWSC intersection of Capitola Avenue and Bay Avenue in the city of Capitola. Driver behavior was evaluated using aerial video collected by drone and processed using VA to document the following:

1. Stopping Rate
a. The highest rate of vehicles not making a complete stop within the region was during the PM evening off-peak period.
b. The eastbound approach trended higher rates of not making a complete stop compared to the other approaches.

2. Measured Vehicle Speed
a. The maximum speed was approximately 19 mph.
b. 85th percentile speed was approximately 7.5 mph.
i. The eastbound and southbound approaches saw the highest 85th percentile speeds during all observed time periods.

3. Deceleration Rate
a. The percentage identified as heavy braking was 7.1% of all observed vehicles during all observed periods.
b. The highest rate of heavy braking occurred during the AM peak/school drop-off period.
c. The highest rate of heavy braking occurred along the eastbound approach accounting for 43.5% of the total heavy braking incidents.

4. Near Miss Collisions - Vehicles, Pedestrians, and Bicyclists a. A total of 35 near misses were recorded during the observed time periods. i. Conflict occurrences between vehicles making an eastbound left-turning movement and westbound vehicles traveling through the intersection accounted for 65.7% of recorded near misses.
b. There were no observed occurrences of a near miss between a vehicle and a bicyclist or pedestrian.
560
Item 9 A.

Capitola City Council
Agenda Report
Meeting: February 13, 2025
From: Public Works Department
Subject: Bay Avenue and Hill Street Traffic Safety Update Recommended Action: Provide direction on short-term modifications to the Bay Avenue and Hill Street intersection.

Background: On November 21, 2024, the City Council discussed the Quick Build Project at Bay Avenue and Hill Street, implemented in late July/early August 2024. The project introduced lane reductions, enhanced crosswalk markings, and temporary bulb-outs to improve pedestrian safety and manage traffic flow.

Since implementation, community feedback, technical evaluations, and further Council discussions have identified areas for improvement. During the November 21st meeting, staff was instructed to remove the current configuration in spring 2025 and implement specific modifications. These modifications include extending striping for a continuous bike lane, examining costs for raised crosswalks, expanding the crosswalk by adjusting the stop sign line, and determining whether bollards can remain at all intersection corners.

The City Council also directed staff to collect additional data to enable a comparison between the current Quick Build Project configuration and the proposed new layout. The Council requested that staff return in early 2025 to present updated findings and assess whether the new configuration could be implemented in coordination with the upcoming Bay Avenue Corridor Study.

Discussion: Following Council direction, staff collected updated traffic data to evaluate the current intersection configuration.

Traffic volume data was gathered on a single non-rainy day during regular school schedules to maintain consistency. While seasonal variations may impact certain modes of travel—such as lower bicycle volumes in colder months—the methodology ensures a reliable baseline for comparison. The data confirms that this intersection remains a high-use location for both vehicles and pedestrians, emphasizing the need for effective safety measures.

Traffic Data Summary
Bicycle Volumes (Total at Intersection)
Bike Volume Intersection Total
Count Date Timeline AM Peak Mid-Day Peak PM Peak
2/15/2022 Before QB 24 25 19
3/7/2024 Before QB 19 N/A 15
10/24/2025 After QB 49 23 23
1/25/2025 After QB 31 22 20
Pedestrian Volumes (Total at Intersection)
Pedestrian Volume Intersection Total
Count Date Timeline AM Peak Mid-Day Peak PM Peak
2/15/2022 Before QB 31 51 49
3/7/2024 Before QB 34 N/A 21
10/24/2025 After QB 18 57 61
1/25/2025 After QB 32 48 40
561
Item 9 B.

Vehicle Traffic – Bay Avenue Approach (Southbound)
Vehicle Traffic Bay Avenue Approach Southbound
Count Date Timeline AM Peak Mid-Day Peak PM Peak
2/15/2022 Before QB 435 635 633
3/7/2024 Before QB 481 N/A 669
10/24/2025 After QB 484 538 545
1/25/2025 After QB 501 521 570
Vehicle Traffic – Bay Avenue Approach (Northbound)
Vehicle Traffic Bay Avenue Approach Northbound
Count Date Timeline AM Peak Mid-Day Peak PM Peak
2/15/2022 Before QB 462 485 392
3/7/2024 Before QB 466 N/A 323
10/24/2025 After QB 477 418 417
1/25/2025 After QB 502 444 380
Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Observations
The Level of Service (LOS) analysis indicates the intersection's performance in January 2025 is expected to be similar to October 2024. The primary factors influencing LOS at this location are the northbound (NB) and southbound (SB) vehicle volumes along Bay Avenue.

Between October 2024 and January 2025, northbound traffic increased by approximately 5% during the morning and mid-day peak hours but saw a slight 4% decrease in the evening peak. Conversely, southbound traffic decreased by about 3% in the morning and mid-day, while remaining unchanged in the evening.

Despite these fluctuations, the changes are not significant enough to impact the overall LOS rating. While minor variations in vehicle delay (1–2 seconds) may occur, the intersection’s letter grade classification (e.g., A, B, C) remains consistent.

Evaluation of Proposed Modifications
The City’s traffic consultant, Kimley Horn, prepared a comparison which outlines the proposed modifications to the Bay Avenue and Hill Street intersection (Attachment 1). These modifications aim to enhance pedestrian and cyclist safety while balancing traffic operations and community needs. Below is an evaluation of key options under consideration:

Option Benefits Challenges Staff Consideration Estimated Cost Raised
Crosswalks
Safer, ADA
access.

Cost, drainage,
delays.

Worth considering (varies
by material).
$6K–$25K each (asphalt,
brick, stamped concrete).

Additional
Green Bike
Lanes
Improves bike
safety.

Cost, driver
confusion.

Possible improvement
(includes striping removal). $15–$30/sq. ft.

Bollards Adds buffer,
slows turns.

Maintenance, large
vehicles.

Could be explored
(durability concerns). $50–$200 each
Staggered
Stop Bars
May help
visibility. Minimal impact. Not recommended $8–$20/ft.

Staff recommends integrating the evaluation of these modifications into the broader context of corridor improvements. This approach will ensure that any short-term changes to the Bay Avenue and Hill Street intersection align with long-term strategies for the corridor. 562
Item 9 B.

Council is requested to provide direction to staff on the following:

1. Whether to proceed with short-term modifications, such as continuous green bike lanes, while awaiting the corridor study’s final recommendations.

2. Identify any additional data collection or analysis required to further refine the proposed intersection changes.

3. Remove all quick-build components and return intersection to pre-project conditions.

Fiscal Impact: Costs for proposed modifications will depend on the selected measures. Based on preliminary estimates from the City's traffic consultant (Attachment 1):
 Raised crosswalks are estimated at $6,000 – $25,000 per location, with additional costs for brickwork, stamped materials, and drainage modifications.  Continuous bike lanes (green thermoplastic striping) are estimated at $15 – $30 per square foot, including existing striping removal.
 Bollards for bike lane separation and pedestrian safety are estimated at $50 – $200 per bollard, depending on size and durability.
 Staggered stop bars are estimated at $8 – $20 per linear foot for white thermoplastic striping.  Removing all quick build components will cost approximately $40,000.

Staff will incorporate approved actions into the annual Pavement Management Project budget for Council consideration on February 27, 2025.

Attachments:

1. Potential Improvement Matrix
Report Prepared By: Jessica Kahn, Public Works Director; Reviewed By: Julia Gautho, City Clerk; Samantha Zutler, City Attorney Approved By: Jamie Goldstein, City Manager
563
Item 9 B.
1 Bay Ave
Hill St
Crossroads
Loop
11/21/2024 CC Notes
Nob Hill
Plaza Dwy
Nob Hill
Plaza Dwy
564
Item 9 B.

Bay-Hill_QB_Option_Comparison_20241210.xlsx
12/10/2024 21:21
Benefits Challenges Benefits Challenges Benefits Challenges Benefits Challenges Pedestrian &
Bike Safety
Identified traffic calming measure that
increases visibility to approaching
vehicles
Increased driver-yield compliance at
crossing from vertical deflection
Improved ADA access since crosswalk at
same elevation as the sidewalk
Increased visiblity to approaching vehicles
Provides physical separation buffer
between vehicle and bike/ped areas on
roadway
Potential improved sight lines of bike/peds
on crosswalk for driver in the forward
staggered lane
For adjacent movements, stop bars
staggered different distances between
lanes would improve sight lines for the
forward vehicle but reduce sight lines for
back vehicle in next lane. No net
improvement to overall safety (Bay
Avenue 4-lane road)
Increased visibility and identification of
bike space and intended path of travel
within the intersection and at the
approaches
Reinforces bikes have priority over
turning vehicles in conflict areas
Provides connectivity to existing bike
facilities
Traffic
Operations
Reduced vehicle speeds through
crosswalk due to grade change improves
bike/ped safety
Increased average vehicle delay and
travel times through intersection due to
slower speeds to traverse crosswalk
Bollards used to create curb extension /
reduce curb radius will reduce vehicle
turning speeds at corners
Potential impact to sight lines (see above) No anticpated impacts Vehicle
Queues &
Vehicle
Access
No impact to non-emergency vehicles
Potential increase in queues to traverse
through intersection from slower speeds
Typically not appropriate for primary
emergency vehicle routes. Requires
coordination with fire & police
No impact to non-emergency vehicles
Posts at intersection corners may
potentially be struck from large delivery or
emergency vehicles
No anticipated impacts No anticpated impacts
Design,
Construction,
&
Maintenance
Recommended on streets with posted
speed up to 30mph
Existing raised crosswalks implemented in
Capitola (Clares St and Jewel Box
neighborhood)
Modification of drainage design along the
curb needed to prevent ponding
Increase noise due to vehicle
acceleration/braking over crosswalk
Recommend improvement to nighttime
visibility for approaching vehicles / bikes
For bike lanes, center delineator within
the buffer zone along the edge of the
bikeway. Typical spacing is every 8 - 20
ft, depending on the thoroughfare's
design speed / bikeway configuration.

Allow a minimum of 1.5 ft. clear width for
installation of smaller delineators
Ongoing maintenance from vehicle
strikes. Smaller bollard sizes have lower
durability and will require more
replacement.

For Bay Avenue with 4-lane geometry,
wider bike lane buffer width (1.5' min)
recommeded to use bollards
Recommend stop lines to be placed at
least 4-ft in advance of crosswalk (no
stagger between adjacent lanes)
Staggered stop bar between left turn and
through lanes permitted in MUTCD to
increase turning radius clearance for large
vehicles making a left turn. This issue is
not present at Bay/Hill intersection (see
example below).

Provides benefit on northbound and
southbound Bay Avenue approaches with
existing Class II bike facilities
May not be applicable to install on for the
eastbound and westbound Nob Hill and
Hill Street approaches due to lack of
existing bike facilities/striping
Cost Range
Examples
Source
$50 to $200 per bollard or segment (depending on size and type) Flexible delineator post < High performance delineator < Raised lane separator < K71 Delineator Post
Criteria
Raised Crosswalk Raised Bollards Stagger Stop Bar for Bay Ave Travel Lanes Continuous Bike Intersection Crossing Markings $6,000 to $25,000 per crosswalk location (Asphalt)
Additional costs for brickwork, stamped material, concrete ramps, and other enhancements used at pedestrian crossings
$8 to $20 per linear foot (white thermoplastic striping) Includes removal of existing striping
$15 to $30 per square foot (green thermoplastic striping) Includes removal of existing striping
https://highways.dot.gov/safety/speed-management/traffic-calming-eprimer/module-3- part-2#3.14
https://www.ite.org/technical-resources/traffic-calming/traffic-calming-measures/ http://www.pedbikesafe.org/BIKESAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=27 https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part3/part3b.htm https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/intersectiontreatments/intersection-crossing-markings/ https://tacticalurbanismguide.com/materials/raised-lane-separator/ https://tacticalurbanismguide.com/materials/flexible-delineator-post/ Potential Improvements at Bay Avenue / Hill Street Intersection (Per 11/21/2024 City Council) Physical Measure Physical Measure Striping / Signing Measure Striping / Signing Measure 565
Item 9 B.

Capitola City Council
Agenda Report
Meeting: February 13, 2025
From: Public Works Department
Subject: Park Avenue Traffic Calming Improvements with Coastal Rail Trail Options
Recommended Action: Review options for Coastal Rail Trail improvements in the Park Avenue right-ofway and identify Option A (as described in the staff report) as the preferred alternative for further analysis.

Background: Park Avenue is a principal arterial road in Capitola, supporting vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic. Caltrans designates it as part of the Pacific Coast Bike Route, making it vital for both local and regional transportation. Following a traffic study conducted in January 2020, the City Council identified the need for speed reduction measures due to perceived safety concerns along this corridor.

In response, City staff engaged its on-call traffic engineering firm, Kimley Horn, to evaluate traffic calming alternatives. These options were presented to the City Council on September 8, 2022, and focused on reducing vehicle speeds and enhancing safety for all users. Traffic calming strategies included: speed bumps/tables, adding curves, physical barriers, road diets, and signage (Attachment 1).

Separately, during this same timeframe, the County of Santa Cruz (County), in coordination with the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC), developed preliminary design plans and completed an environmental review for Segments 10 and 11 of the Rail Trail, which runs from 17th Avenue to State Park Drive, traversing the length of the City of Capitola. This project is funded by a combination of state and federal grants and Measure D-Active Transportation funds, with no financial contribution required from the City of Capitola. The County and the RTC previously presented project updates to the City Council on March 23, 2023, and October 26, 2023. During the October 26, 2023, meeting, the City Council consented to a consolidated Coastal Development Permit. This project is funded by a $67.6 million grant from the California Transportation Commission, $8.5 million in federal Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) funding, and local Measure D-Active Transportation funds. Cost estimates in 2023 indicated the project was over budget by approximately $27 million (not including the recently announced RAISE grant funding of $8.5 million).

Discussion:

Park Avenue Traffic Calming Community Outreach
In late 2023, the City conducted a survey to gather input on proposed traffic calming measures and received around 100 responses. This effort was complemented by a virtual public meeting in January 2024, which attracted significant participation. A summary of public outreach is included in Attachment 2.

Key findings from the outreach include:

1. Parking Issues: Concerns were raised about potential reductions in parking availability, particularly affecting families with multiple vehicles.

2. Traffic Safety: Residents advocated for physical barriers to separate bicycles from vehicles, radar signs, and enhanced speed enforcement. Speed bumps or speed tables were also suggested to discourage speeding.

3. Support for Road Diet: There was strong support for narrowing car lanes and widening bike lanes to improve safety for cyclists, pedestrians, and school children. 566
Item 9 C.

4. Community Engagement: Residents expressed the need for continued transparency and opportunities for input.

5. Traffic Patterns: Concerns about unsafe conditions due to cut-through traffic were highlighted.

6. Visual Concerns: Some community members worried about aesthetic impacts on the area’s natural beauty.

The City’s project team incorporated feedback from the community outreach process into a final design for the Traffic Calming Project, which was completed in October 2024 (Attachment 3). The elements of this project would include:

1. Restriping the entire roadway to narrow vehicle lanes down to 10.5 feet

2. Add a buffered bike lane for outbound Park Avenue starting at Washburn Avenue and terminating at Coronado Street

3. Add a buffered bike lane for inbound Park Avenue starting at Coronado Street and terminating at Wesley Street. Due to project budget constraints and challenges associated with leaf litter in the project area, a physical barrier to separate bicycles from vehicles was not included.

4. Adding green bike markings at all intersections

5. Improving the intersection at Park and Monterey Avenues with updated bike and pedestrian markings

6. Improving the intersection at Park Avenue and Kennedy Drive by switching the crosswalk locations to match with the existing curb ramps and creating a small painted bulbout

7. Installing additional speed feedback signs

8. Considering, but not implementing, speed tables/crossings/cushions. These could be implemented at a later date when funding is available.

The Traffic Calming Project was primarily a restriping effort that was not planned to include any treatment to road or sidewalk conditions, nor the fully separated bicycle facility that was requested by members of the public during the community outreach phase. Items 5 and 6 listed above are being completed as part of the City’s coordinated work with the Pure Water Soquel Project and the Upper Village Parking Lot Sidewalk Project.

Coastal Rail Trail Alignment Options
As stated above, during the same time period that the City has been preparing its Traffic Calming Project, the County of Santa Cruz and RTC have been developing the Coastal Rail Trail. Segments 10 and 11 of the Rail Trail, as approved by the Board of Supervisors in April 2024, included a trail alignment that was on the coastal side of the existing tracks between Monterey Avenue and Coronado Street, within the rail right-of-way. This alignment is consistent with the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail Master Plan from 2013. The County and RTC presented this design to the Capitola City Council on October 26, 2023.

Due to existing topography and right-of-way constraints, constructing the trail on the coastal side of the tracks between Monterey Avenue and Grove Lane requires the construction of significant infrastructural components, including approximately 1,500 feet of retaining walls up to 16 feet high and a 240 foot long viaduct across Escalona Gulch. Similarly, constructing the trail on the coastal side of the rail between Grove Lane and Coronado Street also requires significant infrastructure, including approximately 950 feet of retaining walls up to 8 feet high, and a 330 foot long viaduct on steep slopes above the New Brighton State Beach parking lot.

Because of the extensive infrastructure required by the original design, the County and RTC are proposing to revise the Coastal Rail Trail Segment 11 alignment between Monterey Avenue and Coronado Street (approximately 0.7 miles) to the Park Avenue right-of-way, in the City of Capitola. The County and RTC are also proposing to coordinate the realigned segment of the trail with Capitola’s Park Avenue Traffic Calming Project. Shifting the Coastal Rail Trail alignment to the Park Avenue right-of-way will enhance bicycle and pedestrian safety while improving connectivity between neighborhoods, the Coastal Rail Trail, and Capitola Village. This alignment serves as a cost reduction strategy identified in 567
Item 9 C.
the value engineering analysis. Finally, the Park Avenue Coastal Rail Trail alignment is designed to avoid possible conflicts with potential future transportation uses in the rail corridor.

Since the approved designs were developed in 2022-2023, additional information has emerged that should be considered as part of the trail and rail corridor’s development.

1. Updated cost estimates for the Coastal Rail Trail Segments 10 & 11 showed significant increases in construction costs and right-of-way costs, which increased the project costs for these two phases from $78.3 to $104.4 million. The potential cost increase necessitated the need for value engineering to reduce costs. The RTC completed a value analysis study for the project in June 2024, which included a cost reduction strategy to route the trail along the Park Avenue right-ofway.

Space constraints in the existing rail corridor may limit the ability to accommodate both the Rail Trail and other future transportation uses. Routing the trail along the Park Avenue right-of-way provides a long-term solution that avoids potential conflicts within the rail right-of-way while ensuring the trail remains a viable and continuous active transportation route. Additionally, shifting the trail out of the rail corridor minimizes the risk of future modifications or removals that could arise if other transportation projects, such as those studied in the Zero Emission Passenger Rail and Trail Project, are pursued in the corridor.

2. As mentioned earlier, the City was independently developing lower-cost traffic-calming options along Park Avenue to help slow vehicular traffic and improve bicycle and pedestrian safety.

As a result of this new information, the County and RTC have recommended shifting Coastal Rail Trail Segment 11 from between Monterey Avenue and Coronado Street (approximately 0.7 miles) to the Park Avenue right-of-way. City staff supports this recommendation.

The proposed realignment would include a new 12-foot-wide Class I multi-use path adjacent to Park Avenue on the coastal side of the roadway and includes a minimum 3-foot buffer between the vehicular travel lane and trail. The design includes improvements from Capitola’s Park Avenue Traffic Calming Project, such as narrowed travel lanes and speed feedback signs. The Coastal Rail Trail project will also add crosswalks with push-button activated rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB), similar to the newly installed crosswalk at Cabrillo Street, that would connect the trail to the surrounding neighborhood at McCormick Avenue, Washburn Avenue, and the 600 Park Avenue driveway. Intersection lighting will also be upgraded at new crosswalks and trail lighting could also be installed.

In coordination with Capitola staff, the Rail Trail Project team developed two Coastal Rail Trail alignment options along the Park Avenue right-of-way. Option A (Attachment 4) extends the Park Avenue footprint further towards the coast to add the Coastal Rail Trail on the coast side of Park Avenue in order to preserve the existing on-street Class II bike lane on the inland (inbound) side of Park Avenue. Option B (Attachment 5) shifts the Park Avenue roadway alignment inland in order to maximize the use of the existing Park Avenue right-of-way for development of the Coastal Rail Trail and eliminates the Class II bike lane on the inland (inbound) side. Option B is expected to reduce environmental impacts when comparing the two Park Avenue alignments and will reduce project costs. With Option B, cyclists traveling towards Capitola Village would utilize the Class 1 multi-use path on the coast side of Park Avenue instead of the existing Class II bike lane on the inland side of Park Avenue. This would require local bicycle traffic from the Cliffwood Heights neighborhood to cross Park Avenue to access a bike path. Option A would maintain the existing Class II bike lane on the inland side of Park Avenue and allow local users direct access to a bike path for westbound trips without crossing Park Avenue.

Under either option, the existing on-street Class II bike lane on the coastal (eastbound) side of Park Avenue will be eliminated to accommodate the Class I trail. Similarly, from Grove Lane to Coronado 568
Item 9 C.

Street, the existing sidewalk on the coastal side of the street would be converted to a portion of the Class I trail under either option. Sections of that sidewalk are currently deficient.

As noted above, this trail alignment along the Park Avenue right-of-way and outside of the rail right-ofway is consistent with cost reduction strategies identified in the value engineering analysis. Attachment 6 shows both options.

Both Park Avenue alignments include a ramp from Park Avenue to the rail line at Coronado Street. The feasibility of a trail alignment on Park Avenue and on the inland side of the rail right-of-way between Grove Lane to Coronado Street is subject to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approval of a new formal pedestrian crossing of the existing rail line at Coronado Avenue. This is because in either of the above scenarios, a new formal crossing is needed to shift the trail from the inland side of the rail right-of-way to the coastal side of the rail right-of-way at Coronado Street, where the trail is above the New Brighton State Beach parking lot. From Coronado Street, through New Brighton State Park to Mar Vista Avenue, the trail is on the coastal side of the tracks. This crossing is needed to connect these two portions of the project and facilitate the trail crossing from the inland to the coastal side of the tracks.

Although the existing informal crossing is heavily used, CPUC approval is needed to construct the trail crossing. Initial discussions between the County of Santa Cruz, RTC, Capitola, and CPUC staff indicate that the CPUC would approve a new crossing of the rail line at Coronado Street given existing conditions.

Should the CPUC not approve the new crossing of the existing rail line at Coronado as part of the Rail Trail Project, the County of Santa Cruz and RTC could consider a partial alignment of the trail on Park Avenue from Monterey Avenue to Grove Lane that transitions the trail from Park Avenue to the coast side of the tracks at the existing Grove Lane crossing.

Both Park Avenue alignment options aim to reduce tree removals, especially the trees that function as a windbreak to the Escalona Gulch monarch butterfly habitat. To that end, both Park Avenue alignment options include reconstruction of the existing sidewalk, curb, and gutter along the 600 Park Avenue frontage to move the sidewalk approximately 4 feet inland to the edge of the City-owned right-of-way.

This allows the roadway centerline to shift inland in the area directly adjacent to Escalona Gulch, reducing tree removals to the maximum extent possible.

The previously approved coastal alignment required the removal of 78 trees between Monterey Avenue and Grove Lane and 63 trees between Grove Lane and Coronado Street, for a total of 141 tree removals.

Option A is estimated to require the removal of approximately 122 trees (105 trees between Monterey Avenue and Grove Lane and 17 trees between Grove Lane and Coronado Street), and Option B is estimated to require the removal of approximately 94 trees (79 trees between Monterey Avenue and Grove Lane and 15 trees between Grove Lane and Coronado Street). Either Park Avenue alignment therefore would result in overall less tree removal than the coastal alignment.

Some of the trees that would be removed with either Park Avenue alignment option function as important windbreak trees for the Escalona Gulch monarch butterfly habitat, and their removal could result in increased impacts to that habitat. The Rail Trail Project team is working with City staff, regulatory agencies, and local monarch butterfly experts to understand the potential impacts to the Escalona Gulch monarch butterfly habitat, and ways to both minimize impacts through design of the trail and to enhance the long-term health of the habitat through enhanced mitigation.

RTC staff, in coordination with County and City staff, will seek input on the alignments from the RTC’s Bicycle Advisory Committee on February 10th and the Elderly and Disabled Technical Advisory Committee on February 11th. Results from the advisory committee meetings will be shared by County and RTC staff as part of their presentation to the City Council for this agenda item.

The County of Santa Cruz staff is seeking City Council input on the preliminary design of the Park Avenue alignment and recommends identifying Option B as the preferred alternative, citing reduced tree removals and cost savings. City staff, however, recommends Option A to preserve the existing Class II bike lane on the inland side of Park Avenue, ensuring continued on-street bike access toward Capitola Village.

Regardless of the selected option, the preferred alignment will proceed with additional environmental analysis to implement alignment of the Coastal Rail Trail along Park Avenue. If approved, the project 569
Item 9 C.
team will conduct additional environmental analysis in order to environmentally clear the Coastal Rail Trail Park Avenue alignment, including potential impacts to the monarch butterfly habitat at Escalona Gulch. Depending on the impact analysis of the new alignment, the additional environmental review will be an addendum to the environmental impact report (EIR) or a supplemental EIR. Once ready, the analysis will be brought back to the Council as part of the City’s consideration of the project’s final EIR.

This is estimated to occur in Summer 2025.

Measure L
Capitola voters approved Measure L in 2018. Measure L is codified in Chapter 8.72 (Greenway Capitola Corridor) of the Capitola Municipal Code. Its purpose is to enhance pedestrian, bicycle, and traffic safety within the City by encouraging the development of the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail (Trail) within the Santa Cruz Branch Line Rail Corridor (Corridor) (CMC §§ 8.72.010, 8.72.030). CMC section

8.72.040, which contains the “implementation” sections of Measure L, provides:

A. The city of Capitola, through its constituent departments, shall take all steps necessary to preserve and utilize the Corridor and Trestle for active transportation and recreation.

B. No city of Capitola department, agency or employee shall expend any funds or resources related to the construction, reconstruction, operation, maintenance, financing, marketing, or signage for a detour of the Trail onto Capitola streets or sidewalks.

RTC’s proposal to construct the Trail within the City’s Park Avenue right-of-way is consistent with Measure L for several reasons.

First, Measure L directs the City to take “all steps necessary to preserve and utilize the Corridor and Trestle for active transportation and recreation” (CMC § 8.72.040(A)). The City does not own the Trail or the Corridor, so the Coastal Rail Trail Segment 11 Project is the only foreseeable opportunity that the City has to advance Measure L’s goals. The Coastal Rail Trail Segment 11 project advances Measure L’s goal of preserving and utilizing the Corridor for active transportation and recreation because it proposes to construct the Trail on portions of the Corridor. If the City does not approve Option A or Option B, staff understand that the County may be unable to construct the segment of the Coastal Rail Trail Segment 11 project that runs through Capitola at all. Interpreting Measure L to preclude the City from approving Option A or Option B would thus undermine, rather than advance, Measure L’s goals. Indeed, without the project, the capitol segment of the Corridor will not be utilized for active transportation and recreation at all.

Second, the section of Measure L that prohibits the expenditure of resources on a “detour of the Trail onto Capitola streets or sidewalks” is not implicated by Option A or Option B (CMC 8.72.040(B)). The dictionary defines a “detour” as a “departure from a direct course” or a “roundabout way temporarily replacing the regular route.” Designing and construction of Coastal Rail Trail Segment 11 as described in Option A and/or Option B is not a “detour” because the Trail does not exist and has no “direct course” in the City. Moreover, Option A and/or Option B are consistent with Measure L because they do not propose the construction of the Trail on Capitola’s streets or sidewalks. As explained above, RTC proposes to construct a new Class I bike path within a portion of the right-of-way that is adjacent to and physically separated from Park Avenue.

Summary of Considerations
Capitola, County of Santa Cruz, and RTC staff recommend approval of the Park Avenue alignment for Coastal Rail Trail Segments 10 and 11 for the following reasons:

1. Traffic Safety: The Coastal Rail Trail project will provide a grade-separated facility for pedestrians and cyclists, improving safety and reducing conflicts along Park Avenue. The trail project will also narrow vehicular lanes and install speed feedback signs, helping to reduce vehicle speeds. 570
Item 9 C.

2. Community Engagement Consistency: Extensive outreach has already been conducted as part of the City’s Traffic Calming Project, with notifications sent to participants of previous Park Avenue outreach efforts, and the improvements proposed as part of the Rail Trail’s Park Avenue alignment are consistent with community feedback. Principal themes from community outreach were a request to provide as much separation from vehicles for pedestrians and bicycles as possible, enhancing visibility of crosswalks, reducing roadway width to slow vehicle speeds, and introducing minimal visual impact.

3. Improved Neighborhood Connectivity: The Park Avenue alignment for the Coastal Rail Trail will improve connectivity to the surrounding neighborhoods, since it will be accessible from Park Avenue and connecting streets. In addition, the Coastal Rail Trail will install crosswalks with RRFBs to allow neighbors to directly and safely access the trail from connecting streets.

4. Reduced Cost: The Park Avenue is expected to reduce Coastal Rail Trail construction costs compared to the previously approved coastal alignment.

5. Avoids Conflict with Potential Future Transportation Options: The Park Avenue alignment ensures the long-term viability of the Coastal Rail Trail by reducing conflicts within the rail corridor and avoiding potential throw-away costs if future transportation projects, such as those in the Zero Emission Passenger Rail and Trail Project, are pursued.

6. Pedestrian Enhancements: Addresses deficiencies in the existing sidewalk section along Park Avenue between Coronado Street and Cabrillo Street.

City staff recommends approval of Option A, as it preserves the existing Class II bike lane on the inland side of Park Avenue. Maintaining this lane ensures continued access for on-street cyclists, particularly those accustomed to riding in a standard bike lane rather than a shared-use path and local users who are traveling westbound.

If the Capitola City Council authorizes further analysis of the Park Avenue alignment, City staff will defer the Park Avenue Traffic Calming improvements to save City costs, since the traffic calming improvements will be included with the Coastal Rail Trail Project Segments 10 and 11.

Interim Measures
Staff does not recommend implementing previously considered alternatives (road diet, buffered bike lanes, and green striping) as an interim measure due to costs (estimated at approximately $160,000) and the anticipated Rail Trail Project improvements.

Fiscal Impact: The City allocated $100,000 for the Park Avenue Traffic Calming Project in the FY 2024- 25 CIP budget. To date, $19,500 has been spent on design alternatives and public outreach, leaving $80,500 available. If Council opts to proceed with the Coastal Rail Trail Project improvements, these funds could be reallocated to another street project or to the General Fund.

The Coastal Rail Trail Project, including Park Avenue improvements, will be funded by state and federal grants and Measure D-Active Transportation funds from the RTC. There are no City funds being invested in the project. Without the realignment, the City would not be funding or installing these improvements independently. The bicycle and pedestrian improvements proposed as part of the Rail Trail alignment along Park Avenue have an estimated value of $3 to $5 million dollars. This is a large investment that will significantly improve bicycle and pedestrian safety and infrastructure on Park Avenue that does not require the use of any City funding and would be unlikely to be funded otherwise.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): The Coastal Rail Trail Segment 10 and 11 Project’s Final EIR was certified by the County on March 26, 2024, and the project was approved on April 30, 2024. The modified trail alignment along Park Avenue will require additional environmental review to analyze impacts. Once additional environmental review for this alignment is completed, staff will bring the final EIR, including any modifications required by the additional environmental review, to the City Council for acceptance. The County’s Final EIR can be accessed at the following link:
571
Item 9 C.
cdi.santacruzcountyca.gov/Portals/19/pdfs/RailTrail/RTS1011_FEIR_Vols 1-3_COMBINED.pdf Attachments:

1. Public Outreach Presentation Slides

2. Public Outreach Results

3. Traffic Calming Plans October 2024

4. Park Avenue Alignment Option A: Preserving the Inland Class II Bike Lane

5. Park Avenue Alignment Option B: Maximizing Right-of-Way for the Coastal Rail Trail

6. Comparative Perspectives of Alignment Options on Park Avenue Report Prepared By: Kailash Mozumder, Public Works Project Manager Reviewed By: Jessica Kahn, Public Works Director, Julia Gautho, City Clerk Approved By: Jamie Goldstein, City Manager
Manager
572
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue
Public Workshop #1
Traffic Calming PresentationJanuary 2024
573
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue
Virtual Meeting Controls
2 Audio Settings: Change your audio settings. You can also click the upward arrow (^) next to change your speaker.

Unmute/Mute: When the host gives you permission, you can unmute and all participants will be able to hear you talk. If the host allows you to talk, you will receive this notification - click “unmute myself” Raise Hand: Raise your hand in the webinar to indicate that you want to make a verbal comment. Function is under Reactions.

Question & Answer:Open the chat window, allowing you to ask questions only to the host. The host will collect these questions and respond after the meeting. 574
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue
Virtual Meeting Controls
3 • Meeting participants are on mute until unmuted by Host for Q&A• There is a Q&A feature at the bottom of the screen for participants to type their questions in advance. You can “raise your hand” to be unmuted to speak. • If you are calling in on a landline, please press *9 to “raise your hand” and we will unmute you when it is your turn to speak. Press *6 to speak. • We will devote up to 3 minutes per question/comment and please keep comments related to the project.
• Please allow others an opportunity to speak before “raising your hand” again.
575
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue
Public Workshop #1
Traffic Calming PresentationJanuary 2024
576
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue
Workshop Agenda
5 •Project background•Overview of project features•Open discussion and public comment on project layout 577
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue
Project Background
6 • Project purpose and goals:

1. Enhance pedestrian and bicycle accessibility2. Reduce vehicle speeds3. Minimize construction timing delays to existing residents •Project identified in City Capital Improvement Program (CIP) •Neighborhood Traffic Advisory Committee Project (N10)
578
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue
Project Limits
New Brighton
State Beach To Capitola Downtown
Village
New Brighton
Middle School
Highway 1
Project Overview Map
Railroad Tracks
Kennedy Dr
N
579
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue
Existing Conditions (Monterey to Cabrillo)
8 Sidewalk and striped crosswalks Vehicle parking on south side on north side
Residential driveway access on
north side
580
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue
Existing Conditions (Cabrillo to Coronado)
9 Flashing beacon pedestrian
crosswalk at Cabrillo
Sidewalk and speed
feedback on south side
All way stop control and
crosswalk at Coronado
581
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue
Highway 1
Traffic Volumes (2022)
Kennedy Dr
ADT
Volume

AM/ SPM/ PM
Peak Volume
278 AM / 534 SPM / 606 PM
433 AM / 267 SPM / 217 PM
Year 2022 Traffic Count
Description Total Traffic
Volume
Westbound
To Monterey
Eastbound
To Coronado
4,614 3,138 7,752 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
278 433 711 Morning Peak (8-9 AM)534 267 801
School PM
Peak
(3-4 PM)
606 217 823 Evening Peak (4-5 PM)
582
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue
Highway 1
Vehicle Speeds (2022)
Kennedy Dr
85% Speed
(MPH)
Year 2022 Traffic Count
Description Location 2 -
East of
Cabrillo St
Location 1 -
West of
Washburn
Ave
25 25 Posted Speed Limit (mph)34 36 85% Speed Eastbound (to Coronado)34 38 85% Speed Westbound (to Monterey) Is Speeding Significant? Yes Yes
583
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue
Traffic Calming Toolbox
12 Horizontal
Shifts
Vertical
Shifts
Street Width
Reduction
Routing
Restriction
Behavior
Changes
584
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue

73.5 110.3
147
183.8
220.5

38.4 86.4
153.6
240
345.5
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
2030405060
Total Stopping Distance (ft)
Vehicle Speed (mph)
Perception & Reaction Distance (ft) Breaking Distance (ft) Travel Speed Impact to Stopping Distance
13 566
423.8
300.6
196.7
111.9
Total Stopping
Distance (ft)
Source: AASHTO
585
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue
Travel Speed Impact to Driver Vision
Source: ITE 14
586
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue
Travel Speed Impact to Pedestrian Fatality
15 Source: ITE
587
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue
Alternative 1 – Road Diet Striping
Proposed Road Diet & Stripe
Buffered Class II Bike Lanes
Proposed Speed
Feedback Sign
Existing Speed
Feedback Sign
Existing RRFB
Crossing
588
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue
Road Diet
17 Conversion of undivided roadway to a cross-section with fewer or narrower vehicle travel lanes. Street width reduction measure.Benefits • Reduction in lanes allows inclusion of pedestrian, bike, and transit facilities
• Slight reduction in vehicle speeds
Drawbacks
• Requires lane and sign reconfiguration at intersections 589
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue
Speed Feedback Sign
18 Displays regulatory speed limit sign with radar speed feedback sign with real-time speed of an approaching vehicle. Behavioral traffic calming measure.Benefits • Does not physically restrict driver maneuvers • Involves a standard traffic control device that drivers can easily recognize
Drawbacks
• Creates light pollution
590
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue
19 591
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue
20 592
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue
21 593
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue
22 594
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue
23 595
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue
24 596
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue
Alternative 2 – Road Diet & Lateral Shift
Proposed Speed
Feedback Sign
Existing Speed
Feedback Sign
Existing RRFB
Crossing
Proposed Road Diet & Stripe
Buffered Class II Bike Lanes
Proposed Lateral Shift with
Striping or Raised Features
597
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue
Chicane / Lateral Shift
26 Horizontal deflection consisting of a series of alternating curves or lane shifts to force a motorist to steer back and forth out of a straight travel pathBenefits • Slight reduction in vehicle speeds• Opportunities for landscaping with raised features Drawbacks
• May require removal of on-street parking• Potential impacts to existing drainage and utilities 598
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue
27 599
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue
28 600
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue
29 601
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue
Alternative 3 – Road Diet & Median Shift
Existing Speed
Feedback Sign
Existing RRFB
Crossing
Proposed Median Shift with
Striping or Raised Medians
Proposed Speed
Feedback Sign
Proposed Road Diet & Stripe
Buffered Class II Bike Lanes
602
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue
Median Shift
31 Horizontal deflection consisting of a series of median features in the roadway center to force a merging and diverging path of travel for each directionBenefits • Slight reduction in vehicle speeds• Opportunities for landscaping with raised features Drawbacks
• May require removal of on-street parking• Potential impacts to existing drainage and utilities 603
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue
32 604
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue
33 605
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue
34 606
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue
Additional Bicycle Features
35 • Existing Class II bike lanes would be restriped• Addition of striped buffered bike lanes• Addition of green pavement markings in conflict zones• Reconstruct pavement sections and install bike friendly drainage grates
Replace grates at
Highway 1 intersections
607
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue
Estimated Project Schedule
36 Timeline Milestone
Summer 2024 Complete Engineering DesignFall 2024 Bid Project for ConstructionWinter 2024 – Spring 2025 Construct Project 608
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue
Community Survey
37 We want your input. Please complete a survey for the proposed Park Avenue Traffic Calming improvements.https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/capitola_park_tc1 QR Code Link
609
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue
Next Steps
38 •Collect workshop and survey responses from community•Refine project design based on public comments and direction from City•Coordinate project with utilities and stakeholders•Complete engineering plans 610
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue
Open Discussion
39 Audio Settings: Change your audio settings. You can also click the upward arrow (^) next to change your speaker.

Question & Answer:Open the chat window, allowing you to ask questions only to the host. The host will collect these questions and respond after the meeting.

SurveyMonkey Link
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/capitola_park_tc1
611
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue
40 THANK YOU!
Frederik Venter & Derek Wu Jessica Kahn & Kailash Mozumder 612
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue
41 613
Item 9 C.

City of Capitola - Park Avenue Traffic Calming Public Workshop 1 1 / 22

84.54% 82

15.46% 15
Q1 Are you a resident of Capitola?
Answered: 97 Skipped: 1
TOTAL 97
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
614
Item 9 C.

City of Capitola - Park Avenue Traffic Calming Public Workshop 1 2 / 22

26.14% 23

13.64% 12

0.00% 0

11.36% 10

1.14% 1

0.00% 0

47.73% 42
Q2 What street in Capitola do you live on?
Answered: 88 Skipped: 10
TOTAL 88
# OTHER STREET (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 Bay 1/22/2024 4:49 PM
2 Balboa Ave. 1/19/2024 3:47 PM
3 I live on the West Side, but love riding my bike through this area! 1/19/2024 10:23 AM 4 McCormick Court 1/18/2024 8:51 PM
5 Escalona Dr 1/18/2024 8:38 PM
6 Balboa Avenue 1/18/2024 4:47 PM
7 Main St., Soquel 1/18/2024 5:21 AM
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Park Avenue
McCormick
Avenue
Washburn Avenue
Wesley Street
Cabrillo Street
Coronado Street
Other Street
(please...

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Park Avenue
McCormick Avenue
Washburn Avenue
Wesley Street
Cabrillo Street
Coronado Street
Other Street (please specify)
615
Item 9 C.

City of Capitola - Park Avenue Traffic Calming Public Workshop 1 3 / 22
8 Rosedale Ave 1/17/2024 10:07 PM
9 Fannar 1/17/2024 6:11 PM
10 Loma Ave 1/17/2024 5:50 PM
11 crystal 1/17/2024 3:53 PM
12 Have lived on Park Ave for 50 years 1/17/2024 2:33 PM 13 Soquel 1/16/2024 6:40 PM
14 Grand Avenue 1/16/2024 5:18 PM
15 Sills Ct 1/16/2024 3:48 PM
16 34th Ave 1/16/2024 2:52 PM
17 Kennedy dr 1/16/2024 2:41 PM
18 Clares 1/16/2024 9:56 AM
19 Plum St 1/15/2024 12:52 PM
20 Cortez 1/14/2024 10:52 AM
21 Oak Drive 1/13/2024 10:49 AM
22 300 Plum St 1/12/2024 2:05 PM
23 gross road 1/12/2024 11:15 AM
24 Capitola Avenue 1/12/2024 9:34 AM
25 Riverview Drive 1/12/2024 7:32 AM
26 Oak Drive 1/12/2024 5:09 AM
27 Nearby in Aptos 1/11/2024 11:40 PM
28 McCormick Court 1/11/2024 9:13 PM
29 Monterey Avenue 1/11/2024 9:08 PM
30 Monterey 1/11/2024 9:04 PM
31 Cortez 1/11/2024 5:31 PM
32 Balboa Ave 1/11/2024 5:04 PM
33 Junipero court 1/10/2024 4:39 PM
34 Columbus Dr. 1/8/2024 9:39 PM
35 Central Ave 1/7/2024 10:33 AM
36 Balboa 1/6/2024 4:35 PM
37 Pine 1/6/2024 9:16 AM
38 Magellan st 1/5/2024 9:39 PM
39 Jewel 1/5/2024 7:56 PM
40 Carl Ln 1/5/2024 6:45 PM
41 42nd Ave 1/5/2024 4:16 PM
42 Junipero Court 1/5/2024 3:43 PM
616
Item 9 C.

City of Capitola - Park Avenue Traffic Calming Public Workshop 1 4 / 22

74.16% 66

15.73% 14

10.11% 9
Q3 Do you think the idea of adding buffered bike lanes on Park Avenue will enhance bicycle access and safety? See example photo above.

Answered: 89 Skipped: 9
TOTAL 89
# COMMENTS (OPTIONAL) DATE
1 Bollards may take up valuable space and create hazards. 1/19/2024 3:51 PM 2 Widening the bike lanes (and eliminating the gutter as part of the lane) would narrow the car lanes.
1/19/2024 2:48 PM
3 real physical barriers Toronto style or at minimum concrete bollards at all crossings and narrowing lanes to create perceived friction and slow the cars down 1/18/2024 8:45 PM
4 Adding obstacles does not seem to make it safer. 1/18/2024 4:56 PM 5 Best choice; separates bikes from cars. 1/18/2024 8:42 AM 6 Physical barriers 1/18/2024 6:52 AM
7 Physical barrier would be the safest. 1/18/2024 6:52 AM 8 Anyone who has ever ridden a bike on Park Ave. knows how challenging it is to feel safely away from cars, particularly late afternoon commuters rushing to hwy 1 or Soquel Dr. 1/18/2024 5:27 AM
9 Inclusion of a physical barrier is important to making such lanes safe. A buffer with no protection is just paint.
1/17/2024 11:33 PM
10 Capitola streets are a thoroughfare for vehicles trying to avoid Hwy 1 traffic 1/17/2024 7:41 PM 11 We absolutely need this for the safety of the bike riders and the cars. 1/17/2024 5:53 PM 12 Unfortunately, many bike riders do not stay in the bike lanes 1/17/2024 2:35 PM 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
Do Not Know

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Do Not Know
617
Item 9 C.

City of Capitola - Park Avenue Traffic Calming Public Workshop 1 5 / 22
13 I think they could help so long as they include some kind of physical protective facility and not just a painted buffer.
1/17/2024 8:38 AM
14 Please add a physical buffer. Cars drive over paint and raised reflectors. Let's make this beautiful street safe for our community.
1/16/2024 8:19 PM
15 Yes. Please add bollards or some other physical barrier to the plans for real separation. 1/16/2024 6:41 PM 16 Add plastic bollards in striped median 1/16/2024 6:34 PM 17 Green bike lanes and speed humps, just like on Clares. 1/16/2024 5:20 PM 18 Only if there are bollards for protection! 1/16/2024 5:10 PM 19 I live at 310 park ave and am the 4th driveway up from Bay ave. We and our neighbors have to enter Park ave backwards we stop short of the eastbound lane and are always straddling a portion of the bike lane before we turn west bound on Park ave. We never try to back across the east bound lane because of the fast traffic on Park Ave and the danger of crossing two lanes. To go east on Park Ave we have to circle around on Monterey Ave to Park Ave east bound at the Stop . The white posts may prevent an exit west bound our only option now to exit our house. The posts would disrupt mail service as the postman drives down the bike lane and our drive ways for the entire block. All our drive ways are continuous for an entire block with now room for white posts. Parcel deliveries would also stop traffic in the Posts are installed. The exiting of our homes would just become to dangerous with this proposal. 1/16/2024 2:59 PM
20 Does this include motorized bicycles? 1/15/2024 2:56 PM 21 But I do not like the aesthetics 1/15/2024 12:57 PM
22 Even though we recognize that buffered bike we don't want them near our driveway and not where cars now park in designated areas.
1/14/2024 8:07 PM
23 But probably not necessary on Park Avenue 1/12/2024 7:34 AM 24 The raised delineators should really help, but concerned about electric bikes speeding in the bike lane
1/12/2024 5:14 AM
25 I think it will make the road too narrow 1/11/2024 9:14 PM 26 Only if the bicyclists will stay in them 1/11/2024 5:06 PM 27 No body pay attention to speed limit, it’s already hard to cross the street. 1/10/2024 6:26 PM 28 As a cyclist I've observed raised delineators make car drivers more nervous and agitated making them prone to errors of judgement
1/10/2024 2:42 PM
29 I like the idea of the buffered bike lane but not sure how that would look. I live on Park and have experienced cars recklessly swinging into the bike lane using the dirt and gravel portion to swing around my car while I’m waiting to be able to make a left in to my driveway. Are you going to take the parking out? That would be a bummer.
1/10/2024 2:13 PM
30 I think that design may cause vehicles to run into barriers potentially causing accidents 1/10/2024 12:28 PM 31 Coronado to Kennedy is extremely dangerous and has a dropoff with no bike lane down to the park road. This needs to be addressed!
1/6/2024 4:35 PM
32 Dont use those plastic stanchions that break off and never get repaired or replaced. They are ugly. This scenic route deserves better.
1/5/2024 7:59 PM
618
Item 9 C.

City of Capitola - Park Avenue Traffic Calming Public Workshop 1 6 / 22

74.16% 66

17.98% 16

7.87% 7
Q4 Do you think the the idea of adding green bike lanes on Park Avenue will enhance bicycle access and safety? See example photo above.

Answered: 89 Skipped: 9
TOTAL 89
# COMMENTS (OPTIONAL) DATE
1 Enforcement on auto drivers??? 1/19/2024 3:51 PM
2 How costly is that? 1/19/2024 2:48 PM
3 If there are real physical barriers yes otherwise paint is not multimodal infrastructure - buy a minim street sweeper like Encinitas they are tiny too
1/18/2024 8:45 PM
4 Paint does not provide real protection and does not prevent vehicles from striking people on bikes, walking, or other mobility devices.
1/18/2024 8:38 PM
5 Need to see the statistics on this one. 1/18/2024 8:42 AM 6 Physical barriers 1/18/2024 6:52 AM
7 But we also need physical barriers because cars just drive over the green. 1/18/2024 6:52 AM 8 I think safety will only minimally be improved. Again, commuters in particular race along Park Ave.
1/18/2024 5:27 AM
9 I think green bike facilities are fine when combined with physical protective facilities but by themselves provide little to no safety as tag to cyclists as drivers will still ignore or miss them in many instances.
1/17/2024 8:38 AM
10 Grain paint is nice. But please invest in a bollard as a physical barrier to keep our bicyclists safe..
1/16/2024 8:19 PM
11 Please also add bollards or physical separation for optimal safety 1/16/2024 6:41 PM 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
Do Not Know

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Do Not Know
619
Item 9 C.

City of Capitola - Park Avenue Traffic Calming Public Workshop 1 7 / 22
12 Not as much as buffered lanes, though 1/16/2024 5:20 PM 13 Green bike lanes and speed tables just like on Clares. 1/16/2024 5:20 PM 14 not best option but better than current 1/16/2024 2:53 PM 15 But not as much as a protected bike lane 1/16/2024 2:21 PM 16 I think this is more aesthetically pleasing than the prior example but not as protective. 1/15/2024 12:57 PM 17 We would be in favor of this approach to added bike safety. 1/14/2024 8:07 PM 18 If you put the buffers why do you need to paint the road? 1/14/2024 3:43 PM 19 Ppl stop in the bike lanes constantly, no one stops for the stop signs already 1/10/2024 6:26 PM 20 It is clear without adding visual impediments. 1/10/2024 2:42 PM 21 More visibility of bike lane would make drivers take heed of bicycles and slow down traffic 1/10/2024 12:28 PM 22 Coronado to Kennedy is extremely dangerous and has a dropoff with no bike lane down to the park road. This needs to be addressed!
1/6/2024 4:35 PM
620
Item 9 C.

City of Capitola - Park Avenue Traffic Calming Public Workshop 1 8 / 22

51.11% 46

37.78% 34

11.11% 10
Q5 Do you think the the idea of adding speed feedback signs on Park Avenue will slow down vehicle speeds? See example photo above.

Answered: 90 Skipped: 8
TOTAL 90
# COMMENTS (OPTIONAL) DATE
1 Additional signage may help but enforcement is needed. 1/19/2024 3:51 PM 2 There needs to be more where there are driveways, especially near Washburn, where there is some sunlight to power the device. I have observed that when some cars see how fast they are going, tend to slow down. So they are effective. There needs to be more in both directions. 1/19/2024 2:48 PM
3 We need to have engineered controls for speed like chicanes, speed bumps, or narrower lanes.

Signage is ignored by drivers. Per the speeding information table, most people go over the speed limit and disregard the posted speed limit. You need to design the road for the speed you want. This section of Park is too flat, wide, and straight to stop speeding with signage. 1/19/2024 10:23 AM
4 Science says such signs have little impact but to distract drivers 1/18/2024 8:45 PM 5 Signs do not change human behavior in a significant way. Better road design will. We should prioritize funds towards proven safety strategies like buffered lanes and improved road designs 1/18/2024 8:38 PM
6 motorists ignore radar signage, but would slow down if there was a police car/motorcyle with a radar gun, or at least a ghost police car
1/18/2024 7:30 PM
7 There are currently two signs on Park Ave. As a frequent pedestrian on Park Ave, I see little reaction from drivers to the signs.
1/18/2024 4:56 PM
8 These signs are common and generally ignored. 1/18/2024 8:42 AM 9 Maybe automatic tickets would reduce speed better 1/18/2024 6:52 AM 10 Something is better than nothing particularly for drivers who happen to want to be careful of 1/18/2024 5:27 AM 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
Do Not Know

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Do Not Know
621
Item 9 C.

City of Capitola - Park Avenue Traffic Calming Public Workshop 1 9 / 22
bicyclists. Look at the speeds on Wharf Rd. just about any hour of the day. 11 There needs to be a couple more IN EACH DIRECTION. I have observed that some cars actually slow down when they see how fast they are going. 1/17/2024 2:35 PM
12 The existing one has done nothing. Strict and consistent enforcement of 25 mph would be effective.
1/17/2024 8:43 AM
13 There already is a speed feedback sign on park Avenue and it seems to have a negligible effect on vehicle speeds. Because the road is wide and relatively straight, people are going to drive fast regardless of speed limit and signage.
1/17/2024 8:38 AM
14 This is a good idea but we need physical barriers to protect bicyclists. 1/16/2024 8:19 PM 15 You have already installed these and people just drive faster to make them flash red for fun.

Enforcement is key!
1/16/2024 8:18 PM
16 Narrowing the road and other design changes will be more effective 1/16/2024 6:41 PM 17 Get one with a white flash that looks like a camera when you speed and do enforcement 1/16/2024 6:34 PM 18 Green bike lanes and speed tables, just like on Clares. 1/16/2024 5:20 PM 19 there already is one - it reminds me to slow down 1/16/2024 2:53 PM 20 Since 35 mph doesn't feel fast, seeing that I'm going 35 wouldn't change my behaviour. I think you drive to the speed that feels safe on the road, not what's posted on speed limit signs 1/16/2024 2:21 PM
21 Additional stop signs need to be considered as well. 1/15/2024 2:56 PM 22 Seems unlikely to help, especially with commuters. 1/15/2024 12:57 PM 23 Adding feedback signs is a good idea, especially soon after cars leave the village and head toward Coronado.
1/14/2024 8:07 PM
24 Unless it’s issuing tickets. It’s a waste of money 1/14/2024 3:43 PM 25 One is already there and drivers can see they are going 45 mph. Unless the thing is equipped with a camera and issuing speeding tickets, it’s a waste off money. 1/14/2024 3:26 PM
26 I think that this is especially helpful when school is in session and the sign reflects that 1/12/2024 11:18 AM 27 I sit by the window and I see the Speed Feedback sign on Capitola Avenue towards Hill Street and all it shows me is that I'm correct and everyone is speeding and no one slows down and many people speed up. Very, very sad.
1/12/2024 9:35 AM
28 I think drivers are ignoring speed limit so not sure this will help 1/12/2024 5:14 AM 29 The ones installed don’t deter people from speeding. I’ve been behind people who flash 40mph+ on it and don’t bother to slow until they hit the stop sign at Monterey 1/11/2024 5:06 PM
30 No one pays attention to speeds, ppl speed up on the hill, very hard to cross the street. Maybe if it takes photos for tickets.
1/10/2024 6:26 PM
31 I believe the current ones are helping 1/10/2024 2:42 PM 32 I think the signs are helpful for me. I am able to regulate my speed especially when heading west. But honestly I don’t think the majority of the drivers pay attention to it. 1/10/2024 2:13 PM
33 People blow those signs off.If anything I sometimes see vehicles speed up. I am serious on that comment
1/10/2024 12:28 PM
34 Coronado to Kennedy is extremely dangerous and has a dropoff with no bike lane down to the park road. This needs to be addressed!
1/6/2024 4:35 PM
35 It always slows me down, but I don't know if others would. 1/6/2024 9:17 AM 36 Waste of money - no one paysxattention to them and they detract from a scenic drive. 1/5/2024 7:59 PM 622
Item 9 C.

City of Capitola - Park Avenue Traffic Calming Public Workshop 1 10 / 22

46.43% 39

34.52% 29

19.05% 16
Q6 Do you think the proposed traffic calming features shown in the layouts below will slow down vehicle speeds? (Alternative 1 from Monterey to Cabrillo)
Answered: 84 Skipped: 14
TOTAL 84
# COMMENTS (OPTIONAL) DATE
1 Yes, possibly. Again, enforcement is the key. 1/19/2024 4:00 PM 2 Removing off street parking on Park would be problematic for residents whose visitors need the extra space. Just widening the bike lanes will do the job. 1/19/2024 2:55 PM
3 Yes. This is the only serious option. Narrow the lanes 1ft. Add bollards at crossings. 1/18/2024 8:47 PM 4 Eliminate the suicide lane. A road diet will help but a suicide lane will create other issues. 1/18/2024 8:41 PM 5 More visible law enforcement would help more. 1/18/2024 4:59 PM 6 Need to include a physical barrier (curbs or posts) 1/18/2024 8:44 AM 7 And physical barriers 1/18/2024 6:55 AM
8 Add something physical to protect bike riders like kids 1/18/2024 6:55 AM 9 This would be an improvement over the current situation but what I'd really like to see would be some sort of a physical barrier (e.g., curbs or posts) to protect bikers. 1/18/2024 5:31 AM
10 This is my first choice, Yes! 1/17/2024 5:54 PM
11 Your example shows 4 lanes, Park Ave is a 2 lane st. You can't make a decision on inaccurate information
1/17/2024 2:36 PM
12 Making it more narrow would be dangerous for both vehicles and pedestrians 1/17/2024 8:48 AM 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
Do Not Know

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Do Not Know
623
Item 9 C.

City of Capitola - Park Avenue Traffic Calming Public Workshop 1 11 / 22
13 I like this design, reducing travel lane width seems like a good way to reduce vehicle speeds.

While I know the corridor west of Cabrillo is somewhat space constrained, it would be nice to see continuous buffered/protected bike lanes along the whole corridor. Additionally, curb bulb outs to reduce right turn speed and crossing distances would be good to see. 1/17/2024 8:42 AM
14 And please make the delineator posts required (not optional). Let's keep the bikers safe. 1/16/2024 8:23 PM 15 Narrow lanes to 10 feet 1/16/2024 6:36 PM
16 Green bike lanes and speed tables, just like on Clares. 1/16/2024 5:20 PM 17 do not use the words "road diet" - people dislike diets and it implies giving something up. Also this has to be paired with better intersections - roundabouts, etc. 1/16/2024 2:57 PM
18 This is not ideal on an already slim strip of road. Please don’t do this! 1/15/2024 2:59 PM 19 I think it could help, but it’s unclear how much and if it is with the investment. 1/15/2024 1:07 PM 20 Moreover, it is critical that onstreet parking not be removed 1/15/2024 7:27 AM 21 This increases and promotes more 2 am street racing. Drivers already do it with the 2 lanes now.
1/14/2024 3:46 PM
22 It will only create more danger in the neighborhood. More space on this road was will give drivers more road to race down. And the middle will allow road ragers to use it to pass drivers going the speed limit.
1/14/2024 3:33 PM
23 Turning into a street already upsets ppl who are speeding. I believe it will make it hard to cross the street. No one wants to stop or slow down.
1/10/2024 6:29 PM
24 Coronado to Kennedy is extremely dangerous and has a dropoff with no bike lane down to the park road. This needs to be addressed!
1/6/2024 4:38 PM
624
Item 9 C.

City of Capitola - Park Avenue Traffic Calming Public Workshop 1 12 / 22

47.62% 40

27.38% 23

25.00% 21
Q7 Do you think the proposed traffic calming features shown in the layouts below will slow down vehicle speeds? (Alternative 1 from Cabrillo to Coronado)
Answered: 84 Skipped: 14
TOTAL 84
# COMMENTS (OPTIONAL) DATE
1 Minimally 1/19/2024 4:00 PM
2 By the time you get to Cabrillo, there are no more driveways to worry about, so just widening the bike lanes and not having the gutter part of it, will narrow the car lanes. 1/19/2024 2:55 PM
3 I think the bike lanes need to be buffered and have a curb instead of just a stripe 1/19/2024 10:24 AM 4 Yes. Add barriers to the bike lanes and narrow the lanes 1ft and it will work like a charm 1/18/2024 8:47 PM 5 Class 2 bike lanes do not provide enough protection. Class 4 would be preferred. Bike lane is in the path of opening car doors.
1/18/2024 8:41 PM
6 More visible law enforcement would be more helpful. 1/18/2024 4:59 PM 7 Need to see statistics on the impact of this design. 1/18/2024 8:44 AM 8 And physical barriers 1/18/2024 6:55 AM
9 As long as there are physical barriers 1/18/2024 6:55 AM 10 We can only hope . . . 1/18/2024 5:31 AM
11 can't hurt, might help 1/17/2024 2:36 PM
12 put a stop sign on Cabrillo St. and speed bumps on park ave eastbound before grove lane and Wesley St. This is where most accidents occurred
1/17/2024 12:14 PM
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
Do Not Know

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Do Not Know
625
Item 9 C.

City of Capitola - Park Avenue Traffic Calming Public Workshop 1 13 / 22
13 Cars will continue to disregard speed limit. 1/17/2024 8:48 AM 14 I’m glad this section has the buffered/protected bike lanes 1/17/2024 8:42 AM 15 The delineator posts are key to our safety. 1/16/2024 8:23 PM 16 Not much. Consider speed humps. At least raised cross walks at Cabrillo and Coronado 1/16/2024 6:36 PM 17 Green bike lanes and speed tables, just like on Clares. 1/16/2024 5:20 PM 18 It may help the Bike lane but it won't slow traffic. 1/16/2024 3:22 PM 19 Buffers create perceived friction and will possibly slow traffic - why are you asking teh public to weigh in on what should be the traffic engineers job?
1/16/2024 2:57 PM
20 Yes, but please see additional comments at the end of survey. 1/15/2024 2:59 PM 21 I think it could help, but it’s unclear how much and if it is with the investment. 1/15/2024 1:07 PM 22 Moreover, it is critical that onstreet parking not be removed 1/15/2024 7:27 AM 23 The center lane will encourage drivers to use it as a passing lane. 1/14/2024 3:46 PM 24 No the only thing that will stop speeders is to add speed bumps/humps on Park Ave and using them as cross walks for pedestrians.
1/14/2024 3:33 PM
25 Ticketing is the only thing that will slow speeding vehicles down. 1/12/2024 9:38 AM 26 Speed bumps would be better 1/10/2024 6:29 PM
27 Open road means speed up to commuters going home 1/10/2024 1:53 PM 626
Item 9 C.

City of Capitola - Park Avenue Traffic Calming Public Workshop 1 14 / 22

33.33% 27

45.68% 37

20.99% 17
Q8 Do you think the proposed traffic calming features shown in the layouts below will slow down vehicle speeds? (Alternative 2 from Cabrillo to Coronado)
Answered: 81 Skipped: 17
TOTAL 81
# COMMENTS (OPTIONAL) DATE
1 Lane shifting may cause more issues than it would solve. 1/19/2024 4:03 PM 2 It appears to be unnecessary and could prove more dangerous. 1/19/2024 2:57 PM 3 I prefer barriers for the bike lane. Separation and barriers plus narrow lanes but the barriers solve enough problems. It’s an arterial at this point. Treat it like one. 1/18/2024 8:52 PM
4 Yes but you need bollards or or some other design feature to prevent cars from avoiding the lateral design and risking the lives of those in the bike lanes 1/18/2024 8:42 PM
5 The swerving of cars around the curves might cause squeezing of the bikes 1/18/2024 7:33 PM 6 As a frequent pedestrian, I don't think shifting traffic lanes is a good idea Drivers are not paying attention as it is.
1/18/2024 5:03 PM
7 Drivers cut corners creating threat to bikes. 1/18/2024 8:46 AM 8 Squishes bikes 1/18/2024 6:56 AM
9 Seems like bikes will get hit in this model 1/18/2024 6:56 AM 10 This increases danger for bikes and pedestrians 1/17/2024 7:43 PM 11 This is a accident waiting to happen, No! 1/17/2024 5:55 PM 12 Probably create more harm (accidents) than good 1/17/2024 2:36 PM 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
Do Not Know

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Do Not Know
627
Item 9 C.

City of Capitola - Park Avenue Traffic Calming Public Workshop 1 15 / 22
13 Cars will continue to disobey posted speed limit 1/17/2024 8:50 AM 14 I don’t think this would be as effective as the reduced travel lanes. The inconsistent buffer/protection zone for the bike lanes seems less effective and without physical barriers, it seems likely drivers will utilize the large buffer zones at the lateral shift points to straighten the curve by partially driving in them.
1/17/2024 8:44 AM
15 I am very concerned that lateral shifts present a danger for bicyclists at it narrows the bike lane at times and directs drivers towards bike lanes at times. 1/16/2024 8:23 PM
16 Build mountable medians 1/16/2024 6:37 PM
17 I propose speed tables btwn Monterey & Washburn and Wedley & Coronado. Just like the ones you did on Clares.
1/16/2024 5:20 PM
18 this is worst proposal because of what it does to traffic, I would propose speed tables 1/16/2024 5:08 PM 19 It may slow cars a bit but we still have large trucks coming off the freeway and going to the freeway on Park Ave and lane curves and width reduction are asking for trouble. 1/16/2024 3:23 PM
20 Buffers are better. People drive fast on wide straight streets. Again - shouldn't the traffic engineer present the best option. What is the concept with public input here? 1/16/2024 2:58 PM
21 But only if there is adequate space for buffered bike lanes on both sides with the lateral shifts 1/16/2024 2:37 PM 22 I'm in favor of trying this alternative. 1/15/2024 3:25 PM 23 Restriping the road will not stop speeders. There needs to be additional stop signs on this stretch of road. There is also zero nighttime lighting. This new road diet will create more accidents on this stretch of road.
1/15/2024 3:01 PM
24 Moreover, it is critical that onstreet parking not be removed 1/15/2024 7:28 AM 25 Adding parking spaces for the village isn’t addressing the speeding and traffic congestion. 1/14/2024 3:47 PM 26 No your only goal with this is to create more parking spaces for the village. That is not addressing the speeding in this area for adding any relief to the congestion of traffic in this area.
1/14/2024 3:35 PM
27 Important to preserve South side off street parking. Heavily used by locals an Capitola Village workers
1/13/2024 2:23 PM
28 Be prepared for citizens to complain and vandalize like they did on Portola Drive. 1/12/2024 9:39 AM 29 I think this will have more ppl to park on the curbs/sidewalk 1/10/2024 6:39 PM 30 Maybe, but I don't think it's a good idea. 1/6/2024 9:20 AM 31 put the posted speed back to 35 as it was before. leave the road alone- no striping, etc. 1/5/2024 9:43 PM 32 Traffic shifts confuse drivers and create hazards. Look at Soquel Ave - people often go straight where the road jogs.
1/5/2024 8:01 PM
628
Item 9 C.

City of Capitola - Park Avenue Traffic Calming Public Workshop 1 16 / 22

40.74% 33

37.04% 30

22.22% 18
Q9 Do you think the proposed traffic calming features shown in the layouts below will slow down vehicle speeds? (Alternative 3 from Cabrillo to Coronado)
Answered: 81 Skipped: 17
TOTAL 81
# COMMENTS (OPTIONAL) DATE
1 Possibly, but safety issues would be a major concern with the lack of space for all concerned due to narrowing of lanes.
1/19/2024 4:07 PM
2 Again, there are no driveways in that section, but narrowing the vehicle lanes would help. By the time you get to this section, there is little danger. 1/19/2024 2:59 PM
3 It’s not even at a crossing where it has value. Put a real median down the center (continuous) and add some native plants bushy ones even canopy and see it become a slow driven world class stretch of road
1/18/2024 8:54 PM
4 Would squeeze bikes at curves and pinch points. Straight is better 1/18/2024 7:34 PM 5 Very bad idea. 1/18/2024 5:11 PM
6 It squishes the bikes 1/18/2024 6:56 AM
7 Seems unsafe for bikes 1/18/2024 6:56 AM
8 tough call, I can see it causing more accidents, but would probably force some drivers to slow down
1/17/2024 2:36 PM
9 This as well as all the other options only address a fraction of Park av. Cars will continue to disregard speed limits before and after proposed modifications, if not along the entire park av 1/17/2024 8:54 AM
10 I think this would be effective if physical medians were installed but if it is just striping, I don’t 1/17/2024 8:46 AM 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
Do Not Know

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Do Not Know
629
Item 9 C.

City of Capitola - Park Avenue Traffic Calming Public Workshop 1 17 / 22
believe it will be as effective, drivers are more likely to dip into the bike lanes in areas where the median is expanded and the traffic calming effect seems like it would be stunted by drivers driving over the striped areas.
11 I am very concerned that medians will narrow the bike lanes at times and direct vehicles towards bike lanes at times. A scary example of this is the new median on Laurel that squeeze the traffic and the cars drive right through the bike lane. 1/16/2024 8:24 PM
12 Worried about this median eating into the bike lane. 1/16/2024 6:43 PM 13 Cut thru traffic will ignore striping eventuall. Buy an electric small street sweeper 1/16/2024 6:38 PM 14 Green bike lanes and speed tables, just like on Clares. 1/16/2024 5:20 PM 15 It may make speed limit more noticed which is good. I don't like the narrowed lane. It brings trucks and RV s going to New Brighton to close to bikes. 1/16/2024 3:24 PM
16 place the median where crosswalks exist - allows pedestrians a place of refuge. 1/16/2024 2:59 PM 17 Same as for last question- I think the most important feature is buffered bike lanes, so would only want median shift if buffered bike lanes can fit too 1/16/2024 2:37 PM
18 This could be very effective. 1/15/2024 3:34 PM
19 This seems like the best alternative presented so far. 1/15/2024 1:10 PM 20 Moreover, it is critical that onstreet parking not be removed 1/15/2024 7:29 AM 21 This only adds curb appeal. It is not addressing speeding or congestion in the area 1/14/2024 3:48 PM 22 If your are going to add this why can’t you just add speed bumps. This only adds curb appeal to the street not addressing the problem of congested traffic and speeders. 1/14/2024 3:37 PM
23 It’s not really going to solve the speeding problems. 1/10/2024 6:43 PM 24 Medians can take up space from bicycle travel, on this stretch there are many pedestrians and joggers that use the bike lane.
1/10/2024 2:54 PM
25 These are good ideas but what about the large large work trucks with construction equipment and large delivery vehicles. Would this lessen that?
1/10/2024 2:25 PM
26 Maybe, but not a good idea. 1/6/2024 9:21 AM
27 leave the road as it is, make the speed limit 35 as it was until recently 1/5/2024 9:44 PM 630
Item 9 C.

City of Capitola - Park Avenue Traffic Calming Public Workshop 1 18 / 22
Q10 Which traffic calming concept presented in this survey is your favorite / preferred choice? Please rank each concept by most favorite (1) to least favorite (3) by moving the boxes up or down.

Answered: 78 Skipped: 20

56.41%
44 19.23%
15 24.36%
19 78 2.32

12.82%
10 52.56%
41 34.62%
27 78 1.78

30.77%
24 28.21%
22 41.03%
32 78 1.90
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Alternative 1
- Road Diet
Alternative 2
- Lateral Sh...

Alternative 3
- Median Shi...
1 2 3 TOTAL SCORE
Alternative 1 - Road Diet
Alternative 2 - Lateral Shift & Road Diet
Alternative 3 - Median Shift & Road Diet
631
Item 9 C.

City of Capitola - Park Avenue Traffic Calming Public Workshop 1 19 / 22
Q11 Please provide any additional comments or feedback on this project (Optional).

Answered: 48 Skipped: 50
# RESPONSES DATE
1 Reducing parking anywhere in Capitola is a problem. We have too much street parking now and finding parking for residences is a challenge. Family of 4 = 4 cars with 1 on property spot 1/22/2024 4:55 PM
2 While we don’t live in Capitola we live in Seacliff and ride this route daily. Please implement Alternative 1 and extend improvements to State Park Drive!!! 1/19/2024 6:07 PM
3 I think the shifting ones could lead to driver confusion and more accidents. 1/19/2024 5:10 PM 4 Enforcement is the key. Speed signage stating "enforced by radar" (if possible) or having Capitola PD much more involved. Mailing citations (or warnings) to violators would have an impact. Just parking a PD car along the way would slow drivers down. Park Ave. is like a highway at times and must be dealt with. Perhaps look into diverting some of the traffic from Hiway 1 onto Bay or 41st Avenues. Personally, as a frequent walker in the specified area, I'd like to see additional well marked crosswalks at Park and Columbus along with blinking red lights around the circumference of existing stop signs. Most drivers stop at the intersection, some slow down to almost a stop, but a few go thru as though the stop signs weren't observed. Knowing that law enforcement is at a premium, enforcement is a must. However, almost anything will be an improvement. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. 1/19/2024 4:38 PM
5 None of the above. Widening the bike lanes to narrow the car lanes, and installing several more speed feedback signs would help a lot. Also, having the police patrol, use radar guns, and ticket more often would help too. I believe that another workshop regarding the subject when all the Park Avenue and nearby residents are properly notified would also be paramount, as I know this is a major concern.
1/19/2024 3:14 PM
6 Barriers on the bikes lanes Toronto style can be done very cheap and narrow all the lanes including the suicide lane, bollards at crossings to create friction and snap drivers into awareness where pedestrians are crossing. Make it a realistic commuter path and someday build it out all the way to Seacliff would be fire and is within our economics over time/ skate park kids could bike too safely would be a game changer and there are TWO skate parks on that path
1/18/2024 8:58 PM
7 A road diet would help improve safety for all and create a more walkable and enjoyable street.

It has such a execellejt view but can hardly be enjoyed with people speeding in their cars. I would really like to see some class 4 bike lanes with the road diet implemented. Anything that doesn’t change the design of the road and relies on signage and behavior changes will not work. Thank you for taking this project on and working towards making our community a safer place
1/18/2024 8:44 PM
8 Though not in the scope of this project, I have concerns as a regular bicyclist/commuter of more hazardous areas in the immediate vicinity. Monterey Ave. from railroad tracks to village requires signage and pavement paint warning drivers of narrowing roadway which often sqweezes bicyclists into the curb!!!!!!! Monterey Ave. from stop sign at the New Brighton middle school towards Park Ave. needs signage to protect bicyclists, as well paint on the pavement. Bay Avenue north bound in front of Gayles and south bound in front of Grady's market NEED signage and pavement paint to alert drivers to slow down and not sqweeze bicyclist.
1/18/2024 7:41 PM
9 Increased visibility of law enforcement would be a good idea to slow down traffic. 1/18/2024 5:13 PM 10 Physical barias and not largarla or median shifts 1/18/2024 6:58 AM 11 Bikes need protected bike lanes. Those curves are currently on Laurel and it’s LESS safe for bikes now.
1/18/2024 6:57 AM
12 I think it's long past time to meaningfully improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians. 1/18/2024 5:33 AM 632
Item 9 C.

City of Capitola - Park Avenue Traffic Calming Public Workshop 1 20 / 22
13 Please include physical protection for people walking and biking in any solution put forward. 1/17/2024 11:37 PM 14 We have many citizens using bikes in Capitola and there needs to be a barrier between riders and cars to make it bike friendly. The fact that the middle school is in this area makes it imperative to make biking more safe.
1/17/2024 7:47 PM
15 I don’t care for 2 or 3 at all. I feel strongly that 1 is the safest and best choice. 1/17/2024 7:43 PM 16 Road diet all the way. Thank you. 1/17/2024 5:56 PM
17 A physical barrier between cars & bikes is important 1/17/2024 4:00 PM 18 #3 is the most visually appealing #2 2nd place #1 Not sure where you are getting the 4 lands or room for a turning lane. Feel free in calling us since we have lived on Park Ave for 50 years and have seen much in the way of accidents and our thoughts. Apparently Speed Bumps seem to be out of the question, but would definitely slow things down. 1/17/2024 2:36 PM
19 Most speeding and consequently accidents happen eastbound coming down the hill on park ave just before and at the intersection of grove lane and Wesley St. A stop sign and speed bump here will reduce speeding and accidents.
1/17/2024 12:24 PM
20 The issue here is that the vast majority of vehicles use Park as an alternate to highway 1. If it was just the residents there would not be an issue. The bike and pedestrian alternatives are a waste in light of the more favorable conversion of the existing railroad tracks. Perhaps making park av one way from highway to bay and Monterey av one way from bay to highway with the addition of minimum of 3 traffic lights along Monterey would be a much better option. 1/17/2024 9:04 AM
21 I like the idea of a road diet but I think the best way to implement it is a more extreme road diet with continuous protected bike lanes in order to keep vehicle traffic towards the center of the road and offer greater space and protection for pedestrians and cyclists. 1/17/2024 8:48 AM
22 This stretch of Park Ave is truly stunning with its views of the ocean. Let's make this safe for everyone by adding physical barrier delineator posts between the cars and the bikes. I also would urge you to look at the intersection of McCormick Ave and Park Ave. There is a very dangerous situation where kids biking to New Brighton School in the morning are coming north on Monterey out of the village, then they turn right on Park and make an immediate left on McCormick. The cars do not expect this left turn and are overtaking the kids just as they turn left. This is urgent and needs our full attention.
1/16/2024 8:29 PM
23 This options seem pretty poor, it’s frustrating to see our tax dollars paying a firm to not think outside the box. Unused train tracks adjacent to Park Ave? That would provide a very secure and safely path for walkers and cyclists. Then provide the road wouldn’t need to be in such a “diet”.
1/16/2024 8:25 PM
24 Thanks for your efforts ! 1/16/2024 6:44 PM
25 No 3 is best with additional protection for bikes 1/16/2024 6:39 PM 26 I bike and drive this road daily and it needs to be safer. I'm for any option that proves to be the safest for pedestrians and cyclists.
1/16/2024 5:28 PM
27 I don’t approve of any of those 3 choices. I want green bike lanes and speed tables, just like on Clares.
1/16/2024 5:20 PM
28 this alterntive table does not allow me to make all choices #3, I live on Park Ave, I watch the traffic every day.
1/16/2024 5:14 PM
29 Need to prioritize walking/biking room on this street! 1/16/2024 5:12 PM 30 Why is there no mention of speed enforcement? If it is beyond the scope of our police can we apply for a camera enforcement? Speed bumps?
1/16/2024 3:28 PM
31 Why is the public ranking designs? Crazy! Each of these solutions should have been created by a traffic engineer who knows what they are doing. One of these options is presumably better than the others or possibly elements from all three options? You might need to hire a European traffic engineer - American traffic engineers and planners have proven themselves to be morons.
1/16/2024 3:02 PM
32 My family and I live in Pleasure Point and my kids bike to school at Montessori, so go down this stretch of Park Ave. If it were safer they would definitely bike more (as would a few of their 1/16/2024 2:43 PM
633
Item 9 C.

City of Capitola - Park Avenue Traffic Calming Public Workshop 1 21 / 22
friends) and traffic would go down proportionally. We are all in favor of a road diet, especially if it includes a buffered bike lane with bollards. We are in favor of the lateral and median shift plans as long as they can also include a buffered bike lane. It would also be nice to include pedestrian crosswalk bulb outs at Cabrillo St. We will support any intervention that you think will increase bike/pedestrian safety, as long as it relies on structural changes that induce drivers to slow down intuitively rather than depending on signage and enforcement. 33 My biggest concern is to slow traffic on Park from Bay Avenue and beyond Washburn. It seems like you will have effective methods to slow traffic from Coronado to Cabrillo, but I'm concerned that what is proposed will not sufficiently slow traffic from Bay and beond. 1/15/2024 3:37 PM
34 As a resident of Park Ave., thank you for addressing the safety concerns on this heavily trafficked road. It has been hair-raising to watch cars compete for space with pedestrians, bicycles and motorized bikes. This stretch of road suffers from lack of STOP signs and traffic sign reminders. The available parking under the eucalyptus trees also needs addressing since people park here and party, do drugs, and park overnight as they take advantage of the beach and village activities. I am in agreement that this area should be utilized to create safe bike access and to quell these activities as it is very disruptive to the residents. Also, I implore you to look into nighttime lighting as Park Ave is completely pitch black at night. We have had several major accidents at night as people don’t slow down and are caught out coming over the hill. So again thank you for seeking to make Park Ave a more safe road for all to enjoy! 1/15/2024 3:20 PM
35 I think think the median shift requires drivers to slow down and would look nice, but I would also like to see a bike lane buffer and more lighting on the street to provide additional safety for pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers.
1/15/2024 1:14 PM
36 Moreover, it is critical that onstreet parking not be removed 1/15/2024 7:29 AM 37 Add buffers for bike lanes and install speed bumps. I prefer you stop traffic going to the freeway between 3-6 pm like on Topaz and 43rd Ave.
1/14/2024 3:51 PM
38 My preference would be simply to add speed humps and feedback signs rather than reduce existing off street parking
1/13/2024 2:27 PM
39 If you want to see the biggest change, the laws need to be enforced. Drivers no longer follow most rules because there is no consequence for their actions. As a parent, I am hyperaware of the many dangerous spots around town and people no longer care because they realize they don't have to follow the rules because there is no danger of being ticketed/caught/fined. All the suggestions help, but until people assume responsibility for their actions the overall affect will be minimal.
1/12/2024 9:43 AM
40 I think option 3 is best for cars but not sure if it will create barriers that bikes have difficulty navigating
1/12/2024 5:24 AM
41 Speed bumps slow traffic down 1/11/2024 9:51 AM
42 Having a turning lane will cause ppl it to pass ppl because they want to wait. Having speed bumps would be a better option. Turning in apartments down at the bottom of the hill is where ppl like to speed and cause problems. Ppl run the walk cross lights, stop signs. They don’t care to slow down even to the 25 mile per hour limit. Speeding cameras would be a better option if you want to gain money. Crossing the street and almost getting hit makes it hard to enjoy walking across.
1/10/2024 6:49 PM
43 I bike this stretch nearly every day, one of my greatest concerns is pedestrians walking/running in bike lane, and drivers making turns onto streets or to park, or pulling out of a parking space.
1/10/2024 2:57 PM
44 Thank you for working on this. I hope we can somehow slow things down. After all it is a residential street. I believe the sidewalk has made Park Ave a safer space for residents and visitors.
1/10/2024 2:32 PM
45 Park is used as a commute alternative, especially when the freeway is impacted. Speeds in this case will usually be above the limit. This will just create another challenge for frustrated and aggressive drivers., not to mention the complete fiasco of the school traffic. 1/8/2024 9:48 PM
46 Coronado to Kennedy is extremely dangerous and has a dropoff with no bike lane down to the park road. This needs to be addressed!
1/6/2024 4:39 PM
47 This stretch of Park Ave has a beautiful view of the bay. please don’t alter it with stripes or 1/5/2024 9:55 PM 634
Item 9 C.

City of Capitola - Park Avenue Traffic Calming Public Workshop 1 22 / 22
little islands. the speed limit there was 35 until recently. when the limit was reduced to 25, it naturally makes it seem like there is now a speeding problem. there is no reason to make these road changes. it’s bad enough the rail trail, in any form, will be cutting down trees on park ave. we don’t need to change everything in the county! 48 How about increased enforcement? Please dont clutter pPark Ave with those ugly electronic speed signs
1/5/2024 8:04 PM
635
Item 9 C.

EB
PGE
#305
#306
#307
#308
#309 #310
#311
#313
#312
#316
#315
#314
#317
#318
#319
#320N #321N
#322SN
#323SN
#324N
#325N
#326SN
#327S
#328N
#329
#330
#331
#332N
#333N
#334N #335N
#336S
#337N #338N #339SN
#340
#341 #342N
#343S
#3598N #3597N
#304
#303N
60 65
65 60
65 65
70 70
75 80
85 80
85 90
85 80 75
3540
45 MONTEREY AVENUE

MCCORMICK AVE

PARK AVENUE
10' 10' 12' 3'
1 CLASS II BIKE LANE

RETAINING WALL

CLASS I MULTIUSE PATH
BUFFER

RECTANGULAR RAPIDFLASHING BEACON EXISTING EDGE OF

PAVEMENT

RECTANGULAR RAPIDFLASHING BEACON

FUTURE CROSSWALK

STRIPING VIA

CAPITOLA VILLAGE

PARKING PROJECT

SPEED FEEDBACK SIGN

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
LEGEND

RETAINING WALL
x x x x

EXISTING FENCE

SCCRTC RIGHT OF WAY

EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT

TRAIL BUFFER

TREE REMOVAL

CONCRETE PAVEMENTCLASS I MULTIUSE PATH
12'-0"

CLASS I MULTIUSE PATH
3'-0"
BUFFER
10'-0"

TRAVEL LANE
10'-0"

TRAVEL LANE
5'-0"

CLASS II BIKE LANE

REFERENCES
DRAWING #:FIELD BOOK:

DESIGN

CHECKED
DATE
DRAWN
VAULT NO.

SCALE
701 Ocean Street, Room 410
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

REVISIONS

D E P A R T M E N T O F P U B L I C W O R K S

SANTACRUZ
01/21/2025
rrmdesign.com | (949) 361-7950
32332 Camino Capistrano, Ste. 205 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675

DIG ALERT

DIAL TOLL FREE
AT LEAST 2 DAYS

BEFORE YOU DIG
PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C O U N T Y O F OPTION A MONTEREY TO CORONADO SCHEMATIC DESIGN ALTERNATIVES RAIL TRAIL SEGMENTS 10 & 11 KS/MS MS MS AS SHOWN EX-1.01 MATCHLINE, SEE SHEET EX-1.02
0 10 20 40 60
SCALE 1/4"=1'-0" 1
636
Item 9 C.
#344S
#345
#346S
#347S
#348S #349S
#350
#351S
#352
#353 #354 #355
#356
#357
#358
#359S
#360N
#361N
#362N
#363N
#364S #365S
#366
#367
#368
#369
#370
#371 #372 #373
#374N
#375N
#376
#377N
#378SN
#379SN
#380SN
#381SN
#382N
#383N #384N #385N
#386N
#388N
#389N
#390
#391
#392
#393
#394
#395
#396SN
#398N
#399N
#387N
#3595 #3596 90
95 95
95 100
100
95 95
100

PARK AVENUE

WASHBURN
AVE
2 10' 10' 12' 3'

CLASS II BIKE LANECURBCLASS I MULTIUSE PATH
BUFFER

EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT

RECTANGULAR RAPIDFLASHING BEACONRECTANGULAR RAPIDFLASHING BEACON

SPEED FEEDBACK SIGN

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
LEGEND

RETAINING WALL
x x x x

EXISTING FENCE

SCCRTC RIGHT OF WAY

EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT

TRAIL BUFFER

TREE REMOVAL

CONCRETE PAVEMENTCLASS I MULTIUSE PATH
12'-0"

CLASS I MULTIUSE PATH
3'-0"
BUFFER

REFERENCES
DRAWING #:FIELD BOOK:

DESIGN

CHECKED
DATE
DRAWN
VAULT NO.

SCALE
701 Ocean Street, Room 410
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

REVISIONS

D E P A R T M E N T O F P U B L I C W O R K S

SANTACRUZ
01/21/2025
rrmdesign.com | (949) 361-7950
32332 Camino Capistrano, Ste. 205 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675

DIG ALERT

DIAL TOLL FREE
AT LEAST 2 DAYS

BEFORE YOU DIG
PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C O U N T Y O F OPTION A MONTEREY TO CORONADO SCHEMATIC DESIGN ALTERNATIVES RAIL TRAIL SEGMENTS 10 & 11 KS/MS MS MS AS SHOWN EX-1.02 MATCHLINE, SEE SHEET EX-1.01
0 10 20 40 60
MATCHLINE, SEE SHEET EX-1.03
SCALE 1/4"=1'-0" 2
637
Item 9 C.
#396SN #397SN
#398N
#399N
#400N
#401N
#402N #403N
#404N #405N
#406N
#407N
#408N
#409N
#410N #411N
#412N
#413N
#414S
#415N
#416S
#417
#418
#419 #420
#421
#422
#423 #424
#425
#426S
#427
#428
#429
#430N
#431
#432
#433S
#434S
#435S
#436S
#437N
#438S
#443
#444 #445
#446 #447S #448 #449
#450
#451S #452
#453
#454S
#455
#456
#457S
#458#459
#460 #461S
#462S
#463S
#464
#465
#466
#467
#468
#469
#470
#471
#472
#473
#474 #475
#476
#477
#478S
#479 #480
#481
#482S #483 #484
#485
#486S #487
#488S
#489S
#514
#515 #516
#517
#518
#519
100
100
100
100
95 9085
80 85
90 95
100
100
#439
#440
#441S
#442S

PARK AVENUE
12' 3' 10' 10' 5' 5'-2"
3 4
12' 3' 10' 10'

CLASS II BIKE LANECURBCLASS I MULTIUSE PATH
BUFFER

EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT

RETAINING WALL

SIDEWALK

RETAINING WALL
SPEED

FEEDBACK
SIGN

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
LEGEND

RETAINING WALL
x x x x

EXISTING FENCE

SCCRTC RIGHT OF WAY

EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT

TRAIL BUFFER

TREE REMOVAL

CONCRETE PAVEMENTCLASS I MULTIUSE PATH
12'-0"

CLASS I MULTIUSE PATH
3'-0"
BUFFER
12'-0"

CLASS I MULTIUSE PATH
3'-0"
BUFFER

REFERENCES
DRAWING #:FIELD BOOK:

DESIGN

CHECKED
DATE
DRAWN
VAULT NO.

SCALE
701 Ocean Street, Room 410
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

REVISIONS

D E P A R T M E N T O F P U B L I C W O R K S

SANTACRUZ
01/21/2025
rrmdesign.com | (949) 361-7950
32332 Camino Capistrano, Ste. 205 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675

DIG ALERT

DIAL TOLL FREE
AT LEAST 2 DAYS

BEFORE YOU DIG
PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C O U N T Y O F OPTION A MONTEREY TO CORONADO SCHEMATIC DESIGN ALTERNATIVES RAIL TRAIL SEGMENTS 10 & 11 KS/MS MS MS AS SHOWN EX-1.03 0 10 20 40 60
MATCHLINE, SEE SHEET EX-1.02
MATCHLINE, SEE SHEET EX-1.04
SCALE 1/4"=1'-0" 4 SCALE 1/4"=1'-0" 3
638
Item 9 C.
#488S
#489S
#490 #491 #492N
#493
#494S
#495N
#496
#497S
#498
#499S
#500
#501 #502
#503
#504 #505S
#506S
#507S
#508S
#509 #510S
#511
#512S
#513S
#520
#521S
#522
#523S
#524S
#525S
#526S
#527
#528S
#529S #530S
#531
#532
#533S
#534S
#536S
#537
#538
#539
#541
#542
#544S
#546
#547
#548 #549
#550
#551
#552
#553S
#554
#555
#556
#557
#558S
#559 #560
#561S
#3599 #3600
#573N
#574S
#575
#576
#577
#578
#579
#580 #581S #582
#583S
#584
#585
#636S
#644 #645
#637
#638
#639
#640
#641S
#642
#643
#646S
#590
#591S
#592 #593
#594S
#595
#652
#653
#654
#655
#656
#657
#658
#659 #660
#661
#662
#663
#664S
#665
#666
#667
#668
#669
#670S
#671
#672
#673
#674
#675
#676
#677 #678#679#680
#681
85 90
90 95
95 100
95 85
#708
WESLEY
STREET

GROVE LANE

PRIVATE ROAD

PARK AVENUE
12' 3' 10' 10' 5' 5'
5 CLASS II BIKE LANECLASS I MULTIUSE PATH

BUFFERRETAINING WALL

SIDEWALK

EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACON

RECTANGULAR RAPID

FLASHING BEACON

SIDEWALK

STORM DRAIN INLET

RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACON

EXISTING BACK OF SIDEWALK

FEEDBACK

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
LEGEND

RETAINING WALL
x x x x

EXISTING FENCE

SCCRTC RIGHT OF WAY

EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT

TRAIL BUFFER

TREE REMOVAL

CONCRETE PAVEMENTCLASS I MULTIUSE PATH
12'-0"

CLASS I MULTIUSE PATH
3'-0"
BUFFER
10'-0"

TRAVEL LANE
10'-0"

TRAVEL LANE
5'-0"

CLASS II BIKE LANE
5'-0"

SIDEWALK

REFERENCES
DRAWING #:FIELD BOOK:

DESIGN

CHECKED
DATE
DRAWN
VAULT NO.

SCALE
701 Ocean Street, Room 410
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

REVISIONS

D E P A R T M E N T O F P U B L I C W O R K S

SANTACRUZ
01/21/2025
rrmdesign.com | (949) 361-7950
32332 Camino Capistrano, Ste. 205 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675

DIG ALERT

DIAL TOLL FREE
AT LEAST 2 DAYS

BEFORE YOU DIG
PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C O U N T Y O F OPTION A MONTEREY TO CORONADO SCHEMATIC DESIGN ALTERNATIVES RAIL TRAIL SEGMENTS 10 & 11 KS/MS MS MS AS SHOWN EX-1.04 MATCHLINE, SEE SHEET EX-1.04
0 10 20 40 60
MATCHLINE, SEE SHEET EX-1.03
SCALE 1/4"=1'-0" 5
639
Item 9 C.
#591S
#592 #593
#594S
#595
#596
#597
#598
#599
#600
#601
#602
#603 #604
#605
#606
#607#609
#608 #610 #611 #612
#613
#614 #615
#616
#617
#618
#619
#620S #621 #622 #623S #624
#625S
#626S
#627
#628S
#629S #630
#631S #632S
#633S
#678
#679#680
#681
#682 #683
#684
#685
#688#689
#690 #691
#692#693
#694
#695
#700 #701 #702
#703S
#791S #776S
#777 #772
#768S
#758S #804S #810
#812S
100
105
100
95 95
100 #786
#708 #707
#706 #705
#704

CABRILLO STREET

PARK AVENUE
12' 3' 10'
6 10'

RECTANGULAR RAPIDFLASHING BEACON

CLASS II BIKE LANE

CLASS I MULTIUSE PATH
BUFFER

EXISTING BACK OF SIDEWALK

RESTRIPE EXISTING

CROSSWALK

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
LEGEND

RETAINING WALL
x x x x

EXISTING FENCE

SCCRTC RIGHT OF WAY

EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT

TRAIL BUFFER

TREE REMOVAL
CONCRETE PAVEMENTCLASS I MULTIUSE PATH 12'-0"

CLASS I MULTIUSE PATH
3'-0"
BUFFER

REFERENCES
DRAWING #:FIELD BOOK:

DESIGN

CHECKED
DATE
DRAWN
VAULT NO.

SCALE
701 Ocean Street, Room 410
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

REVISIONS

D E P A R T M E N T O F P U B L I C W O R K S

SANTACRUZ
01/21/2025
rrmdesign.com | (949) 361-7950
32332 Camino Capistrano, Ste. 205 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675

DIG ALERT

DIAL TOLL FREE
AT LEAST 2 DAYS

BEFORE YOU DIG
PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C O U N T Y O F OPTION A MONTEREY TO CORONADO SCHEMATIC DESIGN ALTERNATIVES RAIL TRAIL SEGMENTS 10 & 11 KS/MS MS MS AS SHOWN EX-1.05 0 10 20 40 60
MATCHLINE, SEE SHEET EX-1.04
MATCHLINE, SEE SHEET EX-1.06
SCALE 1/4"=1'-0" 6
640
Item 9 C.
#634S #635S
#3564N
#812S #813S
105
105
95 95
100
90 100
#821N #822N #823N #824N
PARK AVENUE 10'
12'
3'
10'

CLASS II BIKE LANE

CLASS I MULTIUSE PATH
BUFFER

EXISTING BACK OF

SIDEWALK

RETAINING WALL

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
LEGEND

RETAINING WALL
x x x x

EXISTING FENCE

SCCRTC RIGHT OF WAY

EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT

TRAIL BUFFER

TREE REMOVAL

CONCRETE PAVEMENTCLASS I MULTIUSE PATH

REFERENCES
DRAWING #:FIELD BOOK:

DESIGN

CHECKED
DATE
DRAWN
VAULT NO.

SCALE
701 Ocean Street, Room 410
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

REVISIONS

D E P A R T M E N T O F P U B L I C W O R K S

SANTACRUZ
01/21/2025
rrmdesign.com | (949) 361-7950
32332 Camino Capistrano, Ste. 205 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675

DIG ALERT

DIAL TOLL FREE
AT LEAST 2 DAYS

BEFORE YOU DIG
PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C O U N T Y O F OPTION A MONTEREY TO CORONADO SCHEMATIC DESIGN ALTERNATIVES RAIL TRAIL SEGMENTS 10 & 11 KS/MS MS MS AS SHOWN EX-1.06 MATCHLINE, SEE SHEET EX-1.05
0 10 20 40 60
MATCHLINE, SEE SHEET EX-1.07
641
Item 9 C.
#830
#831
#832
#833
#834
#835
#836
#837 #838S
#839
#840
#841
#842
#843
#844
#845S #846
#847S #848S
#849
#850N #851 #852
#855S
#856 #857S
#858
#859 #860
#861
#3444
#3445
#3447N
#3446
95 90
95 80
80 75
70 65
60 90

CORONADO
STREET

PARK AVENUE
12'
12'

EXISTING BACK OF

SIDEWALK

CLASS I MULTIUSE PATH
BUFFER

CLASS II BIKE LANE

STORM DRAIN INLET RETAINING WALL

TRAFFIC BARRIER

CLASS II BIKE LANE
3'-2" 10' 10'

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
LEGEND

RETAINING WALL
x x x x

EXISTING FENCE

SCCRTC RIGHT OF WAY

EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT

TRAIL BUFFER

TREE REMOVAL

CONCRETE PAVEMENTCLASS I MULTIUSE PATH

REFERENCES
DRAWING #:FIELD BOOK:

DESIGN

CHECKED
DATE
DRAWN
VAULT NO.

SCALE
701 Ocean Street, Room 410
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

REVISIONS

D E P A R T M E N T O F P U B L I C W O R K S

SANTACRUZ
01/21/2025
rrmdesign.com | (949) 361-7950
32332 Camino Capistrano, Ste. 205 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675

DIG ALERT

DIAL TOLL FREE
AT LEAST 2 DAYS

BEFORE YOU DIG
PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C O U N T Y O F OPTION A MONTEREY TO CORONADO SCHEMATIC DESIGN ALTERNATIVES RAIL TRAIL SEGMENTS 10 & 11 KS/MS MS MS AS SHOWN EX-1.07 0 10 20 40 60
MATCHLINE, SEE SHEET EX-1.06
END
642
Item 9 C.
12'-0"'

CLASS I MULTIUSE PATH
3'-0"'
BUFFER
10'-6"'

TRAVEL LANE
10'-6"'

TRAVEL LANE
PGE
#305
#306
#307
#308
#309 #310
#311
#313
#312
#316
#315
#314
#317
#318
#319
#320N #321N
#322SN
#323SN
#324N
#325N
#326SN
#327S
#328N
#329
#330
#331
#332N
#333N
#334N #335N
#336S
#337N #338N #339SN
#340
#341 #342N
#343S
#3598N #3597N
#304
#303N
B-1

MONTEREY AVENUE

MCCORMICK AVE

PARK AVENUE
12' 10'-6" 10'-6" 3'
1 RETAINING WALL

CLASS I MULTIUSE PATH
BUFFER

RECTANGULAR RAPIDFLASHING BEACON EXISTING EDGE OF

PAVEMENT

RECTANGULAR RAPIDFLASHING BEACON

SPEED FEEDBACK SIGN

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
LEGEND

CONCRETE PAVEMENT

RETAINING WALLHMA PAVEMENT (TRAIL)
x x x x

EXISTING FENCE

SCCRTC RIGHT OF WAY

EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT

TRAIL BUFFER

TREE REMOVAL

REFERENCES
DRAWING #:FIELD BOOK:

DESIGN

CHECKED
DATE
DRAWN
VAULT NO.

SCALE
701 Ocean Street, Room 410
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

REVISIONS

D E P A R T M E N T O F P U B L I C W O R K S

SANTACRUZ
01/21/2025
rrmdesign.com | (949) 361-7950
32332 Camino Capistrano, Ste. 205 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675

DIG ALERT

DIAL TOLL FREE
AT LEAST 2 DAYS

BEFORE YOU DIG
PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C O U N T Y O F OPTION B MONTEREY TO CORONADO SCHEMATIC DESIGN ALTERNATIVES RAIL TRAIL SEGMENTS 10 & 11 KS/MS MS MS AS SHOWN MATCHLINE, SEE SHEET EX-1.02
0 10 20 40 60
EX-1.01
SCALE 1/4"=1'-0" 1
643
Item 9 C.
12'-0"'

CLASS I MULTIUSE PATH
3'-0"'
BUFFER
1'-6"'
#344S
#345
#346S
#347S
#348S #349S
#350
#351S
#352
#353 #354 #355
#356
#357
#358
#359S
#360N
#361N
#362N
#363N
#364S #365S
#366
#367
#368
#369
#370
#371 #372 #373
#374N
#375N
#376
#377N
#378SN
#379SN
#380SN
#381SN
#382N
#383N #384N #385N
#386N
#388N
#389N
#390
#391
#392
#393
#394
#395
#396SN
#398N
#399N
#387N
#3595 #3596

PARK AVENUE

WASHBURN
AVE
2 12' 10'-6" 10'-6" 3' CLASS I MULTIUSE PATH BUFFER EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT

RECTANGULAR RAPIDFLASHING BEACONRECTANGULAR RAPIDFLASHING BEACON

SPEED FEEDBACK SIGN

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
LEGEND

CONCRETE PAVEMENT

RETAINING WALLHMA PAVEMENT (TRAIL)
x x x x

EXISTING FENCE

SCCRTC RIGHT OF WAY

EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT

TRAIL BUFFER

TREE REMOVAL

REFERENCES
DRAWING #:FIELD BOOK:

DESIGN

CHECKED
DATE
DRAWN
VAULT NO.

SCALE
701 Ocean Street, Room 410
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

REVISIONS

D E P A R T M E N T O F P U B L I C W O R K S

SANTACRUZ
01/21/2025
rrmdesign.com | (949) 361-7950
32332 Camino Capistrano, Ste. 205 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675

DIG ALERT

DIAL TOLL FREE
AT LEAST 2 DAYS

BEFORE YOU DIG
PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C O U N T Y O F OPTION B MONTEREY TO CORONADO SCHEMATIC DESIGN ALTERNATIVES RAIL TRAIL SEGMENTS 10 & 11 KS/MS MS MS AS SHOWN MATCHLINE, SEE SHEET EX-1.01
0 10 20 40 60
EX-1.02
MATCHLINE, SEE SHEET EX-1.03
SCALE 1/4"=1'-0" 2
644
Item 9 C.
1'-6"' 3'-0"'
BUFFER
12'-0"'

CLASS I MULTIUSE PATH
#396SN #397SN
#398N
#399N
#400N
#401N
#402N #403N
#404N #405N
#406N
#407N
#408N
#409N
#410N #411N
#412N
#413N
#414S
#415N
#416S
#417
#418
#419 #420
#421
#422
#423 #424
#425
#426S
#427
#428
#429
#430N
#431
#432
#433S
#434S
#435S
#436S
#437N
#438S
#443
#444 #445
#446 #447S #448 #449
#450
#451S #452
#453
#454S
#455
#456
#457S
#458#459
#460 #461S
#462S
#463S
#464
#465
#466
#467
#468
#469
#470
#471
#472
#473
#474 #475
#476
#477
#478S
#479 #480
#481
#482S #483 #484
#485
#486S #487
#488S
#489S
#514
#515 #516
#517
#518
#519
#439
#440
#441S
#442S
B-1B

PARK AVENUE
12' 3' 10'-6" 10'-6" 5'
3 4

CLASS I MULTIUSE PATH
BUFFER

EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT

RETAINING WALL

SIDEWALK

RETAINING WALL
SPEED

FEEDBACK
SIGN
12' 3' 10'-6" 10'-6"
12'-0"'

CLASS I MULTIUSE PATH
3'-0"'
BUFFER
1'-6"'

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
LEGEND

CONCRETE PAVEMENT

RETAINING WALLHMA PAVEMENT (TRAIL)
x x x x

EXISTING FENCE

SCCRTC RIGHT OF WAY

EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT

TRAIL BUFFER

TREE REMOVAL

REFERENCES
DRAWING #:FIELD BOOK:

DESIGN

CHECKED
DATE
DRAWN
VAULT NO.

SCALE
701 Ocean Street, Room 410
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

REVISIONS

D E P A R T M E N T O F P U B L I C W O R K S

SANTACRUZ
01/21/2025
rrmdesign.com | (949) 361-7950
32332 Camino Capistrano, Ste. 205 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675

DIG ALERT

DIAL TOLL FREE
AT LEAST 2 DAYS

BEFORE YOU DIG
PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C O U N T Y O F OPTION B MONTEREY TO CORONADO SCHEMATIC DESIGN ALTERNATIVES RAIL TRAIL SEGMENTS 10 & 11 KS/MS MS MS AS SHOWN SCALE 1/4"=1'-0" 4 SCALE 1/4"=1'-0" 3
0 10 20 40 60
EX-1.03
MATCHLINE, SEE SHEET EX-1.02
MATCHLINE, SEE SHEET EX-1.04
645
Item 9 C.
3'-0"'
BUFFER
12'-0"'

CLASS I MULTIUSE PATH
10'-6"'

TRAVEL LANE
10'-6"'

TRAVEL LANE
5'-0"'

SIDEWALK
WESLEY
STREET
#488S
#489S
#490 #491 #492N
#493
#494S
#495N
#496
#497S
#498
#499S
#500
#501 #502
#503
#504 #505S
#506S
#507S
#508S
#509 #510S
#511
#512S
#513S
#520
#521S
#522
#523S
#524S
#525S
#526S
#527
#528S
#529S #530S
#531
#532
#533S
#534S
#536S
#537
#538
#539
#541
#542
#544S
#546
#547
#548 #549
#550
#551
#552
#553S
#554
#555
#556
#557
#558S
#559 #560
#561S
#3599 #3600
#573N
#574S
#575
#576
#577
#578
#579
#580 #581S #582
#583S
#584
#585
#636S
#644 #645
#637
#638
#639
#640
#641S
#642
#643
#646S
#590
#591S
#592 #593
#594S
#595
#652
#653
#654
#655
#656
#657
#658
#659 #660
#661
#662
#663
#664S
#665
#666
#667
#668
#669
#670S
#671
#672
#673
#674
#675
#676
#677 #678#679#680
#681
#708
B-2 GROVE LANE

PRIVATE ROAD

PARK AVENUE
5 12' 3' 10'-6" 10'-6" 5' CLASS I MULTIUSE PATH BUFFER

RETAINING WALL

SIDEWALK

EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACON

RECTANGULAR RAPID

FLASHING BEACON

SIDEWALK

STORM DRAIN INLET

RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACON

EXISTING BACK OF SIDEWALK

RETAINING WALL

FEEDBACK

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
LEGEND

CONCRETE PAVEMENT

RETAINING WALLHMA PAVEMENT (TRAIL)
x x x x

EXISTING FENCE

SCCRTC RIGHT OF WAY

EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT

TRAIL BUFFER

TREE REMOVAL

REFERENCES
DRAWING #:FIELD BOOK:

DESIGN

CHECKED
DATE
DRAWN
VAULT NO.

SCALE
701 Ocean Street, Room 410
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

REVISIONS

D E P A R T M E N T O F P U B L I C W O R K S

SANTACRUZ
01/21/2025
rrmdesign.com | (949) 361-7950
32332 Camino Capistrano, Ste. 205 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675

DIG ALERT

DIAL TOLL FREE
AT LEAST 2 DAYS

BEFORE YOU DIG
PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C O U N T Y O F OPTION B MONTEREY TO CORONADO SCHEMATIC DESIGN ALTERNATIVES RAIL TRAIL SEGMENTS 10 & 11 KS/MS MS MS AS SHOWN EX-1.04 MATCHLINE, SEE SHEET EX-1.04
0 10 20 40 60
MATCHLINE, SEE SHEET EX-1.03
SCALE 1/4"=1'-0" 5
646
Item 9 C.
12'-0"'

CLASS I MULTIUSE PATH
5'-0"'
BUFFER
#591S
#592 #593
#594S
#595
#596
#597
#598
#599
#600
#601
#602
#603 #604
#605
#606
#607#609
#608 #610 #611 #612
#613
#614 #615
#616
#617
#618
#619
#620S #621 #622 #623S #624
#625S
#626S
#627
#628S
#629S #630
#631S #632S
#633S
#678
#679#680
#681
#682 #683
#684
#685
#688#689
#690 #691
#692#693
#694
#695
#700 #701 #702
#703S
#791S #776S
#777 #772
#768S
#758S #804S #810
#812S
#786
#708 #707
#706 #705
#704 B-3

PARK AVENUE

CABRILLO STREET
6 12' 5' 10'-6" 10'-6"

RECTANGULAR RAPIDFLASHING BEACON

CLASS I MULTIUSE PATH
BUFFER

EXISTING BACK OF SIDEWALK

RESTRIPE EXISTING

CROSSWALK
10'-6" 10'-6" 5'-6" 12'

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
LEGEND

CONCRETE PAVEMENT

RETAINING WALLHMA PAVEMENT (TRAIL)
x x x x

EXISTING FENCE

SCCRTC RIGHT OF WAY

EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT

TRAIL BUFFER

TREE REMOVAL

REFERENCES
DRAWING #:FIELD BOOK:

DESIGN

CHECKED
DATE
DRAWN
VAULT NO.

SCALE
701 Ocean Street, Room 410
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

REVISIONS

D E P A R T M E N T O F P U B L I C W O R K S

SANTACRUZ
01/21/2025
rrmdesign.com | (949) 361-7950
32332 Camino Capistrano, Ste. 205 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675

DIG ALERT

DIAL TOLL FREE
AT LEAST 2 DAYS

BEFORE YOU DIG
PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C O U N T Y O F OPTION B MONTEREY TO CORONADO SCHEMATIC DESIGN ALTERNATIVES RAIL TRAIL SEGMENTS 10 & 11 KS/MS MS MS AS SHOWN EX-1.05 0 10 20 40 60
MATCHLINE, SEE SHEET EX-1.04
MATCHLINE, SEE SHEET EX-1.06
SCALE 1/4"=1'-0" 6
647
Item 9 C.
#634S #635S
#3564N
#812S #813S
#821N #822N #823N #824N

PARK AVENUE

CLASS I MULTIUSE PATH
BUFFER

EXISTING BACK OF

SIDEWALK

RETAINING WALL
10'-6" 10'-6" 5'-6" 12'

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
LEGEND

CONCRETE PAVEMENT

RETAINING WALLHMA PAVEMENT (TRAIL)
x x x x

EXISTING FENCE

SCCRTC RIGHT OF WAY

EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT

TRAIL BUFFER

TREE REMOVAL

REFERENCES
DRAWING #:FIELD BOOK:

DESIGN

CHECKED
DATE
DRAWN
VAULT NO.

SCALE
701 Ocean Street, Room 410
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

REVISIONS

D E P A R T M E N T O F P U B L I C W O R K S

SANTACRUZ
01/21/2025
rrmdesign.com | (949) 361-7950
32332 Camino Capistrano, Ste. 205 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675

DIG ALERT

DIAL TOLL FREE
AT LEAST 2 DAYS

BEFORE YOU DIG
PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C O U N T Y O F OPTION B MONTEREY TO CORONADO SCHEMATIC DESIGN ALTERNATIVES RAIL TRAIL SEGMENTS 10 & 11 KS/MS MS MS AS SHOWN EX-1.06 MATCHLINE, SEE SHEET EX-1.05
0 10 20 40 60
MATCHLINE, SEE SHEET EX-1.07
648
Item 9 C.

CORONADO
STREET
#830
#831
#832
#833
#834
#835
#836
#837 #838S
#839
#840
#841
#842
#843
#844
#845S #846
#847S #848S
#849
#850N #851 #852
#855S
#856 #857S
#858
#859 #860
#861
#3444
#3445
#3447N
#3446

PARK AVENUE

EXISTING BACK OF

SIDEWALK

CLASS I MULTIUSE PATH
BUFFER

STORM DRAIN INLET RETAINING WALL

TRAFFIC BARRIER
10'-6" 10'-6" 5'-6" 12'

CLASS II BIKE LANE

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
LEGEND

CONCRETE PAVEMENT

RETAINING WALLHMA PAVEMENT (TRAIL)
x x x x

EXISTING FENCE

SCCRTC RIGHT OF WAY

EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT

TRAIL BUFFER

TREE REMOVAL

REFERENCES
DRAWING #:FIELD BOOK:

DESIGN

CHECKED
DATE
DRAWN
VAULT NO.

SCALE
701 Ocean Street, Room 410
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

REVISIONS

D E P A R T M E N T O F P U B L I C W O R K S

SANTACRUZ
01/21/2025
rrmdesign.com | (949) 361-7950
32332 Camino Capistrano, Ste. 205 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675

DIG ALERT

DIAL TOLL FREE
AT LEAST 2 DAYS

BEFORE YOU DIG
PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C O U N T Y O F OPTION B MONTEREY TO CORONADO SCHEMATIC DESIGN ALTERNATIVES RAIL TRAIL SEGMENTS 10 & 11 KS/MS MS MS AS SHOWN EX-1.07 0 10 20 40 60
MATCHLINE, SEE SHEET EX-1.06
END
649
Item 9 C.

PARK AVENUE TRAFFIC

CALMING IMPROVEMENTS

PREPARED FOR

VICINITY MAP

NO SCALE

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

BASIS OF BEARINGS AND ELEVATIONS

SHEET INDEX
SHEET No DRAWING No SHEET CONTENTS

PROJECT
SITE
650
Item 9 C.

GENERAL PROJECT NOTES
T-2

GENERAL NOTES

PARK AVENUE TRAFFIC

CALMING IMPROVEMENTS

PREPARED FOR

PARK AVE
"P" LINE

MCCORMICK AVE
LEGEND

GENERAL SIGNING AND STRIPING NOTES

SIGNING AND STRIPING NOTES

STRIPING AND MARKING TABLE

SIGN TABLE

PARK AVENUE TRAFFIC

CALMING IMPROVEMENTS

PREPARED FOR

SIGNING AND STRIPING
NORTH
652
Item 9 C.

PARK AVE
"P" LINE WASHBURN AVE
SS-2

SIGNING AND STRIPING

PARK AVENUE TRAFFIC

CALMING IMPROVEMENTS

PREPARED FOR

DETAIL A

CONTINENTAL CROSSWALK

DETAIL B

GREEN BIKE MARKING

DETAIL C

GREEN BIKE MARKING

DETAIL D

CLASS II BIKE LANE BUFFER
NORTH

YOUR SPEED
25 DETAIL E

SPEED FEEDBACK SIGN

DETAIL F
R1-6 SIGN
653
Item 9 C.

PARK AVE
"P" LINE

PRIVATE DWY WESLEY ST CABRILLO ST

PARK AVE
"P" LINE GROVE LN
SS-3

SIGNING AND STRIPING

PARK AVENUE TRAFFIC

CALMING IMPROVEMENTS

PREPARED FOR

PARK AVE
"P" LINE

CORONADO
ST

PARK AVE
"P" LINE
SS-4

SIGNING AND STRIPING

PARK AVENUE TRAFFIC

CALMING IMPROVEMENTS

PREPARED FOR

SANTA CRUZ RAIL TRAIL

CAPITOLA, CA

EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT

EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT
PARK AVE ALIGNMENTS - VIEW 1
JANUARY 21, 2025
12’-0”
12’-0”

CLASS I MULTIUSE PATH

OPTION A

OPTION B

CLASS I MULTIUSE PATH

TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE

TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE
BUFFER
BUFFER

CLASS II BIKE LANE SIDEWALK

SIDEWALK
10’-0” 10’-0”
10’-6” 10’-6”
3’-0”
3’-0”
5’-0” 5’-0”
5’-0”
1’-6”
1’-6” 1’-6”
Background image. Google Earth. [Imagery date: December 2021]. Retrieved January 8, 2025, from https://earth.google.com/ 656
Item 9 C.

SANTA CRUZ RAIL TRAIL

CAPITOLA, CA

EXISTING BACK OF SIDEWALK

EXISTING BACK OF SIDEWALK
PARK AVE ALIGNMENTS - VIEW 2
JANUARY 21, 2025
12’-0”
12’-0”

CLASS I MULTIUSE PATH

OPTION A

OPTION B

TRAVEL LANE

TRAVEL LANE
BUFFER
BUFFER

CLASS II BIKE LANE
(EXISTING)
10’-0”
10’-6”
10’-0”
10’-6”
3’-0”
5’-0”
5’-0” 1’-6”
1’-6”
Background image. Google Earth. [Imagery date: June 2024]. Retrieved January 10, 2025, from https://earth.google.com/ 657
Item 9 C.

Park Avenue Traffic
Calming Improvements
with Coastal Rail Trail
Options
City Council
February 13, 2025
658
Item 9 C.

Presentation Summary
Park Avenue Project History
Coastal Rail Trail
(County/SCCRTC)
Moving Forward
659
Item 9 C.

Park Ave Traffic Calming & Rail Trail
Background
• Principal arterial road
• Pacific Coast Bike Route
Park Avenue
• 2020 Traffic Study: Identified perceived need for speed reduction measures
• September 8, 2022: Initial traffic calming options presented to Council Traffic Investigations
• Coordinated by County & RTC, traversing the length of Capitola Rail Trail Project Segments 10 & 11
660
Item 9 C.

Park Ave Traffic Calming & Rail Trail
Existing Conditions
4 661
Item 9 C.

Park Ave Traffic Calming & Rail Trail
Existing Conditions
• Failing sections of sidewalk
• Inconsistent bike lane width and conditions
• Undefined road edge
662
Item 9 C.

Park Ave Traffic Calming &
Rail Trail
Community Outreach Findings
• Parking Issues: Concerns about
reduced availability
• Traffic Safety: Support for speed
enforcement & barriers
• Road Diet Support: Support for
lane narrowing
• Outreach: Requests for continued
engagement
• Traffic Patterns: Concerns about
cut-through traffic
• Aesthetic Concerns: Impact on
area’s natural beauty
663
Item 9 C.

Park Ave Traffic Calming &
Rail Trail
DRAFT City Traffic Calming
Plan
Narrow vehicle
lanes to 10.5
feet
Buffered bike
lanes
Green bike
markings at
intersections
Intersection
improvements
at Park &
Monterey
Avenues
Enhanced
pedestrian
safety
measures
Speed
feedback
signs
664
Item 9 C.

Park Ave Traffic Calming & Rail Trail
Completed/In-Progress Improvements
Pure Water Soquel
• New ADA ramps
• Crosswalks and
intersections
updated
• Green markings
Upper Village Parking Lot Sidewalk
Project
665
Item 9 C.

COASTAL RAIL TRAIL
SEGMENTS 10 AND 11 PROJECT

CAPITOLA CITY COUNCIL

MEETING
February 13, 2025
Team
666
Item 9 C.

PRESENTATION

OUTLINE
• Coastal Rail Trail Overview
• Park Avenue Area
• Project Benefits
• Next Steps Team
667
Item 9 C.

COASTAL RAIL

TRAIL OVERVIEW
Team
668
Item 9 C.

BACKGROUND & CONTEXT
• Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail (MBSST)
• Trail Master Plan
• 50-mile trail network
• Connects to Monterey County
• 32-mile Coastal Rail Trail/Santa Cruz Branch Line
• Adopted by City of Capitola in 2015

PROJECT

OVERVIEW
Team
669
Item 9 C.
670
Item 9 C.

SEGMENT 10 ALIGNMENT
671
Item 9 C.

SEGMENT 11 ALIGNMENT
672
Item 9 C.

PUBLIC OUTREACH TO DATE
 October 12, 2021 – Rio Del Mar Improvement Association  November 17, 2021 – NOP Scoping Meeting
 January 13, 2022 – Mid County Democrats  February 17, 2022 – RTC Transportation Policy Workshop  April 6, 2022 – Virtual Schematic Design Open House  April 11, 2022 – RTC Bicycle Advisory Committee  April 12, 2022 – RTC Elderly and Disabled Technical Advisory Committee
 April 13, 2022 – In-person Schematic Design Open House  April 19, 2022 – Online survey posted for 60 days to allow the public to comment on the design
 May 17, 2022 – Walk for Wellness Live Oak event
 May 19, 2022 – Bike and Walk to School Day at Live Oak Elementary  May 19, 2022 – Boys & Girls Club Live Oak End of Year event  May 23, 2022 – Live Oak Resource Center Food Distribution event  May 24, 2022 – Family Drop-In Day at Chanticleer Park  May 27, 2022 – Walk for Wellness Capitola event  June 6, 2022 – Parks and Recreation Commission  March 14, 2023 – Seacliff Improvement Association
 March 23, 2023 – Capitola City Council  October 26, 2023 – Capitola City Council  November 16, 2023 – Draft EIR Public Meeting  March 26, 2024 – Final EIR Certification

PROJECT

OVERVIEW
Team
673
Item 9 C.

Ultimate Trail Configuration
(Trail next to Rail Line) • Generally 12’ wide, 4.2 miles long • Consistent with MBSST Master Plan
• Alignment included in the ATP Grant
Team

PROJECT

OVERVIEW
Park Ave area
Park Ave Escalona
674
Item 9 C.
41STAVENUE AREA
Existing Ultimate Trail
675
Item 9 C.

Funding Needed
(Estimated)
Phase Description Estimated Cost
Project Approval and Environmental $4.5 million
Documentation
PAED
PSE Plans, Specifications, and Estimate $2.9 million
ROW Right-of-Way $8.2 million $6.4 million
CON Construction $96.2 million $21.6 million
NI Non-Infrastructure $0.995 million
TOTAL $111.7 million $27-28 million
ESTIMATED COSTS (2023)
676
Item 9 C.

KEY DECISIONS
Team
March 26, 2024 Board of Supervisors Meeting
 Certify Final EIR
April 18, 2024 RTC Meeting
 Affirm support for the Ultimate Trail Configuration
 Negotiate agreement w/ Roaring Camp for track relocation  Commit to fully funding project w/ state, federal, and local funding
 Accept Final EIR
April 30, 2024 Board of Supervisors Meeting
 Approve Project in Ultimate Trail Configuration
677
Item 9 C.

PARK AVENUE AREA
Team
678
Item 9 C.

ALIGNMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Team
• Reduced Cost
• Conceptual ZEPRT Alignment
• Capitola Park Ave Traffic Calming Project
679
Item 9 C.

PARK AVENUE AREA

MONTEREY AVE TO GROVE LANE
Team
680
Item 9 C.

MONTEREY AVE TO GROVE LANE
PREVIOUS DESIGN – COASTAL ALIGNMENT
Escalona
Gulch
Monarch Site
Critical Windbreak
Trees Ave Washburn
Park
Avenue
681
Item 9 C.

MONTEREY AVE TO GROVE LANE - PREVIOUS DESIGN
Escalona
Gulch
Monarch Site
Critical Windbreak
Trees
682
Item 9 C.

MONTEREY AVE TO GROVE LANE

ZEPRT COORDINATION
ROW Boundary
ROW Boundary
ROW Boundary
ROW Boundary
ZEPRT Track Centerlines
ZEPRT Track Centerlines
ZEPRT Required
Clearance
ZEPRT Required
Clearance
Existing Rail
Centerline
Existing Rail
Centerline
Escalona Gulch Monarch
Site
Critical Windbreak Trees
683
Item 9 C.

MONTEREY AVE TO GROVE LANE

TRAFFIC CALMING COORDINATION
684
Item 9 C.

MONTEREY AVE TO GROVE LANE
PARK AVE ALIGNMENT Ave Washburn
Escalona
Gulch
Monarch Site
Critical Windbreak
Park Trees
Avenue
685
Item 9 C.

MONTEREY AVE TO GROVE LANE

PARK AVE ALIGNMENT
686
Item 9 C.

MONTEREY AVE TO GROVE LANE

PARK AVE ALIGNMENT
687
Item 9 C.

MONTEREY AVE TO GROVE LANE

PARK AVE ALIGNMENT
Escalona Gulch Monarch
Site
Critical Windbreak Trees
688
Item 9 C.

MONTEREY AVE TO GROVE LANE

PARK AVE ALIGNMENT OPTIONS
• Option A – preserves
inland bike lane
• Option B – maximizes
use of ROW for trail
689
Item 9 C.

MONTEREY AVE TO GROVE LANE
PARK AVE ALIGNMENT – BIKE LANE ACCESS Ave Washburn
Escalona
Gulch
Monarch Site
Critical Windbreak
Trees
690
Item 9 C.

PARK AVENUE AREA

GROVE LANE TO CORONADO ST
Team
691
Item 9 C.

GROVE LANE TO CORONADO ST
PREVIOUS DESIGN – COASTAL ALIGNMENT
Escalona
Gulch
Monarch Site
692
Item 9 C.

GROVE LANE TO CORONADO ST - PREVIOUS DESIGN
693
Item 9 C.

GROVE LANE TO CORONADO ST

PARK AVE ALIGNMENT
Escalona
Gulch
Monarch Site
694
Item 9 C.

GROVE LANE TO CORONADO ST

PARK AVE ALIGNMENT
695
Item 9 C.

GROVE LANE TO CORONADO ST

PARK AVE ALIGNMENT
696
Item 9 C.

GROVE LANE TO CORONADO ST

PARK AVE ALIGNMENT OPTIONS
• Option A – preserves
inland bike lane
• Option B – maximizes
use of ROW for trail
697
Item 9 C.

GROVE LANE TO CORONADO ST
PARK AVE ALIGNMENT – BIKE LANE ACCESS
Escalona
Gulch
Monarch Site
698
Item 9 C.

PARK AVE ALIGNMENT

OPTION B
Monterey to Grove Grove to Coronado
699
Item 9 C.

PROJECT BENEFITS
Team
700
Item 9 C.

Team

PROJECT BENEFITS
• 26,000 people live within a 10-minute walk of the project • 46,000 live within 1-mile 701
Item 9 C.

Team

PROJECT BENEFITS
• Trail traverses the entire length of the City
702
Item 9 C.

Team

PROJECT BENEFITS
• Directly connects to low-income areas of the community 703
Item 9 C.

Team

PROJECT BENEFITS
• Directly connects to existing and proposed affordable housing 704
Item 9 C.

Team

PROJECT BENEFITS
• Directly connects to schools, parks, and commercial centers 705
Item 9 C.

Team

PROJECT BENEFITS
• Directly connects to libraries, community centers, senior centers and clinics 706
Item 9 C.

NEXT STEPS
Team
• Additional Environmental Review
• Return for EIR Acceptance in Summer
707
Item 9 C.

Park Ave Traffic Calming & Rail Trail
Measure L (CMC Chapter 8.72)
• Approved by Capitola voters in 2018
• Codified in Chapter 8.72 of the Municipal Code
Measure L
• Support active transportation in the rail corridor and enhance safety for pedestrians and cyclists
Purpose
• Preserve & utilize the Corridor & Trestle for active transportation & recreation • No City Funds for trail detours onto Capitola streets/sidewalks Key Provisions (CMC § 8.72.040)
708
Item 9 C.

Park Ave Traffic Calming
& Rail Trail
Fiscal Impact
• City Budget: $100K allocated
for Traffic Calming; $80.5K
remaining
• No City funds required for
Coastal Rail Trail
improvements
• Estimated cost of new active
transportation/recreation
trail along Park Ave: $3M–$5M
709
Item 9 C.

Park Ave Traffic Calming
& Rail Trail
Next Steps
• Council to select preferred
alignment
• Proceed with additional
environmental review
• Return in Summer 2025 for
Final EIR review
• Finalize design and
coordinate construction
timeline
710
Item 9 C.

Park Ave Traffic
Calming & Rail Trail
Recommendation
• City staff recommends Option A -
Preserves the Class II bike lane for
direct cyclist access
• RTC & County staff recommend
Option - B Maximizes right-of-way,
reduces costs and environmental
impacts
Approve Park Avenue
Coastal Rail Trail
• $80,500 can be used for alternative
street-related expenditures
Defer Traffic Calming
Project
711
Item 9 C.

Capitola City Council
Agenda Report
Meeting: February 13, 2025
From: City Manager Department
Subject: Appointments to City and Regional Advisory Bodies Recommended Action: Review City Council appointments to regional and multi-jurisdictional advisory bodies; review City Council appointments to City advisory bodies; and review appointments of members of the public to City advisory bodies.

Background: On January 16th and 30th, the City Council made appointments of members of the public to City advisory bodies and appointed City Council Members to represent Capitola on regional and multijurisdictional advisory bodies.

While most of the vacancies have been filled, there remains a need to appoint a City Council representative to the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments.

Discussion: Staff recommends that the City Council review all current appointments.

Applications from members of the public for the City’s advisory bodies remain on file for one year. Current applications can be found at the link listed as Attachment 3.

Fiscal Impact: None.

Attachments:

1. City Advisory Body Appointments

2. Regional Advisory Body Appointments

3. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/fz7gttmk1ubx1tal7icwa/ABeBTms6StmusROjybP57s?rlkey=b5wxl9umzysyfo0ur1512stih&st=wwztbwbl&dl=0 Report Prepared By: Julia Gautho, City Clerk
Approved By: Jamie Goldstein, City Manager
712
Item 9 D.
2025 COUNTY/MULTI-COUNTY BOARDS

CAPITOLA REPRESENTATIVES LIST
Name of Board – Meeting Information Capitola Representative(s) Advisory Council of the Area Agency
on Aging -Seniors Council of
Santa Cruz & San Benito
Counties
(Meets: 2nd Wednesday of each month
except for August and December, at 10
AM in Aptos)
No Alternate, No Term Limits.

Recommended to review appts. every 2
years.
 Gerry Jensen (Appt. Jan. 25)
Arts Council Santa Cruz County
(Meeting dates are variable;
Wednesdays 4:30-6:30 PM)
Not a dedicated Capitola seat
No Alternate. No Term Limits
 Roy Johnson (A&C) (Appt. Jan.
24)
Association of Monterey Bay Area
Governments (AMBAG)
▲ ♦
(Meets: 2nd Wednesday of each month at
6 PM in Monterey)
No Term Limits. Recommended to review
appts. every 2 years.
 Vacant (formerly Yvette Brooks)
 Melinda Orbach (Alternate)
Bicycle Advisory Committee of the
SCCRTC
(Santa Cruz County Regional
Transportation Commission)
2-year term, expires 2025
 Paula Bradley (Appt. Feb. 24)
 Alternate: Christopher O’Connell
(Appt. Jan. 25)
Recruited through RTC, City Council
reviews applications and provides
nomination.

Capitola Community Safety
Foundation
No Alternate, No Term Limits, no fixed
term
 Joe Clarke (Appt. Dec. 24)
Central Coast Community Energy
Policy Board
(Meets: Meeting dates are variable,
virtual option in SC County)
Shared seat with Scotts Valley, Chosen by
City Selection, No Term Limits. Terms last
2 years.
 Yvette Brooks (Appt. Dec. 24)
 Vacant (Alternate)
Community Action Board of Santa
Cruz County
(Meets: 3rd Wednesday of each month at
6:15 PM)
2-year terms
 Kristen Brown (Appt. Jan. 25)
Community Television of Santa Cruz
County Board of Directors
(Meets: Monthly at 5:30 PM)
 Chloe Woodmansee, Assistant to
the City Manager
713
Item 9 D.
2025 COUNTY/MULTI-COUNTY BOARDS CAPITOLA REPRESENTATIVES 2 Criminal Justice Council of Santa
Cruz County ♦
(Meets: Quarterly at 3 PM)
2 seats, 1 Council and 1 Council, CM, or
ACM
Review following seating of new Council
 Joe Clarke (Appt. Dec. 24)
 Gerry Jensen
LAFCO (Local Agency Formation
Commission) ▲ ♦
(Meets: 1st Wednesday of each month
except for July, at 9 AM in the County
Board of Supervisors Chambers, 701
Ocean Street, Santa Cruz)
Share voting seat with Scotts Valley. Exofficio when not holding voting seat. 2- year terms. Term ends 2027.
 Joe Clarke (Appt. Jan. 25)
League of California Cities
(Meets: Monterey Bay Division meets
on the 1st Monday of every other month
at 7 PM at various locations.)
Open to All Council Members
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution
Control District (MBUAPCD)▲
(Meets: 3rd Wednesday of each month
at 1:30 PM at the District Office: 24580
Silver Cloud Ct., Monterey)
Chosen by Selection Committee, rotates
between all cities in County. Council
should review and recommend every 2
years.

Gerry Jensen (Appt. Jan. 25)
Santa Cruz County Children’s
Network
(Meets five times a year at noon in the
County Office of Education)
No Term Limits. Council should review
and recommend every 2 years.
 Melinda Orbach (Appt. Jan. 25)
Santa Cruz County Conference &
Visitors Council
(Meets: Last Wednesday at 3:00 PM
every other month except for November
when meeting is TBD, at Goodwill
Industries, 350 Encinal Street, Santa
Cruz)
Chosen by City Selection Committee, rotates
between Cap, Wat, SV. Council should review
and recommend every 2 years.

Not currently Capitola
714
Item 9 D.
2025 COUNTY/MULTI-COUNTY BOARDS CAPITOLA REPRESENTATIVES 3 Santa Cruz County Flood Control &
Water
Conservation District, Zone 5
▲ ♦
(Meets: Quarterly on the 4th Tuesday at
10 AM in the County Board of
Supervisors Chambers, 701 Ocean
Street)
Council to review appointments annually
 Joe Clarke (Appt. Dec. 24)
 Melinda Orbach (Alternate)
Santa Cruz County Hazardous
Materials Advisory Commission
(Meets: 4th Wednesday of every other
month at 9 AM at Capitola City Hall
Community Room)
Four-year term expires in April 2027
 Nicholas Brown (Appt. Apr. 23)
Santa Cruz County Library Financing
Authority ♦
(Meets: Semi-annually, in January and
June, Main Library)
Council to review appointments annually
 Melinda Orbach (Appt. Dec. 24)
 Joe Clarke (Alternate)
Santa Cruz Public Libraries Library
Advisory Commission
(Meets: Monday evenings, various
branches)
4-year term, expires March 2027
 Mike Termini (Appt. Jan. 23)
Recruited through Library, City Council
reviews applications and provides
appointment.

Santa Cruz Public Libraries Joint
Powers Authority Board ▲ (LJPA)
(Meets: 1st Monday of each month at
7:30 PM at the Main Library
Community Room)
City Manager is appointed by JPA
 Jamie Goldstein
Santa Cruz County Integrated Waste
Management Local Task Force
(Meets: Quarterly)
 Erika Senyk (Appt. Dec. 24)
 Alexander Pedersen (Alternate)
Santa Cruz County Regional
Transportation Commission
(SCCRTC) ▲ ■
(Meets: 1st Thursday of each month
except for July, at 9 AM at various
locations)
No Term Limits. Council should review
and recommend every 2 years.
 Alexander Pedersen (Appt. Dec.
24)
 Joe Clarke (Alternate)
715
Item 9 D.
2025 COUNTY/MULTI-COUNTY BOARDS CAPITOLA REPRESENTATIVES 4 Santa Cruz County Sanitation District
▲ ♦
(Meets: 1st & 3rd Thursday of each
month at 4:45 PM at the East Cliff
Pumping Station on Lode St., Santa
Cruz)
Council to review appointments annually
 Joe Clarke (Appt. Dec. 24)
 Gerry Jensen (Alternate)
Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit
District Board ▲ ■
(Meets: 3rd Friday of each month at
8:15 AM at various locations)
Four-year term, expires December 31,
2024
 Melinda Orbach (Appt. Dec. 24)
 Alexander Pedersen (alternate)
Santa Cruz Regional 911 Board▲
(Meets: Every other month at 1:30 PM)
City Manager is appointed
 Jamie Goldstein, City Manager
Housing for Health Partnership
Policy Board
Two-year term, rotates with Scotts Valley, term
expires Fall 2026
Not currently Capitola
Santa Cruz County Animal Services
Agency
Chief Ryan
▲ = Members are required to File Statements of Economic Interest, Form 700 ■ = Members are required to complete AB 1234 Ethics Training ♦ = Council Member appointment required
Revised: 1/31/2025 JG
716
Item 9 D.

CITY OF CAPITOLA
2025 Local Appointments List of Boards, Commissions, and Committees

NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
[Chapter 11, §54972 of the California Government Code]
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Capitola encourages public participation in local government through its advisory bodies. These boards, commissions, and committees deal with a variety of issues and make recommendations to the City Council. All persons interested in serving on any committee shall submit to the City Clerk a boards and commissions application. The City may appoint community members to represent it on the boards of other agencies. Interested persons are encouraged to visit the City’s website at www.CityofCapitola.org. ▲ = Members are required to File Statements of Economic Interest, Form 700 ■ = Members are required to complete AB 1234 Ethics Training  = Committee also may include non-voting youth members Name of Board/Commission/ Committee
– Membership Information
Community Members & Term Expirations
Art & Cultural Commission ▲ 
Commission members have an interest in
promoting the arts and public art projects within
the City.
9 Members
2-Year Term
Membership: 1 City Council member; 1 Planning
Commissioner; 1 artist/arts organization
representative; 1 arts professional and 5 at-large
members. Members are preferably residents of
Capitola who are 18 years of age or older and
may be reappointed for successive 2-year terms
with a maximum of 3 terms.

Meets: 2
nd Tuesday of each month at 6:30
p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers
Incumbents with Expiring Terms Appointed Expires
Mary Beth Cahalen [At Large
Member]
1/16/25 12/31/26
Esther Sylvan [At Large Member] 1/16/25 12/31/26
Laurie Hill [At Large Member] 1/16/25 12/31/26
Jill Payonzeck-Lengre [At Large
Member]
1/16/25 12/31/26
Karin Anderson [At Large Member] 1/30/25 12/31/26
Roy Holmberg [Artist] 1/16/25 12/31/26
Roy Johnson [Art Professional] 1/16/25 12/31/26
Joe Clarke [Council Rep.] 12/12/24 12/31/26
Courtney Christiansen [Planning
Rep.]
1/22/25 12/31/26
Commission on the Environment 
Commission members have an interest in
protecting and enhancing the City’s natural
environment.
5 Members
2-Year Term
Membership: 1 City Council member and 1
appointee from each of the remaining 4 City
Council members. Members are preferably
residents of Capitola who are 18 years of age or
older.

Meets: A minimum of 4 times a year as
needed on the 4th Wednesday of a month at
6 p.m. in the City Hall Community Room
Incumbents with Expiring Terms Appointed Expires
Melinda Orbach [Council Rep.] 12/12/24 12/2026
Michelle Beritzhoff-Law [Morgan
Appointee]
1/30/25 12/31/26
Dennis Norton [Jensen Appointee] 1/30/25 12/31/26
Michael Maroney [Pedersen
Appointee]
1/30/25 12/31/26
John Mulry [Clarke Appointee] 1/30/25 12/31/26
717
Item 9 D.

This local appointments list shall remain posted until 12/31/2025. ▲ = Members are required to File Statements of Economic Interest, Form 700 ■ = Members are required to complete AB 1234 Ethics Training  = Committee also may include non-voting youth members Finance Advisory Committee 
The Committee provides financial and budget
alternatives and advice to the City Council.
7 Members
2-Year Term
Membership: Mayor and Vice Mayor (or other
appointed Council Members); 1 appointee from
each of the remaining 3 City Council members,
and 1 or 2 Capitola Businessperson/Capitola
Resident representing the business community
as recommended by the Capitola Soquel
Chamber of Commerce. Council appointees must
be City residents.

Meets: 3rd Tuesday of every other
month at 6 p.m. in the City
Hall Council Chambers
Incumbents with Expiring Terms Appointed Expires
Joe Clarke [Mayor] 1/30/2025 12/2026
Alexander Pedersen [Vice Mayor] 1/30/2025 12/2026
Emeline Nguyen [Council
Appointee]
1/30/2025 12/2026
Keith Cahalen [Council Appointee] 1/30/2025 12/2026
Anthony Rovai [Council Appointee] 1/30/2025 12/2026
Leslie Nielsen [Business Rep.] 1/30/2025 12/2026
Matt Arthur [Business Rep.] 1/30/2025 12/2026
Historical Museum Board 
Board members have an interest in preservation
and promotion of the City’s history and oversee
operations of the Historical Museum.
7 Members
3-Year Term
Membership: Preferably City residents, 18 years
of age or older.

Meets: 1st Thursday of each month at
5:30 p.m. in the Community Room
Incumbents with Expiring Terms Appointed Expires
Emmy Mitchell-Lynn [President] 8/25/22 6/30/25
Roger Wyant [Vice President] 1/12/23 6/30/27
Gordon Van Zuiden [At Large
Member]
8/25/22 6/30/25
Enrique Dolmo [At Large Member] 1/12/23 6/30/25
Antonia Alldredge [At Large
Member]
7/25/24 6/30/27
Brian Legakis [At Large Member] 7/25/24 6/30/27
Vacant [At Large Member] 6/30/25
Planning Commission ▲ ■
The Commission issues development permits on
behalf of the City Council and advises the City
Council on land use and policy issues.
5 Members
2 -Year Terms
Membership: 5 individual council appointees.

Meets: 1st Thursday of each month at
7 p.m. in the City Hall Council
Chambers
Incumbents with Expiring Terms Appointed Expires
Courtney Christiansen [Brooks
Appointee]
12/12/24 12/31/26
Matthew Howard [Clarke
Appointee]
12/12/24 12/31/26
Susan Westman [Jensen
Appointee]
12/12/24 12/31/26
Nathan Kieu [Orbach Appointee] 12/12/24 12/31/26
Paul Estey [Pedersen Appointee] 12/12/24 12/31/26
Posted January 31, 2025
Julia Gautho, City Clerk
420 Capitola Avenue, Capitola, CA 95010
(831) 475-7300
718
Item 9 D.

Capitola City CouncilFebruary 13, 2025

Capitola City Council
February 13, 2025