Agenda packet — Capitola City Council, February 13, 2025 (part 1 of 3)

REVISED 2/13/2025 4:14 PM
City of Capitola
City Council Meeting Agenda
Thursday, February 13, 2025 – 6:00 PM
City Council Chambers
420 Capitola Avenue, Capitola, CA 95010
201 ʻŌhua Avenue, Honolulu, Hawaii 96815
Mayor: Joe Clarke
Vice Mayor: Alexander Pedersen
Council Members: Gerry Jensen, Margaux Morgan, Melinda Orbach Closed Session – 5 PM
Closed Sessions are not open to the public and held only on specific topics allowed by State Law (noticed below). An announcement regarding the items to be discussed in Closed Session will be made in the City Hall Council Chambers prior to the Closed Session. Members of the public may, at this time, address the City Council on closed session items only. There will be a report of any final decisions in City Council Chambers during the Open Session Meeting.
i. CONERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Gov. Code § 54957.6) Negotiator: Jamie Goldstein, City Manager
Employee Organizations: Police Officers Association
ii. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Gov’t Code § 54956.8) Property: Esplanade Park (APN 035-26-209)
City Negotiator: Jamie Goldstein, City Manager
Under Negotiation: Lease of Real Property
Regular Meeting of the Capitola City Council – 6 PM
All correspondence received prior to 5:00 p.m. on the Wednesday preceding a Council Meeting will be distributed to Councilmembers to review prior to the meeting. Information submitted after 5 p.m. on that Wednesday may not have time to reach Councilmembers, nor be read by them prior to consideration of an item.

1. Roll Call and Pledge of Allegiance
Council Members Gerry Jensen, Margaux Morgan, Melinda Orbach, Alexander Pedersen, and Mayor Joe Clarke.

2. Additions and Deletions to the Agenda

3. Presentations
Presentations are limited to eight minutes.

A. Presentation - Project Completion of the Monte Foundation Pump Track

4. Report on Closed Session

5. Additional Materials
Additional information submitted to the City after distribution of the agenda packet.

A. Item 6 - Correspondence Received
1 City Council Meeting Agenda – February 13, 2025
City of Capitola Page 2
B. Item 9A - Staff Memo Continuing the Item to Another Meeting Date & Correspondence Received
C. Item 9B - Staff Memo Continuing the Item to Another Meeting Date & Correspondence Received
D. Item 9C - Correspondence Received
E. Item 9D - Correspondence Received

6. Oral Communications by Members of the Public
Oral Communications allows time for members of the Public to address the City Council on any “Consent Item” on tonight’s agenda, or on any topic within the jurisdiction of the City that is not on the “General Government/Public Hearings” section of the Agenda. Members of the public may speak for up to three minutes, unless otherwise specified by the Mayor. Individuals may not speak more than once during Oral Communications. All speakers must address the entire legislative body and will not be permitted to engage in dialogue. A maximum of 30 minutes is set aside for Oral Communications.

7. Staff / City Council Comments
Comments are limited to three minutes.

8. Consent Items
All items listed as “Consent Items” will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion on these items prior to the time the Council votes on the action unless members of the City Council request specific items to be discussed for separate review. Items pulled for separate discussion will be considered following General Government. Note that all Ordinances which appear on the public agenda shall be determined to have been read by title and further reading waived.

A. City Council Meeting Minutes
Recommended Action: Approve minutes from the regular meeting on January 30, 2025, and the special meeting on February 4, 2025.

B. 2025 City Council Meeting Schedule
Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution amending the regular meeting schedule for 2025.

9. General Government / Public Hearings
All items listed in “General Government / Public Hearings” are intended to provide an opportunity for public discussion of each item listed. The following procedure pertains to each General Government item: 1) Staff explanation; 2) Council questions; 3) Public comment; 4) Council deliberation; 5) Decision.

A. Bay Avenue Corridor Study
Recommended Action: Staff recommends the City Council 1) identify Alternative 2 as the preferred long-term improvement alternative for the Bay Avenue corridor; 2) authorize staff to proceed with public engagement and conceptual design refinement; and 3) direct staff to pursue grant funding opportunities for final design and construction. (Continued to February 27, 2025) B. Bay Avenue and Hill Street Traffic Safety Update
Recommended Action: Provide direction on short-term modifications to the Bay Avenue and Hill Street intersection. (Continued to February 27, 2025)
C. Park Avenue Traffic Calming Improvements with Coastal Rail Trail Options 2 City Council Meeting Agenda – February 13, 2025
City of Capitola Page 3
Recommended Action: Review options for Coastal Rail Trail improvements in the Park Avenue right-of-way and identify Option A (as described in the staff report) as the preferred alternative for further analysis.

D. 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.

10. Adjournment - The next regularly scheduled City Council meeting is on February 27, 2025, at 6:00 PM.
_____________________________________________________
How to View the Meeting
Meetings are open to the public for in-person attendance at the Capitola City Council Chambers located at 420 Capitola Avenue, Capitola, California, 95010.

Other ways to Watch:

Spectrum Cable Television channel 8
City of Capitola, California YouTube Channel
To Join Zoom Application or Call in to Zoom:

Meeting
link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83328173113?pwd=aVRwcWN3RU03Zzc2dkNpQzRWVXAydz09 Or dial one of these phone numbers: 1 (669) 900 6833, 1 (408) 638 0968, 1 (346) 248 7799 Meeting ID: 833 2817 3113
Meeting Passcode: 678550
How to Provide Comments to the City Council
Members of the public may provide public comments to the City Council in-person during the meeting.

If you are unable to attend in-person, please email your comments to [email protected] and they will be included as a part of the record for the meeting. Please be aware that the City Council will not accept comments via Zoom.

Notice regarding City Council: The City Council meets on the 2nd and 4th Thursday of each month at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 420 Capitola Avenue, Capitola.

Agenda and Agenda Packet Materials: The City Council Agenda and the complete Agenda Packet are available for review on the City’s website and at Capitola City Hall prior to the meeting. Need more information? Contact the City Clerk’s office at 831-475-7300.

Agenda Materials Distributed after Distribution of the Agenda Packet: Pursuant to Government Code §54957.5, materials related to an agenda item submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at the Reception Office at City Hall, 420 Capitola Avenue, Capitola, California, during normal business hours.

Americans with Disabilities Act: Disability-related aids or services are available to enable persons with a disability to participate in this meeting consistent with the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Assisted listening devices are available for individuals with hearing impairments at the meeting in the City Council Chambers. Should you require special accommodations to participate in the meeting due to a disability, please contact the City Clerk’s 3 City Council Meeting Agenda – February 13, 2025
City of Capitola Page 4
office at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting at 831-475-7300. In an effort to accommodate individuals with environmental sensitivities, attendees are requested to refrain from wearing perfumes and other scented products.

Si desea asistir a esta reunión pública y necesita ayuda - como un intérprete de lenguaje de señas americano, español u otro equipo especial - favor de llamar al Departamento de la Secretaría de la Ciudad al 831-475-7300 al menos tres días antes para que podamos coordinar dicha asistencia especial o envié un correo electrónico a [email protected].

Televised Meetings: City Council meetings are cablecast “Live” on Charter Communications Cable TV Channel 8 and are recorded to be rebroadcasted at 8:00 a.m. on the Wednesday following the meetings and at 1:00 p.m. on Saturday following the first rebroadcast on Community Television of Santa Cruz County (Charter Channel 71 and Comcast Channel 25). Meetings are streamed “Live” on the City’s website by clicking on the Home Page link “Meeting Agendas/Videos.” Archived meetings can be viewed from the website at any time. 4 MCGREGOR PARK

PUMPTRACK
5 Item 3 A.

PREVIOUS USE
6 Item 3 A.

CONSTRUCTION 2024
7 Item 3 A.

CURRENT
USE
8 Item 3 A.

THANKS
9 Item 3 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Michael routh <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 8, 2025 5:33 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Cell phone use during meeting
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CommunicaƟons for 2/13/25 council mtg
Council members,
Its become apparent the Council member Orbach rouƟnely observes her cell phone during meeƟngs. It raises quesƟons - is she receiving texts suggesƟng how she responds to specific issues? This appears to border on violaƟons of the Brown Act, having predetermined how she will vote on public hearing items before the council. Any communicaƟons teceived during the course of a meeƟng should be revealed as part of the public record.

I would request the Mayor and Council add a ban on cell phone use by the council during meeƟng to their ethics policy.

Mick Routh
Sent from my iPhone
10 Item 5 A.

Memo
To: City Council
From: Jessica Kahn, Public Works Director
Date: February 13, 2025
Re: Items 9A (Bay Avenue Corridor Study) and 9B (Bay Avenue and Hill Street Traffic Safety Update)
Staff recommends continuing Items 9A (Bay Avenue Corridor Study) and 9B (Bay Avenue and Hill Street Traffic Safety Update) to the City Council meeting scheduled for February 27, 2025, to allow for additional public outreach. Staff is arranging meetings with local businesses to gather feedback. These items will return to the Council with updated public input at the rescheduled meeting date.

Any public comments received on the items will be included in the agenda packet for the rescheduled meeting date.

Public Works Department
11 Item 5 B.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: John <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2025 4:33 PM
To: City Council; Gautho, Julia
Subject: Item 8A 8B 8C 8D
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hey Neighbors
8A A roundabout is the gold standard and the only non flow interrupƟve opƟon. Less traffic, shorter pedestrian crossings, will help with e-bikes on the main school route. We will get the money for this in state grants it’s not that much and the state Loves roundabouts.

Please choose opƟon 2.
8B whatever we do, please do not make it a two car drag race towards the senior housing complex. It’s the major school route. It’s already dangerous as is.

Make it a forced right turn into Nob Hill at the main entrance. It was nice having a mildly safe street there. I walk there oŌen as Dancecenter a 40 year old business catering to children is right there too. Path to the library. Do your best.

Raised Crosswalks there across Bay Ave and then at Fanmar/Escalona and Monterey Ave (the rail trail as it will soon be) ever my dream. Cheap too.
8C not AlternaƟve 1
Staff is making a good rec here. We save a ton of money as a county, leaves the track area in beƩer shape for a train.

Most of the trail will be diverted from the corridor in Capitola already. 100%ish. Why not here too.

I suggest a class IV bike lane. We will get money for it. Great long term ROI on such a project these days. Plus Rail Trail is supposed to be Class I. We deserve at least a IV there to honor the voters (minus Measure L). 8D Looks exciƟng to me.
nulla trahenƟum per villa JM
12 Item 5 B.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: John <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 11:17 AM
To: City Council; Gautho, Julia; Goldstein, Jamie ([email protected]) Subject: Follow up Bay through Park
Neighbors
This is our main school route and the primary arterial through the lower village. Bay/Hill, Bay/ Capitola, and preƩy much all of Park are quite dangerous. A rail trail through the Lower Village on Sharrows won’t help maƩers.

Bay/Hill needs permanent calming. Raised crosswalks. Real curb bulb outs. Less conflicts and a forced right turn into Nob Hill minimum. This is a cheap date.

Bay/Capitola needs a roundabout. State will pay. We already invested a bunch. That intersecƟon screams roundabout.

We’ll prob get an award for it.

The goal should be wider sidewalks. Bollards everywhere (like Gayle’s parking lot and building has). Shorter crossings.

And then comes Class IV bike lanes on all major routes. Protected and Connected bike lanes show true demand. Solves the e-bike thing a liƩle too. Folks always so worried about that one.

But the real key is always slowing the cars down. Park is a drag track with a roller coaster used by commuters and zoom zoomers and kids. Let’s slow it down with a median. We will get that paid for too by RTC.

Be smart. Make the city livable for residents. Solve the demo crisis. Solves the budget one.

Warmly JM
13 Item 5 B.

Any public comments received on the items will be included in the agenda packet for the rescheduled meeting date.

Public Works Department
14 Item 5 C.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: John <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2025 4:33 PM
To: City Council; Gautho, Julia
Subject: Item 8A 8B 8C 8D
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hey Neighbors
8A A roundabout is the gold standard and the only non flow interrupƟve opƟon. Less traffic, shorter pedestrian crossings, will help with e-bikes on the main school route. We will get the money for this in state grants it’s not that much and the state Loves roundabouts.

Please choose opƟon 2.
8B whatever we do, please do not make it a two car drag race towards the senior housing complex. It’s the major school route. It’s already dangerous as is.

Most of the trail will be diverted from the corridor in Capitola already. 100%ish. Why not here too.

I have 3 kids. They are not allowed to ride their bikes or walk on Park Avenue because there are so many accidents on that road. It is dangerous! Having the trail on the rail will be so much safer for them and others. Thank you!
Omar Etcheverry

Oakley Sales Representative

OPTICAL & SUN SPECIALTY CHANNEL

CELL: (831) 234-1242
FAX: (831) 515-5006

Fast, easy, 24/7 online ordering: My.Luxottica.com. Take advantage of FREE shipping for any order placed—No minimums to qualify, and you’ll never miss out on sales in between my rep visits.

Luxottica Dealer Services: 1-800-422-2020, Monday-Friday 8am-8pm EST All Things Oakley Rx: Patient Calculator

DID YOU KNOW…you can earn a 2% discount when your invoice is paid within 10 days of the date issued?
Sent from my iPhone
16 Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Gary Sultana <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 12:15 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Coastal Rail Trail Options
Keep the trail on the rail corridor. SAFTEY FIRST. Ahead of private special interests.

Gary Sultana
17 Item 5 D.
2 Gautho, Julia
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 11:57 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Coastal Rail Trail Options
Just wriƟng to express my opinion that the trail on the rail corridor should remain there as planned and not move to a dangerous detour on Park Avenue.
thank you!
josh
18 Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: shahe moutafian <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 11:47 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Coastal Rail Trail
Dear council members,
I believe you have a responsibility to not allow diverting coastal trail travel by bicycle or foot onto unsafe Capitola village streets. The congestion which exists already will be magnified and increase the likelihood of accidents.

Although I think that it may be possible to provide a trail on the south side of Park Avenue, it is not an ideal route given the speeds at which cars travel on the roadway. There has been a history of nonenforcement of speed and noise infractions on this stretch of Park Avenue.

I am a proponent of converting the rail corridor to a safe trail for bikes and pedestrians. I believe with cost overruns ,environmental and safety concerns, the idea of a rail and trail in the existing corridor is an unrealistic endeavor.

Yours sincerely,
Shahe Moutafian, resident at 420 McCormick Ave, Capitola, CA 95010

19 Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Tati <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 11:39 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Rail trail
To whom it may concern,
I ride my bike through Capitola on a regular basis (commuting, riding for fun, as well as dining/shopping in Capitola Village). A Rail Trail detour on Park Avenue would be very dangerous to myself and many others.

Please keep the Rail Trail on the rail corridor as proposed.

Thanks,
Tatiana Lima
Sent from my iPad
20 Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: [email protected] on behalf of jeremy <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 11:17 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Coastal Rail Trail Options
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
To whom it may concern/RTCIn a suprise to absolutely no one, we cannot build both a train and a trail upon the railroad tracks through Capitola and the Boardwalk areas- addiƟonally, the costs for this train conƟnue to exorbitantly spiral out of control. A train requiring elevated tracks through the Boardwalk and Watsonville areas is bad enough- but now you want divert the “trail” onto city streets AND aƩempt to pass a sales tax to support it? A new sales tax?
In Santa Cruz?
With our rents, and PG&E bills that cost more than my car payment? You have known for YEARS this would be the outcome and have either lied to your public or at best done a monumentally poor job of communicaƟng this project’s cost/ limitaƟons.

The voters voted for a TRAIL. We never agreed to this.

Do your jobs. Be honest with the public, including the very disƟnct possibility that we can not- and never could! Actually build this train.

The Greenway organizaƟon has seen this coming for years without your delays and millions of dollars in “studies”.

Why didn’t our transportaƟon commiƩee?
Tell the truth.

Serve your public.

Be transparent.

Or resign.

Most sincerely,
Dr. Jeremy Orvik
Emergency Physician
And sick of this.

Build the trail- so that my daughter can ride a goddamned bike safely in the neighborhood she was born in.

Sent from my iPhone
21 Item 5 D.
2 Gautho, Julia
From: Jean Mahoney <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 11:15 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Coastal Rail Trail Options
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
The trail needs to be on the rail corridor, not on Park Avenue Jean Mahoney
22 Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Bill Gray <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 11:12 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Coastal Rail Trail Options
As a capitola resident, I am outraged that you would consider detouring trail traffic into the town. Voters were clear that bike traffic should not be detoured, rather it should continue to be routed over the trestle.

Stop this continued nonsense and follow the direction of the voters. Now.

Bill Gray
1440 Prospect Ave
Capitola
509/9919292
23 Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Peter Cook <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 10:43 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Coastal Rail Trail Options
Dear Capitola City Council,
It would be a huge mistake to put your section of trail through The Village and along Park Avenue. I live on the Westside where our trail is car free; it’s awesome!!! It is heavily used by cyclists as a transportation route including many children going to and from school. You definitely want a similar dedicated car free path in Capitola like we have on the Westside. My son uses the Westside path to and from school every day. I am very thankful that the Westside has this path.

Having bikes go through Capitola Village or on Park Avenue instead of on the rail corridor would be a huge mistake for several reasons. It would be less safe for cyclists and drivers. It would be unsafe for pedestrians in the Village. It would exacerbate traffic conditions in the village. It would direct more e-bikes through the village.

Having a path on the Capitola trestle would be a huge asset for the communities on both sides of the crossing. Residents in the Cliff Wood Heights neighborhood (and all resident further south) would have a great car free route to 41st, Pleasure Point and beyond.

As a Westside resident I would be much more likely to bike the path to south county if it was located on the trestle and along the rail corridor. If you put this path on city streets and through the crowded village my family will be much less inclined to use the path.

Having a cross-county path that is car free will be an incredible asset for our entire county.

Please don’t mess this up for everyone!!!!
Thank you.
24 Item 5 D.
2 25
Item 5 D.
3 Gautho, Julia
From: Steve Duke <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 10:49 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Coastal Rail Trail Options
Hello City Council,
I am a Capitola homeowner and voter and I do not support putting the rail trail bike portion onto Park Ave. Please do not approve this. It is unsafe and not what we supported on Measure L.

Thank you,
Steve Duke
916 Sir Francis Ave.

Capitola CA 95010
26 Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: kelly pelot <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 10:33 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I oppose the rail trail diversion
Dear City Council,
I oppose the plan to divert the bike path on to surface streets like Park ave. It’s already too busy and has been under intense, continual construction for many many months. (not to mention the whole area on Soquel Ave and Park due to numerous housing projects) .The plan for the interim trail which rail banks or lays the path over the tracks is more economical and safer.

Thank you for your time,
Kelly Pelot
Soquel resident who lives off Park Ave.
27 Item 5 D.
2 Gautho, Julia
From: Gayle Ortiz <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 10:30 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda item 9C
Dear Council,
I ask that you postpone this agenda item unƟl aŌer the RTC fiscal report comes out in late March.

From what I’ve heard, the findings in the report will make it virtually impossible for the rail/trail to be built. Why not wait to make such important decisions unƟl we know?
Thank you,
Gayle OrƟz
28 Item 5 D.
3 Gautho, Julia
From: david allen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 10:25 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Please keep the Rail Trail
Hi,
I ride my bike through Capitola on a regular basis (commuting, riding for fun, as well as dining/shopping in Capitola Village). A Rail Trail detour on Park Avenue would be very dangerous to myself and many others.

Please keep the Rail Trail as proposed on the rail corridor.

Thanks,
David Allen
29 Item 5 D.
4 Gautho, Julia
From: GARY CARR <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 9:53 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Please go for the interim trail
To the City Council,

Please make the interim trail happen! I am an Aptos resident and I am completely in favor of implementing the interim trail. I have been following this debate for years and I realize that "perfect is the enemy of good". Our communities need to get this trail in place. I am afraid that if we do not take action on the Interim Trail that the powers insisting on the gold plated version with imaginary trains will have effectively stopped all progress.

I am a walker and biker and am looking forward to the day my wife and I can jump on the trail across the street and ride our bikes to Capitola to have some great fish and chips at Britannia Arms - without ever having to get in my car. My wife can get hand made jewelry at Lumen Gallery as well. The positive benefit for residents and businesses seem obvious, and the delays help no one.

Thank you for your consideration,
Gary Carr
Aptos
30 Item 5 D.
5 Gautho, Julia
From: Rachel Adney <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 9:45 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Please vote for the interim trail option
It is my opinion that the Capitola City Council should reject the RTC's plan to reroute the trail onto surface streets. Instead, the RTC must advance the INTERIM Trail Option, which has been proposed as an alternative in the Environmental Impact Report. The INTERIM Trail Option will build the trail on the existing railbed, can be constructed at a fraction of the cost, is more environmentally friendly as it avoids clear-cutting trees, does not require eminient domain of private property, does not redirect the trail onto surface streets, converts the Capitola Trestle into a Trail, aligns with Measure L requirements, can be built without causing traffic disruptions and RTC has enough funding to complete the INTERIM Trail Option Segments 9-12.

Thank you,
Rachel Adney
31 Item 5 D.
6 Gautho, Julia
From: Jack Brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 9:30 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Upholding Measure L – Keep the Bike Trail on the Rail Corridor Jack Brown - Executive Director, Coastal Trail Conservancy of Santa Cruz County PO Box 1666
Aptos, CA 95003
[email protected] coastaltrail.org
February 11, 2025
Capitola City Council
Capitola City Hall
420 Capitola Ave
Capitola, CA 95010
Subject: Upholding Measure L – Keep the Bike Trail on the Rail Corridor Dear Mayor Clarke and Capitola City Council Members,
I am writing to express my organization's strong opposition to the RTC’s plan to divert the Coastal Rail Trail onto Capitola city streets and to urge you to uphold the will of the voters by ensuring the trail remains on the rail corridor, as affirmed by Measure L.

The residents of Capitola have already made their voices clear through Measure L, which explicitly supports keeping the trail on the rail corridor and protecting the integrity of our community’s transportation future. Any attempt to divert the trail onto our city streets disregards this democratic decision and poses significant safety, environmental, and economic concerns.

Safety Concerns
Diverting the trail onto city streets will increase conflicts between cyclists, pedestrians, and vehicles, particularly in high-traffic areas such as Capitola Village. A dedicated trail along the rail corridor ensures a safe, protected route for cyclists and pedestrians, reducing the risk of accidents and injuries.

Environmental and Community Impact
The rail corridor provides a unique, scenic, and uninterrupted greenway that supports sustainable transportation and recreational use. Moving the trail onto city streets would diminish the environmental benefits and discourage use by families, children, and seniors who seek a safe and peaceful path.

Additionally, increased bike and pedestrian traffic on city streets may lead to congestion and disrupt local businesses.

Extremely High Cost of Construction
32 Item 5 D.
7 The proposed diversion of the trail onto city streets would require the construction of a 1,500-foot retaining wall at an exorbitant cost. This unnecessary expenditure diverts crucial funds away from other pressing community needs while imposing a financial burden on taxpayers. Keeping the trail on the rail corridor is not only the safer and more logical choice but also the most fiscally responsible decision.

Based on prior poor estimation by the RTC, please take whatever financial number they provide and triple it, then double that number to account for the financing costs that will be borne from the expenditure.

Respecting Voter Intent
Measure L was passed by Capitola voters with a clear directive to keep the trail on the rail corridor.

Ignoring this mandate undermines public trust in local government and sets a troubling precedent. The City Council has a duty to respect and uphold the decisions made by its constituents.

I urge you to reject any proposal that diverts the trail onto Capitola streets and to advocate for a solution that aligns with Measure L. Please stand with the residents who voted to preserve the trail’s rightful place on the rail corridor. Your leadership in protecting this vision will be remembered as a commitment to safety, sustainability, and democratic integrity.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your decision that reflects the best interests of Capitola’s residents, the community of Santa Cruz County and future generations.

Sincerely,
Jack Brown
Executive Director - Coastal Trail Conservancy of Santa Cruz County 33 Item 5 D.
8 Gautho, Julia
From: Tim Brattan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 9:25 AM
To: City Council
Cc: Pedersen, Alexander; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Manu Koenig;
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Michael Rotkin; [email protected]; [email protected]; Sarah Christensen Subject: Build the Interim Trail Option
Dear Capitola City Council members,
I lived for many years in Pleasure Point and was a frequent Capitola visitor. I still frequent Capitola, both as a visitor from Santa Cruz and bike commuter forced to descend into the village, navigate through pedestrians and cars to then climb back out on Monterey and Park Ave next to fast moving vehicles.

What a shame the unused rail corridor and Capitola Trestle - by far the safest and most efficient way to walk/ride through town won’t be accessible to me and thousands of others because the RTC plans to divert us all onto unsafe streets. Most will continue to choose driving over riding because of this lack of safety.

The question for your Council is if the RTC’s plan is smart policy and allowable for use of the CTC grant money? The active transportation (ATP) funding application submitted to, and approved by CTC stated that:
“This project uses best practices to completely separate bicyclists and pedestrians from motor vehicle traffic constructing a 12-foot wide multiuse path in the rail right of way.”
The project is described to be 4.15 miles which is the whole length (sections 10 & 11) less the Capitola Trestle.

It looks like the RTC may have made a typo here because a “path” is required to have shoulders (2 feet each side). A 12-foot path creates a 16-foot wide trail - which is the width of the preferred “Interim Trail” that keeps the trail entirely within the corridor. Could CTC believe we’re building the Interim Trail?
The fact is that a train and trail don’t fit. You can’t have both. What could you get and what’s it going to cost? Can you pay for it? Is what the RTC is proposing a Class 1 trail that separates bikes, pedestrians and persons with a disability from cars? Is a Class 1 trail possible on 48th Ave, through the Village, or on Park Ave?
There is no evidence that a passenger train will ever run on the tracks. Not a single study has found a an in-county passenger train to be feasible, cost-effective or have enough ridership to impact existing traffic, and the upcoming ZEPRT study is even less likely to do so.

Your Council should reject the RTC's plan to reroute the trail onto surface streets, which would result in the Coastal Trail never existing within Capitola City limits, and move forward with the Interim Trail Option, which has been proposed as an alternative in the Environmental Impact Report for the Santa Cruz Coastal Trail.

The Interim Trail Option will construct the trail on the existing railbed at a fraction of the cost, is environmentally friendly as it avoids clearcutting trees, allows for future transit options on the corridor, does not require eminent domain of private property, does not redirect the trail onto surface streets, converts the Capitola Trestle into a Trail, can be built without causing traffic disruptions, AND RTC has enough funding to complete Segments 9-12.

Sincerely,
Tim Brattan
34 Item 5 D.
9 Gautho, Julia
From: Pacific Door <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 8:38 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Coastal Trail
City Council Members:

Please reject the RTC's plan to reroute the coastal trail onto surface streets.

Instead, the RTC should advance the Interim Trail Option, which has been proposed as an alternative in the Environmental Impact Report. The Interim Trail Option will build the trail on the existing railbed, can be constructed at a fraction of the cost, is environmentally friendly, avoids cutting so many trees, does not require eminient domain of private property, does not redirect the trail onto surface streets, converts the Capitola Trestle into a Trail, aligns with Measure L requirements, can be built without causing traffic disruptions and RTC has enough funding to complete the INTERIM Trail Option Segments 9-12.

Please do not let the RTC stop the construction of the Santa Cruz Coastal Trail through Capitola and please vote no to their proposed request to divert the Coastal Trail around Capitola City limits.

Please support the Interim trail option.

Thank you,
P.Purpuri
Soquel, CA
35 Item 5 D.
10 Gautho, Julia
From: Will Mayall <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:19 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Rail corridor is best way into the Village
Capitola City Council,
We raised our family in Cliffwood Heights and regularly walked into the Village. The unused rail corridor is by far the safest and most comfortable way to walk into town.

It makes no sense to consider an alternaƟve when there is no evidence that a passenger train will ever run on the tracks.

Not a single study has found a passenger train to be cost-effecƟve, and the upcoming study is even less likely to do so.

This is a strange Ɵme to consider such a complex and expensive issue, especially when the upcoming $9 million study will almost certainly confirm that our small county cannot afford a zero-emissions passenger train.

It is mind-bogglingly obvious that the rail corridor should be railbanked, which would legally protect it for future trains while allowing immediate use as a trail.

Yours,
Will Mayall
36 Item 5 D.
11 Gautho, Julia
From: Matteus Olmedo <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 6:37 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Park Avenue trail amendment
I am aware that the council is voting this Thursday regarding a design amendment that would allow the coastal trail to run along Park Ave. I beg the council to vote down this amendment and instead focus on a pedestrian/ bike only coastal trail that protects its users by keeping the trail far away from busy and dangerous streets. A pedestrian/bike trail can be built on the existing railbed, can be constructed at a fraction of the cost, is more environmentally friendly as it avoids clear-cutting trees, does not require eminent domain of private property, and does not redirect the trail onto surface streets. Thank you for your consideration. 37 Item 5 D.
12 Gautho, Julia
From: Brian Peoples <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 5:58 AM
To: City Council
Cc: Pedersen, Alexander; [email protected]; [email protected]; Kimberly De Serpa; Manu Koenig; [email protected]; [email protected]; Monica Martinez; [email protected]; Corey Aldridge; Brian Peoples Subject: Reject RTC Proposal to divert Coastal Trail around Capitola Capitola City Council,
The Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) has proposed to divert the Coastal Trail around Capitola because both the ULTIMATE Trail Option and train cannot co-exist along the corridor, legal challenges by adjacent privateproperty owners will delay trail for years, California Coastal Commission restrictions may prevent construction of the elevated walls that block beach access and the results of the RTC Rail study show that a new passenger train will never be viable along the Santa Cruz Coastal Corridor.

The Capitola City Council should reject the RTC's plan to reroute the trail onto surface streets, which would result in the Coastal Trail never existing within Capitola City limits. We ask the Capitola City Council to reject the RTC plan and recommend to the RTC that they move forward with the INTERIM Trail Option, which has been proposed as an alternative in the Environmental Impact Report for the Santa Cruz Coastal Trail.

The INTERIM Trail Option will build the trail on the existing railbed, can be constructed at a fraction of the cost, is more environmentally friendly as it avoids clear-cutting trees, allows for future transit options on the corridor, does not require eminent domain of private property, does not redirect the trail onto surface streets, converts the Capitola Trestle into a Trail, can be built without causing traffic disruptions and RTC has enough funding to complete the INTERIM Trail Option Segments 9-12.

Note that the INTERIM Trail Option was proposed by former RTC Executive Director Guy Preston as part of his recommendation to railbank the Santa Cruz Branch Line, which would preserve the railline as a publicly owned transportation asset. In addition, the Federal Railbanking process is a standard approach used by communities across the county to allow for reuse of abandoned railroad systems.  RTC Agenda Packet Recommended Plan: https://sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/2022-02-03-RTCagenda-packet.pdf  News Article: https://californialocal.com/localnews/santa-cruz/ca/article/show/3023-regional-transportationcommission-rail-banking/ Also, current RTC Executive Director Sarah Christensen recommended the Capitola Trestle be converted into a trail in September 2021:
 Reference:
o RTC Agenda Packet: https://sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/2021-09-02-RTC-agenda-packet.pdf Please do not let the RTC stop the construction of the Santa Cruz Coastal Trail through Capitola and vote no to their proposed request to divert the Coastal Trail around Capitola City limits.

Best regards,
Brian Peoples
38 Item 5 D.
13 39
Item 5 D.
14 Gautho, Julia
From: Gary Sultana <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2025 10:38 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Interim trail option now. Do not divert the trail onto city streets.

Gary Sultana
40 Item 5 D.
15 Gautho, Julia
From: MARK WEGRICH <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2025 9:03 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Interim Trail in Capitola
Your attention please,
Please support the Interim Trail at this Thursdays Council Meeting. The ultimate Trail is a County financial boondoggle. Reviewing the financial status of light rail systems across the country makes it clear Santa Cruz County is heading into a financial black hole to the financial benefit of consultants on the backs of taxpayers. It won't work and will destroy what should be a world class bike and pedestrian trail. Business in the Village will surge with the influx of visitors to experience the trail. Safety would be much improved over the current situation while the Ultimate Trail would worsen public safety. Every crossing poses a risk to pedestrians and cyclists. Does Capitola want to assume the risk of massive lawsuits that will inevitably follow?
Sincerely,
Mark Wegrich
524 Pine St.(Seacliff)
Aptos
41 Item 5 D.
16 Gautho, Julia
From: james cook <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2025 8:03 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Trail
Please o please keep us safe by providing a bike path that is separate from cars and can be built in a Ɵmely and affordable manner. Enough with the ulƟmate non sense. Interim now!!!! James cook
42 Item 5 D.
17 Gautho, Julia
From: chris amsden <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2025 7:50 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Park Avenue Traffic Calming Improvements with Coastal Rail Trail Options I am writing to express disappointment in the recommended actions of the City staff to divert what the citizens were promised as a "rail and trail" that ran along the coastal corridor and existing train tracks, to now be diverted onto Park Ave. 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.

Now, due to massive cost overruns and incompetence on the part of the County and RTC, the citizens of Capitola are expected to have Segments 10 and 11 of the Rail Trail diverted to the Park Ave. roadway that already has a perfectly functioning bike lane.

Capitola voters approved Measure L in 2018. Measure L is codified in Chapter 8.72 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. What is absolutely insulting is the City staff's argument that this detour "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". The intent in Measure L was clearly expressed y the voters - we do not want the "rail trail" being diverted through our city streets.

Please send a message to the County and RTC and say no to diverting the RTC's boondoggle "rail trail" onto Park Ave. Capitola should not suffer the consequences of their mismanagement and should not have the "rail trail" diverted through our city streets. Whether this be routing the trail through Capitola Village rather than across Soquel Creek Trestle, or creating a new path along Park Ave. that already has a bike lane.

Sincerely,
Chris Amsden
Phone: (408) 386-7484
43 Item 5 D.
18 Gautho, Julia
From: jennifer harris-anderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2025 7:19 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Rail Trail through Capitola
Council,
My great grandfather built a home on Blue Gum Ave a hundred years ago. I have been following the rail trail debate for a decade. Please do not approve a diversion of the trail within the Capitola city limits. As per usual, the City of Santa Cruz gets a dedicated trail while Mid-County, Capitola and points South get a fragmented, unsafe version. All because of exorbitant costs and the fallacy of a comuuter train that will serve only a privileged few. Capitola should demand that the RTC rail bank the corridor and build the a wider, conƟnuous trail down the center at a fracƟon of the cost, uƟlizing the Capitola Trestle and other constricted secƟons. Hundreds of communiƟes across the country have used rail banking as a soluƟon to acƟve transportaƟon. Rail banking protects the community from any right-of-way lawsuits and allows for a future train if decided upon by the ciƟzenry. Capitola could and should lead the way on this issue. Do the right thing and push back against the bullying tacƟcs of the RTC and the City of Santa Cruz.

Sincerely,
Buzz Anderson
831-566-2100
44 Item 5 D.
19 Gautho, Julia
From: Rob Martin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2025 6:58 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Coastal Trail
Dear City Council,
Please do not vote to run the coastal trail along Park Ave. This does not seem a good idea. We believe the most viable option is to proceed with the Interim Trail plan, as it can be constructed at a fraction of the cost, is more environmentally friendly as it avoids clear-cutting trees, does not require eminent domain of private property, does not redirect the trail onto surface streets, converts the Capitola trestle into a trail, can be built without causing traffic disruptions.

Sincerely,
Rob and Stella Martin
149 Farallon Ct.

Aptos 95003
45 Item 5 D.
20 Gautho, Julia
From: Jaakko Mella <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2025 6:31 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Rail and trail
Dear Capitola city council,
I would like to ask you to really consider SC RTC recommendation for a trail next to the road. Please don’t fall for trail only proposal. Let save the rail for future.

Thank you
Jaakko Mella
46 Item 5 D.
21 Gautho, Julia
From: Ann Benvenuti <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2025 6:23 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Reject re-routing
Please don’t allow this to happen our Cliffwood heights neighborhood has already been subjected to massive increases in traffic. Don’t dump pedestrians and cyclists on us. Enough is Enough! Ann BenvenuƟ Sent from my iPhone 47 Item 5 D.
22 Gautho, Julia
From: Dan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2025 6:17 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Proposed re-routing trail
As a homeowner near Park Av for over 28 years I strongly recommend that the council reject the re-rouƟng of trail into areas exisƟng streets. The streets are already overcrowded with traffic this would only make an exisƟng situaƟon even worse. Just look at all the recent traffic issues and efforts to remedy them. These are very controversial and now we are considering making it more congested. Mandatory rezoning will also create future increases in traffic. The only soluƟon is to allow the trail along the exisƟng rail and forget the stupid train at this Ɵme. It’s just common sense! Daniel BenvenuƟ.

Sent from my iPhone
48 Item 5 D.
23 Gautho, Julia
From: Mark Murphy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2025 5:45 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Keep the trail on the rail line through Capitola To Capitola City Council,
CiƟzens passed Measure L that states our Council members and city staff should not put any funds, Ɵme, effort into "ShiŌing" from the rail corridor on to our city streets.

It appears that those pushing for the “UlƟmate Trail ConfiguraƟon “ have no regard for an actual trail and instead would rather route bicycle and pedestrians onto Cliff Ave, through the village causing increased congesƟon and potenƟal for dangerous intersecƟons with vehicles. I strongly support a “trail on rail, interim trail” using the exisƟng trestle and not wasƟng millions of dollars for the hopes of having a commuter rail and no trail along this porƟon of the route.

Please, don’t vote to have the trail running through the already congested village.

Thanks for your consideraƟon.

Mark Murphy
426 Rosedale Ct
Capitola, CA 95010
49 Item 5 D.
24 Gautho, Julia
From: Glenda Luening <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2025 5:22 PM
To: City Council
Subject: No on Ultimate Trail
Enough with this costly boondoggle. Stop the bleed. Stop the cutting down of trees and ugly retaining walls for a train that is never coming.

Vote Yes on the Interim Trail.

Glenda Luening.
50 Item 5 D.
25 Gautho, Julia
From: Kevin Maguire <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2025 8:41 AM
To: City Council
Subject: [PDF] Fwd: 2.13.25 Council Meeting Agenda 9C: Park Avenue Traffic Calming Improvements with Coastal Rail Trail Options
Attachments: Fixed-Speed-Safety-Cameras.pdf
I encourage all of you on the City council to get on a bicycle and ride Park Ave, Ride on Monterey to Bay, ride in front of Gayles on a busy morning, Ride though the Village when there is traffic. You will see how this Painted line "Buffer" is not safe at all. Coming down Monterey to Bay, at 8 am, all those cars drive in the bike lane while turning right. In front of Gayles you go from a Bike lane, going 20 mph passing Cars that are stopped to then No bike lane, Cars parked in front of Gayles, and cars backed up at the stop sign, this is super Un-Safe and skecty. We need a dedicated Lane for bikes To and Thru the Stop sign! We need more LOCAL Input, a lot of us on connecting Streets didnt get a change to participate in the survey as you only sent it to previous recipients. We already have Cut through traiff issue! This Traffic Calming is the city's way to circumvent Measure L. Since council member are on the RTC, and voting for items that violate Measure L, that is not allowed. We will be requesting all meeting meetings from RTC past meetings to view Measure L violations.

The proposals to reduce speed "Traffic Diet" Doesnt address the removal of parking spots off street, it just mentions that there could be... Can you broadcast that point better to the community and residents on Park and connecting streets? What impact that will have and all of us! If 85% of drivers are speeding on Park, can we get Capitola Police Ticket data? Shouldnt CPD be station there all day long and write 100s of tickets!!??
Missing in the Peak traffic times is 7-8 AM and 5-6 PM data, which is truly the Peak times. And during those times, traffic is slow, so how is it that 85% of drivers are going 37 MPH? The Commute time with traffic backed up would skew/bring those averages down. So is it non peak hours 50% of those vehicles going 37 MPH? Or 85% of all traffic?
The latest survey was sent to people that took that before, so the rest of us never got this or an opportunity to give input. Thats not good!
I live on Monterey, and we have the same issue, and more Kids on bikes going to School. Lets make Monterey SAFE as Well!! I asked about Speed bumps and was told that is not allowed... But its allowed on Clares?
Traffic studies was from 2022, so that data is old and not reflect where we are today.

The proposed Traffic Calming doesn't address Coronado to Kennedy, Why not? That needs to be included for both directions for Bikes and Traffic Diet/calming efforts. 51 Item 5 D.
26 Class II Bike lanes is what we currently have in parts (Just a line) Some of these proposals reduces the Bike lane from 7 or 8 feet down to 5 feet with another 2 Foot 'Buffer" Line... Bike Safety laws says a car should give bikes 3 Feet! So making the Vehicle lane smaller and only having this 2 foot buffer violates that law.

Best for Safety would be a Class IV Dedicated Bike Lane with Physical Barriers. Class I is a mixed use Trail which is better than Class II. but with Bikes going 20-25 mph and people walking/running, its not the safest.

SF and San Jose are starting to implement Speed Cameras. That is really the main way to reduce speeds and make it safe. https://www.sfmta.com/blog/why-were-introducing-speed-safety-cameras-firstcalifornia Or have some police officers giving out 100s of tickets a day! Why are we not enforcing laws, if you are going over 25mph that should be a Ticket!! Why is SAFTEY not our top priority?? Here is the company SF and San Jose is using. Lets get a Demo of this, since we already have FLOCK Cameras, lets truely make it Safe!! The Traffic Diet will make it dangerous with that lane shift coming down hill, trying to control a vehicle, and narrow lanes, will give drivers anxiety! https://www.verramobility.com/government/speed-enforcement/ 52 Item 5 D.
27 - Kevin
53 Item 5 D.
54 Item 5 D.
28 Gautho, Julia
From: Kevin Maguire <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2025 8:29 AM
To: City Council
Subject: 2.13.25 Council Meeting Agenda 9C: Park Avenue Traffic Calming Improvements with Coastal Rail Trail Options
Capitola City Council Meeting 2.13.2025 Agenda Item 9C
Response Highlighting the City of Capitola's Attempt to Circumvent Measure L
Introduction This document outlines concerns regarding the City of Capitola’s approach to implementing traffic and trail improvements, which appear to circumvent Measure L’s clear mandate to maintain the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail (Trail) within the rail corridor and prohibit detours onto Capitola streets. The City’s use of the term "shifting" rather than "detour" seems to be a deliberate effort to find a legal loophole, undermining voter intent.

Key Points of Concern

1. Measure L’s Intent and Requirements
Measure L was enacted to protect and utilize the Santa Cruz Branch Line Rail Corridor for active transportation and recreation. It explicitly directs the City to:
• "Take all steps necessary to preserve and utilize the Corridor and Trestle for active transportation and recreation."
• "Prohibit the expenditure of any City funds or resources for the construction, operation, or maintenance of a detour of the Trail onto Capitola streets or sidewalks."【41†source】 .

The measure’s language clearly prioritizes keeping the Trail within the designated rail corridor.

2. City’s Use of "Shifting" as a Loophole
The City Council’s agenda report proposes moving the trail from the rail corridor to Park Avenue, describing this as "shifting" the alignment rather than a "detour"【40†source】 .

This semantic distinction is troubling because:
• A shift implies a permanent relocation, not a mere temporary adjustment. • Despite claiming otherwise, this shift fundamentally removes the Trail from its intended rail corridor alignment, placing it adjacent to and physically separated from Park Avenue.

By framing this as a cost-saving strategy, the City attempts to argue that the Trail has no "direct course" and thus cannot have a "detour." This interpretation is contrary to the spirit and clear intent of Measure L.

4. Traffic Diet as a Disguise for Bypassing Measure L
The City is attempting to disguise its efforts to bypass Measure L by incorporating a "Traffic Diet" on Park Avenue as part of the Coastal Rail Trail alignment shift. This strategy involves narrowing vehicle lanes by one foot each and reducing the size of Class II bike lanes【 40†source】 . However, this plan is unlikely to significantly reduce vehicle speeds, which contradicts the stated goal of improving traffic safety. Instead, the narrowed lanes may create new safety concerns by squeezing different modes of transportation closer together without providing a meaningful deterrent to speeding.

5. Conflict of Interest Concerns
It is important to question whether City Council members who also serve on the Board of the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) may face a conflict of interest when proposing or supporting efforts to bypass Measure L. The RTC’s role in funding and developing trail projects, including the proposed Park Avenue alignment, creates a potential conflict when council members vote on measures that could circumvent voterapproved mandates. Transparency and accountability are essential to ensure that decisions are made in the public’s best interest, without undue influence from overlapping roles.

6. Accountability Questions for the City To ensure the City’s compliance with Measure L’s requirements, the following questions should be posed to hold the City accountable:
• Preservation of the Rail Corridor: What specific steps has the City taken to preserve and utilize the Rail Corridor and Trestle for active transportation and recreation, as required by Measure L? Please provide documentation of these efforts.
• Expenditure of Resources: Has the City expended any funds or resources, including staff time, related to the proposed alignment shift to Park Avenue? If so, how is this expenditure justified given Measure L’s prohibition on funding for detours?
• Legal Interpretation: On what legal basis does the City differentiate "shifting" from "detouring" the Trail, and how does this interpretation align with the intent of Measure L?
• Environmental Impact: How has the City assessed the environmental impact of shifting the Trail to Park Avenue, and how does this align with Measure L’s preservation goals?
• Community Engagement: How has the City involved the community in discussions regarding this proposed alignment, and how has feedback been incorporated? • Traffic Safety Data: What evidence does the City have to support the claim that the Traffic Diet will significantly improve safety, given the minimal reduction in lane widths and Class II bike lane modifications?
• Transparency: Will the City commit to publishing detailed reports on its efforts to comply with Measure L and its rationale for the Park Avenue alignment?

7. Impact of the Proposed Realignment
• Loss of Rail Corridor Usage: The shift to Park Avenue undermines the vision of utilizing the rail corridor for continuous active transportation. 56 Item 5 D.
30 • Traffic and Safety Concerns: The relocation may increase interactions between trail users and vehicular traffic, contrary to Measure L’s safety goals. • Environmental Impact: Although the City claims reduced tree removals【 40†source】 , the environmental consequences of rerouting the trail and associated construction remain significant.

8. Legal and Community Implications The impartial analysis of Measure L already highlighted potential legal ambiguities and enforceability concerns【42†source】 . By exploiting these ambiguities, the City risks undermining public trust and voter intent. The community’s strong preference, as expressed in Vision Capitola 2016, was to use the Corridor for active transportation【41†source】 .

Recommendations

1. Adhere to Measure L: The City should honor the clear directive to keep the Trail within the rail corridor and avoid any actions that could be interpreted as circumventing this mandate.

2. Clarify Definitions: The City Council should engage with legal experts to clarify the definitions of "detour" and "shift" to prevent semantic loopholes from undermining voter-approved measures.

3. Community Engagement: Provide transparent updates and seek meaningful community input before making decisions that contradict Measure L’s objectives.

4. Alternative Cost Solutions: Explore innovative solutions to reduce construction costs within the rail corridor without relocating the Trail to city streets.

Conclusion
The City’s attempt to "shift" the Trail alignment to Park Avenue is a thinly veiled effort to bypass Measure L’s prohibition on detours. Incorporating a "Traffic Diet" as part of this strategy does little to meaningfully improve traffic safety and instead risks creating additional hazards. Potential conflicts of interest involving City Council members who also serve on the RTC further undermine public trust. Upholding the spirit and intent of Measure L is essential to maintaining public trust and ensuring that Capitola remains committed to safe, sustainable, and voter-approved transportation solutions.

Capitola Resident
Kevin Maguire
57 Item 5 D.
31 Gautho, Julia
From: John <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2025 4:45 PM
To: City Council; Gautho, Julia
Subject: I meant 9 Julia Re: Item 8A 8B 8C 8D
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
I read this stuff on the quick. My Ɵme is highly limited.

Warmly JM
> On Feb 7, 2025, at 4:33 PM, John <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hey Neighbors
>
> 8A A roundabout is the gold standard and the only non flow interrupƟve opƟon. Less traffic, shorter pedestrian crossings, will help with e-bikes on the main school route. We will get the money for this in state grants it’s not that much and the state Loves roundabouts.
>
> Please choose opƟon 2.
>
>
>
> 8B whatever we do, please do not make it a two car drag race towards the senior housing complex. It’s the major school route. It’s already dangerous as is.
>
> Make it a forced right turn into Nob Hill at the main entrance. It was nice having a mildly safe street there. I walk there oŌen as Dancecenter a 40 year old business catering to children is right there too. Path to the library. Do your best. >
> Raised Crosswalks there across Bay Ave and then at Fanmar/Escalona and Monterey Ave (the rail trail as it will soon be) ever my dream. Cheap too.
>
>
>
> 8C not AlternaƟve 1
> Staff is making a good rec here. We save a ton of money as a county, leaves the track area in beƩer shape for a train.

Most of the trail will be diverted from the corridor in Capitola already. 100%ish. Why not here too. >
> I suggest a class IV bike lane. We will get money for it. Great long term ROI on such a project these days. Plus Rail Trail is supposed to be Class I. We deserve at least a IV there to honor the voters (minus Measure L). >
>
>
> 8D Looks exciƟng to me.
>
>
>
58 Item 5 D.
32 > nulla trahenƟum per villa JM
>
59 Item 5 D.
33 Gautho, Julia
From: John <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2025 4:33 PM
To: City Council; Gautho, Julia
Subject: Item 8A 8B 8C 8D
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hey Neighbors
8A A roundabout is the gold standard and the only non flow interrupƟve opƟon. Less traffic, shorter pedestrian crossings, will help with e-bikes on the main school route. We will get the money for this in state grants it’s not that much and the state Loves roundabouts.

Please choose opƟon 2.
8B whatever we do, please do not make it a two car drag race towards the senior housing complex. It’s the major school route. It’s already dangerous as is.

Most of the trail will be diverted from the corridor in Capitola already. 100%ish. Why not here too.

I suggest a class IV bike lane. We will get money for it. Great long term ROI on such a project these days. Plus Rail Trail is supposed to be Class I. We deserve at least a IV there to honor the voters (minus Measure L). 8D Looks exciƟng to me.
nulla trahenƟum per villa JM
60 Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Ellen Martinez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 4:47 PM
To: City Council
Subject: The Coastal Rail Trail Needs to be located on the Rail Corridor! Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Capitola City Council,
The Coastal Rail Trail must be located on the rail corridor. Moving it onto Park Avenue is both dangerous and costly--and contradicts what the Capitola City Council has stated for years. Instead of a safe route on the railbed, cyclists will be forced onto a busy street.

The cost to operate a train on the rail corridor is now in the billions of dollars. There is no real path to funding. It's Ɵme to get real.

Capitola voters, residents and visitors all support the coastal rail trail being located on the rail corridor. Listen to them.

Please get this done NOW.

Thank you.

Ellen MarƟnez
25 year full-Ɵme resident of Aptos CA
ellen@ellenmarƟnez.com
61 Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Susan Westman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 4:41 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Park Avenue Traffic Calming Improvements with Coastal Rail Trail Options Dear Mayor and City Council,
I find the timing of the Park Avenue improvements in relation to the Coastal Rail Trail option rather peculiar.

The RTC has announced that they will be discussing the new rail/trail study at their March 20th meeting. This study, which residents have been informed will determine the feasibility of a passenger train along the 32-mile rail corridor, is a critical decision point. If passenger rail proves to be a viable option, it could provide an excellent new transportation alternative for Santa Cruz County. However, if it is deemed unfeasible, then it would be prudent to explore whether developing a pedestrian and bike trail along the corridor would be a more beneficial use of the space.

With March 20th just 35 days away, it seems illogical to decide on a $3–$5 million for a trail on Park Avenue this Thursday night, even if it is RTC money, when the long-awaited study results will be available in just over a month. At the very least, the citizens of Capitola deserve the impression that their best interests are being considered—waiting to review the findings of the $9.2 million study before making a decision would demonstrate a more thoughtful and responsible approach.

Thanks for considering this.

Susan Westman
62 Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Daniel Brune <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 4:21 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Coastal Rail Trail Options
Dear Capitola City Council,
It’s difficult to understand why the RTC conƟnues to push for a train idea, when mulƟple expensive studies ignore several examples showing that trains are not feasible for smaller populaƟons, especially Santa Cruz county, with no space for a railroad siding to allow the operaƟon of two or more trains.

Building a new Capitola Trestle for a passenger train will effecƟvely shut down tourism and commerce in the village for a long period of Ɵme. RouƟng bicyclists through the village, especially during peak tourism Ɵmes, is extremely dangerous.

Has the Coastal Commission even been consulted on this idea? Destroying beauƟful old-growth trees along Park Avenue, and installing retaining walls cosƟng millions in other areas, makes no sense. And tracks just above the beach at La Selva appear to be on very quesƟonable ground already.

This will be another extra taxaƟon boondoggle where fares will need to be subsidized for the few who will ride a train for a few miles. Very few even ride our current Metro bus system, which is beƩer at geƫng riders to their desƟnaƟon than a train that only stops at staƟons.

I hesitate to ask for another study, but where will riders park their cars to ride the train? They will certainly have to walk many blocks to do that in Aptos and Capitola, not the best idea for senior ciƟzens. Will they need to spend even more to hire Uber and LyŌ to get them to the staƟons?
Best,
Dan Brune
63 Item 5 D.
2 Gautho, Julia
From: jeff anderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 4:15 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Coastal Rail Trail Options
I live in the Live Oak area, and am a bike rider. I have completed many multi day rides. I have enjoyed rides in the US on converted Rails to Trails paths, enjoying the safety and beauty these routes provide.

The idea of building a light rail system in Santa Cruz County is a waste of taxpayers money. A realistic cost and time frame for such a system should be published for the taxpayers to understand, then put it out for a vote and see who is interested.

I am strongly against the light rail and all funds and effort should be put towards building a safe pedestrian and bike path on the rail corridor.

Jeff Anderson
64 Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Stef's Gmail <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 3:51 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Trail
I’ve always heard lots of confusion about this issue: it feels like preƩy much everyone WANTS a trail for biking, walking, and running through Capitola and preƩy much no one wants the trail diverted to either the Village or Park Avenue. (And most people think passenger rail isn’t a reasonable opƟon).

Cliffwood Heights is already impacted to the point of being gridlocked with traffic. PLEASE do not vote for diverƟng traffic to either Village or Park Ave.

Thank You.

Stephanie TeƩer
65 Item 5 D.
2 Gautho, Julia
From: Malia Horn <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 3:48 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Park Avenue improvements don't improve safety
Dear Council Members,
Thank you for your dedication to serve our community.

As a parent and home owner who live in the Cliftwood heights neighborhood I utilize Park Avenue daily.

Our family walks the dog, bikes, and drives along Park Ave. and understand the dynamics of traveling around this area.

Park Avenue is a busy road!
I am very concerned about rerouting cyclist off the trail to surface streets and adding a train to an already busy thoroughfare.

I have seen cyclist hit at the Park ave/ Monterey intersection. Cars rear ended at the lit up crosswalk at Cabrillo St. Cars that have flow over the hill by the 600 Park Ave apartments. Pushing the biking to surface streets will add more to an unsafe area and committing to a train will ruin the our small town.

A safer addition to the community, is adopting the Interim Trail (no train and trail where the tracks are) and would be an amazing asset to our community. Our Capitola Community voted for measure L in 2018, to use the tracks for a TRAIL ONLY, use the trestle for cyclist and pedestrians. Please reject this solution from the RTC and listen to the people of Capitola.

Thanks,
Malia Horn
66 Item 5 D.
3 Gautho, Julia
From: Mark Murphy <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 3:42 PM
To: City Council
Subject: PLEASE!!!!!! REJECT RTC PROPOSAL TO DIVERT COASTAL TRAIL AROUND CAPITOLA!!! Capitola City Council,
The Santa Cruz County Regional TransportaƟon Commission (RTC) has proposed to divert the Coastal Trail around Capitola because both the ULTIMATE Trail OpƟon and train cannot co-exist along the corridor, legal challenges by adjacent private-property owners will delay trail for years, California Coastal Commission restricƟons may prevent construcƟon of the elevated walls that block beach access and the results of the RTC Rail study show that a new passenger train will never be viable along the Santa Cruz Coastal Corridor.

The Capitola City Council should reject the RTC's plan to reroute the trail onto surface streets, which would result in the Coastal Trail never exisƟng within Capitola City limits. We ask the Capitola City Council to reject the RTC plan and recommend to the RTC that they move forward with the INTERIM Trail OpƟon, which has been proposed as an alternaƟve in the Environmental Impact Report for the Santa Cruz Coastal Trail.

The INTERIM Trail OpƟon will build the trail on the exisƟng railbed, can be constructed at a fracƟon of the cost, is more environmentally friendly as it avoids clear-cuƫng trees, allows for future transit opƟons on the corridor, does not require eminent domain of private property, does not redirect the trail onto surface streets, converts the Capitola Trestle into a Trail, can be built without causing traffic disrupƟons and RTC has enough funding to complete the INTERIM Trail OpƟon Segments 9-12.

Note that the INTERIM Trail OpƟon was proposed by former RTC ExecuƟve Director Guy Preston as part of his recommendaƟon to railbank the Santa Cruz Branch Line, which would preserve the railline as a publicly owned transportaƟon asset. In addiƟon, the Federal Railbanking process is a standard approach used by communiƟes across the county to allow for reuse of abandoned railroad systems.

RTC Agenda Packet Recommended Plan: hƩps://sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/2022-02-03-RTC-agendapacket.pdf News ArƟcle: hƩps://californialocal.com/localnews/santa-cruz/ca/arƟcle/show/3023-regional-transportaƟoncommission-rail-banking/ Also, current RTC ExecuƟve Director Sarah Christensen recommended the Capitola Trestle be converted into a trail in September 2021:
§ Reference:
o RTC Agenda Packet: hƩps://sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/2021-09-02-RTC-agenda-packet.pdf Please do not let the RTC stop the construcƟon of the Santa Cruz Coastal Trail through Capitola and vote no to their proposed request to divert the Coastal Trail around Capitola City limits.

Respecƞully,
Mark Murphy
426 Rosedale Ct
Capitola CA 95010
Sent from my iPhone
67 Item 5 D.
4 68
Item 5 D.
5 Gautho, Julia
From: Barry Scott <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 3:22 PM
To: [email protected]; Gerry Jensen; Melinda Orbach; City Council Subject: RTC Presentation to City Council this week
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Council members,
I believe the RTC will make a presentation to you this Thursday about an alternative for the trail to bring it to available space adjacent to Park Avenue. I hope to attend and speak in support of this solution.

I have always been an advocate of this alternative so that the trail is free of the fences and on street level, connecting to side streets yet separated from Park Avenue by a 3-foot wide buffer.

It can be built sooner and at a much lower cost. See attached pics.

To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

The earlier design would have been fenced in and hard to build, and required significant excavation and tall retaining walls below the homes on Escalona. Please support the new easily built alternative adjacent to but no on Park Avenue.

To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
--
Barry Scott
Office: 831.612.6574
Mobile: 209.482.5663

69 Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Tom Kellogg <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 1:25 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Brian Peoples; [email protected]
Subject: Trail on Capitola Trestle
Bicycling has been my preferred mode of transportation for 65 years so I have an opinion based on thousands of miles of experience worldwide.

I am a retired Certified Safety Professional and Certified Industrial Hygienist (CSP, CIH) and I know from 30 years of professional experience that reducing risk is a way to reduce cost to all involved. Usually reducing risk means spending more up front but in this case of putting the bike/walking path on the Capitola trestle it would both reduce cost and reduce risk of injury.  Public safety must come first. Building a bike path along Park Avenue instead of across the Capitola trestle is a very dangerous choice. I ride through Capitol Village regularly and would love to be able to ride over the trestle instead.  A pedestrian train is an illusion - it would cost billions $ and will take may decades to build.
 Listen to the will of the people: Measure L was clear; voters mandated the trail stay on the trestle.
 Do not allow the construction of a bike path along Park Avenue. The time building this would cause traffic congestion and increase risk of injury during the time of construction.
 Support putting the path on the Capitola trestle
Tom Kellogg
70 Item 5 D.
2 Gautho, Julia
From: ROBERT STEPHENS <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 1:26 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Rail Trail in Capitola
Capitola City Council
Capitola City Hall
420 Capitola Ave
Capitola, CA 95010
Subject: Upholding Measure L – Keep the Rail Trail on the Rail Corridor Dear Mayor Clarke and Capitola City Council Members,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the RTC’s plan to divert the Coastal Rail Trail onto Capitola city streets and to urge you to uphold the will of the voters by ensuring the trail remains on the rail corridor, as affirmed by Measure L.

It seems pretty obvious to me that a train is not coming to Santa Cruz anytime soon. It is time to use common sense and build the rail trail in the corridor. Why would anyone won’t to build an inferior trail out of the corridor and then have the rail corridor sit forever.

The Capitola trestle is a classic example of something that can be used now for a trail that will divert bikes and pedestrians out of the village and not cost much to convert to a trail. How much will it cost to replace this trestle for a train? How will this affect Capitola? Where are the funds for this and the other 26 trestles that need to be replaced?
If you are not sure about this, delay your vote until the real price of a train comes out in the next train study net month.

Sincerely,
Robert Stephens
71 Item 5 D.
3 Gautho, Julia
From: Alex Vartan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 1:33 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Trail on Park
I think this is an absolutely braindead move, and the project is increasing costs asymptotically even as the public is getting a worse and worse trail.
72 Item 5 D.
4 Gautho, Julia
From: Jessica Hansen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 1:39 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Coastal Rail Trail Options
Council members,
As a long term resident of Capitola, I am wriƟng to strongly oppose the proposiƟon to add the rail/trail to the current stretch of Park Avenue. The idea of trying to fit a train and bike/hike trail on Park Ave is an unwise and dangerous proposiƟon.

I cannot be at Thursday’s Council MeeƟng, so I write today appealing to your beƩer judgment, wisdom and care for our community that is cherished by not only those of us who live here, but also those who visit for whom Capitola provides healthy outdoor acƟviƟes and social engagement. Our City is not a thoroughfare.

Sincerely,
Jessica Hansen
Capitola
73 Item 5 D.
5 Gautho, Julia
From: Jim Cavanagh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 1:49 PM
To: City Council
Subject: RailTrail
PLEASE. Take the tracks off the trestle and run the tail over it. A detour through the village is so wrong on so many levels. The detour onto Park Avenue is unfortunate, but necessary with the requirement of retaining the rails. There will NEVER be a need for a train along the coast.

Do what you can to change this insanity!. PLEASE!
Jim Cavangh
408 Pilgrim Drive
Living the dream...
[email protected]
74 Item 5 D.
6 Gautho, Julia
From: Alex M <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 2:05 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Coastal Rail Trail Options
The greatest hazard to bike commuters and bike tourists is having to interact with car and truck traffic.

Please keep the greenway trail separate from the vehicles on Park Avenue and Capitola Village.

Alex Miller, Aptos
75 Item 5 D.
7 Gautho, Julia
From: Capitola Child Care <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 2:06 PM
To: City Council; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Keep the Trail on the Tracks, and Reduce speed on Monterey ave as well!! I run an in home child care, and Safety of the children and my children should be the City and our County's number one priority!
Look at the emails sent in 31 in favor of Trail on the tracks and NOT on park ave. Only about 2 that said to detour, shift, or as the City stated in the orange post card "Potential Adjustments" We need a Class IV protected bike lane, we need the Trail build on the tracks, we need to limit not put more traffic in our village and streets. We deserve Trail on the Coastal side of the tracks and on the Trestle. Yes the city doesnt own the trestle or the tracks, the RTC does, and the RTC can give the green light to build a Trail on the Trestle.

Since we have City council members on the RTC, they should be advocating for that. Can we get an Audit of those records, can we get a debrief of what our representatives have been doing in those meetings? Also concern is roundtable in front of nob hill, how will we be able to cross durning peak times? Will you install a flashing cross walk to stop traffic? There is a lot of traffic 730-9 am and 3pm - 6pm with that constant flow it will be impossible to cross especially for those mobility impaired.

The four lanes and stop signs worked well. The collision data that is reference most is over 5 years old, some as old as 10-12 years! That is not accurate data.

Lets hire more police to give out more tickets, or put in those automatic speed cameras. Lets put class IV bike lanes on Monterey ave to give kids Safe school route I believe this council is trying to circumvent measure L, and use this traffic diet to move forward their agenda and not the people! Violation of Measure L. Again look at the people in Capitola and close by in Aptos and Soquel. 31 to 2 in favor of the Trail on the tracks not on Park Ave. that is over 90% --
Thank you,
Teresa Maguire
Owner / Director
Capitola Child Care
83l-247-8925
76 Item 5 D.
8 To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
77 Item 5 D.
9 Gautho, Julia
From: Ted Burke <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 2:20 PM
To: City Council
Subject: FW: Upholding Measure L – Keep the Rail Trail on the Rail Corridor Dear Mayor Clarke and Capitola City Council Members,
I regret that a scheduled family reunion event keeps me from attending Thursday’s City Council meeting and personally voicing my strong objection to diverting the RTC trail through Capitola away from the existing rail line and onto city streets, including Park Ave.

I hope that the Capitola Council members need not be reminded that they work for and represent the interests of the Capitola Community and are expected to stand up to over-reaching directives by outside agencies when they occur. Capitola voters elected you in great part because they believed that you would protect and promote the very best, the safest, and the wisest transportation network through our city. It is time once more that you honor that faith and provide safe, effective, and commonsense transportation solutions for all Capitola citizens, young and old, walkers and bicyclists, able and challenged, no matter the desires or pressure of other governmental agencies and bodies.

Sincerely,
Ted
Ted Burke
Shadowbrook Restaurant, Co-Owner
P.O. Box 65, Capitola, CA 95010
831-475-1222 (Office)
408-663-5322 (Direct)
831-332-0010 (Mobile)
[email protected]

www.shadowbrook-capitola.com
78 Item 5 D.
10 79
Item 5 D.
11 Gautho, Julia
From: Mark Ban <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 2:51 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Coastal Rail Trail Options
We were promised a rail trail not a bicycle lane. Hold the RTC to a trail. Get prioriƟes straightened out. A trail north of Santa Cruz is great but how about using the money to build where the people are. For safety and convenience keep Park Avenue for cars and a trail for bicycles and pedestrians.

Mark Ban
I am a 45 year resident of Capitola and a bicycle enthusiast.

Sent from my iPhone
80 Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Eric Olsen <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 10:07 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommend recommendations for the Rail Trail The staff of the City of Capitola, Santa Cruz County, and the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) have developed two options for the trail between Capitola Village and New Brighton State Beach. Both options place the trail on an elevated path between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks. I urge you to adopt either one of these options. The funds are available for the trail and I among many others in the community plan to use it for bike transportation in lieu of driving a car. Thank you very much for your consideration.

Eric Olsen
Aptos
81 Item 5 D.
2 Gautho, Julia
From: Brendan Quirk <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 10:03 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor, I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed options for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realistic, and can be built with the existing funding. I can't wait to get on the trail! Thank you for proposing wide, safe trail options for our community! I want a trail sooner not later (or never) and we have the grant money to build this so please choose option A or B.

I also want ocean views!
Thanks!
Brendan Quirk
Get Outlook for iOS
82 Item 5 D.
3 Gautho, Julia
From: Dee Roe <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 9:57 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor, I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. I live nearby and can't wait to have easy access to Capitola village from my home. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks seem well planned. Plan A or B will work. I love it that your council is making the effort to protect our Monarchs and it sounds like the money is there. This is great for Capitola business as well. Can't wait to get on my bike! Dee Roe
83 Item 5 D.
4 Gautho, Julia
From: Sandra Baron <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 9:56 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Destruction of an incredible local asset of world class beauty The county voted for a train before any plans or budgets were created. Everyday, "promises" are switched to less desirable options.

We could have been riding and walking on a beautiful rail trail for the last 10 (or more) years while the train idea was studied. We could have
had tourists coming here and spending money at restaurants along the way. This would have been the logical way to go, protect what you have
and research what you want.

Don't think a bike lane through Park Ave and through Capitola Village is going to be accepted by our community now after all the promises. Don't think that
cutting down the trees along the route is helpful for a low carbon future. See the nonsense and money wasted on plan after plan trying to fit something into a space where it just doesn't fit. Give us a true accounting for infrastructure changes, all the bridges that need to be replaced. How can you go ahead
with any of it before knowing the estimated cost and configuration of the whole project? Sandra Baron
Santa Cruz County
84 Item 5 D.
5 Gautho, Julia
From: John Caletti <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 9:54 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor, I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed options for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realistic, and can be built with the existing funding. I can't wait to get on the trail! Many thanks,
John Caletti
Caletti Cycles
Custom bicycles handcrafted in Santa Cruz, CA
caletticycles.com 831-426-0575
Instagram: @caletticycles
Member: 1% For The Planet - We give 1% of sales to nonprofits working to protect and restore the environment. 85 Item 5 D.
6 Gautho, Julia
From: Scott Farmer <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 9:53 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Let's act together! I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor,
I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward! The new plans for the trail are great! I'm glad that the staff has developed options for the trail that can realistically be built with the existing funding.

As a local small business owner, I am excited to see the influx of locals and tourists coming out to enjoy, what will surely be, this beautiful attraction! Let’s act to create multi-modal transportation options across our County and reap the benefits to our small business community and local tourism industry.

Please avoid any unnecessary delay and approve one of the options your staff developed. To me, either is fine, I am writing to simply request you take action, as opposed to reassessing or further considering additional options that could result in delays. Let’s work together across jurisdictions to make this project real! Let’s take a step forward! I can’t wait!
Thank you for your consideration,
Scott Farmer
86 Item 5 D.
7 Gautho, Julia
From: Paula Bradley <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 9:47 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Item #9C Park Ave Traffic calming and Coastal Trail Options – support Option B Dear Mayor and City Council members,
I ride this area frequently and I support Option B provided that the trail is separated from traffic and protected, a Class 1 bike path. It makes sense to divert the trail from the rail right of way in this area (0.7 miles) to achieve a more cost effective, that will preserve trees and will be more scenic. There is no point having a trail on the inland side (Option A).

The trail only people are misleading the public, you cannot take the funds awarded for one project (Coastal Rail Trail) & use them for another (trail only). For trail only, the approved coastal trail project under construction would halt, awarded grants returned (black mark on county), and attempt to get a legal right to rail ROW. It would be ten plus years before any trail would be constructed. There are funds for multi-modal transportation, few funds for a recreational trails only. The fastest way to get a trail is to build the trail, keep the rail. Preserve the rail for public transit for the future of our county.

Sincerely,
Paula Bradley, resident and cycling advocate
Paula Bradley (she/her)
P. O. Box 1146 Capitola CA 95010
87 Item 5 D.
8 Gautho, Julia
From: geri lieby <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 9:47 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor,
Please choose opƟon A or B. The grant money is there. A project for now and the future.

Geri Lieby
88 Item 5 D.
9 Gautho, Julia
From: Wyatt, Rosie
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 9:44 AM
To: Gautho, Julia
Subject: Additional material
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Additional material for City Council below.

Rosie Wyatt
Acting Deputy City Clerk
831.475.7300 x 206

From: Capitola CA via Capitola CA <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 9:41 AM
To: Wyatt, Rosie <[email protected]>
Subject: Form submission from: Contact Us

Submitted on Wednesday, February 12, 2025 - 9:41am
Submitted by anonymous user: 35.151.55.124
Submitted values are:

CONTACT INFORMATION
Full Name Frank Rimicci
Email [email protected]
Phone Number 8317246710
Question/Comment
Greetings council members, Today I wish to comment on the proposal to divert part of sections 10 and 11 of the Coastal Rail trail project. I feel the alignment constraints and high costs, among other issues are reasons the proposal to place the trail on the coastal side of the roadway in the area between Monterey Ave. and Coronado are a true remedy and will help to bring the reality of a connecting trail to other segments sooner and more affordable. The plan to use the already cycled roadways in the areas in question, including the village, will bring safer transit for recreational and commuting cyclists. This option also means less cars needed to bring more folks into the village itself. It also makes no sense to build the trail along the unsafe trestle until such time that the needed replacement is built. The proposal also preserves the corridor for all transportation options on the branch rail line which includes zero emission rail transit in the future. Thanks for Your considerations, Frank The results of this submission may be viewed at:
https://www.cityofcapitola.org/node/7/submission/34281
89 Item 5 D.
10 90
Item 5 D.
11 Gautho, Julia
From: Jessica Guild <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 9:43 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Rail trail options between Capitola Village and New Brighton State Beach Dear Capitola City Council Members,
My name is Jessica Guild, and I am a homeowner in Live Oak. I have been following the rail trail development closely and learned that you plan to hear comments this week about the Capitola Village to New Brighton State Beach section of the rail trail.

I am writing to express my support of the two options that the City of Capitola, Santa Cruz County, and RTC staff have developed. From my understanding, either of the two options (a 12 foot elevated path on a raised curb that protects monarch habitat and allows for a 5 foot buffer zone between the trail and the street) sound like they would work well for the area.

I also hear that these options are fully funded and ready to build. Please do not delay in moving forward with this important infrastructure project in our community.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration of my comments.

Best,
Jessica Guild
2001 Halterman Ave, Santa Cruz, CA 95062
91 Item 5 D.
12 Gautho, Julia
From: Lowel Hurst <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 9:31 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor,
CongratulaƟons, I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed opƟons for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realisƟc, and can be built with the exisƟng funding. I can't wait to get on the trail! Keep leading the way to a beƩer and more accessible future ! Lowell Hurst
Sent from my iPhone
92 Item 5 D.
13 Gautho, Julia
From: Maria Hastings <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 9:25 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor,
I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed options for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realistic, and can be built with the existing funding. I can't wait to get on the trail!
Take care,
Maria Hastings
93 Item 5 D.
14 Gautho, Julia
From: Steve Lustgarden <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 9:21 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor,
I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great.

I'm glad that the staff has developed options for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realistic, and can be built with the existing funding. I can't wait to get on the trail! Many thanks for your support of this project!
Steve Lustgarden
Santa Cruz
94 Item 5 D.
15 Gautho, Julia
From: Daijaku <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 9:18 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Trail decision - Do NOT route through streets
Dear Capitola City Council,
Thank you for all your work and dedication to our city. This train business is ill conceived and way way too expensive with money better spend elsewhere.

So on to the trail.

Safety is foremost. Do not shift trail to streets. There are already too many tricky situations and this will make it much worse. I see them all the time - in and out of my car. In my opinion if you route the trail on streets, you can count on injuries, likely serious ones with an increase in people negotiating the trail

Just do the trail, it will be a benefit to all of us who live here - and a major draw to people who visit.

I hope you listen to us and just do this thing.

Yours, Judith Kinst
Jade St. Capitola
.
95 Item 5 D.
16 Gautho, Julia
From: Donna Thomas <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 9:17 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor,
I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed options for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realistic, and can be built with the existing funding. I can't wait to get on the trail!
Donna Thomas, Live Oak
96 Item 5 D.
17 Gautho, Julia
From: Joyce Nicholson <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 9:13 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor, I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed options for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realistic, and can be built with the existing funding. I can't wait to get on the trail! Option A or B both look good to me, providing a safe and wide trail for all.

Thanks,
Joyce Nicholson
800 Brommer St. Spc 9
95062
97 Item 5 D.
18 Gautho, Julia
From: Ann Whitlock <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 9:10 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Rail/trail
Please keep the bike trail on the rail corridor, not on Park Ave. I have waited too long already in order to bike safely from my home in Aptos. Please find a good solution.

Ann Whitlock
98 Item 5 D.
19 Gautho, Julia
From: David Lieby <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 9:08 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Rail Trail, item number 9c on the agenda
Whenever my wife and I ride our tandem bicycle around town we see many bicycles piloted by parents and carrying children about. People are also hauling groceries and the like. All of the people doing this are reducing vehicle traffic at some risk due to lack of good bike lanes. Creation of the trail will reduce risk and increase the use of bicycles for all sorts of reasons. It will help keep our population of non-polluters safe.

Thanks,
David Lieby
310 Everson Dr, Santa Cruz, Ca 95060
PS:

Yes, we ride to Capitola to eat at our favorite restaurant quite often and it would be great to be out of traffic.
99 Item 5 D.
20 Gautho, Julia
From: Cynthia Sharpe <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 9:07 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor,
I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed options for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realistic, and can be built with the existing funding. I can't wait to get on the trail!
Thank you for proposing wide safe trail options for our Community.

We have the grant money and I want the trail sooner rather than never, so please choose option A or B.

I want easy access and ocean views and the ability to get to this place so PLEASE choose option A or B, thank you.

Sincerely,
Cynthia Sharpe
100
Item 5 D.
21 Gautho, Julia
From: Tim Miller <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 9:05 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Rail Trail Staff Recommendation Support
Dear City Council and Mayor,
As a family homeowner on Prospect Ave for 75yrs, we are happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue including the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed opƟons for the trail that are realisƟc, and can be built with the exisƟng funding. I can't wait to get on this secƟon of the trail! We encourage you all to come to an agreement on either of the 2 Staff recommendaƟons, and to come up with a long term soluƟon using the Trestle to bypass addiƟonal congesƟon in downtown Capitola.

Thank you for your consideraƟon.

Tim Miller
101
Item 5 D.
22 Gautho, Julia
From: Limit Info <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 9:02 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor,
I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed options for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realistic, and can be built with the existing funding. I can't wait to get on the trail!
I live near a segment of the Rail trail and have walked it many times. There is a great deal of bicycle and walking on this current trail and it is of high quality for both activities with safe zones for crossing that have saved many lives.

Please pick one of the two choices for beginning the next segment through Capitola. This will be fully funded and many many people have worked on it to supply the best plans possible. Do not let the naysayers make you doubt your decision. Just come and visit the finished segments of the Rail Trail, take a walk and enjoy the safety off the streets for all involved to get across town.

Many thanks for considering the Rail Trail options and make a wise choice.

Linda Koval
128 Nevada St.

Santa Cruz, CA 95060
102
Item 5 D.
23 Gautho, Julia
From: Peter Whitford <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 8:59 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Let's Move the Rail Trail Forward!
Dear City Council and Mayor,
I can't wait for the new fully funded trail to start construction between Capitola and New Brighton State Beach! I'm also thrilled that both options maintain the critical rail component which is an incredible asset for the ever growing county to move people around. As an avid bike commuter, I can envision our family becoming a 1 car family if we were able to move up and down the corridor with our bikes, creating access to all of the many businesses, schools, and events that we visit throughout the year.

Thanks!
Peter Whitford
103
Item 5 D.
24 Gautho, Julia
From: Denise Ryan <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 8:58 AM
To: City Council
Cc: Christopher O'Connell
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor, I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed options for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realistic, and can be built with the existing funding. I can't wait to get on the trail! My name is Denise Ryan and I have been a homeowner, full time resident of Capitola for 35 years. I have raised a family here and understand the personality of our beautiful community. We are ready for a rail and trail. I am so excited to know that my family and grandchildren will enjoy the rail and trail.

I will try to make the meeting on Thursday, weather permitting.

I thank you for your service to our community.

Warmly,
Denise
104
Item 5 D.
25 Gautho, Julia
From: Ros Munro <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 8:58 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor, I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed opƟons for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realisƟc, and can be built with the exisƟng funding.

I can't wait to ditch my car, and use the commuter train. Strolling along the trail will be such a bonus too! Thanks
Ros Munro
105
Item 5 D.
26 Gautho, Julia
From: Mary Alsip <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 8:57 AM
To: City Council
Cc: Alsip Braxton; Chibisova Olga
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor, I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed opƟons for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realisƟc, and can be built with the exisƟng funding. I can't wait to get on the trail!
I own a home in Capitola, which is located in the Brookvale Terrace mobile home park. My son lives there with his two children and his wife and they bicycle everywhere. Please make sure that there are safe paths available for them as they mature!
Sincerely Yours, Mary Alsip
106
Item 5 D.
27 Gautho, Julia
From: Alexis Konevich <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 8:55 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Rail Trail options
Dear Capitola City Council,
Thank you so much for engaging with experts to come up with alternate options for the rail trail. Speaking for myself and many of my friends, our desire is to have a trail as soon as possible. I think options A and B seem suitable, given that they still provide adequate separation from vehicular traffic and space for people to walk and bike safely. I urge you to move forward with either of these options so our families can enjoy the rail trail as soon as possible.

Thanks!
Alexis
107
Item 5 D.
28 Gautho, Julia
From: Geoffrey Flavell <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 8:54 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Rail Trail - LET'S GO!
Dear City Council and Mayor,
The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are fantasƟc! The people voted and they want a Rail and Trail, which now seems like ages ago.

Our local government experts have come forward with viable opƟons with easy public access and ocean views for the City Council to choose from.

The nay sayers should have voice as always, but not allowed to stall the project on topics already veƩed.

Kindly be laser focused in moving this project forward.

I would like to see this project realized before I’m dead.

Thank you,
Geoffrey Flavell
2970 Pleasure Point Dr.
108
Item 5 D.
29 Gautho, Julia
From: Pete Kennedy <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 8:54 AM
To: City Council; [email protected]
Subject: Rail Trail
Please vote in support of the Rail Trail. We need to keep those rails for future use.

I’m a City of Santa Cruz Planning Commissioner, and we are building thousands of apartments up here to provide housing for folks. This relieves the pressure on YOU to build housing in Capitola. We are happy to shoulder the burden of housing.

What I need your help with is providing the infrastructure so that our welcome newcomers can travel through our County both now and in generaƟons to come. We have to do this together to reach a beƩer future.

Thank you for supporƟng our efforts. I am the third generaƟon of Kennedys to support the rail trail up here in SC. My kids are the fourth. I dearly hope they’ll be able to afford to live here, as I’ve been lucky enough to.

Don’t be afraid, the vast majority of people in this community are all in for housing, rail & trail.

Best
Pete Kennedy
109
Item 5 D.
30 Gautho, Julia
From: Baymoon <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 8:47 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor, I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great.

I currently ride several Ɵmes weekly on the Westside porƟon of the rail-trail, and am eager to ride further south as it expands.

I'm glad that the staff has developed opƟons (A or B) for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realisƟc, and can be built with the exisƟng funding. I can't wait to get on the Capitola porƟon of the trail! Thanks!
Mary Anne (she/her)
Kramer-Urner
110
Item 5 D.
31 Gautho, Julia
From: Curt Coleman <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 8:51 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor,
I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward in Capitola. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are the answer we have needed. I look forward to using this segment of trail!
Curt Coleman
111
Item 5 D.
32 Gautho, Julia
From: A. Marm Kilpatrick <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 8:46 AM
To: City Council
Subject: support for Rail trail between Capitola Village and New Brighton State Beach Dear City Council,
I'm writing in support of the rail trail options being proposed by the City of Capitola, Santa Cruz County, and the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC). Either of the two options would be great for our community and would provide both a safe way to commute and a great option for recreation which will bring people to support the local businesses. I urge you to support these plans and keep the project moving forward!
thank you,
Auston Marm Kilpatrick
112
Item 5 D.
33 Gautho, Julia
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 8:44 AM
To: City Council
Cc: Dieter Siegmund
Subject: Capitola section of the Rail Trail
Dear City Council and Mayor,
I’m wriƟng to voice my support for both rail trail opƟons between Capitola Village and New Brighton State Beach.

It’s exciƟng to see the well-designed trail plans, and I’m looking forward to being able bike the trail from Santa Cruz to Capitola and beyond.

With funding available, let’s keep making progress on this secƟon of the rail trail.

Best regards,
Dieter Siegmund
Santa Cruz
113
Item 5 D.
34 Gautho, Julia
From: Ryan Tamm <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 8:39 AM
To: City Council
Subject: In support of the Rail Trail
Hello City Council members,
I'm so excited about the progress on bringing the rail trail down to our house in Aptos! The sooner we can get the trail built, the better. It will help relieve traffic, support our local businesses, and improve the health and wellbeing of our community members while providing a beautiful ocean view.

I encourage you to please choose option A or B - let's get this project built ASAP! Thank you,
Ryan Tamm
114
Item 5 D.
35 Gautho, Julia
From: Brad Wiles <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 8:36 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor, I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed opƟons for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realisƟc, and can be built with the exisƟng funding. I can't wait to get on the trail!
I support opƟons A and B and would love to see the rail trail move forward as quickly as possible. Don’t be swayed by the small handful that are opposed to the enƟre rail trail that will benefit the enƟre county. Thank you. Brad Wiles.

Sent from my iPad
115
Item 5 D.
36 Gautho, Julia
From: Linda White <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 8:36 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Coastal Rail Trail Options
We do NOT want the trail to divert through Capitola Village and Park Ave. !! Leave the plans as original.

We are long time residents and voters. Leave the Stockton bridge intact also.

Respectfully,
Mike and Linda White
2235 Wharf Road
Capitola
Get Outlook for iOS
116
Item 5 D.
37 Gautho, Julia
From: Phil Kaplan <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 8:34 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor, I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed opƟons for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realisƟc, and can be built with the exisƟng funding. I can't wait to get on the trail!
117
Item 5 D.
38 Gautho, Julia
From: Kate Clark <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 8:33 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor, I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed options for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realistic, and can be built with the existing funding. I can't wait to get on the trail! Thank you for proposing wide, safe trail options for our community I want a trail sooner not later (or never) so please choose option A or B.

We have the grant money to build this so please choose option A or B.

I want ocean views so please choose option A or B.

I would use this segment of trail to get to my volunteer job at the Capitola History Museum, so choose option A or B.

Thank you.
-Kate Clark
118
Item 5 D.
39 Gautho, Julia
From: Ernesto Anguiano <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 8:30 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Rail Trail -Item 9C
Dear Council Members,
Thank you for proposing wide, safe trail options for our community.

I want a trail sooner rather than later (or never), so please choose Option A or B. Both options protect monarch butterfly habitat, provide users with ocean views, and offer easy access between neighborhoods and the trail. Both are raised on a curb, similar to a sidewalk, and include a 12-foot-wide trail with a 5-foot buffer zone between the trail and the street. Most importantly, with the latest construction grant, either of these options will be fully funded and ready to build. I would use this section of the trail to get to and from my home, visit the village, and spend my hard-earned money at local businesses.

Thank you,
Ernesto Anguiano
119
Item 5 D.
40 Gautho, Julia
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 8:29 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the Rail Trail proposal
As I understand it, the proposal is to put the trail on a new elevated path between the Park Avenue roadway and the railroad tracks. That would work for me.

I am one of the group of jugglers that entertain people on the esplanade some aŌernoons. I would use this segment of trail in this way, so choose opƟon A or B.
best regards,
Neil
120
Item 5 D.
41 Gautho, Julia
From: Cynthia Dzendzel <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 8:26 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor, I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed opƟons for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realisƟc, and can be built with the exisƟng funding. I can't wait to get on the trail!
Thank you for supporƟng OpƟon A or B, which will allow the trail to be built sooner rather than later. I am hoping it will be built before I am unable to use it! I am not geƫng any younger. :) Cynthia Dzendzel
121
Item 5 D.
42 Gautho, Julia
From: Lizann Keyes <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 8:22 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor, I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed options for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realistic, and can be built with the existing funding. I can't wait to get on the trail! Thank you! I want the Rail Trail to move forward so that I will be able to use it as soon as possible. I support the environmental vision of the Rail Trail.

Thank you for your support,
Lizann Keyes
1511 Hidden Terrace Court
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
122
Item 5 D.
43 Gautho, Julia
From: Deborah Christie <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 8:22 AM
To: City Council
Subject: staff recommendations for the Rail Trail
Dear City Council and Mayor,
Thank you for helping the Rail Trail move forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are a great plan.

I see that the protection of the Monarch habitat has been taken into consideration. I support staff recommendations. We have the existing funding to do so. I am an avid hiker and walker and look forward to using the trail as much as possible.

Sincerely,
Deborah Christie
136 S Park Way, Santa Cruz, CA 95062
123
Item 5 D.
44 Gautho, Julia
From: Allison Cruz <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 8:20 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor,
I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed opƟons for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realisƟc, and can be built with the exisƟng funding. I can't wait to get on the trail! Please do you best to listen openly to both sides this Thursday, while carefully exƟnguishing disinformaƟon.

Thank you,
Allison Cruz
420-1991
124
Item 5 D.
45 Gautho, Julia
From: Peter Matthew Reed <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 8:15 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor,
I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed options for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realistic, and can be built with the existing funding. I can't wait to get on the trail!
Thank you,
Peter Reed
125
Item 5 D.
46 Gautho, Julia
From: ANDREA RATTO <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 7:27 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Coastal Rail Trail Options
As a bike rider I am not comfortable riding on Park Avenue. There will be even more cars on the road once the housing for Cabrillo and UCSC students is built in the area and traffic during the summer and most weekends through the village and Park Avenue is so congested. Maybe it’s Ɵme to scrap this I’ll thought out plan to run a tourist train from the Boardwalk to Seascape. It will not serve the community members who are taxed with financially burdened with this costly and inefficient project. We will never vote for any tax increase to support this project Sent from my iPad 126
Item 5 D.
47 Gautho, Julia
From: Gary Sultana <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 10:44 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Rail Service
Rail service in Santa Cruz County would be wonderful if the population were four times what it is now. Residents would have to use it, and we could afford an efficient connection to San Jose.

This is not reality. We cannot afford a train now. We need to complete a trail system now and railbank for the future.

Gary Sultana
127
Item 5 D.
48 Gautho, Julia
From: Bud Colligan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 10:42 PM
To: City Council
Subject: OBJECTION TO PLAN TO PUT TRAIL ON PARK AVE
Dear Capitola City Council,
I am completely against the current plan to put the bike and pedestrian trail on Park Avenue and also to detour the trail into Capitola Village.

For many years, the RTC has told us and you that the corridor was wide enough for both a train and trail. It appears that years of lies have now caught up with the actual plans, and the hope is that the citizens of Capitola will not notice this underhanded sleight of hand. WE HAVE NOTICED!
For starters, the plan to detour the trail through Capitola Village is DIRECTLY in conflict with the will of Capitola voters expressed in Measure L, the 2018 ballot initiative to preserve the trestle for bikes and pedestrians. It is much less costly and supports public safety to keep kids going to school, cyclists, senior citizens, families and all pedestrians on a continuous safe pathway. You will be guaranteeing serious injuries and deaths to take hundreds of cyclists and pedestrians per day up/down steep Cliff Drive and Monterey Ave and through a Village impacted by an enormous amount of traffic. Anyone with common sense can see that this is a dangerous plan which will lead to serious injuries and deaths. Public safety should override all considerations in this decision. We elected you to follow the laws in our city and support the safety of our citizens.
128
Item 5 D.
49 Secondly, the Park Ave plan is another bait and switch. The RTC has said for years that the corridor is wide enough for a train and trail. Now, it's not wide enough anymore! According to the new information from the RTC, it's not wide enough for the ENTIRE LENGTH OF CAPITOLA. Shouldn't this major flaw in the plan have been pointed out years ago? A trail on the corridor can be built for $3M to $4M per mile. Now with retaining walls and expensive infrastructure, the RTC trail is approaching $25M per mile. It will be the most costly trail ever constructed in the United States. All to preserve a train that will never be built because its cost will be shown to be in excess of $1.5 BILLION. There is no funding for a train. This madness must stop. The voters will take matters into their own hands if you continue to ignore common sense and support this egregious malpractice of transportation policy. You have the power to stop this insanity or the voters will do so.

I sincerely hope that all the new data that you are receiving will result in the "a-ha" moment that you have been consistently misled by the Board majority on the RTC . It's time to get real answers to the tough questions. Let's not prolong this fantasy any longer.

Sincerely,
Bud Colligan
1840 41st Ave
Capitola, CA 95010
129
Item 5 D.
50 Gautho, Julia
From: Leslie Nielsen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 10:39 PM
To: City Council
Subject: ITEM 9C Public Comment
Dear Capitola City Council,
The staff report for Item 9C is flawed, misleading and not neutral.

One could interpret it to be a marketing piece for the RTC Pro Train initiative; • “Finally, the Park Avenue Coastal Rail Trail alignment is designed to avoid possible conflicts with potential future transportation uses in the rail corridor”
• “Space constraints in the existing rail corridor may limit the ability to accommodate both the Rail Trail and other future transportation uses”
• "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 ZEPRT project are pursued in the corridor."
Why not just say, we need to set everything up to make sure the future of the train is secure and nothing is constructed to get in the way.

It is disappointing to see this be more important than safety. You are proposing to give away City land (right of way) and lose valuable parking for the RTC to save money by promoting a project that flies in the face of Measure L.

Measure L – Codified in MC 8.72.040 (B) says, “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 City Streets or sidewalks”.

This staff report clearly took some time to put together, a violation of Measure L.

To suggest the definition of the word detour concludes that the City is “not proposing the construction of the Trail on Capitola’s streets or sidewalks” is insulting.

The shifting of a TRAIL out of the corridor and on to Park Ave. is absolutely NOT “taking all steps necessary to preserve and utilize the corridor and Trestle for active transportation and recreation” as required my Measure L MC 8.72.024 (A)
130
Item 5 D.
51 The RTC has identified significant cost estimate overruns for this segment. Capitola should not be lawless in implementation of Measure L nor promote unsafe infrastructure developments to help the County and the RTC with their project cost challenge.

The Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission will hear updated cost estimates on passenger rail at its March 20th meeting.

The last time a formal cost estimate was done for the rail project was 2015.

You do not need to put the wheels in motion this week on a matter this significant before understanding it in the greater context of the Rail Trail project and pending update on the cost estimates and related implications. If the City was neutral in this matter, the staff report would have included additional options including not moving forward with a consolidated Park Ave. Coastal Rail Trail alignment project designed by entities outside the City, notably the RTC, but rather stay the course on the Park Ave. traffic calming project.

The City has budgeted for and allocated funds to continue the Park Ave. calming initiatives and should be looking forward to a greatly reduced amount of multi modal traffic on the streets when the corridor trail is completed as promised when we voted for Measure D. We have heard you say, votes matter. It doesn't feel like they do when Capitola is experiencing an almost complete diversion of the trail off the corridor after voting for both Measure L and Measure D. 131
Item 5 D.
52 This is clearly being set up to be precedent setting and evidence of past practice for the next round of proposed actions to make improvements for multi modal bike and pedestrian traffic through the Capitola Village.

For the City to be suggesting that this proposed action is not illegal is misleading. After the City sued to try to keep Measure L off the ballot in 2018, Judge John Gallagher ruled on 8/20/2018 in favor of Greenway petitioners allowing the Measure L ballot initiative to proceed in the Nov. 2018 election.

Measure L passed. It’s the law. The city had the language reviewed by an administrative law judge and codified it in the Municipal Code.

If the City believes violating the code is not illegal, THEY need to do the necessary work to take this to the voters to have it amended or deleted. In the meantime, you must be lawful council members representing your community.

Is it illegal for a city council member to intentionally violate municipal code? Yes, it is generally considered illegal for a city council member to intentionally violate municipal code, as doing so would constitute a violation of the law and could result in potential legal consequences, including fines, removal from office, or even criminal charges depending on the severity of the violation and the specific local 132
Item 5 D.
53 ordinances involved.

I would strongly encourage each of you on this council to take this to heart and postpone any action on agenda item 9C as the staff proposed options A and B are both clearly in violation of Measure L.

Best regards,
Leslie Nielsen
133
Item 5 D.
54 Gautho, Julia
From: Brett Graessle <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 9:05 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Trail Support
Dear Capitola City Council,
I am wriƟng in STRONG support of the Trail Now iniƟaƟve. Please vote Thursday to reject the RTC proposal to divert the coastal trail around Capitola.

As a Capitola resident for over 27 years, we have witnessed tremendous progress and enjoyed decades of unparalleled community spirit and camaraderie.

In 2018, the people of Capitola voted for Measure L, keeping the trail on the current path. We conƟnue to support this.

Having raised 5 children in this special village, we have seen firsthand the great importance of safe bike travel through our town. City streets are not a safe alternaƟve. The trail would be a treasure for our ciƟzens, visitors, children and families, students, commuters …. a benefit for all. Please vote to support this trail ON the trail - no detours.

Thank you,
Molly Graessle
134
Item 5 D.
55 Gautho, Julia
From: Nancy Becker <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 8:59 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Coastal Rail Trail Options
Hello,
We want the bike trail safely on the RAIL corridor, not the street. You should follow the voters' mandate to do that. We have bike lanes on streets already. Cancel the train before you scrap the bike trail on the rail.

Thank you,
Nancy Becker
135
Item 5 D.
56 Gautho, Julia
From: Tom Davis <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 8:57 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Coastal Rail Trail Options 13 February Meeting Greetings,
I am writing to support keeping the Rail Trail on the the railbed/ trestle property. Diverting bicycle traffic off the rail line would be a disaster, in terms of public safety, and the quality of the final trail. Measure L made it clear. The trail must stay on the rail line.

If we can ever get his project completed, it will be the most amazing, positive, and the most utilized public works projects of the last 70 years.

The best solution is to build the trail NOW, on the trestle and railbed, If the train ever becomes a reality, then do the necessary upgrades at that time.

Sincerely,
Tom Davis
CEO, Co-Owner
Pacific Edge Climbing Gym
--
Tom Davis
(831) 464-9284 Santa Cruz
(760) 648-8036 Silver Meadow
136
Item 5 D.
57 Gautho, Julia
From: Mike Sargenti <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 8:43 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Coastal Rail Trail Options
To whom it may concern,
As a Santa Cruz County resident and homeowner I am upset about moving the rail trail to Park Avenue.

The reasons are listed below. We need to scrap the train and build the trail now!  Measure L was clear. Capitola voters mandated the trail stay on the trestle. The Council is ignoring the will of the people.

 A Park Avenue trail is LESS SAFE for cyclists. Instead of a safe, direct route on the railbed, cyclists will be forced onto busy roads.

 Bringing cyclists into Capitola Village is dangerous. This isn’t a hypothetical concern—serious injuries and fatalities will happen. Public safety must come first.

 A train is an illusion. The cost would be in the billions, and there is no real path to funding it. It’s time to get real.

Sincerely,
Agostino Sargenti
137
Item 5 D.
58 Gautho, Julia
From: Buff McCharen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 8:34 PM
To: City Council
Subject: RAIL TRAIL
Dear Capitola Councilmen,

Please keep the bike trail on the rail corridor as planned. Park avenue is NOT a viable option!

Respectfully, Buff & Victoria McCharen, Aptos residents

138
Item 5 D.
59 Gautho, Julia
From: Jennie anderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:34 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Rail Corridor
City Council,
I'm surprised that the council would consider diverting the rail trail through the Capitola Village and along Park Avenue. In effect, the city would be obstructing active transportation in the Mid County area. A segmented trail would be a detriment to pedestrians, bicyclists and e-bike commuters and cause significant safety concerns within the city. Would you like your children to be confronted with more congestion in the village and along a dangerous Park Ave? The solution is to pressure the RTC to rail bank the corridor and build an affordable, wide trail down the center of the corridor, utilizing the Capitola Trestle. This would insure a trail that could be constructed soon and still allow for a future train if voted on by the residents. Rail banking has been in effect in hundreds of communities across the country with outstanding results. We should be able to enact it in our community. Don't let the train lobby dictate a flawed scenario for Capitola.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Harris-Anderson
831-566-3367
139
Item 5 D.
60 Gautho, Julia
From: Gary Lew <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:26 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Bike (Not Rail) Trail
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
I live in Depot Hill and support a bike trail on the existing rail line with minimal disruption to the Trestle, roads, private property and the natural landscape. I have used the Iron Horse Trail in Danville and the Los Gatos to Campbell trail. Santa Cruz/Capitola/Aptos would benefit from a similar trail. Please approve the interim solution of a bike trail on the existing track bed with no expansion to the right-of-way which will benefit the most people at the lowest cost, fastest implementation time and lowest environmental impact.

I do not support a billion dollar plus boondoggle involving a train line (that will sit unutilized next to the proposed obtrusive bike trail), a train will never get used as dreamed, will certainly be over budget and environmentally destructive. Additionally, commuters or whoever the RTC fantasizes will ride this train should look at the empty buses that are currently running and see that trains will be 100x more expensive yet just as empty.

Gary Lew
925-209-0538
140
Item 5 D.
61 Gautho, Julia
From: E Chen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 6:54 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Please keep the Rail Trail on the rail corridor Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Capitola City Council,
A Rail Trail detour on Park Avenue is dangerous to many and would discourage people from riding their bicycles. With the crazy drivers who are texting/talking on their phones and speeding and weaving through traffic and with police who could care less about this behavior, many people hop on their bicycles. Please keep the Rail Trail on the rail corridor as proposed. It provides safety and a means for us to stay healthy while keeping our environment clean. It is the smart and kind thing to do.

Eefei
141
Item 5 D.
62 Gautho, Julia
From: grinell smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 5:29 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Keep the Rail Trail on the rail corridor
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
I am an avid cyclist who rides through and around Capitola on a regular basis. A Rail Trail detour on Park Avenue would be very dangerous both for cyclists and cars, and would diminish everyone's experience overall. Please keep the Rail Trail on the rail corridor as proposed.

Thanks,
Grinell Smith
--
Sent from my HAL 9000
142
Item 5 D.
63 Gautho, Julia
From: Matthew O. Sloan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 5:27 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Rail Trail, yes please, and thank you!
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello Dear Capitola City Council,
I ride my bike through Capitola regularly - commuting, riding for fun, and dining/shopping in Capitola Village. A Rail Trail detour on Park Avenue would be very dangerous to myself and many others.

Please keep the Rail Trail on the rail corridor as proposed.

Many Thanks,
Matthew Sloan
143
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Rita <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 10:32 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear City Council and Mayor, I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed options for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realistic, and can be built with the existing funding. I can't wait to get on the trail! 144
Item 5 D.
2 Gautho, Julia
From: Diego Graglia <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 10:23 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear City Council and Mayor,
Like many Santa Cruz County residents, I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. They protect Monarch habitat, are realistic, and can be built with the existing funding. I can't wait to get on the trail and stop to take in the views of the Cement Ship, La Selva, Moss Landing and beyond! I often travel between Live Oak and Soquel/Seacliff and I would highly prefer to be able to do it on a safe bikeway rather than by traffic-creating, air-polluting personal transportation.

Please let’s move sooner rather than later towards a new vision for the county, where Santa Cruz shows California and the whole country that we can get off of our fossil-fuel habits and take advantage of healthier, sustainable modes of transport. Please choose option A or B.

Diego Graglia
Live Oak homeowner and resident
[email protected]
145
Item 5 D.
3 Gautho, Julia
From: Jim Weller <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 10:22 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear City Council and Mayor, I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great.

I prefer OpƟon A, as it would include an enhanced bike/pedestrian lane along the north side of Park Avenue in addiƟon to the rail trail along the south side of the street. Either opƟon would be a win-win-win compared with the opƟon to locate the rail trail below Park Avenue within the railroad corridor. The general public and the neighborhood would benefit from traffic calming and greater pedestrian/cycling safety on Park Avenue; the City of Capitola would benefit fiscally because the street improvements would be paid for with non-municipal funds; and the RTC would benefit from greatly reduced construcƟon costs compared with the rail corridor opƟon.

Jim Weller
1970 46th Avenue
Capitola
Sent from my iPad
146
Item 5 D.
4 Gautho, Julia
From: Dave Evans <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 10:19 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Rail Trail in Capitola - YES!
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear City Council and Mayor,
I'm a 20 year fulltime local resident. My church is in Capitola and I have many dear friends in Capitola, Aptos and Watsonville. I am also advisor to the CEO of Digital NEST, and supporter of MBEP - non-profits dedicated to supporting a sustainable quality of life for ALL local residents.

The plans for the Rail Trail segment in Capitola along Park Ave are brilliantly conceived and worthy of your support. Either Plan A or B provide safe setbacks from the road, stable wide footing for users of all ages and types, ocean views, monarch habitat sustainability, and much needed through access for the overall trail system.

Please support either Plan A or B.

Opposition has made false claims about roadway incursion and other impacts which are untrue and misleading and will no doubt animate many residents - but unfortunately animate them inaccurately and without real basis. Please lead with forward thinking and fair objectivity - both of which will take you to approval of Plan A or B.

Thank you - respectfully,
Dave Evans
600 Pelton Av, SC 95060
147
Item 5 D.
5 Gautho, Julia
From: Mary Kay Zaineb <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 10:16 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Park Ave section of Rail Trail
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Councilmembers,
I am writing in support of the proposed options for the trail running between Capitola Village and New Brighton State Beach.

Please move forward with either of the two options for this important part of the long awaited Rail Trail. This is a great opportunity, as grant money is in place.

I feel the trail would be used a great deal for recreation and travel from Capitola Village to New Brighton State Beach by residents of Capitola as well as residents from surrounding areas and tourists. Although I live in Watsonville, I would love to make use of the trail.

Mary Kay Zaineb
Watsonville, Ca.
148
Item 5 D.
6 Gautho, Julia
From: Rex Page <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 10:52 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Rail Trail, item 9c, Feb 13 mtg agenda
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
I want to see the Rail Trail project, which was favored by a two-to-one margin by voters, move forward, without delay. To ensure this, the Council must choose one of the two plans (A or B) produced after due consideration by the RTC, Santa Cruz County, and Capitola. The proposed projects a can be completed with funding already approved.

You should, under no circumstances, follow the advice of those who were overwhelmingly defeated by the voters and are now spreading inaccurate (to put it mildly) information about both of rail/trail plans developed and proposed by RTC and other elected representatives of the voters.

People need and deserve to have the trail they voted for available for their use without further delay, especially bureaucratic delays caused by nefarious operatives trying to throw sand in the gears.

Facilities delayed are facilities denied.

Rex Page,650-533-3663,[email protected]
1505 42nd Ave #22
Calitola CA 95010
149
Item 5 D.
7 Gautho, Julia
From: Kevin Maguire <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 10:51 AM
To: City Council
Subject: 2.13.25 Agenda 9 C. - Mayor Clarke support of Measure L, Judge rules for Greenway Capitola, Village Business Support of Measure L
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Lets not forget what was campaigned on, vision, heart, promises, and what connected with the People, the Citizens of Capitola.
 Prior to becoming Mayor, Joe Clarke endorses Measure L  Many Capitola Village Business owners included Daniel Castagnola, Matt Artur endorse Measure L
 The Coastal Commission
 RTC Director Guy Preston
 Former Mayor Gayle Ortiz
 Former Mayor Sam Story
 Traffic & Parking Commissioner Nels Westman and President of Capitola Village Resident Association
 Former City manager and Planning Commissioner Susan Westman  The Santa Cruz Count Business Council
 And the 1000s of residents that voted for Measure L,
While the best use of the Rail Corridor would be the Interim Trail, Mayor Brown at the time advocate for the Ultimate Trail, Trail next to Rail.

So now we will get No Trail on the Rail Corridor? I mean very limited, from 38th to 47th? Coronado to Kennedy? Really!! That is not what is suppose to happen! RTC can spend the 600k to update the Trestle, and have a World Class Trail now.. 150
Item 5 D.
8 151
Item 5 D.
9 Judge rules for Greenway Capitola
https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2018/08/22/judge-rules-for-greenwaycapitola/?fbclid=IwY2xjawIZyP1leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHaScLcBg0SEE6W5Ie3caH2cL3jaX6vO01Ybihz2es 5PjNkSjnwnZkCGVhw_aem_yvmsb9RHEisOclRY5YHhzQ
152
Item 5 D.
10 CAPITOLA >> City voters will get their say on a citizen initiative that could direct city officials to preserve the aging Capitola Village rail trestle for use as a trail and bar city investment in detouring the trail onto city streets or sidewalks.

Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge John Gallagher ruled Monday for a group called Greenway Capitola and against the city of Capitola.
“It is the duty of the courts to ‘jealously’ guard the people’s initiative power,” his ruling said.

The City Council, believing there were conflicts between the initiative and existing local planning documents, had filed a lawsuit against Santa Cruz County Clerk and Elections Manager Gail Pellerin to keep the measure off the Nov. 6 ballot and asked for an expedited review.

Capitola officials contended the initiative would prohibit the council from budgeting or planning for improvements to facilitate bike and pedestrian through the village from the rail trestle.

The trestle, which looms over the seaside village, was built circa 1875 and is not in use, as at least $600,000 in repairs are needed.

Gallagher, who expedited his decision at the city’s request, quoted a letter from Ryan Moroney, district supervisor for the California Coastal Commission, that the agency “would not interpret the initiative language to prevent the city from providing much needed safe bicycle and or pedestrian access from Cliff Drive, through the Village core, and up to Park Avenue or otherwise.”
Moroney’s letter continued, “Rather it appears that the initiative language solely limits the city’s ability to fund redirection of the main MBSST (Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail) line specifically while still being able to fund bike and pedestrian improvements elsewhere in the city.”
Greenway Capitola volunteers led by Tom Evans and Juan Escamilla had collected 1,117 signatures to reach 10 percent of the registered voters required to qualify the measure for the ballot; they met that goal when 618 signatures were certified. “The people of Capitola clearly want to vote on how they would like to see the trestle and corridor used,” said Escamilla. “It was sad to see so many roadblocks in an attempt to prevent this vote. Luckily, the court protected our rights.” Evans added, “Many Capitolans have been dreaming about a safe pathway across the trestle for years.”
Greenway Capitola is an offshoot of Greenway Santa Cruz County, which favors converting the rail into a trail for people on foot or on bikes.
153
Item 5 D.
11 “The City of Capitola took an extreme view in its reading of this proposed initiative, misreading its purpose and attempting to undermine the public’s role in making land use decisions in the process,” said attorney Sara Clark of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, which represented Greenway Capitola.

City Manager Jamie Goldstein provided a response from the city. “It is disappointing that the court did not help clarify for voters whether the proposed language in the petition is legally enforceable,” he said. “However the city looks forward to working with the Regional Transportation Commission regarding future uses on its rail corridor that benefit our community.”
154
Item 5 D.
12 155
Item 5 D.
13 156
Item 5 D.
14 157
Item 5 D.
15 Gautho, Julia
From: Scotty Brookie <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 11:00 AM
To: City Council
Cc: Scotty Brookie; Andrew Purchin
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor,
I am a driver, cyclist and walker. I bike and walk a lot. I use exisƟng parts of the rail/trail system oŌen. So I am very happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward.

The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed opƟons for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realisƟc, and can be built with the exisƟng funding. I can't wait to get on the trail! Both opƟons A and B look good to me. Pick either one, especially since the grant funding is already in place to build them. The sooner the beƩer!
Thank you!
ScoƩy Brookie
158
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Alicia L. Amaro <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 11:18 AM
To: City Council
Cc: Clarke, Joe; Pedersen, Alexander; Gerry Jensen; Margaux Morgan; Melinda Orbach; Gautho, Julia; Herlihy, Katie ([email protected]); Goldstein, Jamie ([email protected]); Kahn, Jessica; Mozumder, Kailash; Derric G. Oliver Subject: [PDF] Letter to Capitola City Council (2-12-25) Morrissey Public Comments on Agenda Item 9c (Measure L)
Attachments: LTT Capitola City Council 2-12-25 Morrissey Public Comments on Agenda Item 9c (Measure L) (01697783).pdf
Good morning,
Please see the attached letter, providing public comments from Mike and Meghan Morrissey, on agenda item 9c of the City Council’s meeting on February 13, 2025.

Thank you,
Alicia L. Amaro
Alicia L. Amaro
Administrative Assistant to
Alex J. Lorca, Derric G. Oliver &
Rebecca J. Saathoff

FENTON & KELLER
Post Office Box 791
Monterey, CA 93942-0791
831-373-1241 x251
831-373-7219 (fax)
[email protected]
www.FentonKeller.com
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This is a transmission from the Law Firm of Fenton and Keller. This message and any attached documents may be confidential and contain information protected by the attorney-client or attorney work product privileges. They are intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately notify our office at 831-373-1241. Thank you. 159
Item 5 D.

C H R I S T O P H E R E . P A N E T T A
B R I A N D . C A L L
T R O Y A . K I N G S H A V E N
J O H N E . K E S E C K E R
E L I Z A B E T H R . L E I T Z I N G E R
A N D R E W B . K R E E F T
K E N N E T H S . K L E I N K O P F
A L E X J . L O R C A
D E R R I C G . O L I V E R
M A R C O A . L U C I D O
C H R I S T O P H E R M . L O N G

C A R O L S . H I L B U R N

G L A D Y S R O D R I G U E Z - M O R A L E S
B R A D L E Y J . L E V A N G
C H R I S T O P H E R J . N A N N I N I
T A R A L . C L E M E N S
M A T T H E W D . F E R R Y

E M M A N U E L P E R E A J I M E N E Z
M A R I A A . A I E L L O
R E B E C C A J . S A A T H O F F

A L Y S S A C A R B O N E L M A T S U H A R A

F E N T O N & K E L L E R

A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N

A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
2 8 0 1 M O N T E R E Y - S A L I N A S H I G H W A Y
P O S T O F F I C E B O X 7 9 1
M O N T E R E Y , C A L I F O R N I A 9 3 9 4 2 - 0 7 9 1 T E L E P H O N E ( 8 3 1 ) 3 7 3 - 1 2 4 1
F A C S I M I L E ( 8 3 1 ) 3 7 3 - 7 2 1 9
w w w . F e n t o n K e l l e r . c o m
L E W I S L . F E N T O N
1 9 2 5 - 2 0 0 5

O F C O U N S E L
C H A R L E S R . K E L L E R
S A R A B . B O Y N S
{DGO-01696691;3}
DERRIC G. OLIVER
February 12, 2025
[email protected]
ext. 207
VIA EMAIL ONLY ([email protected])
Capitola City Council
Capitola City Hall
420 Capitola Avenue
Capitola, CA 95010
Re: Public comments on Agenda Item 9c (Measure L)
Capitola City Council meeting 2-13-25
Our File: 35278.34203
Dear Capitola City Councilmembers:

This law office represents Capitola property owners and residents, Michael and Meghan Morrissey, in connection with the above-referenced subject. This letter offers the Morrisseys’ objections to City Staff’s Agenda Report for Agenda Item 9c, advocating for a proposed relocation of Segments 10 and 11 of the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail (aka Coastal Rail Trail) (“Trail”) off the Santa Cruz Line Branch Line Rail Corridor (‘Corridor”) in violation of Measure L, codified as Capitola Municipal Code (“CMC”) Chapter 8.72, entitled “Greenway Capitola Corridor.”
In the Staff Report, City Staff correctly acknowledges the validity and enforceability of Measure L, which was duly and overwhelmingly passed by City voters in 2018. However, City Staff misinterpret the plain and unambiguous language and express purpose of Measure L in several important respects:

1. In the Staff Report (page 5; agenda packet page 296), City Staff erroneously refer to the “goals” of Measure L. However, Measure L contains no “goals.” Rather, Measure L expressly imposes limits on the Trail, including by providing that the “purpose” of Measure L is “keeping” the Trail exclusively on the Corridor. (CMC § 8.72.010.) 160
Item 5 D.

Capitola City Council
February 12, 2025

Page 2 ends

{DGO-01696691;3}

2. City Staff indicates, on page 6 of the Staff Report (agenda packet page 297), “There are no City funds being invested in the project.” This ignores that City funds have been, and are continuing to be, expended on paid City Staff time (and, presumably, other expenditures of “funds or resources,” such as on attorneys’ fees, consultants’ fees, office space, materials, etc.) to coordinate, consider, publicly support and advocate for (including in the Staff Report; i.e., “marketing”) a project (“detouring” or “shifting” a portion of the Trail outside the Corridor) that would violate Measure L if constructed. Such expenditures of City funds, in and of themselves, violate Measure L. (CMC § 8.72.040.) This proposed detour of the Trail off the Corridor would presumably require expenditure of additional City “funds or resources,” as prohibited by Measure L, in the form of City grants of City-owned land (e.g., easements, dedications) to facilitate the proposed detour of the Trail off the Corridor.

3. City Staff erroneously contends the proposed rerouting of the Trail onto nonCorridor land (i.e., Park Avenue) does not “implicate” Measure L because the relocation is not a “detour” as that term is defined in the dictionary. City Staff’s reliance on the dictionary definition of “detour” is a red herring and runs afoul of the first rule of statutory construction to look no further than, and give effect to, the plain meaning of a statute’s clear and unambiguous language. (Lake Lindero Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Barone (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 834, 848.) As such, based on the plain and unambiguous language of Measure L, any expenditure of City funds or resources relating to the proposed relocation of the Trail off the Corridor (e.g., onto a portion of Park Avenue) violates the express purpose of Measure L: “to improve safety and reduce traffic by keeping the [Trail] in the [Corridor].” (CMC § 8.72.040; emphases added.)

4. City Staff erroneously states that the relocation/detour (as proposed by Option A and Option B) “do not propose the construction of the Trail on Capitola’s streets or sidewalks,” as the proposed detour, post-construction, would be partially located on a portion of Park Avenue (i.e., a City street) proposed to be eliminated. This rear-view mirror argument is fundamentally flawed. Again, the fact that the proposed detour would result in the loss of a portion of Park Avenue conflicts with the express terms of Measure L.

5. City Staff’s reliance on the purported/perceived benefits of detouring the Trail off the Corridor, and/or the purported/perceived drawbacks of not doing so, provide no legal justification for violating Measure L. Indeed, Measure L contains no provisions allowing for consideration or balancing of any such benefits or drawbacks of complying with its plain terms.

In conclusion, the Morrisseys—consistent with the City’s citizens’ overwhelming approval of Measure L—demand and expect the City to fully comply with all limits set forth in Measure L, the express “purpose” of which is to “keep” the Trail “in” the Corridor “to improve safety and reduce traffic.” (CMC § 8.72.010.) Indeed, Measure L “shall not be amended or repealed except by vote of the people.” (CMC § 8.72.050.)
* * * * *
161
Item 5 D.

Capitola City Council
February 12, 2025

Page 3 ends

{DGO-01696691;3}
Thank you in advance for your review and consideration of the Morrisseys’ public comments on this item of great importance to the safety, welfare, traffic, parking, and aesthetics of their great City.

Very truly yours,

FENTON & KELLER
A Professional Corporation
Derric G. Oliver
DGO:ala
cc: Clients
Joe Clarke, Mayor ([email protected])
Alexander Pedersen, Vice Mayor [email protected]) Gerry Jensen, Council Member ([email protected]) Margaux Morgan, Council Member ([email protected]) Melinda Orbach, Council Member ([email protected]) Julia Gautho, City Clerk ([email protected])
Katie Herlihy, Community Development Director ([email protected]) Jamie Goldstein, City Manager ([email protected]) Jessica Kahn, Public Works Director ([email protected]) Kailash Mozumder, Public Works Project Manager ([email protected]) 162
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 11:50 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor, I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed options for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realistic, and can be built with the existing funding. I can't wait to get on the trail! I already walk along the rail corridor south (east) of the New Brighton campground and would love to be able to walk safely all the way to Capitola Village! Please choose either option A or B and let’s get this DONE!
Thank you so much,
Virginia Hughes, Aptos Resident
163
Item 5 D.
2 Gautho, Julia
From: Erik Elias <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 11:48 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor, I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed options for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realistic, and can be built with the existing funding. I can't wait to get on the trail! Yes, PLEASE continue to support either of the raised trails currently proposed; it will be an excellent addition to the area in so many ways.

Erik Elias
137 Toledo St, Unit A, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
164
Item 5 D.
3 Gautho, Julia
From: Alfred carlson <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 11:37 AM
To: Alfred Carlson; City Council; Kahn, Jessica
Subject: Re: RAIL / TRAIL
AL CARLSON. 5000 JEWEL ST.

WE NEED TO DO THE SAME THING SANTA CRUZ DID AND PUT IT ON OUR RAIL BRIDGE

THE FLOATING BRIDGE NEXT RAIL WOULD ALSO WORK
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
165
Item 5 D.
4 Action Alert for Capitola Trail
Dear ALFRED,

It's a good news/bad news situation.

The Good News: The staff of the City of Capitola, Santa Cruz County, and the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) have developed two great options for the trail between Capitola Village and New Brighton State Beach. They will be presenting these two alternatives at this Thursday's Capitola City Council Meeting. We're excited about these options. They both put the trail on a new elevated path between the Park Avenue roadway and the railroad tracks. Both options protect monarch butterfly habitat, provide users with ocean views, and provide easy access between the neighborhoods and the trail. Both are raised on a curb, similar to a sidewalk. Both include a 12-foot wide trail with a 5-foot buffer zone between the trail and the street. Most importantly, with the latest construction grant, either one of these options will be fully funded and ready to build. We want to thank the planning staff who have developed these options. We would be delighted to see either of them built.

Now for the Bad News: Rail opponents have been ramping up a disinformation campaign to attack this section of the trail. They have been writing negative letters to the Capitola City Council and are planning to come out to oppose the trail plans at the meeting on Thursday. They have been making wild claims about the trail being moved into the street, in an effort to drum up public opposition. This means, unfortunately, that there will be people at the meeting who don't understand the plans but will show up to oppose them. This creates a lot of pressure on City Council Members. Thursday's presentation is an information item, and the City Council won’t be voting at the meeting. But what they hear from the public at this meeting will affect how they vote later.

Take Action to Support the Trail!
Now: Email the Capitola City Council
Send your comments of support right now to [email protected].

Comments must be received before 5pm Wednesday.

Thursday: Attend the Meeting, See the Presentation, and Speak to Support the Trail
When: The City Council meeting starts at 6 pm and the Rail Trail is item number 9c on the agenda.

Where: Capitola City Council Chambers, 420 Capitola Avenue, Capitola, California, 95010.

Note: To speak at the meeting you must attend in person, Zoom attendees can only observe.
166
Item 5 D.
5 Things you might say in your comments:

Thank you for proposing wide, safe trail options for our community I want a trail sooner not later (or never) so please choose option A or B.

We have the grant money to build this so please choose option A or B.

I want easy access from the neighborhood so choose option A or B.

I want ocean views so please choose option A or B.

I would use this segment of trail in this way, or to get to this place, so choose option A or B.

I support option A or B and have additional design suggestions.

Please send an email now, and come to the Capitola City Council this Thursday evening. I hope to see you there!
-Matt Farrell, Board Chair, Santa Cruz County Friends of the Rail & Trail 167
Item 5 D.
6 Gautho, Julia
From: Kevin Maguire <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 11:32 AM
To: City Council; Goldstein, Jamie ([email protected]); Gautho, Julia; Kahn, Jessica Subject: [PDF] 02.13.2025 Agenda 9 C. "DETOUR"!! FAQ from SCCRTC: Capitola Trestle on the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line
Attachments: FAQ_Capitola-Trestle.pdf
Not sure who in Public Works wrote the message about the Dictionary definition of "Detour" This is a disingenuous attempt deviate from what we want and voted for! This will not fly! Do not insult us! You are on notice!
Yes, a shift and an adjustment can conceptually fall within the same realm as a detour, depending on the context and intent behind the change. Let’s break it down:

Definitions & Comparisons:
 Shift: A change in position or direction, often implying a movement away from an original course.  Adjustment: A modification that can be small or large, but typically suggests fine-tuning rather than a fundamental change.
 Detour: A deviation from a planned or expected route, typically used when the original path is blocked or intentionally bypassed.
" The RTC, in partnership with local jurisdictions, is pursuing development of a dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facility, referred to as the Coastal Rail Trail, within the rail right-of-way. " The City of Capitola appears to be reframing the discussion around potential adjustments to the Coastal Rail Trail by arguing that since a trail does not currently exist within the rail right-of-way, any modification to its planned route is not a "detour" but rather a shift in the project’s implementation. This language minimizes the perception that they are changing or going against the voters’ intent from Measure L, which called for the trail to remain within the rail corridor.

However, the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (SCCRTC) has consistently stated that its goal, in partnership with local jurisdictions, is to develop a dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facility within the rail right-of-way, referring to it as the "Coastal Rail Trail." This aligns with Measure L's directive that the trail should remain within the rail corridor, ensuring that any adjustments or alternative routes should not move the trail away from its originally planned alignment.

Ultimately, the City of Capitola is using strategic wording to downplay their deviation from Measure L’s intent, likely in an effort to justify a route that does not stay within the rail corridor. Meanwhile, SCCRTC has maintained its commitment to keeping the trail within the right-of-way, reinforcing the fact that voters wanted the trail to follow the rail line—not city streets. https://sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/FAQ_Capitola-Trestle.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com 168
Item 5 D.
7 Here is the heart of Measure L:

Key Points of Concern

The measure’s language clearly prioritizes keeping the Trail within the designated rail corridor.

This semantic distinction is troubling because:
• A shift implies a permanent relocation, not a mere temporary adjustment. 169
Item 5 D.
8 • Despite claiming otherwise, this shift fundamentally removes the Trail from its intended rail corridor alignment, placing it adjacent to and physically separated from Park Avenue.

3. Measure L’s Definition of a Detour
The City argues that since the Trail does not yet exist, there is no "direct course" to be detoured from【40†source】 . However, the measure’s intention is clear: to prevent moving the Trail off the rail corridor and onto city streets or sidewalks. The proposed Park Avenue alignment effectively functions as a detour by diverting the Trail from its original planned path within the rail corridor
170
Item 5 D.
9 171
Item 5 D.
10 Gautho, Julia
From: John Gallagher <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 11:32 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor, I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed opƟons for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realisƟc, and can be built with the exisƟng funding. I can't wait to get on the trail!
John Gallagher
Sent from my iPad
172
Item 5 D.
11 Gautho, Julia
From: Rattlebrain <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 11:32 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail 173
Item 5 D.
12 Gautho, Julia
From: Jennifer Young <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 11:28 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor,
I am delighted to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated, wide, safe, buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed options for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realistic, and can be built with the existing funding. So exciting that grant funds are already available for this.

I fully support both options A and B. I hope that you will vote to move forward with one of them.

Looking forward to using the trail!
Jennifer Young
Ben Lomond
174
Item 5 D.
13 Gautho, Julia
From: Delphine Foo-Matkin <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 11:25 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor,
I fully support the Rail Trail, including the portion along Park Avenue between Capitola Village and New Brighton State Beach.

I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed options for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realistic, and can be built with the existing funding. I can't wait to get on the trail!
I want the Rail Trail now and not later.

I know many folks who support the Rail Traill but didn’t know that it was still in danger due to opposition — due to news and the Rail Trail being voted through on the ballots, they thought it was settled. So please consider that for every single letter of support you receive, there are probably 5 to 10 people who do support it who don’t realize that they need to keep being very actively vocal about their support! Thank you very much,
Delphine Foo-Matkin
175
Item 5 D.
14 Gautho, Julia
From: Bob F <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 11:22 AM
To: City Council
Cc: Pedersen, Alexander; [email protected]; [email protected]; Kimberly De Serpa; Manu Koenig; [email protected]; [email protected]; Monica Martinez; [email protected]; Corey Aldridge Subject: Quality of Life 101
For years for-profit groups have been trying to deceive our county that by setting aside a multitude of millions of tax dollars (and pushing aside a means for families including tourists to FINALLY get safely across much of Santa Cruz County at their chosen pace) that in a distant future, a single-track train "could" alleviate congestion upon our Highway 1. Please contemplate the many commonsense responses to that and follow through on, "What would BART be if it were downgraded to only a single track? How long before the next 57 passengers find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time and lose their lives?"
Not everyone is being fooled by greedy opportunists who are seeking to divert funds from the naive into their own pockets. (Billionaires through deception Bernie Madoff and Theranos founders come to mind who were put in prison for their outrageous greediness at the expense of others.) There has always been only room for one track upon the limited "Rail AND TRAIL Corridor". This puts those who had depended upon FINALLY having a safe means to ride a bicycle across much of Santa Cruz County at peril. If it is decided that "a promise" of a single-track "commuter" train in some distant future is more important and the "TRAIL" gets fragmented, I probably will avoid making use of what could have been a GEM for pleasantly getting across much of Santa Cruz County. (In my 74 years I have already been hit by an at fault car twice and I don't want to make the next one my last moment in this world.) The other aspect is that many already realize that the single track will (at best in reality) default to its original intention of over 100 years ago (before it went default) but now at taxpayer expense. This was a slow-moving freight and tourist train that will now only benefit Roaring Camp & Co. (as well as B.S. & Co. with his "wannabe bus" that even if it could go faster than 10 MPH will be forever tethered to a RR track).

The likelihood of a safe viable expeditious commuter train system is nonexistent upon the corridor. implementing the Santa Cruz County version of Trail PLUS Rail would be a mistake! On the other hand, road space has been gained over on Highway 1 for a promising alternative if the meridian can accommodate just one bus lane. This would allow strategic non-stop mass transportation between Watsonville and Santa Cruz in under 20 minutes 24/7.

Please note my latest Letters to the Sentinel on 11/6/24 and the Good Times on 1/8/25. The latter one concludes with:
176
Item 5 D.
15 "Implementing a strategic bus system would better alleviate congestion on Highway 1 (and at far less cost) as well as free up a Peoples Corridor to FINALLY safely accommodate local traffic of families of bicyclists and those on foot.

Perhaps such real-world "Interim" solutions will prove worthy until a means is found to transport people from where they are to where they want to be at the speed of light 24/7 for no cost." With flexibility and strategic efficiency, a promising mass transportation system can be implemented at low cost with buses that already exist in our community. Riding upon non-stop buses could be indistinguishable from the best of train travel when improvements that rival the plushest of passenger train cars could also be phased in (with appropriate fares attached).

A VERY concerned resident of Santa Cruz County,
Bob Fifield
177
Item 5 D.
16 Gautho, Julia
From: Rattlebrain <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 11:21 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor, I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed opƟons for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realisƟc, and can be built with the exisƟng funding. I can't wait to get on the trail!
Sent from my iPhone
178
Item 5 D.
17 Gautho, Julia
From: Rich Mick <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 11:19 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor,
The Rail Trail is moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. The staff has developed options for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realistic, and can be built with the existing funding.

We have the funding ready and I wish to see Plan A or B implemented in Capitola.

Thank you,
Richard Mick
179
Item 5 D.
18 Gautho, Julia
From: Karl Forest <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 11:17 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Support for Plans A & B for Trail Between Capitola Village & New Brighton Beach Hello,
My name is Karl Forest and I live at 516 Oak Dr, Capitola. Amie, my partner, and I hike around Capitola all the time, including between Capitola Village and New Brighton State Beach.

I would like to support both plans A and B for the elevated path between Park Avenue and the existing tracks recommended by city staff and the RTC. The funds are ready and all that is needed is your approval.

I ask that you carefully examine claims by both sides of this issue, especially those opposed to any rail/trail development at any cost. Their claims need to be carefully vetted for accuracy for you to be able to make the most informed decision. I think city staff have done a marvelous job presenting you with two viable plans.

Thank you for taking time to consider this important issue to our community.

Respectfully,
Karl Forest
180
Item 5 D.
19 Gautho, Julia
From: Michael Matkin <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 11:17 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I strongly support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor,
I'm thrilled to see the Rail Trail moving forward. However, I'm concerned that a recent disinformation plan falsely stating the trail will be moved into the street will cause bad actors along with mis- and uninformed community members to sway opinion against this important community project.

The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed options for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realistic, and can be built with the existing funding. So, please recognize the threat of dis- and misinformation in your considerations and support one of the excellent options to get the rail trail built soon. I can't wait to get on the trail!
Very Best,
Michael Matkin
755 14th Ave, #103, Santa Cruz, CA 95062
181
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: JRE <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 1:42 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Excited for the Rail Trail in Capitola
Dear City Council and Mayor,
In summer, we love to ride our bikes to visit Capitola Village from our house in Santa Cruz It's such a great outing. We bring the kids and get ice cream, or go out to lunch. The only thing holding us back from doing this more often is the stress of dealing with traffic on the bike ride. The rail trail is going to make visiting Capitola more appealing, because the bike ride will be safer and nicer.

It's also going to be so amazing to be able to ride a bike easily to and from Capitola Village and Cabrillo College. When I was a student at Cabrillo I lived in the Park Avenue apartments. It would have been so great to have the Rail Trail to be able to safely go to and from home to school and to the Villiage on my bike.

The new plan to build the Rail Trail from the Village to New Brighton in the space between the tracks and Park Avenue, on a safe, elevated, buffered 12-foot wide path, has lower cost, less tree removal, and lower environmental impact than the first idea of building the path down in the ditch next to the tracks.

The new plan makes the trail realistic and affordable. And it's going to be beautiful! Please give my congratulations to the staff members who made the new plan. Please give the plan your support.

Warm regards, Jessica Evans.
182
Item 5 D.
2 Gautho, Julia
From: Kevin Kinkor <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 1:28 PM
To: City Council
Subject: [SPF Softfail] Rail/Trail
Hey City Council,
I was excited to hear we have money and plans in place for the trail. With that said, I hear there is a challenge on having the rail. The rail part is critical to transportation in Santa Cruz County. In the absence of the rail, our county will remain in gridlock every day (like it is now). From widening the freeway, to trail, to key bus routes and rail, we will have transportation options to support our community for decades to come. Please approve both trail and rail.

Thank you,
Kevin Kinkor
CEO
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

RPO | HR Consulting | Outplacement | Calendly
183
Item 5 D.
3 Gautho, Julia
From: Russell Weisz <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 1:21 PM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor, I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed options for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realistic, and can be built with the existing funding. I can't wait to get on the trail! thanks,
Russell Weisz
319 Laguna St, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
8312461770
184
Item 5 D.
4 Gautho, Julia
From: Katherine McCamant <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 1:17 PM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor, this is going to be a wonderful place for my family to use all the time! I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed options for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realistic, and can be built with the existing funding.

Thank you for proposing wide, safe trail options for our community I want a trail sooner not later (or never) so please choose option A or B.

We have the grant money to build this so please choose option A or B.

I want easy access from the neighborhood so choose option A or B.

I want ocean views so please choose option A or B.

Sincerely, Katherine McCamant
I can't wait to get on the trail!!!
Sent from my iPhone
185
Item 5 D.
5 Gautho, Julia
From: Terre Thomas <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 1:13 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Park Avenue on 2/13/25 Agenda
Dear Council and the RTC,
Having received noƟficaƟon Saturday, your offices being closed Monday (so being unable to talk to anyone Ɵl yesterday) and being unable to access this agenda item on my computer today, I am wriƟng you now to voice my serious concerns regarding the RTCs plans for Park Avenue, not knowing how long I might have to voice them at the meeƟng tomorrow.

First, as a fiŌy plus year resident on Park Avenue, I believe it is much more important NOT to put in another sidewalk along the ocean side of the street, resulƟng in the removal of 25 parking spaces (for residents, visitors, Wharf to Wharf and the Art and Wine FesƟval), plus many trees. The only pedestrian traffic coming from Capitola Village Eastward would be local residents and those going to New Brighton Beach. Any other walking desƟnaƟon would be too far, so one sidewalk, which already exists, would be more than sufficient.

If you cleaned up the exisƟng bike paths and narrowed the driving lanes it would accommodate all needs. As far as safety is concerned, we have asked that four speed tables be put in front of the two residenƟal driveway areas, as much needed ƟckeƟng along this corridor is very rare. So please put them on your “budget wish list”, as they are sorely needed.

As for the pedestrian and bike trail from Prospect to Park being “abandoned” by the RTC, so it can go through the Village, there is no reason why it can’t be put on the Trestle, since people don’t weigh very much, the Trestle isn’t subject to Rail Banking, and the tracks will need to be removed anyway. And it would be in keeping with City Ordinances, as well as avoiding losing more parking in the Village.

Please don’t ram OpƟon A or B down our throats that we the public had liƩle to say about unƟl now, at a poorly noƟfied meeƟng, that will cost more money than is available.

Please postpone any decision regarding the Capitola segment of the Rail/Trail unƟl such a Ɵme as there is more input provided, including that of the RTCs fiscal report.

Thank you,
Terre Thomas
Former Planning Commissioner
Sent from my iPhone
186
Item 5 D.
6 Gautho, Julia
From: Ann Baier <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 1:13 PM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor,
I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed options for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realistic, and can be built with the existing funding. I can't wait to get on the trail!
I visit this area often. Thank you for proposing wide, safe trail options for our community. I want a trail soon, so please choose option A or B!
(BTW, I'll also be so happy to see a reduction in non-native invasive ivy and eucalyptus trees, as these present an extreme fire hazard to the community, and take the place of native species and habitat.)
Ann Baier
187
Item 5 D.
7 Gautho, Julia
From: Tera Ebert <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 1:07 PM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor,
I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. It is so beautiful to see the ocean view from that area. What a treasure to think that all ages can enjoy it. I'm glad that the staff has developed options for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realistic, and can be built with the existing funding. I can't wait to get on the trail!
Tera Ebert
Santa Cruz native of 68 years
2670 17th Ave.

Santa Cruz, CA. 95065
188
Item 5 D.
8 Gautho, Julia
From: Madeline Horn <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 1:05 PM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor,
I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed options for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realistic, and can be built with the existing funding. I can't wait to get on the trail!
I worked for years at Capitola Museum, was born and raised in Santa Cruz, my son attends Main St School and will be at New Brighton next year. I fully support the creation of more rail options in our city and county.

Sincerely,
Madeline Horn
189
Item 5 D.
9 Gautho, Julia
From: Cory Ray <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 12:57 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Support for the Staff Recommendations for the Rail Trail.

Dear City Council and Mayor,
I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed options for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realistic, and can be built with the existing funding. I can't wait to get on the trail!
As an owner of three rental properties in Capitola and a former resident of Capitola and an avid EBike rider, I want to express support for Option A or B.

There is grant money for one of these options, they provide easy access and are altogether better choices. I also believe that your staff did an excellent job and deserve your support in their recommendations.

I look forward to riding Option A or B!
With Regards,
Cory Ray
190
Item 5 D.
10 Gautho, Julia
From: B Jordan <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 12:56 PM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Date: February 12, 2025
Item 9c – February 13 - Park Avenue Traffic Calming Improvements with Coastal Rail Trail Options Recommended Action: Review options for Coastal Rail Trail improvements in the Park Avenue right-of-way and identify Option A (as described in the staff report) as the preferred alternative for further analysis.

Subject: I support the Staff memo on Alternatives for the Rail Trail in Capitola Dear Capitola City Council:

Thank you for taking the time to read my message. I am writing related to your consideration of Item 9c, related to the Coastal Rail Trail improvements in Capitola.

A great deal of misinformation is being spread. Many well intentioned residents will be in the audience, in response to this misleading information. An anti train group active for years in SC County, claims that the new bike and pedestrian trail in Capitola is to be moved onto Park Avenue. This misinformation is intended to create alarming visions of cars, bikes and walkers all jockeying for space on the existing pavement of Park Avenue.

That is not what the proposals under consideration will do! In either option before City Council, the new trail will be next to the street and bikes and walkers and will be physically separated from traffic on Park Avenue. Please make that clear to the public!
Here is part of the relevant language from the staff Memo on this item – which is being ignored. “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.” (emphasis added).

Again, in each proposal, the new trail will keep bikes and pedestrians SEPARATED from the existing roadway!
Let’s not fall for this game.

Sincerely, B Jordan
PS. I am sorry that this entire process is so easily misinterpreted by the public, in part by so many long and technical memos at each step of the rail trail process. I hope that someone can encourage the RTC to insert executive summaries in the front part of public memos, which are simple, clear and easily understood by the average lay person. That at least gives concerned citizens a fighting chance to get accurate information on projects and to squash the rumor mill.
191
Item 5 D.
11 Gautho, Julia
From: Kevin Norton <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 12:55 PM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor,
I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed options for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realistic, and can be built with the existing funding.

Thank you for proposing wide, safe trail options for our community I want a trail sooner not later (or never) so please choose option A or B.

We have the grant money to build this so please choose option A or B.

I want easy access from the neighborhood so choose option A or B.

I want ocean views so please choose option A or B.

I would use this segment of trail in this way, or to get to this place, so choose option A or B.

I support option A or B and have additional design suggestions.

I can't wait to get on the trail!
Best regards,
Kevin
192
Item 5 D.
12 Gautho, Julia
From: Ann Carr <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 12:52 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Coastal Rail Trail Options
Please keep the trail along the rail corridor. That is the safest place for it ! It has been too long ! There is no place safe for bicycles. Trail now !
Please 뛴뛵뛶뛷뛸뛹뜆뛺뛻뛼뛽뛾뛿뜀뜁뜂뜃뜄뜅뜇. On old train tracks.

If you have to have a train put it down the middle of the freeway.

Ann Carr
Aptos Hills
Sent from my iPhone
193
Item 5 D.
13 Gautho, Julia
From: Judith Rohrbaugh <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 12:35 PM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor, I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed options for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realistic, and can be built with the existing funding. I can't wait to get on the trail! Please be cautious of negative and untruthful complaints to the contrary.

The completeness of this project has been years in the making and was voted on by the residents of Santa Cruz County. Please stay the course.

Sincerely,
J.A. Rohrbaugh
194
Item 5 D.
14 Gautho, Julia
From: Tory Delfavero <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 12:30 PM
To: City Council
Subject: February 13th Agenda Item 9
Dear Council,
I kindly request that the City postpone action on the rail trail until a community meeting can be held and the public has the opportunity to review the RTC fiscal report due in March.

The rail trail is a significant community change and should be treated like other important topics such as the Draft Zoning Code Updates or ADA transition plan. It’s concerning that information about the Rail Trail isn’t easily found in Community News, while other proposals like the Stockton Bridge replacement are highlighted.

The trail’s impact on Capitola residents requires community discussion, just as other initiatives do. The current process is not accessible for working parents, which contradicts your new strategic plan’s pillar of an accessible government. It’s difficult for people with multiple responsibilities to engage and be informed.

For example, I received the agenda packet on Tuesday February 11th. Balancing work, family commitments ( PTA Meeting Tuesday evening & kids soccer game Wednesday evening) make it incredibly hard in 48 hours to properly review such a significant proposal. Try searching "rail trail" on the City's website. This is not just about Park Avenue. The community deserves the opportunity to hear about the about the entire "rail trail" package through Capitola.

This rushed process isn’t necessary. Please postpone the item, hold a community meeting, and wait for the RTC fiscal report to ensure our community has the information they need on this project.

Tory Del Favero
Capitola Resident
195
Item 5 D.
15 Gautho, Julia
From: Kaki Rusmore <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 12:19 PM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor,
I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed options for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realistic, and can be built with the existing funding. I can't wait to get on the trail!
Warm regards,
Kaki Rusmore
PS. I'm from Aptos, but just across the city limits, so this really matters to me! 196
Item 5 D.
16 Gautho, Julia
From: Andrew Dyer <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 12:19 PM
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear Capitola City Council and Mayor,
With the Rail Trail moving forward, the dream of a safe bike and pedestrian pathway through our community becomes closer to reality. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are a great soluƟon. The skilled staff has developed opƟons for the trail that will protect Monarch habitat, that are realisƟc, and can be built with the exisƟng funding.

Please support this vital community asset that will improve the lives of so many people, from children to the elderly, from rollers to walkers, locals and visitors, in many many ways.

I would like to see the momentum of this project maintained so please choose opƟon A or B as you see best fiƫng from your perspecƟve as leaders and locals.

Thank you,
Andrew Dyer
Santa Cruz, CA
197
Item 5 D.
17 Gautho, Julia
From: lynora lwine <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 12:12 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Park ave.

Please leave the area by the train tracks as is. I don’t want my property taxes spent on this expensive project that will only create an unnecessary mess. People voted against it so please listen to what the people want. Thank you. Lynora Lwine
198
Item 5 D.
18 Gautho, Julia
From: Don Lauritson <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 12:02 PM
To: City Council
Subject: SUPPORT OPTION A OR B TRAIL BETWEEN CAPITOLA VILLAGE AND NEW BRIGHTON

STATE BEACH

CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS,
PLEASE SUPPORT ONE OR BOTH OF THESE TRAIL OPTIONS. I OFTEN WALK IN THE VILLAGE AND AT NEW BRIGHTON STATE BEACH. THESE TRIAL OPTIONS WILL ALLOW A SAFE TRAIL BETWEEN THE TWO. I UNDERSTAND THAT GRANT MONEY IS AVAILABLE TO CONSTRUCT THIS TRAIL SEGMENT. LET’S GET GOING AND BUILD THIS SEGMENT WHICH WILL PROVIDE A SIGNIFICANT BENEFIT TO THE WALKING AND BIKING PUBLIC.

THANKS,

DON LAURITSON
199
Item 5 D.
19 Gautho, Julia
From: Susan D <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 1:50 PM
To: City Council
Subject: I support staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor,
I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed opƟons for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realisƟc, and can be built with the exisƟng funding. I can't wait to get on the trail! I appreciate the work you are doing to ensure we have a safe, wide, beauƟful trail for our enƟre community to use. I would like to see a trail sooner, not later, so please choose opƟon A or B. OpƟon A and B also offer ocean views so please choose either. I would use this segment to get around Capitola and the nearby areas and feel A or B offer the best opƟons.

Thank you for your dedicaƟon to our community.

Kind regards,
Susan Dahlgren
200
Item 5 D.
20 Gautho, Julia
From: Clostergren <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 1:52 PM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor,
I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward; the overwhelming voters in Santa Cruz county have supported the rail trail for years now.

The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I support this idea and urge you to approve either of the options for the elevated trail; this is brilliant thinking. I'm glad that the staff has developed options for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realistic, and can be built with the existing funding.

Please support what the majority of citizens of Capitola and Santa Cruz county want and need! Carol Ostergren
706 Gilroy drive
Capitola CA
201
Item 5 D.
21 Gautho, Julia
From: Brad Burkhart <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 1:53 PM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor, I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed options for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realistic, and can be built with the existing funding. I can't wait to get on the trail! 202
Item 5 D.
22 Gautho, Julia
From: Diane Cowen <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 1:57 PM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor, I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed options for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realistic, and can be built with the existing funding. I work in Capitola, and am very much looking forward to the completion of this project.

Since this section is fully funded, I hope you will continue forward and not be swayed by misinformation disseminated by the anti-rail folks.

Diane Cowen
203
Item 5 D.
23 Gautho, Julia
From: Ed Spurr <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 1:58 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda Item 9C - Trail on Right of Way
Dear Council Members,
In reading the draft Strategic Plan 2.0, it is apparent that the study favors the idea of a commuter train and it is feasible in the next 5,10, 20 years even though our most recent study is not due until next month. The right of way is not wide enough for tracks and a reasonable trail, especially as our concept of transportation is evolving (ie electric bikes that were not a thing just a few years ago).

I implore you to support the idea of Measure L and not take the trail through the village with a loss and gain of elevation and the vehicle and pedestrian congestion, especially on weekends and rush hour. The proposal to remove the forest along Park Avenue and build a narrow trail system with 16 foot concrete wall to support it, is not looking to the future. As our town becomes a small city, the need for safe recreational opportunities will increase exponentially. An expensive and narrow trail will not meet those needs.

When I look at the disrepair of Monterey Avenue on the East side of the village, I cannot imagine a worse place for a trail and I shudder at the number of accidents and fatalities that will ensue.

As a Point of observation, Measure D (2016) raised our taxes to help maintain our roads and I would think it a very hard sell to get voters to approve another increase to pay for the building and managing of a new railroad. So let's rail bank the tracks until we have a better understanding of the transportation possibilities to come and build a world class trail system that meets the needs of our citizens now and is in harmony with the Strategic Plan 2.0..

Thank you for your service...

Ed Spurr
831.479.1139
There is only one Earth....
204
Item 5 D.
24 Gautho, Julia
From: Barbara Roettger <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 2:25 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Honor the will of your constituents
Dear members of the Capitola City Council,
It has come to my attention that some City Council members want to divert the trail down onto Park Avenue and into Capitola Village. This is the most ridiculous choice anyone could make. Already the Village is super congested with cars and pedestrians and it would be very dangerous for everyone if people commuting on bikes had to pedal down into the Village. There is no way I would send a child on a bicycle down into the Village. Please respect the will of the voters and keep the trail running along the rail! Capitola voters mandated in Measure L that the trail stay on the trestle. This proposal is ignoring the will of the people.

Keeping the trail on the trestle is safer, cheaper and faster and easier with just a 2-3% change in gradient.

We all know that a railway, used over a century ago to bring one train in to transport lumber and the same train exits on the same single track, is antiquated and obsolete for today’s needs. With the advent of e-bikes and popularity of cycling in general, a genuine rail rail trail (like the popular rails to trails model) would be a major asset to to the citizens of Santa Cruz county and for tourists alike.

Sincerely,
Barbara Roettger
Santa Cruz
831-421-2830
205
Item 5 D.
25 Gautho, Julia
From: Peter Julber <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 2:33 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Regarding the trail between Capitola Village and New Brighton State Beach.

This email is in support of the Regional Transportation Commission's current two great options for the trail between Capitola Village and New Brighton State Beach.

Thank you for proposing wide, safe trail options for our community.

I live in Soquel (N Rodeo Gulch Rd), and work in Aptos (Estates Dr / Aptos Warehouse Complex).

Having a safe way to commute via bicycle between these two locations is a high priority for me.

We have the grant money to build this so please choose one of the existing two options.

I will not be able to attend the city council meeting this Thursday, so please consider this as my voice of support for one of the two options already on the table.

Please do not let those who oppose these two great options sway the meeting this Thursday with disinformation.

Thank you,
Peter Julber
831 824 4176
206
Item 5 D.
26 Gautho, Julia
From: Dianne <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 2:36 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Please approve the trail proposal along Park Avenue Mayor and Council Members,
As a daily walker I am looking forward to the proposed improvements for pedestrians along Park Avenue. I read the staff report and was very pleased to see plans for an elevated, buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the rail tracks. Both walkers and bicyclists will have a safer and more enjoyable experience on this proposed path.

Funding is available for this project as part of the rail transit plan, which our county will definitely need in the future. I urge you to approve the staff's proposal and move forward quickly with construction.

Thanks for your consideration,
Dianne Dryer
207
Item 5 D.
27 Gautho, Julia
From: Katharine P. Minott <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 3:03 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda Item 9c: Support Rail Trail Options A&B: Rail Trail Dear Members of the Capitola City Council,
I have been very pleased to read and learn about not just one, but TWO thoughtful, buildable options for the trail between Capitola Village and New Brighton State Beach.  Each Option, A & B, places the trail on a new elevated path between the Park Avenue roadway and the railroad tracks.
 Each Option, A & B is on a raised curb, similar to a sidewalk.  Each Option, A & B includes a 12-foot wide trail with a 5-foot buffer zone between the trail and the street.
 Additionally, Option A or Option B will be fully funded by the recent construction grant and is, frankly, ready to build.
 Moreover, each Option, A & B, protects monarch butterfly habitat,  Each Option, A & B, provides users with ocean views,
 Each Option, A & B provides easy access between the neighborhoods and the trail.

As a longtime resident in the west Seacliff neighborhood, I am looking forward to welcoming the Rail Trail that is closer to my house and my neighborhood!
Sincerely,
~ Kate Minott
____
Katharine P. Minott
West Seacliff Neighborhood, Aptos
Master of Urban and Regional Planning
San José State University
208
Item 5 D.
28 Gautho, Julia
From: Mary McKenna <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 3:08 PM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor, I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed opƟons for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realisƟc, and can be built with the exisƟng funding. I can't wait to get on the trail!
Please vote for opƟon A or B, since they support all of the good design ideas menƟoned above.

Thank you, Mary McKenna
Sent from my iPhone
209
Item 5 D.
29 Gautho, Julia
From: Kitty Hansen <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 3:13 PM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor,
I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed options for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realistic, and can be built with the existing funding. I can't wait to get on the trail!
Please choose option A or B, because:

1. I want a trail SOONER, not later

2. The grant money is there!

3. I live pretty close to that area, and I would use this trail for regular bike rides from my house to Aptos and Seacliff State Beach.

4. The ocean view would be an amazing bonus!
Thanks so much for all your hard work,
K Hansen
Hill Street, Capitola
210
Item 5 D.
30 Gautho, Julia
From: Eugene Tsuji <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 3:16 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Rail Trail options A or B please
Dear City Council and Mayor,
As a frequent shopper to Capitola from Aptos, I prefer to visit by bicycle and strongly support options A or B. Many of the negative comments often show a clear fear of any change and often talking points from a disinformation campaign. I trust in the council and mayor to support options A or B for a better future thanks
Eugene Tsuji
370 Poppy Way, Aptos, CA 95003
211
Item 5 D.
31 Gautho, Julia
From: ross rossbryan.net <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 3:20 PM
To: City Council
Subject: I strongly support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor,
It’s GREAT to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are just right. This will be a practical and beautiful addition to our community and I can't wait to get on the trail! So exciting! Please ignore the anti-progress, not-in-my-back-yard people who are afraid. Be bold! Ross Bryan, MA MFT
Psychotherapist
CA MFT license # 51858
“The good life is a process, not a state of being. It is a direction, not a destination.” - Carl Rogers
Important:

This e-mail message may contain confidential information and is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed.

If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, or distribute it or any of the information it contains.

Please notify me by return email and delete it immediately. 212
Item 5 D.
32 Gautho, Julia
From: PERRY MCCULLY <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 3:26 PM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor, I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed options for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realistic, and can be built with the existing funding. I can't wait to get on the trail! Perry McCully
213
Item 5 D.
33 Gautho, Julia
From: Myles Corcoran <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 3:26 PM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor,
I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great.

Sincerely,
Myles F. Corcoran
214
Item 5 D.
34 Gautho, Julia
From: Sally Arnold <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 3:31 PM
To: City Council
Subject: I support Option B for the Rail Trail
Dear City Council and Mayor,
I am so pleased to see the Rail Trail moving forward. Though both options A & B are good, I support Option B because it seems to protect more of the monarch habitat. Though an inland bike lane (Option A) could be nice, it doesn’t seem necessary when we’ll have a 12 foot, 2 way, protected bike trail on the ocean side of the road.

I have a couple of design suggestions. First, it appears that the buffer zone varies in width depending on the available room. It seems to me that maximizing the trail width in those wider spots would have more value. I suggest keeping the buffer a steady 5 feet and making the trail even wider than 12 feet where you can.

My second suggestion has to do with protecting the pedestrians and cyclists using the trail. The curb and the buffer are great. Even better would be adding an attractive vertical element. This might be a low fence, a hedge of native plants, a trellis with a native vine growing on it…. Something like this would serve a few purposes. It would make the trail feel more safe and separated from the traffic. It would be a visual clue to cars to stay away. It would prevent impulsive pedestrians, cyclists and skateboarders from shooting out into traffic whenever they get the notion. I think an attractive 3-4 foot barrier would greatly improve safety for all users of Park Avenue whether in their cars or using active transportation.

Thank you for your work on this. I can't wait to get on the trail! Sally Arnold
215
Item 5 D.
35 Gautho, Julia
From: John Martorella <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 3:45 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Bay Ave. & the trail
Hello Mayor and council,
Here's a few things to consider:
- Put back Bay ave. to its original configuration. This experiment is another failure and waste of money from a shoot from the hip reaction.
- Install raised crosswalks @ Bay ave. and Hill st. that is well illuminated. - Eliminate street parking @ 750 Bay Ave. from Capitola ave to Hill. The tenants at the complex have plenty of parking in the rear of the complex. This will help with cyclists by having dedicated marked lanes in each direction.
- Roundabouts won't work at Bay and Cap ave as it sits now, you would have to purchase property from 4 differnt owners to maybe make it work. Please don't waste our money on another study! - Don't agree to a "trail" through the city streets, who comes up with crap like that? Lastly, get another council member to represent Capitola on the RTC, our current member is lost in high weeds.

Thank you,
John Martorella
216
Item 5 D.
36 Gautho, Julia
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 3:46 PM
To: City Council
Subject: REJECT RTC's PROPOSAL
To whom it may concern:

Please do not overthrow the will of the voters by passing measure L which rejected the diversion of unusable train tracks for an unfunded train project. The loss of hundreds of trees would be devastating. I once took a tourist from Spain on this walk and she said it reminded her of the most beautiful area in Spain! This is not a cost saving measure because $120 million dollars in grants still can't and wont pay for the project to preserve tracks that are unusable.

I urge you to reject the RTC proposal. This path is called the spiritual cathedral by locals. I urge each on of you to walk this trail and you will see both walkers and bicyclists getting along on one of the most beautiful trails in all of the county.

Vivian Fenner-Evans
Soquel Resident who spends every week walking on this trail This is what we are looking at with the misinformation of "Rail and Trail: We can have both!" The loss of hundreds of mature trees and natural beauty that many have enjoyed as a tall for a 1500 foot long retaining wall cavern. What was a safe, separated wide corridor for bikes and pedestrians will become a narrow bike lane with no bollards or protection from speeding vehicles distracted by the coastal view. Voters in 2018 passed Measure L rejecting this diversion, yet the Capitola City Council will be attempting to overthrow the will of the voters at an extremely high expense masquerading as a "cost saving measure" as over $120 million in grants still can't pay for the ridiculous project to preserve unusable train tracks for an unfunded train project. Demand the city council reject the RTC's proposal by writing to them today at [email protected] or by attending tomorrow evening's city council meeting and using the public comment session to speak out. 217
Item 5 D.
37 Gautho, Julia
From: Tina Andreatta <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 3:46 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Build the trail adjacent to Park Avenue
Dear Capitola Mayor, Vice-Mayor and City Council Members, I am grateful for the planning staff for their hard work, dedicaƟon and experƟse. Follow the professional advice from Santa Cruz County Regional TransportaƟon Commission. Most importantly, with the latest construcƟon grant, either alternaƟve A or B opƟons will be fully funded and ready to build.

AlternaƟve A or B opƟons are safer, protect monarch buƩerfly habitat, the trail will be built much quicker, and less expensive.

AlternaƟve A or B opƟons offer pedestrians; cyclists; wheelchairs with ocean views. Both opƟons include a 12- foot wide trail with 5-foot buffer zone between the trail and Park Avenue.

Either alternaƟve opƟon is superior as the trail is free of the fence and level with Park Avenue. The trail will easily connect to numerous Capitola side street neighborhoods.

Best regards,
Tina AndreaƩa
218
Item 5 D.
38 Gautho, Julia
From: Betsy Kodad <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 3:58 PM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail I haveDear City Council and Mayor, I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed opƟons for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realisƟc, and can be built with the exisƟng funding. I can't wait to get on the trail!
Sent from my iPhone. I have lived in santa cruz county since 1984. I love to go on trains. They are so much fun. I have voted for these train opƟons an every ballot! Please know I am hoping to live long enough for these trains to be running.! They are fun for kids and Adults. Less cars on the roads too. Please know many of us want this! ASAP! I’m 74 now. Trying to stay posiƟve! Sincerely , Elizabeth Belton
219
Item 5 D.
39 Gautho, Julia
From: Melinda Geisler <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 3:59 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Rail line
Please stop promoƟng this train. It will be a nightmare, barging through our village and neighborhoods! Train horns sounding at each crossing, the clang clang of the crossing gates, the trees removed! It's a terrifying thought.

And the residents who will lose their homes, low income residents living in mobile homes. You can't jusƟfy this! A train will not be used and it is not necessary.

A trail will aƩract tourists and be used by residents. It will improve Capitola and Santa Cruz. Just like the trail in Monterey, which is used to promote that city. Don't let us down, please stop spending money on crazy studies for a project no one wants but the poliƟcians Thank you Melinda Geisler
300 Plum St.

Capitola, Ca
95010
Sent from my iPhone
220
Item 5 D.
40 Gautho, Julia
From: Julia M Dye <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 4:03 PM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor, I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed options for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realistic, and can be built with the existing funding. I can't wait to get on the trail! Thank you for proposing wide, safe trail options for our community I want a trail sooner not later (or never) so please choose option A or B.

Thank you.

Julia
221
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Tanya Pouls <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 4:14 PM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Dear Capitola City Council Meeting members.

I am a resident of Capitola who does a lot of walking. I am grateful that both of the options you are considering for the trail between Capitola Village and New Brighton State Beach protect the monarch butterfly habitat, provide users with ocean views, and provide easy access between the neighborhoods and the trail. I’m also excited that both options will be fully funded and are ready to build.

I would like to see the trail built sooner than later so please choose either option A or B.

Thank you for considering my opinion on this issue.

Sincerely,
Tanya Pouls
2235 Albert Lane
Capitola, CA
222
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Harrison, Alexis@Wildlife <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 4:28 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Robert Tidmore; Mozumder, Kailash; [email protected] Subject: Support for Option B - Coastal Rail Trail Segments 10 & 11 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Dear Capitola City Council,
My name is Alexis Harrison, and I am an Environmental Scientist for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) conducting environmental review and permitting in Santa Cruz County. CDFW owns and manages the Escalona Gulch monarch butterfly habitat, which is adjacent to the proposed Coastal Rail Trail Segments 10 and 11 project. As the land managing agency, our goal is to preserve and enhance the functionality of the monarch habitat.

The County of Santa Cruz, RTC, and City of Capitola staƯ have been coordinating the alignment of the Coastal Rail Trail in this area with myself and other CDFW staƯ in order to reduce potential impacts to monarch habitat. I am writing to you to express my support for the Park Avenue alignment, and specifically for Option B, which eliminates the inland bike lane along Park Ave and therefore reduces the removal of windbreak eucalyptus trees along Park Avenue that are essential for the overwintering monarch population.

Thank you,
Alexis
Alexis Harrison (she/her)
Environmental Scientist
Bay Delta Region – R3 | California Department of Fish & Wildlife [email protected]
223
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Lola Ross <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 4:34 PM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Dear City Council and Mayor,
I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I visit New Brighton regularly, and I’m excited for a safe walking path in the neighborhood that protects Monarch habitat, that is realistic, and that can be built with the existing funding. I can't wait to get on the trail! Please support Option A or Option B when it is time to vote! Sincerely,
Lola Ross
126 Auburn Ave
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
224
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Martha Macambridge <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 4:34 PM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Dear City Council and Mayor,
I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward.

I want a trail sooner than later (or never) so please choose option A or B.

We have the grant money to build this.

I cycle from Santa Cruz to Aptos on a regular basis. I have experienced MANY close calls with vehicular traffic, far to many close calls. I urge you to proceed without delay with this section of the Rail and Trail.

Reminder, close to 80% of voters want the Rail and Trail. Please follow the wishes of the voters.

Thank you,
-Martha
225
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Joan Speckert <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 4:36 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Alternative A/ B options
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Dear Council Members,
Please follow the professional advice of The Santa Cruz RTC.

Either alternaƟve opƟon is superior as the trail is free of the fence and level with Park Avenue. Offering pedestrians, cyclists and wheelchairs ocean views.

AlternaƟve A or B are safer and the trail can be constructed quicker and more cost effecƟve.

Thank you Joan Speckert
Sent from my iPhone
226
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: David Schonbrunn <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 4:40 PM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Dear City Council and Mayor,
The Train Riders Association of California is pleased to see the Rail Trail moving forward. We are concerned by efforts by opponents of rail, who were voted down by an overwhelming majority of county voters, to raise issues, concerns and opposition to the new options.

Please proceed to work with those options. Do not be deterred by the opponents. Even if they get loud, they are still a tiny minority.
--David
David Schonbrunn, Vice President
Train Riders Association of California (TRAC)
P.O. Box 151439
San Rafael, CA 94915-1439
415-370-7250 cell & office
[email protected]
www.calrailnews.org
227
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: grace Voss <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 4:42 PM
To: City Council
Subject: rail trail letter
Subject: Item # Park Ave Traffic calming and multi-use path – support Option B

Dear Mayor and City Council members:

I ride this area frequently, and I support Option B provided that the trail is separated from traffic and protected, a Class 1 bike path. It makes sense to divert the trail from the rail right of way in this area (0.7 miles) to achieve a more cost effective, that will preserve trees and will be more scenic. There is no point having a trail on the inland side (Option A).

The trail only people are misleading everyone, you cannot take the funds awarded for one project (Coastal Rail Trail) & use them for another (trail only). For trail only, the approved coastal trail project under construction would halt, awarded grants returned (black mark on county), and attempt to get a legal right to rail ROW. It would be ten plus years before any trail would be constructed. There are funds for multi-modal transportation, few funds for a recreational trail only. The fastest way to get a trail is to build the trail, keep the rail. Preserve the rail for public transit for the future of our county.

Sincerely,
Grace Voss
228
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Valerie Mishkin <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 4:44 PM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor,
I appreciate the Rail Trail moving forward sooner than later. The plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are ideal.

I'm glad that the staff has developed options for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realistic, and can be built with the existing funding. Either option A or B is a welcome solution. The future of how we live in urban communities is shifting toward a more traditional lifestyle of walking neighborhoods and using mass transportation. As a senior with less walking in my future, the public transportation option will become more important as well. For my children and their families the trail is a fundamental piece to my grandchildren gaining independence. 229
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Board Chair Friends of the Rail Trail <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 4:55 PM
To: City Council
Subject: [PDF] Comment Letter on Item 9c
Attachments: FORT Park Avenue Alignment Letter 02122025 Final.pdf Please accept our comment letter on Item 9c
Matt Farrell
Friends of the Rail and Trail
230
Item 5 D.

February 12, 2025
To: Mayor Clarke and Capitola City Councilmembers
From: Santa Cruz County Friends of the Rail & Trail
Re: Support for Staff’s Recommendation on Item 9c. Park Avenue Traffic Calming and Coastal Rail Trail Options
Mayor Clarke and Councilmembers,
Santa Cruz County Friends of the Rail Trail (FORT) thanks you for the opportunity to offer comments on the proposed Traffic Calming and Coastal Rail Trail Options. Along with the support expressed by the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC), which includes representatives from all cities and the five supervisorial districts, we believe that staff ‘s recommendation of the Park Avenue alignment balances the city’s goals of calming traffic on Park Avenue and supporting both local access to and active use of the rail corridor.

While our board has not taken a position regarding Option A or Option B, we do support a protected trail design which includes a fence, barricades, vegetation or other protection between the trail and the roadway. This protection was also supported by the BAC.

We agree with the project team’s analysis that either of the Park Avenue alignments provides significant cost savings over the proposed coastal alignment and has less environmental impact on the existing monarch habitat. We also believe that the Park Avenue alignment is more feasible than pursuing a trail alternative which would remove the existing rail line,require railbanking, face significant resistance and delay, and which was decisively rejected by voters in the city of Capitola and countrywide with a countywide 73% voter majority rejection of the June 2022 Measure D election.

We want to thank city staff, county staff and RTC staff for the time and effort they have spent in public and stakeholder outreach. The proposed Park Avenue alignment, and its options, is a considered response to the city’s interest in meeting traffic calming and active transportation goals.

Sincerely,
Matt Farrell, Board Chair
Santa Cruz County Friends of the Rail Trail
P.O. Box 1652, Capitola, CA 95010 • [email protected] Fiscally sponsored by Social Good Fund (EIN) TAX ID: 46-1323531 231 Item 5 D.

P.O. Box 1652, Capitola, CA 95010 • [email protected] Fiscally sponsored by Social Good Fund (EIN) TAX ID: 46-1323531 232
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Iwalani Faulkner <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 4:59 PM
To: City Council
Subject: [PDF] Attached: Public Comments of Capitola City Council Agenda for Feb 13, 2025 Attachments: 2025-02-12_Capitola City Safe Streets Trail Alignmentdocx.pdf Dear City Council Members,
Please find attached comment from Equity Transit in regards to the Capitola City Council Agenda for Feb 13, 2025 in support of proposed staff recommendations for Bay Avenue and Park Avenue safe streets and rail-trail alignments.
--
Best regards,
Lani Faulkner, Director
Equity Transit - Tránsito de Equidad
www.EquityTransit.org
831-278-1007
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
233
Item 5 D.
1840 41st Ave, Ste 102, #227
Capitola, CA 95010
831-278-1007
Capitola City Council Members
420 Capitola Ave
Capitola, CA 95010
February 12, 2025
RE: Proposed Safe Street alignments along Bay Avenue and Park Avenue Dear Honorable Capitola Council Members:

Thank you for your work on behalf of our Capitola community members and businesses.

As a past youth mountain biking coach, we’ve spent over 7 years taking groups of kids out onto our City Streets several times a week. We ride on the city streets regularly and can attest to the fact that our roads are designed for the SPEED of cars, not for the SAFETY of everyone. Our business address is less than 2 miles from Capitola Village and we frequently bicycle the route along East Cliff down into Capitola Village and along Park Avenue to make our way to Seacliff Beach in Aptos. We are grateful to the Capitola Staff for proposing infrastructure on our roads that will slow traffic and provide protected bike and pedestrian lanes. Both are necessary.

Santa Cruz County has some of the deadliest surface streets in the State of California! There are 3 main ways in which we can address our traffic violence issue; education, enforcement, and infrastructure. We know that physical infrastructure is often the most effective at calming dangerly fast speeding traffic and we also know that a high percentage of speeding oversized vehicles also contribute to a higher rate of death and serious injuries in a crash, especially to our pedestrians and cyclists.

Every 2-3 days someone is killed or seriously injured in a crash on our streets! This problem has worsened over the past 5 years. The rate of traffic violence has increased 30% during Covid years after a stunning 65% increase in traffic violence in the 10 years leading up to 2019! Speed kills! Typical surface road infrastructure in the United States and in Santa Cruz County allows for cars to travel at speeds far beyond what is posted or safe, and our most vulnerable, our children biking to school, our elderly crossing the streets, and people with disabilities, wheelchair users and people who are blind, are at greatest risk. Our pedestrians and people riding bikes face a serious threat every time they cross the street or bike along the road. This has resulted in our community being a place where people who might want to walk and bike do not do so because they do not feel safe. The more we can make our roads safer for ALL community members, the more people will feel safe getting out and biking and walking for leisure, to work and school in our community.

Regarding Items 9a and 9b, Equity Transit approves of the research done on these high-risk intersections and we look forward to the implementation of traffic calming as well as raised pedestrian cross walks and additional staff recommendations proposed in this report. Well-designed traffic circles are a gold standard for creating safe intersections and therefore whenever possible, we recommend their use.

Regarding Item 9c, Equity Transit approves of the staff recommendation for Park Avenue Alternative 3 with median features in the roadway and either staff recommended Options A or B which moves the fully separated coastal rail-trail from the cliffs on the ocean side of the railroad tracks onto Park Avenue, providing a fully separated two-way 12-foot bike and pedestrian access with a 3-foot raised buffer. Alternative 3 includes more physical and visual incentives for drivers to slow down along Park Avenue. Simply using lateral shifts in roads, as 234
Item 5 D.
1840 41st Ave, Ste 102, #227
Capitola, CA 95010
831-278-1007
shown in Alternative 2, results in speeding being more likely and thus more dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists.

Alternative 1 would not provide physical structures which would enhance traffic calming and would rely on driver behavior which could lead to dangerous speeding and passing.

Equity Transit approves of the two newly proposed alignments along Park Avenue for the Rail-Trail, both Choice A or B, as either option will offer a number of benefits; 1-The newly proposed alignments, either A or B, will result in a 12-foot wide trail, fully separated from traffic by a 3-foot wide physical buffer via a curb as a barrier, 2-the newly proposed alignments, both A and B, would allow for a faster more affordable implementation of the Rail-Trail making possible for people to have a safe mode of travel along this route months to years sooner than the prior oceanside rail-trail option, 3- the newly proposed alignments would move the Rail-Trail away from the cliffside which dramatically reduces the costs needed to shore up the cliffside and reduces the risk of losing the Rail-Trail to erosion over time thus reducing costs over time while still providing a superior quality pedestrian and bike trail, and 4- the newly proposed alignments, both A and B, would reduce destruction of monarch habitat and also offer improved access to neighborhoods. Both options A and B offer a safe high quality fully separated trail with vista views along the route.

Thank you for your consideration. On behalf of local community members who have guided numerous youth groups throughout our county streets and advocate for safe equitable alternatives to driving, we are excited about the proposed staff recommendations.

Sincerely,
Lani Faulkner, Director
235
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Matt Miller <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 5:01 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Park Avenue Rail Trail Alignments
Dear Capitola City Council,
I am writing in support of the Park Avenue Traffic Calming Improvements with Coastal Rail Trail Options.

Option A or B both offered a grade separated, high quality, multi use path with improved/added road crossings to neighborhood streets. Elevating the trail also affords you views of the ocean which are impeded in the rail bed. The car travel lanes will also be narrowed which has a traffic calming effect.

While at the whole project level I support the trail alongside the rail in the corridor, in this particular instance I support the value engineering that was done to work with the grant funding allocation and getting this into construction as soon as possible.

Thank you,
Matt Miller
236
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Taylor Seamount <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 5:20 PM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor,
Thank you so much for the new plans for increased safety and elevated buffer between Park Ave and the railroad tracks. I have wanted to bike to my job in Santa Cruz from Aptos but the current options for navigation are just too dangerous for me. I'm anxious for the rail/trail to be done so that this dream can finally be realized. Also as someone who has watched the monarch populations decrease throughout my life I'm so stoked that you've developed options that will protect their habitat. Please choose option A or B. Please don't delay.

Thank you for your excellent work,
Taylor
237
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Linda Felicio <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 5:33 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Rail trail New Brighton
Hello City Council members, I am a resident living in Capitola for the last 8 years. I do walk to New Brighton Beach through that corridor of beautiful trees and birds! The way the trees have formed a canopy as the docents at Henry Cowell refer to the redwoods it is a “spiritual cathedral” of peace, and form of sanctuary for a few miles.

There are so few places to experience with beauty and the oneness with nature and this trail is one of them. Please keep it in it’s place! You know the e-bikes will ruin that peacefulness and there is a ruggedness about that trail they makes you think you are out in the wilderness.

I agree with Jack Brown who has written to you and pointed out all the reasons why the trail should not be built or disturb the natural beauty that is along the tracks. People can actually meditate along that part of the trial it has a remarkable energy!
Thank you for your consideration and please make the right decision.

With gratitude for all of your hard work,
Linda Felicio RN, MSW
Situ Linda Felicio RN MSW
Certified Tai chi Master Practitioner
[email protected]
Tai chi Spirit
831-239-0000
238
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: beth braun <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 5:54 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Rail on Park Ave
What are you crazy! This has to stop immediately!
No rail just trail. $$$$$$$$ why over budget & geƫng higher by the day. Just ridiculous stop the madness!!!!! Sent from my iPhone
239
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Eva <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 6:15 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Coastal Rail Trail Options
Hello Council,
I am a resident of Capitola and home owner , voter , and an avid cyclist. Please do not move the rail trail to Park Ave, keep it on the railroad trestle. Cycling on the trestle is safer for cyclists than Park Ave.

I hope this rail trail is completed in my life time.

Mary Sherman
Capitola, CA
240
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Andrew Hurchalla <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 7:40 PM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor,
I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed options for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realistic, and can be built with the existing funding. I can't wait to get on the trail!
Legitimately. It is something that will transform this County for the better. Doing this will help alleviate congestion on Hwy 1, likely reducing the demand to continue widening it (which will assuredly cause far worse environmental impact than continuing with the Rail Trail). It's a no brainer with the majority of the Thank you,
-Andrew Hurchalla
241
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Savarna Wiley <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 8:44 PM
To: City Council
Subject: please no rail
Dear council members
When I first heard of the rail trail idea, I thought it would be wonderful, but as I learned more about the traffic back ups the need for parking along any rail routes and the destruction of trees and encroaching upon peoples property , etc., etc. . It seems like a very bad idea. Also, I have been making a point of looking at how many people are riding the buses throughout the county. They’re mostly empty. If our bus system -public transportation was full to the brim and we really had a need for more I could see more reason to create another mode of public transportation, but as it is, I don’t think it’d be very practical. On the other hand, a trail where the bikes and walkers could enjoy ,the route seems like a real boon for the county
I’ve lived here since 1975 and would love to see the trail plan to come into effect.

Thank you
Savarna Wiley
Savarna Wiley MA CCHT
HealingJourneysHypnotherapy.com
6233 Soquel Dr. Suite B
Aptos CA 95003
831.345.3849
苳苴苵苶苷苸苹
"Then it is only kindness that makes sense anymore….“
Naomi Shihab Nye
242
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Maureen O’Connell <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 8:47 PM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor, I am thrilled you are having a meeƟng with the community about the Rail-Trail. I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed opƟons for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realisƟc, and can be built with the exisƟng funding. There is a lot of very intenƟonal misinformaƟon being spread right now by those with a greed-driven Greenway agenda, so a public meeƟng is really necessary.

I can't wait to get on the trail! And at some point in Ɵme, I hope, I really look forward to boarding a resurrected Santa Cruz County train!
Maureen O’Connell
Davenport, CA 95017

Email from M.L.O’C.

Sent from my iPhone
243
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 9:20 PM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor,
I am an avid bicycle rider so I’m thrilled to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed opƟons for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realisƟc, and can be built with the exisƟng funding. I can't wait to get on the trail! Please do everything you can to keep this project moving forward. Thank you! Sincerely,
Colleen Young
244
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Concerned Citizens Of Capitola <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 9:29 PM
To: Gautho, Julia; City Council
Cc: Welch, Troy (TJ) ([email protected])
Subject: 2.13.2025 Council Meeting Item 9C-Park Ave
Mayor, City Council Members,
The Park Ave. calming issue before you is simple. Don’t let the City Attorney, City Manager or City staƯ report complicate it for you with misinformation about the Coastal Rail Trail, what a detour is, or if it is a trail at all. Oddly enough, It’s called the TRAIL REALIGNMENT in the staƯ report. This is about supporting a “RTC Project” OR Capitola City Law.

1. There is no Measure D, it did not pass. There is only a project known as the RTC Coastal Rail/trail.

Which the County stated would reside on RTC property.

2. To say voters on Measure D, trumped Measure L is completely false. It’s apples and oranges.

Measure D, which failed, was a ballot measure about a project. While Measure L, which passed, was codified into Capitola law and you took an oath to uphold.

3. But, for those of you who want to compare votes, Measure D lost in Capitola by 2,044 votes.

Compare that to Measure L, which won with 2,526 votes. Measure L still wins.

4. Simply put, Capitola residents chose the safety for our children and others, by telling you to keep the Rail Trail on the RTC corridor.

5. But there is good news! Both Measure L, now Municipal code 8.72 and the Coastal Rail Trail can live harmoniously.

6. The Answer is to vote against the Park Ave trail realignment and have the RTC keep the Coastal Trail on RTC corridor. Just like they said they were going to do when this project started.

7. Don’t forget that our Community Development Director recommended to support the Ultimate Trail on behalf of our City. That is, keeping the trail next to the tracks on the RTC corridor.

8. Now we are asking you to do your part!

9. Park Ave already has sidewalks and a bike path.

245
Item 5 D.
2 10. Your vote tonight is not about the County’s problems with the Coastal Rail Trail. It is about upholding the laws of Capitola.

You received many comments on this topic,. Many based on a FORT Alert that do not live in Capitola. Put aside their politics!
Support the Capitola residents you serve! Do not approve Option A or B. Vote NO on all options and the Park Ave Rail Trail realignment.

Respectfully,
TJ Welch
Capitola Resident
246
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Richard Spencer <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 11:12 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Trail Diversion
My wife and I have lived on Coronado overlooking New Brighton for twenty-three years. We watch people by the hundreds, at all hours, daily, walk across the tracks to the beach. People will be very much put off by the development of a train that would inevitably block this passage to the beach. The loss in tourism could be a great. We have been waiƟng a long Ɵme for the trail to be built, while assuming the train idea is simply to get government funding. My wife and I ride bikes regularly. We have never really believed that a train corridor by Park is a viable opƟon. Frankly, there are so many trees that will need to be dealt with and Capitola has not demonstrated any interest in keeping Park Ave. trees trimmed safe and Ɵdy. The street is strewn with 20 foot long panels of eucalyptus bark both on the ground and hanging from the limbs of the trees. Branches fall regularly. Honestly even if a trail can be built we have liƩle confidence in it being properly maintained. If it is built we will be loving it and using it regularly. 247
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: DJ Timpany <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 11:20 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Rail trail
To members of Capitola City Council,
Thank you for proposing wide, safe trail options for our community. Since I and many members of the community
want a trail sooner, not later and we have the grant money now, please choose option A or B.

Thank you,
Joan Timpany
Santa Cruz County resident
248
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: H Bryce <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 1:13 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Item 9C
Dear City Council Members and the RTC,
Regarding the RTC proposal to "shift" the trail onto Capitola streets. This is a really bad idea for so many reasons, not the least of which is safety.

If it's not obvious to you, it's certainly clear to the rest of us that the RAIL/TRAIL project is a mess. It simply cannot happen as originally envisioned. There is never going to be enough money to finish the project. You know that money that you told us would be coming,just isn't going to arrive. In the meantime, the cost of things keeps going up (and what do we now hear about steel and aluminum?) Stop thinking that we're stuck with the Rail / Trail! Even if by some miracle it was finished, there would not be the ridership to support it. In the meantime, you're talking about cutting down hundreds of trees, building a huge ugly retaining wall, displacing people from their homes, destroying the beauty of our precious neighborhoods, and ruining people's views -- all for an expensive pipedream.

I pray that our city council will say NO to ALL this nonsense. Forget the Rail! Put the trail where the tracks are (as Monterey County has done). Build a world class scenic trail and will be enjoyed by people of all walks of life.

Say no to the retaining wall, say no to removing trees.

Say YES to the trail. Build the trail now!
Thank you!!
Helen Bryce
--
(If anyone needs to reach me quickly, please call instead of relying on an email response. Thank you for your patience.)
831-428-8530
249
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Mary Ripma <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 6:16 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor,
I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed opƟons for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realisƟc, and can be built with the exisƟng funding. I can't wait to get on the trail! I am discouraged by the pushback the Rail Trail is receiving aŌer our community has voted for it. Please remember that the majority of us want it and ignore the conƟnuing pushback from a minority.

Sincerely
Mary Ripma
131 Santa Cruz Street
Santa Cruz CA 95060
831-334-2223
Sent from my iPhone12 Mini
250
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 7:05 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Fwd: Rail Corridor
>
>
> City Council,
>
> I'm surprised that the council would consider diverƟng the rail trail through the Capitola Village and along Park Avenue.

In effect, the city would be obstrucƟng acƟve transportaƟon in the Mid County area. A segmented trail would be a detriment to pedestrians, bicyclists and e-bike commuters and cause significant safety concerns within the city. Would you like your children to be confronted with more congesƟon in the village and along a dangerous Park Ave? The soluƟon is to pressure the RTC to rail bank the corridor and build an affordable, wide trail down the center of the corridor, uƟlizing the Capitola Trestle. This would insure a trail that could be constructed soon and sƟll allow for a future train if voted on by the residents. Rail banking has been in effect in hundreds of communiƟes across the country with outstanding results. We should be able to enact it in our community. Don't let the train lobby dictate a flawed scenario for Capitola.
>
> Sincerely,
> Jennifer Harris-Anderson
> 831-566-3367
251
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Jeff Comcast <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 8:45 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor, as a 60 year property owner in Aptos (plus 130 years in San Jose) I and my family are so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward.

Highway 1 is a MESS!
Thank you, Jeff Whalen, Aptos and Los Gatos.

Sent from my iPad
252
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: chris amsden <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 8:47 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Rail Trail on Park Ave?
Dear City Council Members,
When discussing and (hopefully) debating the detour of the "rail trail" onto Park Ave., please ask yourselves: Who are the true stakeholders?
While outside voices may have opinions on this project, it is the residents of Capitola who will live with the consequences every single day. Outside organizations, consultants, or developers will not have to navigate increased traffic, safety concerns, or changes in neighborhood livability—we will.

Council members should weigh public opinion accordingly:
• Primary Stakeholders: Capitola residents, homeowners, and local businesses affected by the trail detour.
• Secondary Stakeholders: Regional visitors and organizations who may use the trail but do not live here.

If outside voices outweigh local concerns, then the council is failing in its duty to serve those who elected you. We - the residents of Capitola - will be the ones that will have to live with these decisions, and will be the ones that vote in the next City Council election. We urge you to please say NO to detouring the "rail trail" onto our city streets.

Sincerely,
Chris Amsden
Phone: (408) 386-7484
253
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Dunn Silvey <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 9:28 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Coastal Rail Trail Options
Morning Capitola City Council
We are wriƟng to all of you regarding
changing the already voted on issue of the trail to be on the trestle. This is the will of the voters keep the trail on the trestle. Enough already.

There are numerous other reasons the trail to be on the trestle safety more congesƟon on already impacted streets etc etc. Please keep the trail where it should be and not put more of a burden on the neighborhood.

Thank You
Dunn and Renate Silvey
254
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Dave Montgomery <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 9:54 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Coastal Rail Trail Options
Good Morning,
Please scrap the crazy idea of a train! It seems every neighborhood is trying to eliminate the trail portion on the existing track location. There are hundreds of examples of rail to trail conversions that are far less costly and have almost immediate benefits for the communities they serve. There are only a few new train systems attempted that have been hugely expensive and not widely used. Common sense tells us a train from "downtown" Pajaro to "downtown" Davenport will not ever be viable. One track, not enough space, slow speed and road crossings are just a few of the problems. The "Train to Nowhere" will never happen. Too expensive, too much fighting from NIMBA's, and no demand. Throw the train under the bus!
Most Sincerely,
David J Montgomery DDS
255
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: James Quist <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 9:56 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Coastal Rail Trail Options
City Council Members -
As voting residents of Capitola residing on Park Avenue, we are adamantly opposed to bringing the rail trail off of the rail corridor and on to Park Avenue. The citizens of Capitola clearly articulated their desires concerning the location of the rail trail with the passage of Measure L. Do not ignore the will of the people. Keep the rail trail off of Park Avenue and on the rail corridor trestle as your constituency has demanded. To do otherwise is dangerous and wrong.

Thank you,
James and Cynthia Quist
850 Park Avenue - Unit 14B
Capitola, CA 95010
256
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: crescent.f.s. <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 10:48 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Rail trail
Please keep the rail trail on the rail corridor as proposed! Thank you,
Crescent Smith
257
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Diana Chase <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 10:56 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Coastal Rail Trail Options
Please keep the trail off of Park Avenue! I expected the trail alongside the tracks in that area to be one of the few stretches without street crossings.

Seems that your current plan for the trail through Capitola is no improvement at all.

Respecƞully,
Diana Chase
Member of Santa Cruz County Cycling Club
Sent from my iPhone
258
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Suzanne B Cochran <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 11:50 AM
To: City Council
Cc: Suzanne Cochran
Subject: Do Not Support Proposed Trail Plans for Capitola Dear Capitola Council Members,
I am a Capitola homeowner and full Ɵme resident of Capitola. Please do NOT use Park Avenue or Capitol Village for the trail. It is a very unsafe alternaƟve when there is exisƟng trail in place. It is completely unsafe to have 800-1500 people gong through the village or Park Avenue on any given day with cars on busy streets..

RecommendaƟon - Use the exisƟng trail corridor and place trail over rail, including the trestle.

Regards,
Suzanne Cochran
4530 Garnet Street
259
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Dean Cutter <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 12:45 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Lauren Jo Cutter
Subject: Keep trail on the trestle
Dear Council,
We need to keep the trail on the rail right-of-way including the Trestle. It is the safest, most sensible, and most economical option.

Measure D promoters promised us a trail on the rail right-of-way and a train. However, RTC studies now tell us 48% of the rail corridor cannot include a trail. And, Capitola gets virtually no trail at all! Capitolans are getting taxed for a trail we were promised but we will never receive.

One part of the current proposal is to route the trail from 41st Ave into dense neighborhoods down the length of Nova Drive. Parking on Nova and nearby streets is already a challenge. Nova will become a parking nightmare as much of the parking must be eliminated to accommodate a trail for cyclists and pedestrians in both directions. At the end of Nova, the trail will somehow discharge its users onto the high speed junction of Portola by Jade Street Park, cross two busy intersections, then sidle along the edge of Cliff Drive alongside car commuters into the town.

I have walked to work on Cliff Drive 5 days a week for 10 years. I have observed collisions of cars, bicycles, motorcycles, skateboards and many near misses. It is a wonder only 1 pedestrian has been killed on this section. There is simply not enough room for cars, pedestrians, bicycles, and ebikes coming downhill to pass uphill users. I have seen families walking downhill step aside for uphill users into the road and bike lane without looking behind and nearly get killed by an overtaking car or ebike. Adding more users by diverting the rail trail onto this section will be deadly.

Lastly, Measure L was passed by voters to use and protect our Iconic Trestle. You might hear opponents say Measure L somehow doesn't count; that the community of Capitola should have no say in what happens the this Iconic structure in the heart of their town because it is technically owned by the RTC, not Capitola. In response I say Capitola matters. We voted to keep our beloved Iconic Trestle and to provide it for the larger community to use. It makes economic sense. It keeps us safe. And it is practical.

The taxpayers of Capitola deserve a trail just like the rest of the county. Keep the trail on the rail right-ofway and on the Trestle.

Sincerely,
Dean Cutter
4165 Nova Dr
Capitola, CA 95062
831 346-6416
260
Item 5 D.
2 261
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: PitchIn Santa Cruz <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 1:00 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Requesting the Clerk send the attached letter to all Capitola City Council Members Attachments: 21325 cityclerk.docx
Dear City Clerk.

I respectfully request that you send the attached letter to all members of the Capitola City Council.

With Gratitude,
Sally-Christine Rodgers
Trash Talkers Organizer
Eliminate Litter and Illegal Dumping

To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
pitchinsantacruz.org
262
Item 5 D.
[email protected] Request that this letter be sent to all City Council members.

We would like to give you some background on the County-wide Pitch In Initiative on litter and illegal dumping. The increase in litter and illegal dumping in our region led to the creation of a coalition of agencies called the Trash Talkers. This coalition includes elected oƯicials, the county, the cities, the Community Foundation, the Farm Bureau, the Land Trust, Santa Cruz METRO, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, CALTRANS, State Parks, law enforcement, nonprofits, rotaries chambers and others. We meet once a month and have for three years.

The Trash Talkers coalition created the Pitch In Initiative. Our Mission:

Eliminate litter, abandoned encampments, dumping on roadways, waterways, and agricultural land.

Educate and engage community, nonprofits, schools, and local governments To improve the health well-being economic value and beauty of our region.

Our strategies include:
 Posting Pitch In signage in our City and County Parks, at trailheads, beaches, libraries, the harbor, on farmland and other locations to create a unifying, consistent message across all sectors to raise awareness and help change the behavior of littering. The QR code links to the county-hosted pitchinsantacruz.org website.
 In partnership with the County, we have deployed cameras to seek prosecution for illegal dumping.  We work with nonprofits environmental education programs in schools to create a “Litter Literacy” curriculum, tying into the Pitch In Message which then provides continuity when youth see the signs in parks and other locations.
 We are working with chambers, rotaries, and business associations to support this eƯort by engaging their staƯ and educating their customers.

Last year the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed our resolution for an all-county cleanup day. Each city has passed similar resolutions so that the entire county could have a uniform message and engage community participation.

We are working now to engage as many residents and visitors as possible to participate in the second annual Pitch In All-Santa Cruz County Cleanup Day on May 10th. We would appreciate your support in helping us amplify this message to your constituents. More information will be posted on the pitchinsantacruz.org website as we get closer to the date.

Respectfully,
Sally-Christine Rodgers
Trash Talkers Organizer
263
Item 5 D.
264
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Ringler <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 1:28 PM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor,
I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed opƟons for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realisƟc, and can be built with the exisƟng funding. I can't wait to get on the trail! Please support RTC project OpƟon A. Even though I live in Watsonville, the Rail & Trail means a lot to those of us who commute to Santa Cruz from Watsonville and back. Even geƫng a few of us off on Hwy. 1 would help with congesƟon.

Please don’t be the obstacle here.

Sarah Ringler
814 Cynthia Dr. Watsonville, CA 95076
265
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: MARK WEGRICH <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 1:42 PM
To: City Council
Subject: bike trail

Your attention please,
Please support the Interim Trail at this Thursdays Council Meeting. The ultimate Trail is a County financial boondoggle. Reviewing the financial status of light rail systems across the country makes it clear Santa Cruz County is heading into a financial black hole to the financial benefit of consultants on the backs of taxpayers. It won't work and will destroy what should be a world class bike and pedestrian trail. Business in the Village will surge with the influx of visitors to experience the trail. Safety would be much improved over the current situation while the Ultimate Trail would worsen public safety. Every crossing poses a risk to pedestrians and cyclists. Does Capitola want to assume the risk of massive lawsuits that will inevitably follow?
Sincerely,
Mark Wegrich
524 Pine St.(Seacliff)
Aptos
266
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Bud Colligan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 1:46 PM
To: Gautho, Julia
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: voluminous input on Park Ave decision
Dear Capitola City Council members,
As you consider written input submitted from Capitola residents and listen to input this evening, please consider the source of the input you are receiving. The overwhelming written input from Capitola residents is to reject the staff proposal and RTC plan regarding a Park Ave bike path. It appears the same is true regarding routing the trail through Capitola Village. Many of the letters from actual Capitola residents are unique, heartfelt and carefully considered.

Most of the written input in support of the Park Ave bike lane comes from residents who do NOT live in Capitola and appear to have submitted a form letter from Friends of the Rail and Trail. We have discovered the same pattern of meddling from primarily District 3 residents in several electoral campaigns in Districts 1 & 2. It's imperative that Capitola makes its own decisions, free from organized meddling from District 3. You represent the residents of Capitola, not the city of Santa Cruz.

Sincerely,
Bud Colligan
1840 41st Avenue
Capitola, CA 95010
267
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Ann Bolger Peruzzi <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 1:51 PM
To: City Council
Subject: New Brighton tree tunnel
I am wriƟng to REJECT RTC’s proposal for demolishing the new Brighton tree tunnel for the “rail/trail”.

Thanks
Ann Peruzzi
268
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Kieran Horn <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 2:09 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Coastal Trail: City Council Meeting Thur, Feb 14 Hi City Council Members,
As a Capitola resident, I am writing to oppose the latest proposed rerouting of the rail trail on to Park Avenue. I am unable to attend tonight’s meeting, so I am providing my input in writing.

As someone that lives in Cliffwood Heights, I am concerned this new plan goes against the Measure L decision and the safety of pedestrians and cyclist. Additionally, the trail should avoid Capitola village, which is too congested and a very dangerous place to bicycle.

The idea of a train seems to be an illusion that keeps dragging on. If it was realistic, progress would have been made by now. Please support progress towards a safe bicycle trail and not a dream of a one-route train that will not carry passengers to their final destinations.

Best regards,
Kieran Horn
269
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Christi Dalke <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 2:14 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Support Rail!
Please do not listen to the big tech and real estate money.

I live on 47th Ave, I would hear the train and I WANT TO HAVE A TRAIN! All these emails you are getting that say the exact same thing are just copy/paste. ("It would be my dream...." like who really talks like that???)
I have lived here 14 years and it would be wonderful to reduce the tourist car traffic and have a rail option come through our village. Use the existing trusses in the village.

This email, including attached files, may contain confidential information and is intended only for the use of the individual and/or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, disclosure, copying, use, or distribution of the information included in this email is prohibited 270
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Cary Seiden <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 2:19 PM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the staff recommendations for the Rail Trail Dear City Council and Mayor, I am so happy to see the Rail Trail moving forward. The new plans for an elevated buffered and protected trail between Park Avenue and the railroad tracks are great. I'm glad that the staff has developed opƟons for the trail that protect Monarch habitat, that are realisƟc, and can be built with the exisƟng funding. I can't wait to get on the trail! Please make an informed decision aided by a close reading of Trail OpƟon A and/or B…reiteraƟng, EITHER OPTION IS FUNDED!
Great Thanks.

Cary Seiden
A resident of Santa Cruz County for 51 years and an avid cyclist.

Sent from my iPad
271
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Hernan Valencia <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 2:19 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Rail trail support
Dear City of Capitola council,
Thank you for proposing wide, safe trail options for our community. I want a trail sooner not later so please choose option A or B.

Thank you,
Hernán Valencia
4255 Jade St, Capitola, CA 95010
272
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Katharine Parker <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 3:27 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Proposed Trail Diversion
I would like to add my voice to the public comments regarding a proposed change to the trail along Park Avenue. I know that
corridor well (walking, driving and bicycling) and the numerous comments regarding fast traffic are right on. Also, the comments from the Coastal Trails Conservancy representaƟve are also right on. The rail trail is the last off road “nature trail” in Capitola (there is the Riverview Trail but it’s more suburban and short). Many city & county residents and tourists use this trail not just for convenience but because it’s calming and preƩy. Walking along Park may be convenient but it’s definitely not calming.

In the City’s DraŌ Plan “ collaboraƟve engagement”, responsible growth, and public safety are all listed as core mission and values. I believe that if these values are a part of the City mission, the City and City Council will respond to the public outcry for safety and environmental responsibility and leave the trail as it is.

Respecƞully,
Katharine Parker
273
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Debby Molina <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 3:54 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Diverted trail????
Dear Capitola City CouncilIf only someone had measured and determined that the railbed wasn’t wide enough to accommodate a train and a trail. Why didn’t someone mention the extra cost associated with trying to shore up eroding coastline so we could keep obsolete train tracks? Gee- I wish someone had thought about all the many trees that will need to be cut to keep this boondoggle train dream going forward. Perhaps the citizens of Capitola should vote on whether they want to use the trestle as a trail. And of course, sure would have been smart to realize that without the above, bike traffic would need to be diverted alongside busy roads and down through bustling Capitola.

If you’re thinking- hey wait- all of those issues were stated again and again- and AGAIN! We have known that there isn’t enough space or money to have both tracks and trail. The trestle vote was passed and the trestle bridge should be used to make sure people are safe and away from cars. And- The interim trail money is there. None of this is new information!
We want a continuous trail, across the trestle. No diversions onto streets that will surely lead to accidents and injuries. We want a funded, safe, gorgeous trail that our community can use for transportation and recreation. It just makes sense!
Thank you!
Deb Molina
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
274
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Jennifer Harrison <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 5:01 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Trail not Train-Come on people!
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello Capitola City Council,
Consider your community please!
It is clear (study after study after study) that a train is not cost effective and causes congestion. This is a going to create a huge pedestrian and cycling safety issue.

Read the room and do the right thing. Please.

Harrison Family
(Including a member born and raised in Capitola)
275
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Ariel Braswell Gray <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 5:34 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Park Ave and Bay Ave traffic improvements
Hello - my apologies for the late communication. A few thoughts on items on the agenda for today:

Bay Ave
- I may be in the minority who likes the current stop control & road diet. It seems to have made people slow down and take better care at the intersection. There are some times of day where the line of cars is longer than others, but I have never found it egregious or unmanageable. Ultimately I would support a roundabout there, but would prioritize a roundabout at Bay and Capitola Ave intersection first -- that one seems to be the more congested and unruly.

Park Ave
- I prefer Option B, as option A seems to do little to address car speed and bike safety for those who would be biking on the inland bike lane. In option A, the lanes will be less wide, which I am not sure will actually slow any cars, but will make it harder to give bikes the 3 foot berth that some cars don't even do now. I prefer option B, with the inclusion of sharrows for the travel lane so bikes can still use that lane if they desire. I also think we need additional traffic calming measures on Park like speed tables/raised crosswalks at Cabrillo and probably another something at Washburn.

Thanks!
Ariel Gray
Capitola Resident (Cliffwood Heights)
276
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Howard Egan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 7:06 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Park Ave corridor
Hello:

My name is Howard Egan, a Cliffwood Heights resident.

I am currently watching the Feb 13 city council meeting regarding the Rail Trail and Traffic calming on Park Ave. I was pleased to see such a great solution being put forth. However, I must say I STRONGLY support option B NOT option A as the staff recommends. I ride my bike on Park Avenue several times a week westbound and I would not ever use the "old" bike lane in the presence of a new safer multi-use path on the south side of Park Avenue.

I urge the city council to only support option B.

Howard Egan

219 Elinor Street
Capitola, CA

277
Item 5 D.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: John <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2025 4:33 PM
To: City Council; Gautho, Julia
Subject: Item 8A 8B 8C 8D
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hey Neighbors
8A A roundabout is the gold standard and the only non flow interrupƟve opƟon. Less traffic, shorter pedestrian crossings, will help with e-bikes on the main school route. We will get the money for this in state grants it’s not that much and the state Loves roundabouts.

Please choose opƟon 2.
8B whatever we do, please do not make it a two car drag race towards the senior housing complex. It’s the major school route. It’s already dangerous as is.

Most of the trail will be diverted from the corridor in Capitola already. 100%ish. Why not here too.

Capitola City Council
Agenda Report
Meeting: February 13, 2025
From: City Manager Department
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes
Recommended Action: Approve minutes from the regular meeting on January 30, 2025, and the special meeting on February 4, 2025.

Background: Attached for City Council review and approval are the draft minutes from the regular meeting on January 30th and the special meeting on February 4th.

Attachments:

1. Regular Meeting Minutes 1/30/2025

2. Special Meeting Minutes 2/4/2025
Report Prepared By: Julia Gautho, City Clerk
Approved By: Jamie Goldstein, City Manager
279
Item 8 A.

City of Capitola
City Council Meeting Minutes
Thursday, January 30, 2025 – 6:00 PM
City Council Chambers
420 Capitola Avenue, Capitola, CA 95010
Mayor: Joe Clarke
Vice Mayor: Alexander Pedersen
Council Members: Gerry Jensen, Margaux Morgan, Melinda Orbach Regular Meeting of the Capitola City Council – 6 PM

1. Roll Call and Pledge of Allegiance – The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM. In attendance: Council Members Jensen, Orbach, Pedersen, and Vice Mayor Clarke.

2. Additions and Deletions to the Agenda – None

3. Additional Materials
A. Item 4A – 43 emails received after publication of the agenda packet and Staff Memos Regarding Withdrawal of Two Applicants.

B. Item 8A – 1 email received after publication of the agenda packet.

C. Item 8B - Staff Memo Regarding Applicant Withdrawal and 1 email received after publication of the agenda packet.

4. City Council Vacancy
A. Appointment of Successor to Vacant City Council Seat Recommended Action: 1) Review applicants to fill the vacancy left on the City Council by former Mayor Yvette Brooks, 2) assess and discuss applicants, and 3) by motion, select and appoint a successor to fill the vacancy.

City Clerk Gautho presented the staff report.

The Vice Mayor shortened the public comment time to one minute per person due to the number of speakers. Public Comments:
 Leslie Nielsen
 Goran Klepic
 Enrique Dolmo Jr.
 Rachel Neuman
 Tori
 Public Speaker
 Susan Westman
 Megan Morrissey
 Public Speaker
 Mike Morrissey
 Heidi Kellison
 Linda Smith
280
Item 8 A.

City Council Meeting Minutes – January 30, 2025
City of Capitola Page 2
 Keith Cahalen
 Ed Bottorff
 Jacques Bertrand
 Marilyn Garrett
 Margaux Morgan
 Lunamar Harter
The City Council thanked the community for attending the meeting and participating in this process. They shared the personal criteria they used while reviewing applications.

Motion to appoint Margaux Morgan to fill the vacant City Council seat, with a term expiring in December 2026: Council Member Orbach
Second: Council Member Pedersen
Voting Yea: Council Members Jensen, Orbach, Pedersen, Vice Mayor Clarke The City Council took a three-minute recess at 6:43 PM.

B. Oath of Office Ceremony
Recommended Action: Administer the oath of office and receive comments from newly appointed Council Member.

Public Comments:
 Goran Klepic
 Christine McBroom
The City Clerk swore in Margaux Morgan.

C. City Council Reorganization for 2025
Recommended Action: Nominate and appoint a new Mayor and Vice-Mayor.

City Clerk Gautho presented the staff report.

Public Comments:
 TJ Welch
Council Member Pedersen responded to comments made by TJ Welch.

Motion to appoint Joe Clarke to serve as Mayor for 2025: Council Member Orbach Second: Council Member Jensen
Voting Yea: Council Members Jensen, Morgan, Orbach, Pedersen, Vice Mayor Clarke Motion to appoint Alexander Pedersen to serve as Vice Mayor for 2025: Council Member Orbach
Second: Council Member Morgan
Voting Yea: Council Members Morgan, Orbach, Pedersen
Voting Nay: Council Member Jensen, Mayor Clarke

5. Oral Communications by Members of the Public
 Keith Cahalen
 Marilyn Garrett
 Jondi Gumz
 Kevin Maguire

6. Staff / City Council Comments
281
Item 8 A.

City Council Meeting Minutes – January 30, 2025
City of Capitola Page 3
 City Manager Goldstein advised the public that there is a recruitment for a Capitola representative on the Measure Q Citizens Oversight Advisory Committee; shared that he had been in contact with other local cities concerning e-bike safety regulations.  Assistant City Attorney Marc Tran clarified some of the points brought up in public comment regarding California residency and the requirements to run for City Council.  Community Development Department Director Herlihy provided an update on the implementation of the City’s Zoning Code Update.
 Council Member Morgan thanked the City Council and the public for their support in her appointment; and requested that staff continue to work on e-bike safety and provide an update to the City Council.
 Council Member Jensen provided a verbal report on his attendance at the California League of Cities New Mayor and Councilmember Academy; he also requested that staff consider issuing a local government academy in non-election years.
 Council Member Orbach provided a verbal report on her attendance at the California League of Cities New Mayor and Councilmember Academy; shared that she has been appointed as the Chair of the Library Financing Authority Board; and wished the public a happy Lunar New Year.  Mayor Clarke requested that staff research term limits for the City’s advisory bodies.

7. Consent Items
A. City Council Meeting Minutes
Recommended Action: Approve minutes from the regular meeting on January 9, 2025, and the special meeting on January 16, 2025.

B. City Check Registers
Recommended Action: Approve check registers dated December 06, 2024, December 13, 2024, December 20, 2024, January 03, 2025, and January 10, 2025.

C. State Division of Boating and Waterways Grant Application for the Cliff Drive Resiliency Project Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution authorizing the submittal of an application for the Shoreline Erosion Protection Grant from the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, Division of Boating and Waterways. (Resolution No. 4412) D. Park Reservation Permit Review
Recommended Action: Receive a six-month progress report on Administrative Policy V-21: Park Reservation Permit Use Policy.

E. RFP for Climate Action Plan Updates
Recommended Action: Authorize staff to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to seek a consultant to update the City’s Climate Action Plan.

F. Affordable Housing Development Loan Amendment
Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution rescinding Resolution No. 4393 and reauthorizing the City Manager to execute an Amended and Restated $1,600,000 Loan Agreement with MP Rail Trail Associates, LP to fund development of 52 residential units affordable to low-income households at 1098 38th Avenue and allocating $449,376 of PLHA Funds and $900,624 of Housing Successor Agency Funds thereto, and amending the FY 2024-25 Budget. (Resolution No. 4413)
Motion to approve the Consent Calendar: Council Member Morgan Second: Vice Mayor Pedersen
Voting Yea: Council Members Jensen, Morgan, Orbach, Vice Mayor Pedersen, Mayor Clarke
282
Item 8 A.

City Council Meeting Minutes – January 30, 2025
City of Capitola Page 4

8. General Government / Public Hearings
A. Short Term Wharf Events
Recommended Action: Receive report regarding the City events held on the Capitola Wharf during 2024 and provide direction regarding plans for 2025.

Community Services and Recreation Department Director Bryant presented the staff report.

Public Comments:
 Mary Beth Cahalen
 Marilyn Garrett
The City Council discussed the costs required to host events on the Wharf and discussed the possibility of alcohol-free events. The Council requested that staff work with the Chamber of Commerce and the CVWBIA to explore the possibility of partnership for future events on the Wharf.

B. City Council Appointments to City Advisory Bodies
Recommended Action: Appoint members of the public to the City of Capitola’s Art and Cultural Commission, Commission on the Environment, Finance Advisory Committee, and Historical Museum Board; appoint a member of the public as an alternate to the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission Bicycle Advisory Committee.

Deputy City Clerk Wyatt presented the staff report.

Public Comments:
 Mary Beth Cahalen
Motion to appoint Karin Anderson to the Art and Cultural Commission for a term expiring December 2026: Council Member Morgan
Second: Council Member Orbach
Voting Yea: Council Members Jensen, Morgan, Orbach, Vice Mayor Pedersen, Mayor Clarke
Motion to appoint the following members of the public to the Commission on the Environment: Council Member Morgan
Second: Council Member Jensen
Voting Yea: Council Members Jensen, Morgan, Orbach, Vice Mayor Pedersen, Mayor Clarke
 Clarke Appt., Term Expiring 12/2026: John Mulry
 Jensen Appt., Term Expiring 12/2026: Dennis Norton
 Pedersen Appt., Term Expiring 12/2026: Michael Maroney  Morgan Appt., Term Expiring 12/2026: Michelle Beritzhoff-Law Motion to appoint the following members of the public to the Finance Advisory Committee: Council Member Morgan
Second: Council Member Orbach
Voting Yea: Council Members Jensen, Morgan, Orbach, Vice Mayor Pedersen, Mayor Clarke
 Regular Member, Term Expiring 12/2026: Emeline Nguyen  Regular Member, Term Expiring 12/2026: Anthony Rovai
 Regular Member, Term Expiring 12/2026: Keith Cahalen
283
Item 8 A.

City Council Meeting Minutes – January 30, 2025
City of Capitola Page 5
 Business Rep. Member, Term Expiring 12/2026: Leslie Neilsen  Business Rep. Member, Term Expiring 12/2026: Matt Arthur Motion to nominate Christopher O’Connell to serve as an alternate to Capitola’s representative on the SCC RTC Bicycle Advisory Committee: Council Member Morgan Second: Vice Mayor Pedersen
Voting Yea: Council Members Jensen, Morgan, Orbach, Vice Mayor Pedersen, Mayor Clarke
C. CDBG Program Income Funds
Recommended Action: 1) Conduct a public hearing and receive public comment regarding Program Income and its eligible uses; 2) adopt a resolution allocating $160,240.62 of Program Income for the Community Center Rehabilitation Project; and 3) adopt a resolution amending the FY 2024-25 budget.

Community Development Department Director Herlihy presented the staff report.

Public Comments: None
Motion to adopt Resolution Nos. 4414 and 4415: Council Member Morgan Second: Council Member Orbach
Voting Yea: Council Members Jensen, Morgan, Orbach, Vice Mayor Pedersen, Mayor Clarke
D. Community Center Renovation Project
Recommended Action: Staff recommends the City Council: 1) approve the construction contract for the Capitola Community Center Renovation Project with SSB Contracting, Inc. in the amount of $4,726,000, including selected additive alternates.; 2) authorize the Public Works Department to issue a notice to proceed upon final contract execution; 3) approve Amendment 3 to the Professional Services Agreement with Boone Low Ratliff Architects for design consultant services for the Project in the amount of $18,320, for a total contract amount of $579,033; and 4) adopt a resolution adopting the NEPA and CEQA determination and amending the FY 2024- 25 Budget.

Public Works Department Director Kahn presented the staff report.

Public Comments:
 Leslie Nielsen
The City Council discussed inclusion of the Community Center generator as a contingent item for the Project; discussed the needs and anticipated costs of maintaining Capitola’s infrastructure.

Motion to approve the construction contract with SSB Contracting, Inc.; authorize staff to issue a notice to proceed; approve Amendment 3 to the agreement with Boone Low Ratliff Architects; and adopt Resolution No. 4416: Council Member Orbach Second: Council Member Morgan
Voting Yea: Council Members Jensen, Morgan, Orbach, Vice Mayor Pedersen, Mayor Clarke
E. City Council Representation on Regional Boards & City Advisory Bodies Recommended Action: Review appointments of City Council representatives on regional boards and committees and City advisory bodies.

City Clerk Gautho presented the staff report.
284
Item 8 A.

City Council Meeting Minutes – January 30, 2025
City of Capitola Page 6
Public Comments: None
Motion to appoint the following Council Members to represent Capitola on the following groups: Council Member Morgan
Second: Council Member Jensen
Voting Yea: Council Members Jensen, Morgan, Orbach, Vice Mayor Pedersen, Mayor Clarke
Advisory Council of the Area Agency on Aging:
 Council Member Jensen
AMBAG:
 Vacant (Continued to February 13, 2025, meeting)
 Alternate: Council Member Orbach
Community Action Board:
 Kristen Brown, resident
Children’s Network:
 Council Member Orbach
Motion to appoint the Mayor and Vice Mayor to the City of Capitola’s Finance Advisory Committee: Council Member Orbach
Second: Council Member Morgan
Voting Yea: Council Members Jensen, Morgan, Orbach, Vice Mayor Pedersen, Mayor Clarke

9. Adjournment - The meeting adjourned at 9:04 PM. The City Council will hold a special meeting on February 4, 2025, at 12:00 PM. The next regularly scheduled City Council meeting is on February 13, 2025, at 6:00 PM.
____________________________
ATTEST: Joe Clarke, Mayor
____________________________
Julia Gautho, City Clerk
285
Item 8 A.

City of Capitola
Special City Council Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, February 04, 2025 – 12:00 PM
City Council Chambers
420 Capitola Avenue, Capitola, CA 95010
Mayor: Joe Clarke
Vice Mayor: Alexander Pedersen
Council Members: Gerry Jensen, Margaux Morgan, Melinda Orbach Special Meeting of the Capitola City Council – 12:00 PM

1. Roll Call and Pledge of Allegiance – The meeting was called to order at 12:00 PM. In attendance: Council Members Jensen, Morgan, Orbach, Vice Mayor Pedersen, and Mayor Clarke.

2. Additions and Deletions to the Agenda – None

3. Additional Materials
A. Item 6A – Two emails received after publication of the agenda packet.

4. Oral Communications by Members of the Public
 Goran Klepic

5. Staff / City Council Comments – None

6. General Government / Public Hearings
A. Strategic Plan Draft Review
Recommended Action: 1) Receive a presentation from the City’s Strategic Plan consultant, BerryDunn; 2) review the draft Strategic Plan and provide feedback; and 3) authorize staff to release the draft Strategic Plan for public review.

City Manager Goldstein, Assistant to the City Manager Woodmansee, and Project Consultant Maddi Powers from BerryDunn presented the staff report. BerryDunn moderated review and discussion of the strategic plan.

Public Comment was limited to one minute per speaker by the Mayor. Public Comments:
 Leslie Neilsen
 Matt Arthur
City Council provided feedback on the Strategic Plan.

Motion to incorporate City Council comments into the draft Strategic Plan and authorize staff to release the draft Strategic Plan for a period of public review: Council Member Orbach
Second: Council Member Morgan
Voting Yea: Mayor Clarke, Vice Mayor Pedersen, Council Members Jensen, Morgan, and Orbach
286
Item 8 A.

Special City Council Meeting Minutes – February 04, 2025 City of Capitola Page 2

7. Closed Session – The City Council adjourned to Closed Session at 3:00 PM. i. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Govt. Code § 54956.9(d)(2) One Case

8. Report on Closed Session – The City Council met and discussed one item on the Closed Session agenda. No reportable action was taken.

9. Adjournment – The meeting adjourned at 5:12 PM. The next regularly scheduled City Council meeting is on February 13, 2025, at 6:00 PM.
287
Item 8 A.

Capitola City Council
Agenda Report
Meeting: February 13, 2025
From: City Manager Department
Subject: 2025 City Council Meeting Schedule
Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution amending the regular meeting schedule for 2025.

Background: At the end of each calendar year, staff prepares the regular City Council meeting schedules for the following year. Regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Thursday of the month. The City Council adopted the 2025 meeting schedule on December 12, 2024.

Discussion: The August meeting date in the previously adopted meeting schedule was listed as August 21st. The fourth Thursday of that month is August 28th.

Upon approval, the meeting schedule will be posted on the City’s website and at City Hall. It will also be distributed to newspapers and interested parties.

Fiscal Impact: None.

Attachments:

1. Resolution

2. Amended 2025 Meeting Schedule
Report Prepared By: Julia Gautho, City Clerk
Approved By: Jamie Goldstein, City Manager
288
Item 8 B.

RESOLUTION NO. XXXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPITOLA
ESTABLISHING THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2025 WHEREAS, the City Council shall set an annual City Council meeting calendar to establish dates and times for the City Council to conduct the peoples’ business; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Capitola Municipal Code, the following calendar is established, notwithstanding the scheduling of additional meetings as required upon proper notice under the Brown Act; and
WHEREAS, the City Council may set aside additional time periods for closed session before the open session portion of each regular meeting.

WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the 2025 meeting calendar on December 12, 2024.

This calendar listed the August meeting date incorrectly, and an updated meeting calendar is included as Exhibit A.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPITOLA HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: The City Council hereby establishes 6:00 PM as the regular meeting time for each regular meeting. Only closed sessions may be held before a regular meeting. No closed session of the regular meeting will be held unless the posted agenda of the regular meeting indicates that such closed session will take place at a particular time. In the absence of such notification on the agenda, the open session portion of the regular meeting shall commence at 6:00 PM.

SECTION 2: The City Council establishes the amended 2025 Regular Meeting Schedule as listed in Exhibit A.

SECTION 3: With proper notice during the year, meetings may be cancelled, rescheduled, or added as necessary pursuant to California law.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Capitola on the 13
th day of February, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Julia Gautho, City Clerk
289
Item 8 B.
2025 CITY OF CAPITOLA
City Council Regular Meeting Dates
Meetings Begin at 6:00 PM
Items received less than two weeks prior to the meeting date may be scheduled for the next available agenda. **May be cancelled depending on agenda forecast.

MEETING DATES
JANUARY 9
JANUARY 30
FEBRUARY 13
FEBRUARY 27
MARCH 13
MARCH 27
APRIL 10
APRIL 24
MAY 8
MAY 22
JUNE 12
JUNE 26
JULY 24
AUGUST 28
SEPTEMBER 11
SEPTEMBER 25
OCTOBER 9
OCTOBER 23
NOVEMBER 13
NOVEMBER 20**
DECEMBER 11
290
Item 8 B.

Capitola City Council
Agenda Report
Meeting: February 13, 2025
From: Public Works Department
Subject: Bay Avenue Corridor Study
Recommended Action: Staff recommends the City Council 1) identify Alternative 2 as the preferred longterm improvement alternative for the Bay Avenue corridor; 2) authorize staff to proceed with public engagement and conceptual design refinement; and 3) direct staff to pursue grant funding opportunities for final design and construction.

Background: The Bay Avenue Corridor Study was initiated to evaluate potential long-term improvements along Bay Avenue, from Highway 1 to Monterey Avenue. The study examines multimodal safety, traffic operations, and community livability. The corridor is a key arterial that supports local businesses, residential neighborhoods, and regional traffic, with existing challenges related to congestion, multimodal safety, and access.

In 2024, a “quick-build” project at the Bay Avenue and Hill Street intersection was implemented to test a road diet and gather feedback. This interim project involved reducing travel lanes, modifying striping, and adding pedestrian safety measures. The feedback from this project, combined with detailed traffic analysis and engineering assessments, has informed the alternatives considered in this study. The study aligns with Capitola’s General Plan goals to enhance mobility and economic development along Bay Avenue while improving safety for all users.

The study also includes traffic projections for 2045, indicating that several intersections will exceed acceptable congestion thresholds under current conditions. Without improvements, key intersections, such as Bay Avenue at Hill Street and Capitola Avenue, are projected to operate at LOS E or worse, leading to increased delays and longer vehicle queues.

Discussion: The Bay Avenue Corridor Study evaluates three primary alternatives, each with distinct benefits and trade-offs.

The study utilized multiple data sources and analytical methods to assess current and future traffic conditions. Existing conditions were analyzed using traffic count data from 2024, including peak-hour intersection movements and roadway classifications. Data collection included automated and manual counts at key intersections, as well as pedestrian and bicycle counts. The analysis also incorporated projected growth rates, future development impacts, and traffic simulation models to estimate how corridor operations would evolve under each alternative. Traffic operations were analyzed using Synchro, Sidra, and VISSIM software to model vehicle delay, intersection queuing, and multimodal interactions under different scenarios. A detailed breakdown of methodology is included in Attachment 1 (Bay Avenue Corridor Study Report).

Alternative 1: Stop Control & Road Diet
 Converts current quick build configuration into permanent improvements, implementing a "road diet" to calm traffic and improve bicycle and pedestrian access.  Includes concrete curb bulb-outs to shorten pedestrian crossing distances and enhanced striping for improved visibility.
 Buffered bike lanes provide a dedicated space for cyclists, improving safety and encouraging multimodal travel.
 Trade-offs include increased vehicle travel times and longer queues at intersections. This alternative is the most cost-effective but does not improve vehicle congestion. 291
Item 9 A.

Alternative 2: Roundabout Control
 Converts key intersections at Bay/Hill and Bay/Capitola into single-lane roundabouts to reduce vehicle delay and conflict points.
 Provides a continuous flow of traffic, improving efficiency and reducing emissions by minimizing idling.
 Enhances pedestrian and bicycle safety through protected crossings and designated bike facilities.
 Requires higher upfront capital investment and potential right-of-way acquisition.  High potential for grant funding
 Similar projects, such as the La Jolla Boulevard corridor redesign in San Diego, have shown significant safety and operational benefits from roundabouts.

Alternative 3: Signal Control
 Installs new traffic signals with designated pedestrian crossing phases at key intersections.  Provides clear right-of-way assignments to improve traffic efficiency and multimodal safety.  Increases vehicle queuing at signals, leading to higher vehicle idling and emissions.  Higher ongoing maintenance costs due to required signal equipment upkeep.  Less impact on existing right-of-way but may require upgrades to sidewalk and crossing infrastructure.
 Highest potential for high severity collisions.

The alternatives were analyzed based on multiple performance metrics. The staff report simplifies this into a summary table; however, the full analysis (see Table ES-1 in the study) also includes right-of-way impacts, economic effects, and aesthetic considerations.

Table 1. Operations Summary Comparison
Criteria Alternative 1
Stop Control & Road Diet
Alternative 2
Roundabout
Alternative 3
Signal Control
Vehicle Delay High Low Moderate
Pedestrian Safety Moderate Good Moderate
Bicycle Safety Moderate Good Moderate
Capital Cost Low High High
Maintenance Cost Low Moderate High
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Moderate Low Moderate
Based on the analysis, Alternative 2 (Roundabout Control) provides the greatest safety benefits and operational efficiency but comes with the highest capital cost (grant funding may potentially offset some costs) and potential right-of-way impacts. Alternative 1 (Stop Control & Road Diet) offers an incremental improvement at a lower cost but does not significantly enhance traffic flow. Alternative 3 (Signal Control) improves operations but introduces maintenance, potential safety and aesthetic challenges.

Public Engagement Plan
The Bay Avenue corridor serves as a key regional connector, linking Highway 1 to multiple destinations, including the Capitola Village, local schools, and surrounding neighborhoods. Given its broader impact beyond the immediate area, staff recommends an engagement strategy that reaches a wider community audience while maintaining targeted outreach to directly affected properties.

To gather broad input, staff will conduct an online survey, which has proven to be an effective engagement tool in recent traffic projects to reach a broader audience. This approach ensures accessibility and allows for participation from residents, business owners, and commuters who regularly use the corridor.
292
Item 9 A.

Additionally, staff will continue stakeholder meetings with property owners at key intersections who may experience direct impacts from potential improvements. Regular updates will also be provided at City Council meetings, ensuring ongoing opportunities for public comment.

Following Council direction, staff will refine the conceptual layouts and incorporate public feedback before advancing to preliminary engineering and funding identification.

Fiscal Impact: The cost to finalize the conceptual design will depend on the preferred alternative selected.

Staff is coordinating with consultants to develop more precise cost estimates. Preliminary cost estimates from the study indicate that roundabout installations could range from $3 million to $5 million per intersection, while traffic signals would require an estimated $1.2 million per intersection, with additional long-term maintenance expenses.

Potential funding sources include:
 State and Federal Grants – Opportunities such as the Active Transportation Program (ATP) and Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP).
 Regional Transportation Funds – Allocations from the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (SCCRTC).
 Local Capital Improvement Budget – Consideration for phased implementation as funding becomes available.

No immediate budget allocation is requested at this time. Staff will return with detailed cost estimates and funding strategies based on Council direction.

Attachments:

1. Bay Avenue Corridor Study
Report Prepared By: Jessica Kahn, Public Works Director Reviewed By: Julia Gautho, City Clerk; Samantha Zutler, City Attorney Approved By: Jamie Goldstein, City Manager
293
Item 9 A.
1 Bay Avenue Corridor Study
Transportation Analysis
February 2025
Prepared for
Prepared by
10 South Almaden Boulevard, Suite 1250
San Jose, CA 95113
294
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 4

1. Project Description and Corridor Study Scope.......................................................................................... 8

1.1 Corridor Study Scenarios..................................................................................................................... 8

1.2 Proposed Corridor Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 9

1.3 Capitola General Plan Consistency ................................................................................................... 13

1.4 Level-of-Service Criteria and Thresholds .......................................................................................... 14

1.5 Traffic Analysis Methodology............................................................................................................ 16

2. Existing Transportation Conditions......................................................................................................... 18

2.1 Study Intersections ........................................................................................................................... 18

2.2 Roadway Network............................................................................................................................. 18

2.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ....................................................................................................... 19

2.4 Transit Facilities ................................................................................................................................ 19

2.5 Roadway Cross Section ..................................................................................................................... 20

3. Traffic Data Collection............................................................................................................................. 22

3.1 Year 2024 Existing Intersection Volumes.......................................................................................... 22

3.2 Year 2045 Cumulative Intersection Volumes.................................................................................... 22

3.3 Roadway Daily Traffic and Speed Data ............................................................................................. 23

3.4 Collision Data .................................................................................................................................... 24

3.5 Signal Warrant Analysis..................................................................................................................... 27

4. Corridor Operations and Intersection Control Evaluation Results ......................................................... 29

4.1 Year 2024 Existing ICE Operations.................................................................................................... 29

4.2 Year 2045 Cumulative ICE Operations.............................................................................................. 31

4.3 Intersection Queuing Analysis .......................................................................................................... 34

4.4 Corridor Travel Time Summary ......................................................................................................... 36

4.5 Driver Behavior & Drone Video Analysis at Bay/Capitola Intersection ............................................40

4.6 Multimodal Safety and Access Improvements ................................................................................. 40

5. Corridor Study Conclusions and Recommendations............................................................................... 44

6. Appendix ................................................................................................................................................. 47 295
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
3 TABLES
Table 1: Intersection Operation Standards at Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections .........................15 Table 2: Year 2024 Existing Intersection Volumes...................................................................................... 22 Table 3: Year 2045 Cumulative Intersection Volumes................................................................................ 23 Table 4: Bay Avenue ADT & Vehicle Speed Summary................................................................................. 23 Table 5: Bay Avenue Collision Data (2013 to 2024).................................................................................... 26 Table 6: CA MUTCD Signal Warrant #3 Assumptions – Year 2024 Existing Conditions..............................28 Table 7: CA MUTCD Signal Warrant #3 Assumptions – Year 2045 Cumulative Conditions........................28 Table 8: Year 2024 Existing Intersection LOS – AM Peak............................................................................ 30 Table 9: Year 2024 Existing Intersection LOS – PM Peak............................................................................ 30 Table 10: Year 2045 Cumulative Intersection LOS – AM Peak.................................................................... 33 Table 11: Year 2045 Cumulative Intersection LOS – PM Peak.................................................................... 33 Table 12: Year 2024 Existing Intersection Queue Summary....................................................................... 34 Table 13: Year 2045 Cumulative Intersection Queue Summary................................................................. 35 Table 14: Year 2024 Existing Corridor Travel Times ................................................................................... 37 Table 15: Year 2045 Cumulative Corridor Travel Times ............................................................................. 39 Table 16: Qualitative Corridor Operations Summary Comparison............................................................. 45

FIGURES
Figure 1: Project Site Map............................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 2: Corridor Alternatives Summary ................................................................................................... 11 Figure 3: Illustrative VISSIM Model for Project Study Area ........................................................................ 16 Figure 4: Existing Section – Highway 1 to Center St (80-ft ROW)............................................................... 20 Figure 5: Existing Section – Center St to Capitola Ave (65-ft ROW)............................................................ 20 Figure 6: Existing Section – Capitola Ave to Burlingame Ave (56-ft ROW).................................................21 Figure 7: Existing Section – Burlingame Ave to Monterey Ave (56-ft ROW) ..............................................21 Figure 8: Existing Section – Monterey Ave to Park Ave (38-ft ROW).......................................................... 21 Figure 9: Bay Avenue Collision Heat Map (2013 to 2024) .......................................................................... 24 Figure 10: Bay Avenue Collision Types (2013 to 2024)............................................................................... 25 Figure 11: CA MUTCD Signal Warrant 3...................................................................................................... 27 Figure 12: Year 2024 Existing Corridor Average Travel Times.................................................................... 36 Figure 13: Year 2045 Cumulative Corridor Average Travel Times.............................................................. 38 296
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
4 Executive Summary
Project Overview:

The Bay Avenue Corridor Study, conducted by Kimley-Horn in partnership with the City of Capitola, aims to analyze and propose improvements for the Bay Avenue corridor stretching from Highway 1 to Park Avenue. The primary objectives are to enhance mobility, economic development, traffic operations, and multimodal safety through long-term roadway and intersection modifications. It is intended that the proposed corridor improvements would be funded through grant opportunities.

Study Scope and Methodology:

A traffic operations analysis for existing (Year 2024) and cumulative (Year 2045) conditions was conducted to assess the feasibility of multiple alternative configurations:
• Alternative 0 – No Build: Maintain current traffic control and roadway geometry. • Alternative 1 – Stop Control and Road Diet: Convert a portion of Bay Avenue from a four-lane to a two-lane road with enhanced multimodal crossings at the existing all-way stop intersections. • Alternative 2 – Roundabout: Implement single-lane roundabouts at key intersections. • Alternative 3 – Signal: Implement traffic signals at key intersections.

Traffic data, including intersection volumes, daily traffic, speed, and collision statistics, were collected and analyzed using Synchro, Sidra, and VISSIM software.

Existing Conditions (Year 2024) Analysis Results:
• Most intersections operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS). • The roundabout alternative (Alt 2) demonstrates better LOS operations compared to the stop control (Alt 1) and signal (Alt 3) configurations.
• Significant vehicle queues were observed at some intersections, particularly the Bay Avenue/Highway 1 ramps and Hill Street.

Cumulative Conditions (Year 2045) Analysis Results:
• Several intersections are anticipated to exceed acceptable LOS thresholds. • The roundabout alternative (Alt 2) consistently provides the best performance in terms of vehicle delay and travel times.
• Signalized intersections (Alt 3) yields acceptable LOS but with increased vehicle queues compared to roundabouts.

Multimodal Access and Safety Improvements
The proposed improvements for each alternative configuration would aim to enhance safety for pedestrians and cyclists through various measures:
• General Multimodal Enhancements:
o Traffic Calming Features: All alternatives incorporate traffic calming features like narrower lanes and improved intersection design, which inherently enhance safety for all road users.
o Visibility Improvements: Enhanced lighting, signage, and marked crosswalks improve visibility for pedestrians and cyclists, especially at night or during adverse weather conditions.
297
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
5 o Collision Mitigation: Historical collision data and near-miss analysis inform the design to specifically address risky driver behaviors and common collision types, further ensuring pedestrian and cyclist safety.
• Summary of Multimodal Safety Benefits:
o Reduced Vehicle Speeds: Slower travel speeds generally lead to decreased collision severity for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians.
o Clear Right-of-Way: Signal and roundabout controls provide structured and predictable movement patterns.
o Protected Space: Buffered and clearly marked spaces for pedestrians and cyclists reduce the risk of conflicts with vehicles.
o Improved Crossings: Shorter and more visible crossing areas make it safer and easier for pedestrians to navigate intersections.
o Enhanced Visibility and Lighting: Increased visibility through better lighting and clear signage reduces the risk of accidents.

Conclusion and Recommendations:

The roundabout configuration (Alternative 2) offers the most optimal solution for minimizing vehicle delays, enhancing traffic safety, and improving multimodal access. This option, however, requires significant infrastructure investment and potential right-of-way acquisition.

The stop control and road diet alternative (Alternative 1) would improve pedestrian and cyclist safety with minimal initial capital costs but result in poor corridor operations and long vehicle delay.

The signalized intersection configuration (Alternative 3) presents an intermediate solution, providing moderate operation and multimodal improvements at the expense of infrastructure investment and high ongoing maintenance costs.

Based on the analysis results, the study recommends pursuing the roundabout configuration at key intersections for long-term benefits in traffic operations, safety, economic development, and multimodal accessibility. Compared to the no-build alternative, the stop control and signal control alternatives could also be considered feasible based on budgetary constraints and immediate needs. 298
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
6 ES-1: Qualitative Corridor Operations Summary Comparison Criteria
Alternative 0 –
No Build
Alternative 1 –
Stop & Road Diet
Alternative 2 –
Roundabout
Alternative 3 -
Signal
Operations
Vehicle Delay
High
Stop control creates
delay for intersection
approaches
High
Stop control creates
delay for intersection
approaches
Low
Yield control reduces
average delay
Moderate
Signal control
reduces average
delay
Vehicle
Travel Time
Long
Stop control creates
delay for intersection
approaches
Long
Stop control creates
delay for intersection
approaches
Short
Yield control reduces
average delay
Moderate
Signal control
reduces average
delay
Vehicle
Queue
Length
Long
Long queues and
spillback into
adjacent intersection
Long
Long queues and
spillback into
adjacent intersection
Moderate
Yield control
generates average
queues
Moderate
Signal control
generates average
queues
Transit and
Emergency
Vehicle
Access
Improvement
Poor
Slower average travel
times and higher VHT
Poor
Slower average travel
times and higher VHT
Moderate
Faster average travel
times and lower VHT
Moderate
Opportunity for
emergency vehicle
preemption
Driver
Adaptation
Time
Low
Existing conditions
on corridor
Low
Existing conditions
on corridor
High
New traffic control in
City for users
Moderate
Existing conditions
on corridor
Safety
Collision
Severity
Potential
Moderate
Numerous conflict
points with stop
control at
intersection
Moderate
Numerous conflict
points with stop
control at
intersection
Low
Fewer conflict points
and controlled lower
speeds at
intersection
High
Higher vehicle
speeds and
numerous conflict
points at intersection
Bicycle
Access
Improvement
Poor
No Build scenario
would not improve
conditions
Moderate
Buffered bike lanes
and markings
Good
Buffered bike lanes
and markings.

Shorter and
protected crossings
Moderate
Buffered bike lanes
and markings.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
7 Criteria
Alternative 0 –
No Build
Alternative 1 –
Stop & Road Diet
Alternative 2 –
Roundabout
Alternative 3 -
Signal
No change to existing
conditions
Updates to existing
infrastructure
Property impacts to
accommodate design
New infrastructure
and signal equipment
Operation &
Maintenance
Costs
Low
No Build scenario
would not improve
conditions
Low
Landscaping
Moderate
Landscaping
High
Signal equipment,
electricity
Greenhouse
Gas
Emissions
Moderate
Vehicle idling with
stop traffic control
Moderate
Vehicle idling with
stop traffic control
Low
Less vehicle idling
with yield traffic
control
Moderate
Higher speeds &
vehicle idling with
signal traffic control
Aesthetics &
Community
Character
Improvement
Poor
No Build scenario
would not improve
conditions
Moderate
Opportunities for art
and landscaping with
traffic calming
Good
Opportunities for art
and landscaping at
intersection
Moderate
Requires signal poles
and cabinets
Grant
Funding
Opportunity
Poor
No Build scenario
would not improve
conditions
Moderate
Multimodal safety
improvement
Good
Multimodal safety
improvement, traffic
congestion
reduction,
environmental
impact
Moderate
Traffic congestion
reduction
General
Benefits
• Lower initial
capital cost and
ongoing
maintenance
• Improved driver
certainty
• Lower initial
capital cost
• Improved bike &
ped safety
• Reduction
collision severity
• Improved bike &
ped safety
• Improved
operations
• Reduced GHG
emissions
• Improved
operations &
capacity
• Provides
designated
crossing times
and driver
certainty
General
Challenges
• Decreased
operations
• Increased queues
• Decreased
operations
• Increased queues
• High initial capital
cost and potential
ROW impact
• Driver adaptation
to new traffic
operations
• High capital and
maintenance
costs
• Increased queues
and collision
severity potential
300
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
8 1. Project Description and Corridor Study Scope
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Kimley-Horn) is working with the City of Capitola (City) to conduct a traffic operations analysis and corridor study along Bay Avenue from Highway 1 to Park Avenue. This planning study was prepared to assess current and future needs of the Bay Avenue corridor to improve mobility, safety, operations, and economic development for all users.

The study investigates feasible long-term roadway and intersection improvements that could enhance traffic operations and safety for vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians through a traffic analysis and intersection control evaluation (ICE) for the Bay Avenue corridor. The overall recommendations of the corridor study are consistent with the Bay Avenue Vision, mobility, and economic goals in the Capitola General Plan. It is anticipated these long-term future improvements would consist of permanent hardscape and geometric roadway changes that would be funded through grant opportunities.

Figure 1 presents an overview map of the Bay Avenue corridor study area.

Figure 1: Project Site Map

1.1 Corridor Study Scenarios
Traffic conditions for Bay Avenue was analyzed during the 7:00 – 9:00 AM and 4:00 – 6:00 PM peak hours of traffic which represent the most heavily congested traffic on a typical weekday. The study area was assessed under the following study scenarios.
• Existing Scenario: Existing AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes from Year 2024 traffic count data and utilizing roadway geometry and intersection traffic control from proposed corridor alternatives aimed to enhance multimodal operations. Hill St Study Intersection
Study Roadway
Crossroads
301
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
9 • Cumulative Scenario: Peak-hour traffic volumes based on the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (SCCRTC) Travel Demand Model for Year 2045 and utilizing roadway geometry and intersection traffic control from proposed corridor alternatives aimed to enhance multimodal operations.

1.2 Proposed Corridor Alternatives
The corridor operations and intersection control evaluation (ICE) analysis investigated potential improvements that could improve access and safety for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. Based on internal discussion and direction from City staff, the lane intersection improvement and lane configuration alternatives were evaluated under the Existing Year 2024 and Cumulative Year 2045 study scenarios. Exhibits and tables detailing the general operations, traffic control, and roadway geometry of the conceptual Bay Avenue corridor alternatives are included in Figure 2.

Alternative 0 – No Build
• All study intersections and roadways segments are analyzed with its existing traffic control and lane geometry to provide a comparison with the proposed corridor alternatives.

Alternative 1 – Stop Control and Road Diet
• Roadway between Crossroads Loop and Center Street
o Convert Bay Avenue from a 4-lane roadway into a 2-lane roadway with road diet transition
• Bay Avenue / Crossroads Loop Intersection
o Adjust Bay Avenue Major Approach (Southbound direction) for 2-lane road diet • Bay Avenue / Hill Street Intersection
o Install curb bulb-outs and enhanced pedestrian crossings with 2-lane road diet • Assumes improvements can fit within existing City intersection footprint and right-of-way. • All other study intersections are analyzed with its existing traffic control and lane geometry Alternative 2 – Roundabout
For the purposes of this study, a qualitative right-of-way evaluation for the Existing and Cumulative condition was conducted to determine if a roundabout is feasible for any of the existing Bay Avenue stopcontrolled study intersections. • Roadway between Crossroads Loop and Center Street
o Convert Bay Avenue from a 4-lane roadway into a 2-lane roadway with road diet transition
• Bay Avenue / Crossroads Loop Intersection
o Adjust Bay Avenue Major Approach (Southbound direction) for 2-lane road diet • Bay Avenue / Hill Street Intersection
o Convert intersection into single lane roundabout layout with yield control with 2-lane road diet
• Bay Avenue / Capitola Avenue Intersection
o Convert intersection into single lane roundabout layout with yield control • Bay Avenue / Monterey Avenue Intersection
o Convert intersection into single lane roundabout layout with yield control 302
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
10 o It should be noted that for existing and cumulative conditions, the intersection has rightof-way constraints that impact the economic and construction feasibility for a roundabout; however for consistency and ICE comparison purposes, this intersection was analyzed as a roundabout for the Alternative 2 layout. • Monterey Avenue / Park Avenue Intersection
o Convert intersection into single lane roundabout layout with yield control o It should be noted that for existing and cumulative conditions, the intersection has rightof-way constraints that impact the economic and construction feasibility for a roundabout; however for consistency and ICE comparison purposes, this intersection was analyzed as a roundabout for the Alternative 2 layout. • Assumes roundabout improvements would have minor impacts outside of City right-of-way. • All other study intersections are analyzed with its existing traffic control and lane geometry Alternative 3 – Signal
For the purposes of this study and based on the collected traffic volumes, MUTCD peak hour signal warrant #3 was evaluated for the Existing and Cumulative condition to determine if a signal is warranted for any of the existing Bay Avenue stop-controlled study intersections. See Section 3 for analysis. • Roadway between Crossroads Loop and Center Street
o Convert Bay Avenue from a 4-lane roadway into a 2-lane roadway with road diet transition
• Bay Avenue / Crossroads Loop Intersection
o Adjust Bay Avenue Major Approach (Southbound direction) for 2-lane road diet • Bay Avenue / Hill Street Intersection
o Convert intersection into signal control with 2-lane road diet • Bay Avenue / Capitola Avenue Intersection
o Convert intersection into signal control
o It should be noted that for existing and cumulative conditions, the Bay/Capitola intersection does not meet the Warrant 3 volume criteria for a signal; however for consistency and ICE comparison purposes, this intersection was analyzed as signal for the Alternative 3 layout.
• Bay Avenue / Monterey Avenue Intersection
o Convert intersection into signal control
• Monterey Avenue / Park Avenue Intersection
o Convert intersection into signal control
• Assumes signal equipment can fit within existing City intersection footprint and right-of-way, no physical improvements needed.
• All other study intersections are analyzed with its existing traffic control and lane geometry It should be noted that a combination of the intersection control alternatives, such as an all-way stop at one location and a roundabout/signal at another location, may be considered along the Bay Avenue corridor pending City direction and public outreach. A detailed analysis of all the possible intersection control combinations is outside the scope of this planning study; however, , While I don’t think we need to run a detailed analysis on this, having a general answer prepared would be helpful. 303
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
11 Figure 2: Corridor Alternatives Summary
Intersection
# Intersection
Name
Alternative 0 - No Build Alternative 1 - Stop & Road Diet Alternative 2 - Roundabout Alternative 3 - Signal Traffic
Control
Intersection Geometry
and Operations
Traffic
Control
Intersection Geometry and
Operations
Traffic
Control Intersection Geometry and Operations Traffic Control Intersection Geometry and Operations 1 Bay Avenue /
Highway 1 NB
Ramps
Signal
No changes to current
condition (Intersection in
Caltrans right-of-way)
3 NB, 2 SB, 2 WB Lanes
Signal Same as Alt 0 - No Build Signal Same as Alt 0 - No Build Signal Same as Alt 0 - No Build 2 Bay Avenue /
Highway 1 SB
Ramps
Signal
No changes to current
conditions (Intersection
in Caltrans right-of-way)
2 NB, 3 SB, 3 EB Lanes
Signal Same as Alt 0 - No Build Signal Same as Alt 0 - No Build Signal Same as Alt 0 - No Build 3 Bay Avenue /
Crossroads Loop TWSC
No changes to current
condition (Minor street
access to private
driveways)
2 NB, 3 SB, 2 EB, 1 WB
Lanes
TWSC
Adjust Bay Avenue Major
Approach (Southbound
direction) for 2-lane road diet
-1 left lane, 1 through lane, 1
right lane
-Buffered Class II bike lanes
TWSC
Adjust Bay Avenue Major Approach (Southbound direction) for 2-lane road diet
-1 left lane, 1 through lane, 1 right lane
-Buffered Class II bike lanes
-It should be noted that for existing and cumulative conditions, the Bay/Crossroads intersection has right-of-way constraints that impact the economic and construction feasibility for a roundabout
TWSC
Adjust Bay Avenue Major Approach (Southbound direction) for 2- lane road diet
-1 left lane, 1 through lane, 1 right lane
-Buffered Class II bike lanes
-It should be noted that for existing and cumulative conditions, the Bay/Crossroads intersection does not meet the MUTCD Warrant 3 volume criteria for a signal
4 Bay Avenue / Hill
Street AWSC
No changes to current
condition
3 NB, 3 SB, 2 EB, 1 WB
Lanes
AWSC
Install curb bulb-outs and
enhanced pedestrian crossings
with 2-lane road diet
-Buffered Class II bike lanes
-Bay Avenue Major Approach
(Northbound and Southbound
directions)
--1 left lane, 1 shared throughright lane
-Hill Street Minor Approach
(Westbound direction)
--1 shared left-through-right lane
-Nob Hill Driveway Minor
Approach (Eastbound direction)
--1 shared left-through lane, 1
right lane
RDBT
Convert intersection into single lane roundabout layout with yield control with 2-lane road diet
-Bay Avenue Major Approach (Northbound and Southbound directions) --1 shared left-through-right lane
--Lane drop transition prior to roundabout intersection --Bike lane transitions and curb ramps onto Class I shared bike/ped pathway prior to roundabout intersection
--Santa Cruz Metro bus stop and commercial driveway access is maintained along Bay Avenue corridor
-Hill Street Minor Approach (Westbound direction)
--1 shared left-through-right lane
--Pedestrian crossing relocated before roundabout intersection -Nob Hill Driveway Minor Approach (Eastbound direction) --1 shared left-through-right lane
--Pedestrian crossing and pathway relocated inside plaza parking lot before roundabout intersection
Signal
Convert intersection into signal control with 2-lane road diet -Bay Avenue Major Approach (Northbound and Southbound
directions)
--1 left lane, 1 shared through-right lane
--Protected left turn operations for Northbound and Southbound approaches
-Nob Hill Driveway and Hill Street Minor Approach (Eastbound and Westbound directions)
--Lane geometry same as existing condition
--Permissive yield left turn operations for Eastbound and Westbound approaches
5 Bay Avenue /
Capitola Avenue AWSC
No changes to current
condition
2 NB, 2 SB, 2 EB, 1 WB
Lanes
AWSC Same as Alt 0 - No Build RDBT
Convert intersection into single lane roundabout layout with yield control -Bay Avenue Major Approach (Northbound and Southbound directions) --1 shared left-through-right lane
--Bike lane transitions and curb ramps onto Class I shared bike/ped pathway prior to roundabout intersection
-Capitola Avenue Minor Approach (Westbound and Eastbound directions) --1 shared left-through-right lane
--Pedestrian crossing relocated before roundabout intersection Signal
Convert intersection into signal control
-It should be noted that for existing and cumulative conditions, the Bay/Capitola intersection does not meet the MUTCD Warrant 3 volume criteria for a signal; however for consistency and ICE comparison purposes, this intersection was analyzed as signal for the Alternative 3 layout.
-Lane geometry same as existing condition for all intersection leg approaches
--Permissive yield left turn operations for all approaches 304
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
12 Intersection
# Intersection
Name
Alternative 0 - No Build Alternative 1 - Stop & Road Diet Alternative 2 - Roundabout Alternative 3 - Signal Traffic
Control
Intersection Geometry
and Operations
Traffic
Control
Intersection Geometry and
Operations
Traffic
Control Intersection Geometry and Operations Traffic Control Intersection Geometry and Operations 6 Bay Avenue /
Monterey
Avenue
AWSC
No changes to current
condition
1 NB, 1 SB, 1 WB Lanes
AWSC Same as Alt 0 - No Build RDBT
Convert intersection into single lane roundabout layout with yield control -It should be noted that for existing and cumulative conditions, the Bay/Monterey intersection has right-of-way constraints that impact the economic and construction feasibility for a roundabout; however for consistency and ICE comparison purposes, this intersection was analyzed as a roundabout for the Alternative 2 layout.
-All roadway approaches
--1 shared left-through-right lane
--Bike lane transitions and curb ramps onto Class I shared bike/ped pathway prior to roundabout intersection
Signal
Convert intersection into signal control
-Lane geometry same as existing condition for all intersection leg approaches
--Permissive yield left turn operations for all approaches 7 Monterey
Avenue / Park
Avenue
AWSC
No changes to current
condition
2 NB, 2 SB, 1 EB, 1 WB
Lanes
AWSC Same as Alt 0 - No Build RDBT
Convert intersection into single lane roundabout layout with yield control -It should be noted that for existing and cumulative conditions, the Monterey/Park intersection has right-of-way constraints that impact the economic and construction feasibility for a roundabout; however for consistency and ICE comparison purposes, this intersection was analyzed as a roundabout for the Alternative 2 layout.
-All roadway approaches
--1 shared left-through-right lane
--Bike lane transitions and curb ramps onto Class I shared bike/ped pathway prior to roundabout intersection
Signal
Convert intersection into signal control
-Lane geometry same as existing condition for all intersection leg approaches
--Permissive yield left turn operations for all approaches Roadway
# Roadway Segment
(Bay Avenue)
Alternative 0 - No Build Alternative 1 - Stop & Road Diet Alternative 2 - Roundabout Alternative 3 - Signal #
Travel
Lanes
Roadway Geometry and
Operations
# Travel
Lanes Roadway Geometry and Operations # Travel Lanes Roadway Geometry and Operations # Travel Lanes Roadway Geometry and Operations A Highway 1 to Crossroads
Loop 4 2 NB, 2 SB, Center left turn lane, Class II Bike 4 Same as Alt 0 - No Build 4 Same as Alt 0 - No Build 4 Same as Alt 0 - No Build B Crossroads Loop to Hill
Street 4 2 NB, 2 SB, Center left turn lane, Class II Bike 2 Convert from a 4-lane roadway into a 2-lane roadway with road diet transition 2 Convert from a 4-lane roadway into a 2-lane roadway with road diet transition 2 Convert from a 4-lane roadway into a 2-lane roadway with road diet transition C Hill Street to Center Street 4 2 NB, 2 SB, Center left turn lane, Class II Bike 2 Convert from a 4-lane roadway into a 2-lane roadway with road diet transition 2 Convert from a 4-lane roadway into a 2-lane roadway with road diet transition 2 Convert from a 4-lane roadway into a 2-lane roadway with road diet transition D Center Street to Capitola
Avenue 2 1 NB, 1 SB, Class II Bike, On-Street Parking 2 Same as Alt 0 - No Build 2 Same as Alt 0 - No Build 2 Same as Alt 0 - No Build E Capitola Avenue to
Monterey Avenue 2 1 NB, 1 SB, Class II Bike, On-Street Parking 2 Same as Alt 0 - No Build 2 Same as Alt 0 - No Build 2 Same as Alt 0 - No Build F Monterey Avenue to Park
Avenue 2 1 NB, 1 SB, Class II Bike 2 Same as Alt 0 - No Build 2 Same as Alt 0 - No Build 2 Same as Alt 0 - No Build 305
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
13 1.3 Capitola General Plan Consistency
The objectives of the Bay Avenue Corridor Study were prepared to be consistent with the following land use, mobility, and economic goals identified in the City’s latest General Plan. • Goal LU-10 Maintain and enhance Bay Avenue commercial district as a thriving destination with businesses that serve Capitola residents and visitors.
o Policy LU-10.2 Bay Avenue Streetscape. Enhance the Bay Avenue streetscape in a way that improves the appearance of Bay Avenue, increases safety for bicyclists and pedestrians, and stimulates private investment within the area. o Policy LU-10.3 Tree-Lined Boulevard. Encourage a tree-lined boulevard streetscape character along Bay Avenue north of the Capitola Produce property. Encourage installation of drought tolerant and non-invasive street trees and landscaping along the Bay Avenue property frontage in conjunction with capital improvement or redevelopment projects.
o Action LU-10.1 Medians. Explore opportunities to install medians on Bay Avenue in locations where left turn movements for vehicles would not be restricted. o Action LU-10.2 Roundabout. Conduct a public process to study the feasibility of installing a roundabout at the Bay Avenue/Capitola Avenue intersection. The study shall consider impacts on traffic speeds, delays, and air quality. o Action LU-10.3 Streetscape Master Plan. Prepare a streetscape master plan for Bay Avenue that presents a unified design theme for the corridors and identifies specific improvements needed to implement this vision.
• Goal MO-4 Provide a roadway system that enhances community aesthetics and promotes a high quality of life
o Action MO-4.1 Bay Avenue Roundabout. Prepare a study and conduct outreach with business stakeholders and the public to evaluate the feasibility of constructing a roundabout at the intersection of Bay Avenue and Capitola Avenue. • Goal ED-2 Provide businesses and jobs that create a healthy and stable local economy. o Policy ED-2.8 Major Bay Avenue Development Projects. Ensure that major development projects contribute to the vitality and enhance the function of Bay Avenue as a thriving commercial district.
306
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
14 Bay Avenue Vision in the Capitola General Plan

1.4 Level-of-Service Criteria and Thresholds
Analysis of potential adverse effects at roadway intersections is based on the concept of level-of-service (LOS). The LOS of an intersection is a qualitative measure used to describe operational conditions. LOS A (best) represents minimal delay, while LOS F (worst) represents heavy delay and a facility that is operating at or near its functional capacity.

This LOS analysis uses methods defined in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Seventh Edition. HCM 7th Edition methodologies include procedures for analyzing side-street stop-controlled (“SSSC”), all-way stop-controlled (“AWSC”), and signalized intersections. The SSSC procedure defines LOS as a function of average control delay for each minor street approach movement. Conversely, the AWSC and signalized intersection procedures define LOS as a function of average control delay for the overall intersection.

Table 1 relates the operational characteristics associated with each LOS category for signalized and unsignalized intersections.
307
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
15 Table 1: Intersection Operation Standards at Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections City of Capitola LOS Threshold
The City of Capitola General Plan (adopted June 26, 2014, and updated March 13, 2019) (Policy MO-3.3) establishes a minimum LOS C traffic operation standard at intersections throughout the City, with the exception of the Village Area, Bay Avenue, and 41st Avenue where LOS D is the minimum acceptable standard.

Capitola General Plan Policy MP-3.4 permits a lower LOS and higher congestion at major regional intersections, if necessary, improvements are considered infeasible, as determined by the City’s Public Works Director, or result in significant, unacceptable environmental impacts. Any evaluation of the Project’s LOS impact on City of Capitola streets follows the City’s General Plan.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) LOS Threshold An LOS-based analysis of Caltrans facilities is provided using the previously applied LOS standard combined with the County v/c standard for significance criteria purposes. Deficiencies at Caltrans study intersections occur when:
• Cause operations to deteriorate from an acceptable level (LOS C or better) to an unacceptable level (LOS D or worse); or
• Causes the existing measure of effectiveness (average delay) to deteriorate at a State-operated intersection operating at LOS D or worse.
308
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
16 Roundabout Analysis – FHWA Requirements
Roundabouts: An Information Guide (June 2000) by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) was used for guidance. The FHWA recommends that no approach to a roundabout should handle more than 85% of its capacity, even if the level of service is still acceptable. This helps ensure that each entrance runs smoothly, preventing congestion and keeping traffic flowing efficiently. The analysis takes this design standard into account.

1.5 Traffic Analysis Methodology
For the Bay Avenue Corridor (Alternative 0 – No Build, Alternative 1 - Stop, Alternative 2 – Roundabout, and Alternative 3 – Signal), the LOS, vehicle delay, and critical vehicle queues were determined using Synchro 12 traffic analysis software. Sidra 9 traffic analysis software was also used to estimate the LOS, vehicle delay, and critical vehicle queues for the proposed roundabout geometry along Bay Avenue.

For the Alternative 1 – Stop and Alternative 2 – Roundabout layouts, a microsimulation analysis using VISSIM software was also conducted for operation comparison purposes. VISSIM was used because the software is the most appropriate tool to simulate the pedestrian, bicycle, vehicular traffic movements, and driver behavior through various traffic control devices. Figure 3 illustrates the VISSIM model used for the traffic analysis.

Figure 3: Illustrative VISSIM Model for Project Study Area 309
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
17 310
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
18 2. Existing Transportation Conditions

2.1 Study Intersections
Study intersections for the project were selected in consultation with City staff. The intersections evaluated in this study are listed below.

1. Bay Avenue / Highway 1 NB Ramps

2. Bay Avenue / Highway 1 SB Ramps

3. Bay Avenue / Crossroads Loop

4. Bay Avenue / Hill Street

5. Bay Avenue / Capitola Avenue

6. Bay Avenue / Monterey Avenue

7. Monterey Avenue / Park Avenue

2.2 Roadway Network
The following local and regional roadways provide access to the project study area:

Highway 1 is 4-lane freeway (that connects with State Route 17 and State Route 156) in the north-south direction. Within Capitola, Highway 1 travels in an east-west direction. Access to and from the project study area is provided by ramp terminals at Porter Street / Bay Avenue.

Bay Avenue is an arterial in the northwest-southeast direction between Highway 1 and Monterey Avenue, and the road is classified as a minor arterial per the City’s General Plan. Class II bike lanes and sidewalks exist along both sides of the roadway. The posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour and provides direct access to commercial and residential land uses. Between Highway 1 and Center Street, Bay Avenue is a four-lane facility with a center two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL), and on-street parking is prohibited along this section. Between Center Street and Park Avenue, Bay Avenue is a two-lane facility, and on-street parking is allowed in marked areas next to commercial and residential uses.

Crossroads Loop is a private two-lane street in the east-west direction that provides direct driveway access to commercial uses at the Nob Hill plaza on the westside and at the Crossroads center on the eastside. The roadway provides sidewalks for pedestrians and on-street parking on the private road east of Bay Avenue. Crossroads Loop is located approximately 175-feet north of Hill Street.

Hill Street is a two-lane local street in the east-west direction that provides access to some retail and mostly residential land uses east of Bay Avenue. The roadway provides sidewalks between Bay Avenue and Crossroads Loop. Class II bike lanes are provided in the eastbound direction and Class III shared bike sharrows are provided in the westbound direction from Bay Avenue to Capitola Avenue.

Capitola Avenue is a two-lane street in the north-south direction that provides access to the project study area as well as various commercial and residential land uses between Soquel Drive and Monterey Avenue. The roadway provides sidewalks and Class III shared bike sharrows on both sides of the street.

The posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour. Per the General Plan, the road is classified as a minor arterial south of Bay Street and a collector street north of Bay Street. 311
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
19 Monterey Avenue is a two-lane street in the north-south direction that provides access to the project study area as well as various commercial and residential land uses between Kennedy Drive and Esplanade. The roadway provides sidewalks, Class II bike lanes, and Class III shared bike sharrows on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour. Per the General Plan, the road is classified as an arterial south of Bay Street and a collector street north of Bay Street.

Park Avenue is a two-lane street in the east-west direction that provides access to the project study area as well as residential land uses between Monterey Avenue and Soquel Drive. The roadway provides sidewalks and Class II bike lanes, and the posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour. Per the General Plan, the road is classified as an arterial.

2.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Pedestrian and bicycle activity within project vicinity are active along Bay Avenue, Capitola Avenue, and Monterey Avenue with an established pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. Connected sidewalks at least four (4) feet wide are available on at least one side of all roadways in the study area with adequate lighting and signing. At the Highway 1 ramp signalized intersections, marked crosswalks, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standard curb ramps, and count down pedestrian signals provide improved pedestrian visibility and safety.

Bicycle facilities in the area include Bay Avenue, Hill Street, and Monterey Avenue which consist of Class II bike lanes with buffered striping to separate the vehicle and bike travel way, and Capitola Avenue, which consists of Class III shared bike sharrows. Bay Avenue features green paint markings in potential conflict areas at the Highway 1 ramp signalized intersections. Bicycle parking in the area is limited to private commercial and industrial lots.

Overall, the existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities near the project have adequate connectivity and provide pedestrian and bicyclists with routes to the surrounding land uses. The City of Capitola Bicycle Transportation Plan 2011 does not indicate any future bicycle facilities planned within the study area.

A discussion of potential bike and pedestrian improvements along the Bay Avenue corridor are provided in Section 4.

2.4 Transit Facilities
Transit services in the study area include a bus route provided by the Santa Cruz Metro Transit District (SCMTD). Per the updated latest service schedule, the project study area is served by the following major transit route.
• Mid-County Bus Route 55
o Capitola Mall Transit Center – Seascape Blvd/Via Pacifica o Mid-county service approximately every 60-100 minutes on weekdays and approximately every 4 to 5 hours on weekends
o This bus route travels through the following study intersections:
 Bay Avenue / Highway 1 NB Ramps
 Bay Avenue / Highway 1 SB Ramps
 Bay Avenue / Crossroads Loop
 Bay Avenue / Hill Street
312
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
20  Bay Avenue / Capitola Avenue
Several bus stops with a bench are located along the Bay Avenue corridor which include the intersections of Bay Avenue / Hill Street and Bay Avenue / Capitola Avenue.

2.5 Roadway Cross Section
The existing roadway cross section of Bay Avenue varies along the corridor with different lane configurations, widths, and multi-modal facilities. Figures 4-8 summarize the typical roadway crosssection along Bay Avenue.

Figure 4: Existing Section – Highway 1 to Center St (80-ft ROW) Figure 5: Existing Section – Center St to Capitola Ave (65-ft ROW) 313
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
21 Figure 6: Existing Section – Capitola Ave to Burlingame Ave (56-ft ROW) Figure 7: Existing Section – Burlingame Ave to Monterey Ave (56-ft ROW) Figure 8: Existing Section – Monterey Ave to Park Ave (38-ft ROW) 314
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
22 3. Traffic Data Collection

3.1 Year 2024 Existing Intersection Volumes
Year 2024 existing turning movement counts during the 7-9 AM peak, 2-4 PM Midday peak, and 4-6 PM peak hours at the project study intersections were collected by Retkor / All Traffic Data Service. These traffic counts were collected on 3/7/2024 when school was in session and during favorable weather conditions. The collected intersection traffic volume data is provided in Table 2 and Attachment A.

Table 2: Year 2024 Existing Intersection Volumes
It should be noted that the during the morning and mid-day afternoon school drop off times, the Bay Avenue corridor experiences a period of congestion in the northbound and southbound directions from the influx of vehicles accessing the Soquel Elementary School and New Brighton Middle School. Field observations cite that during these times, the average vehicle delay increases, and vehicle queues are longer at the existing stop control intersections at Hill Street and Capitola Avenue.

3.2 Year 2045 Cumulative Intersection Volumes
Cumulative volumes in the study area were determined based on the SCCRTC Travel Demand Model, which was updated for 2019 “base year” conditions and 2045 “future year” condition. Land uses for the cumulative condition include reasonable growth consistent with the growth nodes in the Sustainable Santa Cruz County Plan (2014) and some major projects such as the proposed redevelopment of the Capitola Mall, the redevelopment of the Farmers Market site, and the expansion of the Dignity Healthcare Campus.
2045 future year condition roadway segment volumes from the SCCRTC Travel Demand Model were obtained for Cumulative traffic volume growth estimates. The same Model was used to plot bidirectional AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes on each segment along roadways within the Project study area. The 2019 base year (2019) and future year (2045) forecast volumes were compared to ID NB/SB Street WB/EB Street Peak
Hour

NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR
1 Bay Ave Hwy 1 NB Ramps 7 AM 369 516 0 0 431 478 0 0 0 59 12 107 2 Bay Ave Hwy 1 SB Ramps 7 AM 0 572 111 176 314 0 313 0 296 0 0 0 3 Bay Ave Crossroads Loop 7 AM 1 616 9 39 462 109 53 0 21 0 1 14 4 Bay Ave Hill St 7 AM 57 441 10 75 377 31 43 19 39 9 28 142 5 Bay Ave Capitola Ave 7 AM 27 312 55 74 183 128 70 67 6 83 94 42 6 Bay Ave Monterey Ave 7 AM 0 162 61 219 84 0 0 0 0 87 0 282 7 Monterey Ave Park Ave 7 AM 1 123 225 41 126 4 0 9 1 418 3 100 1 Bay Ave Hwy 1 NB Ramps 5 PM 290 401 0 0 642 316 0 0 0 107 1 195 2 Bay Ave Hwy 1 SB Ramps 5 PM 0 457 91 276 473 0 234 208 347 0 0 0 3 Bay Ave Crossroads Loop 5 PM 4 462 9 50 658 112 49 2 38 4 1 37 4 Bay Ave Hill St 5 PM 46 307 21 146 505 49 92 45 84 18 33 76 5 Bay Ave Capitola Ave 5 PM 29 200 23 56 337 124 72 84 8 61 72 31 6 Bay Ave Monterey Ave 5 PM 0 124 85 304 141 0 0 0 0 35 0 104 7 Monterey Ave Park Ave 5 PM 1 165 498 92 83 1 5 3 3 203 3 39 315
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
23 determine the annual incremental growth in traffic volumes at study intersection approach and departure links. 2045 future year turning movement volumes were calculated by adding the growth increment to the base year traffic count volumes to calculate the final adjusted roadway link forecast volume. Final adjusted forecast volumes were then converted to Cumulative intersection turning movement volumes using a process commonly referred to as the Furness Method. The Furness Method uses an iterative process to derive future turning movement volumes based on future year roadway link volumes and an initial estimate of turning percentages (obtained from the existing intersection turning movement counts). The Cumulative traffic volumes are a conservative estimate of future vehicle traffic, and the cumulative scenario traffic volume data is provided in Table 3.

Table 3: Year 2045 Cumulative Intersection Volumes

3.3 Roadway Daily Traffic and Speed Data
Average daily traffic (ADT) and speed counts were collected along the Bay Avenue corridor and are summarized in Table 4 and Attachment A.

Table 4: Bay Avenue ADT & Vehicle Speed Summary
Traffic Criteria
From Hill St to
Capitola Ave
From Capitola Ave to
Montrey Ave
3/7/2024 3/7/2024
Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound
Average Daily Traffic 4,801 5,415 3,145 3,182
Posted Speed Limit (mph) 25 25 25 25
50th Percentile Speed (mph) 26 26.7 25.5 27
85th Percentile Speed (mph) 29.6 30.6 29.4 30.7
95th Percentile Speed (mph) 32.2 33.3 32.1 33.4
As shown in the table above, the posted speed limit on Bay Avenue is 25 mph, and the 85th percentile (critical) speed is about 30 mph in both the northbound and southbound directions.

ID NB/SB Street WB/EB Street Peak
Hour

NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR
1 Bay Ave Hwy 1 NB Ramps 7 AM 321 392 0 0 436 536 0 0 0 161 12 379 2 Bay Ave Hwy 1 SB Ramps 7 AM 0 465 61 251 346 0 248 0 586 0 0 0 3 Bay Ave Crossroads Loop 7 AM 1 394 9 69 754 109 53 0 21 0 1 79 4 Bay Ave Hill St 7 AM 57 293 4 75 669 31 43 19 39 13 28 68 5 Bay Ave Capitola Ave 7 AM 27 312 55 74 183 128 78 67 6 83 94 42 6 Bay Ave Monterey Ave 7 AM 0 162 61 219 239 0 0 0 0 87 0 282 7 Monterey Ave Park Ave 7 AM 1 123 238 201 121 4 0 9 1 418 3 100 1 Bay Ave Hwy 1 NB Ramps 5 PM 683 726 0 0 644 149 0 0 0 77 1 406 2 Bay Ave Hwy 1 SB Ramps 5 PM 0 992 104 370 351 0 417 208 640 0 0 0 3 Bay Ave Crossroads Loop 5 PM 4 988 9 92 787 112 49 2 38 4 1 59 4 Bay Ave Hill St 5 PM 46 717 34 146 634 49 92 45 84 22 33 192 5 Bay Ave Capitola Ave 5 PM 29 200 23 61 337 171 190 63 8 17 65 73 6 Bay Ave Monterey Ave 5 PM 0 305 85 304 251 0 0 0 0 35 0 104 7 Monterey Ave Park Ave 5 PM 1 148 619 202 83 1 5 3 3 203 3 237 316
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
24 3.4 Collision Data
Collision data from 2013 to 2024 along Bay Avenue was obtained using the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS). TIMS is a tool which geocodes, maps, and presents various types of statistical collision reports from the California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database. A heat map showing the location of the reported collisions is shown in Figure 9 and a summary of the collision types is shown in Figure 10. Table 5 and Attachment B summarizes the reported traffic collisions along the study corridor.

Figure 9: Bay Avenue Collision Heat Map (2013 to 2024)
Roadway Collisions
(10 years):
1 Collision
2-4 Collision
5-10 Collisions
Bay Avenue Study Area
317
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
25 Figure 10: Bay Avenue Collision Types (2013 to 2024) Between January 2013 and December 2024, there were 36 total reported collisions along the Bay Avenue study corridor which include ten (10) bicycle and eight (8) pedestrian recorded collisions. One (1) of the collisions was a fatal accident with a pedestrian and the remaining collisions resulted in injuries. Approximately ten (10) of the bike and pedestrian collisions along the Bay Avenue corridor occurred within an intersection. The most common primary crash factors (PCF) that caused the reported bike and pedestrian collisions include unsafe speed, improper turning, and right-of-way violation. 318
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
26 Table 5: Bay Avenue Collision Data (2013 to 2024)
Note: Bicycle Collision = Green, Pedestrian Collision = Yellow # Case ID Date Primary Road Secondary Rd
Distance &
Direction from
Intersection
Bike
Collision
Pedestrian
Collision Killed Injured
1 5737844 5/25/2012 Bay Ave Hill St 90ft South No No 0 1 2 5769463 7/30/2012 Capitola Ave Bay Ave 80ft West No No 0 1 3 5926906 2/2/2013 Highway 1 Bay Ave 200ft North No No 0 1 4 6483008 4/24/2014 Bay Ave Capitola Ave At Intersection No Yes 0 1 5 6494114 4/30/2014 Bay Ave Capitola Ave At Intersection No No 0 1 6 6487930 5/6/2014 Oak Dr Bay Ave 37ft South Yes No 0 1 7 6487941 5/9/2014 Bay Ave Hill St At Intersection No No 0 1 8 6511924 6/3/2014 Bay Ave Hill St At Intersection No Yes 0 1 9 6724062 11/17/2014 Bay Ave Monterey Ave 26ft South No No 0 1 10 6748318 12/3/2014 Monterey Ave Park Ave 18ft South No Yes 0 1 11 6864222 3/19/2015 Bay Ave Capitola Ave 83ft East No Yes 0 1 12 6870050 3/19/2015 Monterey Ave Park Ave At Intersection No No 0 1 13 6889427 4/4/2015 Bay Ave Bay Ave At Intersection Yes No 0 1 14 6940786 6/7/2015 Monterey Ave Bay Ave At Intersection No No 0 1 15 7063888 7/20/2015 Monterey Ave Park Ave At Intersection Yes No 0 1 16 7075959 9/9/2015 Monterey Ave Park Ave At Intersection No No 0 1 17 8152095 10/7/2016 Bay Ave Hill St At Intersection No Yes 0 1 18 8339317 3/26/2017 Bay Ave Burlingame Ave 90ft North Yes No 0 1 19 8373999 4/29/2017 Bay Ave Hill St At Intersection No No 0 1 20 8506493 11/25/2017 Bay Ave Hill St 40ft North No No 0 1 21 8593314 2/13/2018 Bay Ave Hill St 203ft North No No 0 1 22 90781844 7/21/2018 Bay Ave Monterey Ave 100ft North Yes No 0 1 23 8701088 8/13/2018 Bay Ave Hill St 213ft North Yes No 0 1 24 8648318 10/6/2018 Bay Ave Highway 1 218ft South No Yes 1 0 25 9007558 11/22/2019 Monterey Ave Park Ave At Intersection Yes No 0 1 26 9174869 10/8/2020 Bay Ave Hill St At Intersection No No 0 1 27 9355886 9/24/2021 Bay Ave Rosedale Ave 44ft North No No 0 1 28 9472209 5/5/2022 Bay Ave Oak Dr At Intersection Yes No 0 1 29 9472208 5/7/2022 Bay Ave Hill St At Intersection No No 0 1 30 9495729 8/1/2022 Monterey Ave Park Ave At Intersection No No 0 1 31 9495924 9/4/2022 Capitola Ave Bay Ave 58ft South Yes No 0 1 32 9534052 12/9/2022 Bay Ave Hill St At Intersection No Yes 0 1 33 9549472 2/1/2023 Bay Ave Burlingame Ave At Intersection Yes No 0 1 34 9625429 8/11/2023 Monterey Ave Park Ave 35ft South No No 0 1 35 9625425 8/24/2023 Bay Ave Hill St At Intersection No Yes 0 1 36 9646836 10/12/2023 Bay Ave Burlingame Ave 47ft North No No 0 1 Total 10 8 1 35
319
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
27 3.5 Signal Warrant Analysis
Chapter 4C of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) states that an engineering study of traffic conditions, pedestrian characteristics, and physical characteristics of the location shall be performed to determine whether installation of a traffic control signal is justified at a particular location. The investigation of the need for a traffic control signal shall include an analysis of factors related to the existing operation and safety at the study location and the potential to improve these conditions using applicable factors contained in traffic signal warrants.

The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal. On local streets and highways, the engineering study should include consideration of a roundabout (yield control). If a roundabout is determined to provide a viable and practical solution, it should be studied in lieu of, or in addition to a traffic control signal.

For the purposes of this study and based on the collected traffic volumes, peak hour signal warrant #3 was evaluated for the Existing and Cumulative condition to determine if a signal is warranted for any of the Bay Avenue stop-controlled study intersections. To be warranted under Warrant #3, peak hour traffic volumes must plot above the corresponding threshold provided in Figure 10. The AM and PM peak hour volumes were analyzed using the following assumptions as shown in Table 6 and Table 7.

Figure 11: CA MUTCD Signal Warrant 3
320
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
28 Table 6: CA MUTCD Signal Warrant #3 Assumptions – Year 2024 Existing Conditions Major Street Minor Street
Street Name #
Lanes
Volume
(Total of Both
Approaches)
Street Name #
Lanes
Volume (Higher
Volume
Approach)
Meets
MUTCD
Warrant 3
Criteria?
AM Peak
Bay Ave 2 1236 Crossroads Lp 1 109 No
Bay Ave 2 991 Hill St 1 179 No
Bay Ave 1 779 Capitola Ave 1 219 No
Bay Ave 1 526 Monterey Ave 1 369 No
Monterey Ave 1 520 Park Ave 1 521 Yes
PM Peak
Bay Ave 2 1295 Crossroads Lp 1 89 No
Bay Ave 2 1074 Hill St 1 221 No
Bay Ave 1 769 Capitola Ave 1 164 No
Bay Ave 1 654 Monterey Ave 1 139 No
Monterey Ave 1 840 Park Ave 1 245 No
Table 7: CA MUTCD Signal Warrant #3 Assumptions – Year 2045 Cumulative Conditions Major Street Minor Street
Street Name #
Lanes
Volume
(Total of Both
Approaches)
Street Name #
Lanes
Volume (Higher
Volume
Approach)
Meets
MUTCD
Warrant 3
Criteria?
AM Peak
Bay Ave 2 1336 Crossroads Lp 1 80 No
Bay Ave 2 1129 Hill St 1 109 No
Bay Ave 1 779 Capitola Ave 1 219 No
Bay Ave 1 681 Monterey Ave 1 369 Yes
Monterey Ave 1 688 Park Ave 1 521 Yes
PM Peak
Bay Ave 2 2002 Crossroads Lp 1 89 No
Bay Ave 2 1626 Hill St 1 247 Yes
Bay Ave 1 821 Capitola Ave 1 261 No
Bay Ave 1 945 Monterey Ave 1 139 No
Monterey Ave 1 1054 Park Ave 1 443 Yes
Under existing conditions, the Monterey/Park intersection would meet Warrant 3 volume criteria for the AM peak hour. Under cumulative conditions, the peak hour traffic volumes along Bay Avenue would meet the Warrant 3 volume criteria for the Bay/Hill, Bay/Monterey, and Monterey/Park intersections.

These intersections were analyzed as a signal for the Alternative 3 layout. It should be noted that for existing and cumulative conditions, the Bay/Capitola intersection does not meet the Warrant 3 volume criteria for a signal; however for consistency and ICE comparison purposes, this intersection was analyzed as signal for the Alternative 3 layout.
321
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
29 4. Corridor Operations and Intersection Control Evaluation Results

4.1 Year 2024 Existing ICE Operations
Traffic operations and ICE analysis were evaluated at the study intersections under Existing conditions based on Existing conditions and utilizing roadway geometry and intersection traffic control from developed corridor concepts to enhance multimodal operations. Traffic operations for the study intersections with Synchro software between the various corridor alternatives are shown below in Table 8 and Table 9. The LOS calculations are included in Attachment C and Attachment D.

Operations Summary
Under Existing conditions, most of the Bay Avenue corridor is anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS.

Compared to the Alt 0 no build and Alt 1 stop configuration, the Alt 2 roundabout option at the Bay/Hill and Bay/Capitola intersections would operate with better LOS and reduced overall intersection delay during the peak periods. The Alt 3 signal layout would also yield acceptable intersection LOS with reduced intersection delay compared to the Alt 1 stop; however, the Alt 3 signal operates at similar LOS to the Alt 2 roundabout layout for the Bay/Hill and Bay/Capitola intersections.

Deficient Operations
• Bay Avenue / Crossroads Loop (Intersection #3)
o TWSC operates at LOS E during the PM peak.
o Alt 0 No Build, Alt 1 Stop, Alt 2 Roundabout, Alt 3 Signal  Vehicle queues spillback into the Crossroads Loop intersection and cause delay for the minor leg approach
• Bay Avenue / Hill Street (Intersection #4)
o AWSC operates at LOS E during the PM peak.
o Alt 1 Stop
 Vehicle queues and delay on southbound approach spillback into the Crossroads Loop intersection and cause delay for the intersection
322
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
30 Table 8: Year 2024 Existing Intersection LOS – AM Peak Note: TWSC delay is worst movement approach, AWSC, RAB, and Signal delay is overall average Table 9: Year 2024 Existing Intersection LOS – PM Peak
Note: TWSC delay is worst movement approach, AWSC, RAB, and Signal delay is overall average Control
Type
Worst
Mvmt or
RDBT v/c
Delay
(sec)
LOS
Control
Type
Worst
Mvmt or
RDBT v/c
Delay
(sec)
LOS
Control
Type
Worst
Mvmt or
RDBT v/c
Delay
(sec)
LOS
Control
Type
Worst
Mvmt or
RDBT v/c
Delay
(sec)
LOS
1 Bay Ave & Hwy 1 NB Ramps Signal - 25.2 C Signal - 26.8 C Signal - 26.8 C Signal - 21.0 C 2 Bay Ave & Hwy 1 SB Ramps Signal - 17.0 B Signal - 17.1 B Signal - 17.1 B Signal - 30.7 C 3 Bay Ave & Crossroads Loop TWSC EB 26.9 D TWSC EB 24.0 C TWSC EB 24.0 C TWSC EB 23.3 C 4 Bay Ave & Hill St AWSC - 18.2 C AWSC - 28.5 D RAB 0.482 7.8 A Signal - 13.4 B 5 Bay Ave & Capitola Ave AWSC - 27.7 D AWSC - 27.7 D RAB 0.407 7.4 A Signal - 7.6 A 6 Bay Ave & Monterey Ave AWSC - 19.7 C AWSC - 19.6 C RAB 0.36 6.1 A Signal - 17.4 B 7 Monterey Ave & Park Ave AWSC - 25.1 D AWSC - 24.9 D RAB 0.488 7.2 A Signal - 10.1 B No. Intersection
Alternative 0
No Build
Alternative 1
Stop & Road Diet
Alternative 2
Roundabout
Alternative 3
Signal
Control
Type
Worst
Mvmt or
RDBT v/c
Delay
(sec)
LOS
Control
Type
Worst
Mvmt or
RDBT v/c
Delay
(sec)
LOS
Control
Type
Worst
Mvmt or
RDBT v/c
Delay
(sec)
LOS
Control
Type
Worst
Mvmt or
RDBT v/c
Delay
(sec)
LOS
1 Bay Ave & Hwy 1 NB Ramps Signal - 28.7 C Signal - 23.1 C Signal - 28.7 C Signal - 28.7 C 2 Bay Ave & Hwy 1 SB Ramps Signal - 20.4 C Signal - 22.7 C Signal - 20.4 C Signal - 20.4 C 3 Bay Ave & Crossroads Loop TWSC EB 39.7 E TWSC EB 35.3 E TWSC EB 35.3 E TWSC EB 33.0 D 4 Bay Ave & Hill St AWSC - 22.5 C AWSC - 44.2 E RAB 0.634 10.1 B Signal - 14.1 B 5 Bay Ave & Capitola Ave AWSC - 20.5 C AWSC - 20.5 C RAB 0.505 7.5 A Signal - 6.7 A 6 Bay Ave & Monterey Ave AWSC - 12.1 B AWSC - 11.9 B RAB 0.376 5.9 A Signal - 6.4 A 7 Monterey Ave & Park Ave AWSC - 15.4 C AWSC - 15.4 C RAB 0.604 8.5 A Signal - 7.7 A Alternative 3
Signal
No. Intersection
Alternative 0
No Build
Alternative 1
Stop & Road Diet
Alternative 2
Roundabout
323
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
31 4.2 Year 2045 Cumulative ICE Operations
Traffic operations and ICE analysis were evaluated at the study intersections under Cumulative conditions based on roadway geometry and intersection traffic control from developed corridor concepts to enhance multimodal operations. Traffic operations for the study intersections with Synchro software between the various corridor alternatives are shown below in Table 10 and Table 11. The LOS results are included in Attachment C and Attachment D.

Operations Summary
Under Cumulative conditions, several intersections along the Bay Avenue corridor are anticipated to operate at a level of service above the City’s LOS threshold. Compared to the Alt 0 no build and Alt 1 stop configuration, the Alt 2 roundabout option at the Bay/Hill and Bay/Capitola intersections would operate with better LOS and reduced overall intersection delay during the peak periods. The Alt 3 signal layout would also yield acceptable intersection LOS with reduced intersection delay compared to the Alt 1 stop; however, the Alt 3 signal operates at similar LOS to the Alt 2 roundabout layout for the Bay/Hill and Bay/Capitola intersections.

Deficient Operations
• Bay Avenue / Highway 1 NB Ramps (Intersection #1)
o Signal operates at LOS E during the AM and PM peak.
o Alt 0 No Build, Alt 1 Stop, Alt 2 Roundabout, Alt 3 Signal  High traffic volumes from the Bay Avenue southbound approach creates delay and long queues with the signal control.
 Delay and long queues for southbound vehicles wanting to access the Caltrans freeway on-ramp.
• Bay Avenue / Crossroads Loop (Intersection #3)
o TWSC operates at LOS E during the AM and PM peak.
o Alt 0 No Build, Alt 1 Stop, Alt 2 Roundabout, Alt 3 Signal  Vehicle queues spillback into the Crossroads Loop intersection and cause delay for the minor leg approach
324
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
32 • Bay Avenue / Hill Street (Intersection #4)
o AWSC operates at LOS F during the AM and PM peak.
o Alt 0 No Build, Alt 1 Stop
 Vehicle queues and delay on southbound approach spillback into the Crossroads Loop intersection and cause delay for the intersection
• Montrey Avenue / Park Avenue (Intersection #7)
o AWSC operates at LOS F during the PM peak.
o Alt 0 No Build, Alt 1 Stop
 For the AM peak, high traffic volumes from the Park Avenue westbound approach creates delay and long vehicle queues with the stop control.  For the PM peak, high right-turn traffic volumes from the Monterey Avenue NB approach creates delay and long vehicle queues with the stop control. 325
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
33 Table 10: Year 2045 Cumulative Intersection LOS – AM Peak Note: TWSC delay is worst movement approach, AWSC, RAB, and Signal delay is overall average Table 11: Year 2045 Cumulative Intersection LOS – PM Peak Note: TWSC delay is worst movement approach, AWSC, RAB, and Signal delay is overall average Control
Type
Worst
Mvmt or
RDBT v/c
Delay
(sec)
LOS
Control
Type
Worst
Mvmt or
RDBT v/c
Delay
(sec)
LOS
Control
Type
Worst
Mvmt or
RDBT v/c
Delay
(sec)
LOS
Control
Type
Worst
Mvmt or
RDBT v/c
Delay
(sec)
LOS
1 Bay Ave & Hwy 1 NB Ramps Signal - 71.2 E Signal - 71.2 E Signal - 71.2 E Signal - 71.2 E 2 Bay Ave & Hwy 1 SB Ramps Signal - 32.8 C Signal - 32.8 C Signal - 32.8 C Signal - 32.8 C 3 Bay Ave & Crossroads Loop TWSC EB 48.0 E TWSC EB 44.2 E TWSC EB 44.2 E TWSC EB 39.1 E 4 Bay Ave & Hill St AWSC - 22.2 C AWSC - 73.2 F RAB 0.703 10.5 B Signal - 12.8 B 5 Bay Ave & Capitola Ave AWSC - 18.4 C AWSC - 18.4 C RAB 0.41 7.4 A Signal - 6.9 A 6 Bay Ave & Monterey Ave AWSC - 18.2 C AWSC - 18.2 C RAB 0.41 6.7 A Signal - 10.7 B 7 Monterey Ave & Park Ave AWSC - 33.0 D AWSC - 33.0 D RAB 0.488 8.4 A Signal - 12.9 B Alternative 2
Roundabout
Alternative 3
Signal
Alternative 0
No Build
No. Intersection
Alternative 1
Stop & Road Diet
Control
Type
Worst
Mvmt or
RDBT v/c
Delay
(sec)
LOS
Control
Type
Worst
Mvmt or
RDBT v/c
Delay
(sec)
LOS
Control
Type
Worst
Mvmt or
RDBT v/c
Delay
(sec)
LOS
Control
Type
Worst
Mvmt or
RDBT v/c
Delay
(sec)
LOS
1 Bay Ave & Hwy 1 NB Ramps Signal - 71.1 E Signal - 64.7 E Signal - 76.0 E Signal - 71.1 E 2 Bay Ave & Hwy 1 SB Ramps Signal - 46.5 D Signal - 34.7 C Signal - 34.6 C Signal - 46.5 D 3 Bay Ave & Crossroads Loop TWSC EB 65.9 F TWSC EB 63.4 F TWSC EB 63.4 F TWSC EB 119.1 F 4 Bay Ave & Hill St AWSC - 98.7 F AWSC - 109.6 F RAB 0.893 21.0 C Signal - 26.5 C 5 Bay Ave & Capitola Ave AWSC - 21.7 C AWSC - 21.3 C RAB 0.524 8.1 A Signal - 7.3 A 6 Bay Ave & Monterey Ave AWSC - 20.3 C AWSC - 24.4 C RAB 0.469 7.8 A Signal - 7.1 A 7 Monterey Ave & Park Ave AWSC - 55.5 F AWSC - 60.8 F RAB 0.792 13.1 B Signal - 22.7 C No. Intersection
Alternative 1
Stop & Road Diet
Alternative 2
Roundabout
Alternative 3
Signal
Alternative 0
No Build
326
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
34 4.3 Intersection Queuing Analysis
A queuing analysis with the VISSIM and Synchro software was also performed along the Bay Avenue roadway corridor to determine the queuing effect for each of the alternative layouts. The microsimulation was conducted to obtain the average and maximum vehicle queue on each approach during the AM and PM peak hour period. The results of the vehicles queues observed in the analysis for the existing and cumulative conditions are summarized in Table 12, Table 13, and Attachment C and Attachment D.

Table 12: Year 2024 Existing Intersection Queue Summary ID Intersection
Intersection Approaches with Max Queue that Exceeds
Storage Capacity
Control
Type
AM Peak
Alternative 1
Stop
Alternative 2
Roundabout
Alternative 3
Signal
1 Bay Ave / SR1 NB Ramps Signal NB, SB NB, SB NB, SB
2 Bay Ave / SR1 SB Ramps Signal
3 Bay Ave / Crossroads TWSC
4 Bay Ave / Hill St Varies SB SB SB, EB
5 Bay Ave / Capitola Ave Varies WB
6 Bay Ave / Monterey Ave Varies
7 Monterey Ave / Park Ave Varies WB WB NB, SB, WB
ID Intersection
Intersection Approaches with Max Queue that Exceeds
Storage Capacity
Control
Type
PM Peak
Alternative 1
Stop
Alternative 2
Roundabout
Alternative 3
Signal
1 Bay Ave / SR1 NB Ramps Signal NB, SB NB, SB NB, SB
2 Bay Ave / SR1 SB Ramps Signal
3 Bay Ave / Crossroads TWSC
4 Bay Ave / Hill St Varies SB SB SB, EB
5 Bay Ave / Capitola Ave Varies WB
6 Bay Ave / Monterey Ave Varies
7 Monterey Ave / Park Ave Varies WB WB NB, SB, WB
Note: NB=northbound, SB=southbound, EB=eastbound, WB=westbound Under existing conditions, each corridor layout option would generate maximum vehicle queues that exceed the storage capacity at several intersection approaches which include the SR1 Caltrans ramps, Hill Street, and Park Avenue. The Alternative 1 AWSC and Alternative 2 roundabout would have similar vehicle queues; however, the Alternative 3 signal would have additional queue impacts due to the nature of signal operations that generate longer queues for vehicles during the red signal phase. 327
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
35 Table 13: Year 2045 Cumulative Intersection Queue Summary ID Intersection
Intersection Approaches with Max Queue that Exceeds
Storage Capacity
Control
Type
AM Peak
Alternative 1
Stop
Alternative 2
Roundabout
Alternative 3
Signal
1 Bay Ave / SR1 NB Ramps Signal NB, SB NB, SB NB, SB
2 Bay Ave / SR1 SB Ramps Signal SB, EB SB EB
3 Bay Ave / Crossroads TWSC SB SB
4 Bay Ave / Hill St Varies SB SB SB, EB
5 Bay Ave / Capitola Ave Varies
6 Bay Ave / Monterey Ave Varies SB SB
7 Monterey Ave / Park Ave Varies WB NB, SB, WB
ID Intersection
Intersection Approaches with Max Queue that Exceeds
Storage Capacity
Control
Type
PM Peak
Alternative 1
Stop
Alternative 2
Roundabout
Alternative 3
Signal
1 Bay Ave / SR1 NB Ramps Signal NB, SB NB, SB NB, SB
2 Bay Ave / SR1 SB Ramps Signal NB, SB, EB NB, SB, EB NB, SB, EB 3 Bay Ave / Crossroads TWSC SB, WB NB, SB NB, SB, EB, WB 4 Bay Ave / Hill St Varies NB, SB, EB SB, EB NB, SB, EB 5 Bay Ave / Capitola Ave Varies SB SB NB, SB, EB, WB
6 Bay Ave / Monterey Ave Varies SB SB, WB
7 Monterey Ave / Park Ave Varies NB, WB NB NB, SB, WB
Note: NB=northbound, SB=southbound, EB=eastbound, WB=westbound Under cumulative conditions, each corridor layout option would generate maximum vehicle queues that exceed the storage capacity for at least one intersection approach for all the study intersections. The Alternative 1 AWSC and Alternative 2 roundabout would have similar vehicle queues; however, the Alternative 3 signal would have additional queue impacts due to the nature of signal operations that generate longer queues for vehicles during the red signal phase.

Overall, for the Existing and Cumulative scenarios, the Alternative 2 roundabout option would provide the most optimal intersection configuration to accommodate and minimize the anticipated peak hour vehicle queues along the Bay Avenue corridor.
328
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
36 4.4 Corridor Travel Time Summary
The VISSIM model (Alternative 1 and Alternative 2) and Synchro model (Alternative 3) performed an average travel time comparison for vehicles traveling through Bay Avenue between the Highway 1 SB Ramp and Park Avenue intersections. A summary of the average travel time, average speed, and annual vehicle hours traveled (VHT) results between the Alternative 1 AWSC and Alternative 2 Roundabout layouts is shown in Figure 12, Figure 13, Table 14, and Table 15.

Vehicle hours traveled (VHT) is a key metric in transportation planning that calculates the total travel time for all vehicles. Since time is a non-renewable resource and is the largest economic cost of traveling and shipping, VHT is used to measure the quality of travel service on a roadway facility. When comparing VHT results, a lower VHT indicates vehicles are traveling through the roadway facility more efficiently and the facility is experiencing less traffic congestion.

Figure 12: Year 2024 Existing Corridor Average Travel Times Existing Conditions
Vehicles traveling northbound on the Alternative 1 Stop layout would have an average peak hour travel time of 2 minutes 9 seconds, and the estimated annual VHT from Park Avenue to SR1 is 62,501 vehiclehours. The Alternative 2 Roundabout layout would have an average peak hour travel time of 1 minute 54 seconds and would have an annual VHT of 55,492 vehicle-hours. The Alternative 3 Signal layout would have an average peak hour travel time of 2 minute 50 seconds and would have an annual VHT of 82,726 vehicle-hours.

Similarly, vehicles traveling southbound on the Alternative 1 Stop layout would have an average peak hour travel time of 3 minutes 59 seconds, and the estimated annual VHT from SR1 to Park Avenue is 98,494 vehicle-hours. The Alternative 2 Roundabout layout would have an average peak hour travel time of 2 minute 4 seconds and would have an annual VHT of 68,188 vehicle-hours. The Alternative 3 Signal layout would have an average peak hour travel time of 3 minute 7 seconds and would have an annual VHT of 102,557 vehicle-hours.Hill St
2min 8sec (Alt 1 - Stop)
1min 54sec (Alt 2 - RDBT)
2min 50sec (Alt 3 - Signal)
2min 59sec (Alt 1 - Stop)
2min 4sec (Alt 2 - RDBT)
3min 7sec (Alt 3 - Signal)
329
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
37 For both travel directions, the Alternative 2 Roundabout layout would generate fewer VHT and provide a faster average travel time compared to the Alternative 1 Stop and Alternative 3 signal layout. This is because roundabouts are yield controlled and allow for faster continuous movement of vehicles compared to an all-way stop and signal control where vehicles are required to stop completely at the intersection approach.

Table 14: Year 2024 Existing Corridor Travel Times
Scenario Analysis Criteria
Alternative 1
Stop & Road Diet
[VISSIM]
Alternative 2
Roundabout
[VISSIM]
Alternative 3
Signal
[Synchro]
NB - N. of Park Ave to S. of Highway 1 SB Ramps 0.62 Travel Distance (mi) Avg Travel Time (sec) 136.2 114.6 174.8
Avg Travel Time (min & sec) 2 min 16 sec 1 min 55 sec 2 min 55 sec Avg Travel Speed (mph) 16.3 19.5 12.3
Avg Travel Time (sec) 120.6 113.4 165.1
Avg Travel Time (min & sec) 2 min 1 sec 1 min 53 sec 2 min 45 sec Avg Travel Speed (mph) 18.4 19.7 13.4
Avg Peak Hour Travel Time (sec) 128.4 114.0 170.0
Avg Peak Hour Travel Time (min & sec) 2 min 8 sec 1 min 54 sec 2 min 50 sec Avg Daily Traffic (vehicles) 4801 4801 4801
Vehicle Hours Traveled (veh-hr/year) 62,501 55,492 82,726 Scenario Analysis Criteria
Alternative 1
Stop & Road Diet
[VISSIM]
Alternative 2
Roundabout
[VISSIM]
Alternative 3
Signal
[Synchro]
SB - S. of Highway 1 SB Ramps to N. of Park Ave 0.62 Travel Distance (mi) Average Travel Time (sec) 126.6 113.4 191.2
Average Travel Time (min & sec) 2 min 7 sec 1 min 53 sec 3 min 11 sec Average Travel Speed (mph) 17.7 20.0 10.9
Average Travel Time (sec) 232.2 135 182.4
Average Travel Time (min & sec) 3 min 52 sec 2 min 15 sec 3 min 2 sec Average Travel Speed (mph) 9.6 16.7 12.0
Avg Peak Hour Travel Time (sec) 179.4 124.2 186.8
Avg Peak Hour Travel Time (min & sec) 2 min 59 sec 2 min 4 sec 3 min 7 sec Avg Daily Traffic (vehicles) 5415 5415 5415
Vehicle Hours Traveled (veh-hr/year) 98,494 68,188 102,557 AM Peak
PM Peak
VHT Estimation
AM Peak
PM Peak
VHT Estimation
330
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
38 Figure 13: Year 2045 Cumulative Corridor Average Travel Times Cumulative Conditions
Vehicles traveling northbound on the Alternative 1 Stop layout would have an average peak hour travel time of 2 minutes 39 seconds, and the estimated annual VHT from Park Avenue to SR1 is 104,314 vehicle-hours. The Alternative 2 Roundabout layout would have an average peak hour travel time of 2 minute 35 seconds and would have an annual VHT of 101,948 vehicle-hours. The Alternative 3 Signal layout would have an average peak hour travel time of 3 minute 6 seconds and would have an annual VHT of 122,259 vehicle-hours.

For vehicles traveling southbound on the Alternative 1 Stop layout would have an average peak hour travel time of 5 minutes 35 seconds, and the estimated annual VHT from SR1 to Park Avenue is 271,317 vehicle-hours. The Alternative 2 Roundabout layout would have an average peak hour travel time of 3 minute 36 seconds and would have an annual VHT of 175,200 vehicle-hours. The Alternative 3 Signal layout would have an average peak hour travel time of 3 minute 4 seconds and would have an annual VHT of 149,285 vehicle-hours.

For vehicles traveling northbound on Bay Avenue, the Alternative 2 Roundabout layout would generate fewer VHT and provide a faster average travel time; however, for vehicles traveling southbound on Bay Avenue, the Alternative 3 Signal layout would generate fewer VHT and provide a faster average travel time.

Hill St
2min 39sec (Alt 1 - Stop)
2min 35sec (Alt 2 - RDBT)
3min 6sec (Alt 3 - Signal)
5min 35sec (Alt 1 - Stop)
3min 36sec (Alt 2 - RDBT)
3min 4sec (Alt 3 - Signal)
331
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
39 Table 15: Year 2045 Cumulative Corridor Travel Times Travel Time Impact to Driver Behavior, Transit Access, and Emergency Vehicle Response Optimizing the travel time along Bay Avenue provides several benefits to multimodal access and safety.

Long vehicle delays and queues at intersections typically increases driver frustration and increases risky driver behavior to rush towards their destination. This frustration and risky driver behavior can increase the likelihood and severity of a motor vehicle collision which can jeopardize the safety of vulnerable users such as bikes and pedestrians.

Roadway facilities with travel times optimized to the intended design speed also improves consistency and access of transit services and emergency vehicle response.

Scenario Analysis Criteria
Alternative 1
Stop & Road Diet
[VISSIM]
Alternative 2
Roundabout
[VISSIM]
Alternative 3
Signal
[Synchro]
NB - N. of Park Ave to S. of Highway 1 SB Ramps 0.62 Travel Distance (mi) Avg Travel Time (sec) 125.4 112.8 162.4
Avg Travel Time (min & sec) 2 min 5 sec 1 min 53 sec 2 min 42 sec Avg Travel Speed (mph) 17.6 19.8 15.6
Avg Travel Time (sec) 192 197.4 209.6
Avg Travel Time (min & sec) 3 min 12 sec 3 min 17 sec 3 min 30 sec Avg Travel Speed (mph) 11.5 11.3 11.7
Avg Peak Hour Travel Time (sec) 158.70 155.10 186.00
Avg Peak Hour Travel Time (min & sec) 2 min 39 sec 2 min 35 sec 3 min 6 sec Avg Daily Traffic (vehicles) 6483 6483 6483
Vehicle Hours Traveled (veh-hr/year) 104,314 101,948 122,259 Scenario Analysis Criteria
Alternative 1
Stop & Road Diet
[VISSIM]
Alternative 2
Roundabout
[VISSIM]
Alternative 3
Signal
[Synchro]
SB - S. of Highway 1 SB Ramps to N. of Park Ave 0.62 Travel Distance (mi) Avg Travel Time (sec) 315.6 132.6 182.8
Avg Travel Time (min & sec) 5 min 16 sec 2 min 13 sec 3 min 3 sec Avg Travel Speed (mph) 7.1 17.0 10.7
Avg Travel Time (sec) 353.4 299.4 185.3
Avg Travel Time (min & sec) 5 min 53 sec 4 min 59 sec 3 min 5 sec Avg Travel Speed (mph) 6.3 7.5 10.3
Avg Peak Hour Travel Time (sec) 334.50 216.00 184.05
Avg Peak Hour Travel Time (min & sec) 5 min 35 sec 3 min 36 sec 3 min 4 sec Avg Daily Traffic (vehicles) 8000 8000 8000
Vehicle Hours Traveled (veh-hr/year) 271,317 175,200 149,285 AM Peak
AM Peak
PM Peak
PM Peak
VHT Estimation
VHT Estimation
332
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
40 4.5 Driver Behavior & Drone Video Analysis at Bay/Capitola Intersection The current all-way stop intersection of Bay Avenue / Capitola Avenue was evaluated using aerial video collection by drone and processed using video analytics to observe driver behavior and determine vehicle stopping rate, measured speeds, deceleration, and near miss collisions between vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. The drone video collection was conducted by Kimley-Horn on Thursday May 16, 2024, when school was in session and during favorable weather conditions, and the data is representative of the AM peak, school mid-day peak, and PM peak commute times. The technical memo and results of the drone video analysis is provided in Attachment E.

The near-miss collision analysis was conducted by calculating the post encroachment time (PET) between vehicles which is the critical or minimum gap between the intersection point of two or more objects on their intended trajectory. For the study, a near-miss collision at the Bay/Capitola is recorded when the PET is equal or less than 1.5 seconds from where objects would collide. A total of 35 near miss-collisions were observed at the Bay/Capitola all-way stop controlled intersection with the most common near miss occurring on Bay Avenue between vehicles making a southbound left turn to access Capitola Avenue and the Gayles driveway and vehicles making a northbound through movement towards Highway 1.

Based on the observed driver behavior and near-miss collisions at the existing all-way stop controlled intersection at Bay/Capitola, the recommended measures to address these intersection challenges may include:
• Convert the intersection into a roundabout. Vehicles entering a roundabout all travel in one direction around a raised center island at a controlled lower speed which reduces the number of conflict points and the severity of potential collisions between vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists.
• Convert the intersection into a signal. Signal control provides clear right-of-way instructions to all users and improve driver certainty when traveling through the intersection.

4.6 Multimodal Safety and Access Improvements
This section provides an overview of the potential long-term roadway improvements that may be implemented along the Bay Avenue corridor to enhance multimodal safety and access. The intersection control investigated for each roadway alternative would introduce geometric changes that would benefit bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Alternative 1: Stop Control and Road Diet
• Road Diet Transition: Converting Bay Avenue from a four-lane to a two-lane roadway reduces vehicle speeds and minimizes the number of lanes pedestrians and cyclists must cross. • Enhanced Pedestrian Crossings: Installation of curb bulb-outs and enhanced pedestrian crossings shortens the crossing distance and increases visibility. • Buffered Class IV Bike Facilities: Adding buffered bike lanes separates cyclists from vehicular traffic, enhancing safety and comfort.
333
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
41 Example road diet and traffic calming features implemented at the existing all-way stop at Bay/Hill (Capitola) Alternative 2: Roundabout
• Reduced Conflict Points: Roundabouts reduce the number of conflict points compared to traditional intersections, lowering the likelihood of collisions. • Slower Vehicle Speeds: Vehicles travel at lower speeds through roundabouts, reducing the severity of any potential collisions.
• Bike and Pedestrian Pathways: The design includes bike lane transitions and curb ramps onto Class I shared bike/ped pathways, providing a safer and more direct route for cyclists and pedestrians.
• Shorter and Protected Crossings: Pedestrians benefit from shorter crossing distances and protected refuge areas within the roundabout design.

Example bike and pedestrian facilities at a roundabout approach (Lafayette) 334
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
42 Alternative 3: Signal
• Signal Control: Traffic signals provide clear right-of-way instructions, thereby improving driver predictability and reducing confusion at intersections. • Designated Crossing Times: Pedestrian signals provide designated crossing times, ensuring safe passage across intersections.
• Buffered Bike Lanes: Similar to Alternative 1, buffered bike lanes protect cyclists from the main traffic stream.
• Pedestrian Countdown Signals: These signals improve pedestrian safety by providing clear timing information for crossing.
• Protected Intersection Design: Installation of curb bulb-outs that separate travel areas and shorten the pedestrian and bicycle crossings improves multimodal safety and access.

Example protected intersection features for bikes and peds at a signalized intersection (Fremont) Other Roadway Considerations and Enhancements
• Class IV protected bikeways: Where possible, restripe the existing Class II bike lanes on Bay Avenue with buffered bike lanes via striping and/or raised bollards to increase the physical separation between the vehicle and bicycle travel lanes. The added comfort and visibility of the bikeway improves bicycle safety along the roadway.
• Mid-block crossings: Where feasible and warranted, install mid-block crossings to enhance pedestrian connectivity and safety. Crossing augmented with median refuge areas, flashing signs, and high contrast striping provides shorter crossing distance and improves visibility to pedestrians crossing the street.
• Landscaped medians: Where feasible, implement raised medians with opportunities for landscaping to enhance the Bay Avenue streetscape in a way that improves the appearance of Bay Avenue, increases safety for bicyclists and pedestrians, and stimulates private investment within the area per the Capitola General Plan.
335
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
43 Example of mid-block crosswalk and buffered bike lanes General Safety Enhancements:
• Traffic Calming Features: All alternatives incorporate traffic calming features like narrower lanes and improved intersection design, which inherently enhance safety for all road users. • Visibility Improvements: Enhanced lighting, signage, and marked crosswalks improve visibility for pedestrians and cyclists, especially at night or during adverse weather conditions. • Collision Mitigation: Historical collision data and near-miss analysis inform the design to specifically address risky driver behaviors and common collision types, further ensuring pedestrian and cyclist safety.

Summary of Safety Benefits:
• Reduced Vehicle Speeds: Slower travel speeds generally lead to decreased collision severity for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians.
• Clear Right-of-Way: Signal and roundabout controls provide structured and predictable movement patterns.
• Protected Space: Buffered and clearly marked spaces for pedestrians and cyclists reduce the risk of conflicts with vehicles.
• Improved Crossings: Shorter and more visible crossing areas make it safer and easier for pedestrians to navigate intersections.
• Enhanced Visibility and Lighting: Increased visibility through better lighting and clear signage reduces the risk of accidents.
336
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
44 5. Corridor Study Conclusions and Recommendations
Table 16 provides a qualitative comparison of the proposed corridor alternatives from an economic, operations, and safety assessment. Based on the analysis results, the study recommends pursuing the roundabout configuration at key intersections for long-term benefits in traffic operations, safety, economic development, and multi-modal accessibility.

Operations
From an intersection operations perspective, the Alternative 2 roundabout configuration would provide the lowest average vehicle LOS delay and shortest average travel time along the Bay Avenue corridor. As a result, improved intersection operations benefit transit and emergency vehicle access. The introduction of roundabouts as a new traffic control in the City would require a longer adjustment period for drivers to adapt to the new infrastructure compared to existing signals or stop control.

The Alternative 1 stop configuration with road diet would result in the worst LOS, longest travel times, and vehicle queues operating similar to the Alternative 0 no build scenario. Forecasted traffic growth from the county travel demand model would cause operation deficiencies with the stop control alternative. With keeping the existing road condition, there is little driver adaptation time.

The Alternative 3 signal configuration would provide acceptable operations for average vehicle delay, queues, and travel time but not to the same level as the roundabout option. It is worth noting that while the LOS would be improved with a signal-controlled intersection, the typical delay for a vehicle to traverse through the intersection would actually increase compared to a roundabout option.

Multimodal Safety
As discussed in Section 4, each potential corridor alternative would introduce geometric changes that would benefit bicycle and pedestrian facilities for safety improvement and access. The Alternative 2 roundabout configuration would have the fewest vehicle conflict points for bikes and pedestrians crossing the street as well as shorter and protected crossings with the roundabout layout introducing raised medians and separated pathways. These features plus slower overall vehicle speeds through the intersection generates the lowest collision severity potential compared to the other alternatives. Based on the observed driver behavior and near-miss collision analysis at the Bay/Capitola all-way stop controlled intersection, a roundabout layout would improve overall safety at the skewed roadway approaches.

The Alternative 1 stop configuration would introduce curb bulb-outs at the stop intersections and road diet traffic calming effects that reduce the crossing distances and enhance visibility of bikes and peds crossing the vehicle conflict areas. These features help reduce the number of vehicle conflict points and provide a moderate safety improvement compared to the roundabout and signal alternatives.

The Alternative 3 signal configuration helps facilitate designated crossing phases for all transportation modes and the infrastructure can be designed with a protected intersection layout to separate and shorten the bike and pedestrian crossings at the corners. These features improve bike and pedestrian access, but the number of vehicle conflict points remains similar with the existing stop layout. For a signal during a green light, vehicles will typically travel at higher speeds than the stop and roundabout alternatives which increases the collision severity potential with more vulnerable users. 337
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
45 Economic Development
For the Alternative 2 roundabout layout to be feasible, substantial infrastructure and construction improvements would be required to convert the existing stop control into a roundabout throughout the corridor. Compared to the other alternatives, the roundabout would have the highest upfront capital costs and potential right-of-way impacts to implement due to the larger geometric footprint needed for designing acceptable operations and the multimodal features. Typical rough order of magnitude (ROM) costs for a single lane roundabout range between $2 to $3.5 million per location. Once constructed however, the roundabout would have lower long-term maintenance costs and better environmental benefits than a signal option due to no electrical equipment, lower vehicle emissions, and opportunities for art and landscaping within the intersection. Grant funding opportunities with roundabouts are also advantageous since many state and federal grant programs are focused on active transportation and improving safety for cyclists and pedestrians which are elements that roundabouts provide.

The Alternative 1 stop layout would have the lowest capital costs, right-of-way impact, and ongoing maintenance compared to the roundabout and signal alternatives. Typical ROM costs for a road diet and traffic calming improvements range between $100,00 to $500,000 per location. Depending on the traffic calming design, aesthetics can also be improved along the streetscape corridor with landscaping and decorative art. Grant funding opportunities with Alternative 1 are also good with the safety benefits to pedestrians and cyclists from the potential road diet and traffic calming features.

The Alternative 3 signal layout would have high capital costs and high ongoing maintenance costs to support the electrical and signal infrastructure compared to the roundabout and stop alternatives.

Typical ROM costs for a signal varies based on the number of travel lanes and approaches and can range between $500,000 to $2 million per location.

Table 16: Qualitative Corridor Operations Summary Comparison Criteria
Alternative 0 –
No Build
Alternative 1 –
Stop & Road Diet
Alternative 2 –
Roundabout
Alternative 3 -
Signal
Operations
Vehicle Delay
High
Stop control creates
delay for intersection
approaches
High
Stop control creates
delay for intersection
approaches
Low
Yield control reduces
average delay
Moderate
Signal control
reduces average
delay
Vehicle
Travel Time
Long
Stop control creates
delay for intersection
approaches
Long
Stop control creates
delay for intersection
approaches
Short
Yield control reduces
average delay
Moderate
Signal control
reduces average
delay
Vehicle
Queue
Length
Long
Long queues and
spillback into
adjacent intersection
Long
Long queues and
spillback into
adjacent intersection
Moderate
Yield control
generates average
queues
Moderate
Signal control
generates average
queues
Transit and
Emergency
Vehicle
Access
Improvement
Poor
Slower average travel
times and higher VHT
Poor
Slower average travel
times and higher VHT
Moderate
Faster average travel
times and lower VHT
Moderate
Opportunity for
emergency vehicle
preemption
338
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
46 Criteria
Alternative 0 –
No Build
Alternative 1 –
Stop & Road Diet
Alternative 2 –
Roundabout
Alternative 3 -
Signal
Driver
Adaptation
Time
Low
Existing conditions
on corridor
Low
Existing conditions
on corridor
High
New traffic control in
City for users
Moderate
Existing conditions
on corridor
Safety
Collision
Severity
Potential
Moderate
Numerous conflict
points with stop
control at
intersection
Moderate
Numerous conflict
points with stop
control at
intersection
Low
Fewer conflict points
and controlled lower
speeds at
intersection
High
Higher vehicle
speeds and
numerous conflict
points at intersection
Bicycle
Access
Improvement
Poor
No Build scenario
would not improve
conditions
Moderate
Buffered bike lanes
and markings
Good
Buffered bike lanes
and markings.

Shorter and
protected crossings
Moderate
Buffered bike lanes
and markings.

Designated crossing
phases
Pedestrian
Access
Improvement
Poor
No Build scenario
would not improve
conditions
Moderate
Shorter crossings
with traffic calming
Good
Shorter and
protected crossings
Moderate
Designated crossing
phases
Economic
Capital
Construction
Cost
Low
No Build scenario
would not improve
conditions
Low
Updates to existing
infrastructure
High
New infrastructure
and utility
coordination
High
New infrastructure
and signal equipment
Right of Way
Impact
Low
No change to existing
conditions
Low
Updates to existing
infrastructure
High
Property impacts to
accommodate design
Moderate
New infrastructure
and signal equipment
Operation &
Maintenance
Costs
Low
No Build scenario
would not improve
conditions
Low
Landscaping
Moderate
Landscaping
High
Signal equipment,
electricity
Greenhouse
Gas
Emissions
Moderate
Vehicle idling with
stop traffic control
Moderate
Vehicle idling with
stop traffic control
Low
Less vehicle idling
with yield traffic
control
Moderate
Higher speeds &
vehicle idling with
signal traffic control
Aesthetics &
Community
Character
Improvement
Poor
No Build scenario
would not improve
conditions
Moderate
Opportunities for art
and landscaping with
traffic calming
Good
Opportunities for art
and landscaping at
intersection
Moderate
Requires signal poles
and cabinets
Grant
Funding
Opportunity
Poor
No Build scenario
would not improve
conditions
Moderate
Multimodal safety
improvement
Good
Multimodal safety
improvement, traffic
congestion
reduction,
environmental
impact
Moderate
Traffic congestion
reduction
339
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
47 Criteria
Alternative 0 –
No Build
Alternative 1 –
Stop & Road Diet
Alternative 2 –
Roundabout
Alternative 3 -
Signal
General
Benefits
• Lower initial
capital cost and
ongoing
maintenance
• Improved driver
certainty
• Lower initial
capital cost
• Improved bike &
ped safety
• Reduction
collision severity
• Improved bike &
ped safety
• Improved
operations
• Reduced GHG
emissions
• Improved
operations &
capacity
• Provides
designated
crossing times
and driver
certainty
General
Challenges
• Decreased
operations
• Increased queues
• Decreased
operations
• Increased queues
• High initial capital
cost and potential
ROW impact
• Driver adaptation
to new traffic
operations
• High capital and
maintenance
costs
• Increased queues
and collision
severity potential

6. Appendix
• Attachment A – Year 2024 Existing Traffic Count Data
• Attachment B – Bike and Pedestrian Collision Data
• Attachment C – VISSIM & SIDRA LOS Results (Stop and Roundabout Alternatives) • Attachment D – Synchro LOS Results (No Build, Stop, and Signal Alternatives) • Attachment E – Existing Intersection Observed Driver Behavior at Bay/Capitola Technical Memo 340
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
Attachment A – Year 2024 Existing Traffic Count Data
341
Item 9 A.

HIGHWAY 1 NB RAMPS HIGHWAY 1 NB RAMPS BAY AVE BAY AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 1 BAY AVE & HIGHWAY 1 NB RAMPS AM
Date: Thursday, March 7, 2024
Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Motorized Vehicles Heavy Vehicles Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Peak Hour
Peak Hour: 08:00 AM - 09:00 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 08:15 AM - 08:30 AM
Traffic Counts - Heavy Vehicles, Bicycles on Road, and Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk 901 623
178
0 482 885
0 859

0.91 N
S
EW

0.81 0.82

0.84 0.00
(1,467) (1,050)
(358)
()
(1,476)
()
(789) (1,490) 4780
0 107
12 59
0 0
0 0
0 423
0369 5160 HIGHWAY 1 NB RAMPS HIGHWAY 1 NB RAMPS BAY AVE

BAY AVE
0 8
0 9 N
S
W E 4 4
0 0
0 0 8 1
200
0 0
0 0
0 0
2 0
0 0
00 0
2 N
S
W E
0 0 0
0000
Interval
Start Time Left Thru Right Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Hour 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 25 0 43 56 0 0 0 52 38 234 1,351 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 40 0 69 68 0 0 0 52 87 331 1,639 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 30 0 91 77 0 0 0 80 99 394 1,848 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 21 0 91 110 0 0 0 64 94 392 1,892 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 14 4 23 0 105 158 0 0 0 104 114 522 1,964 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 12 4 24 0 90 132 0 0 0 147 131 540
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 13 1 33 0 87 102 0 0 0 89 113 438
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 20 3 27 0 87 124 0 0 0 83 120 464
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 118 17 223 0 663 827 0 0 0 671 3,315 796 Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 59 12 107 0 369 516 0 0 0 423 1,964 478 HV% PHF

0.00 0.82

0.84 0.81

0.0%

0.2%

0.1% 0.91
EB
WB
NB
SB
All
Interval Heavy Vehicles
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 0 1 0 1 2
7:15 AM 0 1 1 0 2
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 1 0 1 2
8:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 1 1
Count Total 0 3 1 4 8
Peak Hour 0 0 0 2 2
Interval Bicycles on Roadway
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 2 2
8:00 AM 0 2 0 4 6
8:15 AM 0 2 0 8 10
8:30 AM 0 1 0 0 1
8:45 AM 0 1 0 0 1
Count Total 0 6 0 15 21
Peak Hour 0 6 0 12 18
Interval Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 2 0 1 0 3
7:15 AM 0 0 3 0 3
7:30 AM 3 0 0 0 3
7:45 AM 2 0 1 0 3
8:00 AM 4 0 1 0 5
8:15 AM 4 0 2 0 6
8:30 AM 1 0 4 0 5
8:45 AM 0 0 1 0 1
Count Total 16 0 13 0 29
Peak Hour 9 0 8 0 17
342
Item 9 A.

HIGHWAY 1 SB RAMPS HIGHWAY 1 SB RAMPS BAY AVE BAY AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 2 BAY AVE & HIGHWAY 1 SB RAMPS AM
Date: Thursday, March 7, 2024
Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Motorized Vehicles Heavy Vehicles Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Peak Hour
Peak Hour: 08:00 AM - 09:00 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 08:00 AM - 08:15 AM
Traffic Counts - Heavy Vehicles, Bicycles on Road, and Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk 481 885
0 287
601 683
609
0 0.92
N
S
EW

0.75 0.00

0.85 0.93
(787) (1,491)
()
(518)
()
(1,001)
(957) (1,178)
00 176
0 0
0 296
0 313
0 0 305
00572 111 HIGHWAY 1 SB RAMPS HIGHWAY 1 SB RAMPS BAY AVE

BAY AVE
0 7
0 7 N
S
W E 3 4
0 0
0 0 6 1
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
00 0
0 N
S
W E
0 0 0
0000
Interval
Start Time Left Thru Right Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Hour 7:00 AM 0 36 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 12 1 32 35 0 220 1,193 7:15 AM 0 50 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 18 0 34 35 0 278 1,455 7:30 AM 0 42 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 124 31 0 38 58 0 342 1,655 7:45 AM 0 71 0 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 125 28 0 38 35 0 353 1,713 8:00 AM 0 96 0 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 167 35 0 41 75 0 482 1,773 8:15 AM 0 81 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 141 21 0 56 104 0 478
8:30 AM 0 55 0 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 139 30 0 33 70 0 400
8:45 AM 0 81 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 125 25 0 46 56 0 413
Count Total 0 512 0 489 0 0 0 0 0 0 978 200 1 318 468 2,966 0 Peak Hour 0 313 0 296 0 0 0 0 0 0 572 111 0 176 305 1,773 0 HV% PHF

0.93 0.00

0.85 0.75

0.0%

0.0% 0.92
EB
WB
NB
SB
All
Interval Heavy Vehicles
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 1 0 0 0 1
7:15 AM 0 1 0 0 1
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 1 0 0 1
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 1 2 0 0 3
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0
Interval Bicycles on Roadway
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 2 2
8:00 AM 0 2 0 4 6
8:15 AM 0 2 0 8 10
8:30 AM 0 1 0 0 1
8:45 AM 0 1 0 0 1
Count Total 0 6 0 15 21
Peak Hour 0 6 0 12 18
Interval Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 2 0 1 0 3
7:15 AM 1 0 1 0 2
7:30 AM 2 0 0 0 2
7:45 AM 2 0 1 0 3
8:00 AM 3 0 2 0 5
8:15 AM 4 0 2 0 6
8:30 AM 0 0 3 0 3
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 14 0 10 0 24
Peak Hour 7 0 7 0 14
343
Item 9 A.

CROSSROADS LOOP CROSSROADS LOOP BAY AVE BAY AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 3 BAY AVE & CROSSROADS LOOP AM
Date: Thursday, March 7, 2024
Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

0.91 N
S
EW

0.82 0.61

0.86 0.85
(946) (1,098)
(25)
(74)
(185)
(132)
(747) (1,001) 109039
14 1
0 21
0 53
0 0 462
015759 CROSSROADS LOOP CROSSROADS LOOP BAY AVE

BAY AVE
0 6
0 5 N
S
W E 3 3
0 0
0 0 2 3
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
00 0
0 N
S
W E
0 0 0
0000
Interval
Start Time Left Thru Right Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Hour 7:00 AM 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 61 0 0 2 44 12 130 820
7:15 AM 0 8 0 6 0 1 0 3 0 0 90 1 0 10 60 18 197 1,033
7:30 AM 0 8 0 5 0 0 0 3 0 0 136 1 0 5 64 26 248 1,187
7:45 AM 0 15 0 8 0 0 0 3 0 1 122 1 0 6 75 14 245 1,248
8:00 AM 0 9 0 2 0 0 0 7 0 0 167 3 0 8 116 31 343 1,284
8:15 AM 0 13 0 10 0 0 0 2 0 0 137 2 0 6 155 26 351
8:30 AM 0 15 0 6 0 0 1 4 0 1 147 2 0 10 94 29 309
8:45 AM 0 16 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 124 2 0 15 97 23 281
Count Total 0 91 0 41 0 1 1 23 0 5 984 12 0 62 705 2,104 179 Peak Hour 0 53 0 21 0 0 1 14 0 1 575 9 0 39 462 1,284 109 HV% PHF

0.85 0.61

0.86 0.82

0.0%

0.0% 0.91
EB
WB
NB
SB
All
Interval Heavy Vehicles
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 1 0 0 1
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 1 0 0 1
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 2 0 0 2
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0
Interval Bicycles on Roadway
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 2 2
8:00 AM 0 2 0 4 6
8:15 AM 0 2 0 8 10
8:30 AM 0 1 0 0 1
8:45 AM 0 1 0 0 1
Count Total 0 6 0 15 21
Peak Hour 0 6 0 12 18
Interval Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 2 1 0 0 3
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 1 0 0 0 1
7:45 AM 2 0 1 0 3
8:00 AM 1 0 1 0 2
8:15 AM 1 0 2 0 3
8:30 AM 1 0 3 0 4
8:45 AM 2 0 0 0 2
Count Total 10 1 7 0 18
Peak Hour 5 0 6 0 11
344
Item 9 A.

HILL ST HILL ST BAY AVE BAY AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 4 BAY AVE & HILL ST AM
Date: Thursday, March 7, 2024
Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

0.89 N
S
EW

0.73 0.87

0.89 0.87
(745) (1,001)
(318)
(163)
(202)
(170)
(638) (771) 31174
142
28 9
39 19
43 0
0 375
057399 10 HILL ST HILL ST BAY AVE

BAY AVE
8 5
13 8 N
S
W E 3 2
7 6
4 4 6 2
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
00 0
0 N
S
W E
0 0 0
0000
Interval
Start Time Left Thru Right Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Hour 7:00 AM 0 10 3 1 0 0 6 18 0 5 37 0 0 10 31 6 127 777
7:15 AM 0 7 2 5 0 2 6 28 0 6 56 0 0 14 42 11 179 976
7:30 AM 0 11 4 5 0 3 5 30 0 11 95 1 0 9 53 3 230 1,141
7:45 AM 0 11 2 8 0 1 7 33 0 12 80 2 0 13 64 8 241 1,209 8:00 AM 0 12 4 10 0 0 11 42 0 13 116 2 0 16 96 4 326 1,227 8:15 AM 0 12 6 9 0 3 5 34 0 15 92 4 1 19 137 7 344
8:30 AM 0 10 2 7 0 1 8 40 0 17 106 3 0 14 81 9 298
8:45 AM 0 9 7 13 0 5 4 26 0 12 85 1 0 25 61 11 259
Count Total 0 82 30 58 0 15 52 251 0 91 667 13 1 120 565 2,004 59 Peak Hour 0 43 19 39 0 9 28 142 0 57 399 10 1 74 375 1,227 31 HV% PHF

0.87 0.87

0.89 0.73

0.0%

0.0% 0.89
EB
WB
NB
SB
All
Interval Heavy Vehicles
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 1 0 0 1
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 1 0 0 1
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 2 0 0 2
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0
Interval Bicycles on Roadway
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 1 0 0 1 2
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 2 2
8:00 AM 0 2 0 4 6
8:15 AM 1 1 0 8 10
8:30 AM 0 1 1 0 2
8:45 AM 0 0 1 0 1
Count Total 2 4 2 15 23
Peak Hour 1 4 2 12 19
Interval Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 3 2 1 1 7
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 1 0 0 1
7:45 AM 2 0 1 1 4
8:00 AM 3 2 0 2 7
8:15 AM 0 3 2 2 7
8:30 AM 1 4 1 3 9
8:45 AM 4 4 2 1 11
Count Total 13 16 7 10 46
Peak Hour 8 13 5 8 34
345
Item 9 A.

CAPITOLA AVE CAPITOLA AVE BAY AVE BAY AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 5 BAY AVE & CAPITOLA AVE AM
Date: Thursday, March 7, 2024
Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

0.83 N
S
EW

0.67 0.67

0.88 0.89
(581) (708)
(312)
(303)
(364)
(244)
(389) (627) 128074
42 94
83 6
67 70
0 0 183
027312 55 CAPITOLA AVE CAPITOLA AVE BAY AVE

BAY AVE
8 3
9 6 N
S
W E 0 3
6 3
1 7 3 3
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
00 0
0 N
S
W E
0 0 0
0000
Interval
Start Time Left Thru Right Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Hour 7:00 AM 0 12 8 1 0 2 4 5 0 0 18 4 0 10 7 11 82 623
7:15 AM 0 17 10 1 0 2 7 4 0 4 37 8 0 7 24 12 133 821
7:30 AM 0 18 11 0 0 7 13 9 0 0 78 2 0 8 33 15 194 1,032 7:45 AM 0 10 12 1 0 6 24 10 0 6 66 10 0 17 33 19 214 1,118 8:00 AM 0 21 12 4 0 18 21 15 0 3 82 15 0 18 47 24 280 1,141 8:15 AM 0 12 15 1 0 45 26 12 0 5 71 12 0 17 85 43 344
8:30 AM 0 18 20 0 0 15 26 6 0 7 91 14 0 15 36 32 280
8:45 AM 0 19 20 1 0 5 21 9 0 12 68 14 0 24 15 29 237
Count Total 0 127 108 9 0 100 142 70 0 37 511 79 0 116 280 1,764 185 Peak Hour 0 70 67 6 0 83 94 42 0 27 312 55 0 74 183 1,141 128 HV% PHF

0.89 0.67

0.88 0.67

0.0%

0.0% 0.83
EB
WB
NB
SB
All
Interval Heavy Vehicles
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0
Interval Bicycles on Roadway
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 0 1 0 0 1
7:15 AM 0 0 1 1 2
7:30 AM 0 0 1 2 3
7:45 AM 0 0 0 4 4
8:00 AM 2 0 1 4 7
8:15 AM 1 2 1 12 16
8:30 AM 0 0 1 2 3
8:45 AM 1 0 0 0 1
Count Total 4 3 5 25 37
Peak Hour 4 2 3 18 27
Interval Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 1 0 0 1 2
7:15 AM 2 2 1 3 8
7:30 AM 0 1 0 1 2
7:45 AM 0 3 0 0 3
8:00 AM 1 3 0 1 5
8:15 AM 0 1 1 2 4
8:30 AM 3 4 1 4 12
8:45 AM 2 1 1 1 5
Count Total 9 15 4 13 41
Peak Hour 6 9 3 8 26
346
Item 9 A.

MONTEREY AVE MONTEREY AVE MONTEREY AVE BAY AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 6 MONTEREY AVE & MONTEREY AVE AM
Date: Thursday, March 7, 2024
Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Motorized Vehicles Heavy Vehicles Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Peak Hour
Peak Hour: 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 08:15 AM - 08:30 AM
Traffic Counts - Heavy Vehicles, Bicycles on Road, and Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk 303 440
369
280
171 219
0 0

0.76 N
S
EW

0.64 0.70

0.73 0.00
(413) (658)
(520)
(374)
()
()
(248) (347)
00 219
282
0 87
0 0
0 0
0 84
00158 61 MONTEREY AVE MONTEREY AVE MONTEREY AVE

BAY AVE
14 12
0 23
N
S
W E 6 6
0 0
4 10 11 12
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
00 0
0 N
S
W E
0 0 0
0000
Interval
Start Time Left Thru Right Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Hour 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 8 0 0 16 5 0 5 5 0 45 412
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 28 0 0 22 4 0 18 5 0 85 560
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 43 0 0 26 7 0 34 10 0 137 768
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 45 0 0 38 6 0 23 17 0 145 891
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 65 0 0 38 9 0 45 24 0 193 868
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 74 0 0 45 31 0 97 21 0 293
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 98 0 0 37 15 0 54 22 0 260
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 33 0 0 42 6 0 15 18 0 122
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 126 0 394 0 0 264 83 0 291 122 1,280 0 Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 87 0 282 0 0 158 61 0 219 84 0 891
HV% PHF

0.00 0.70

0.73 0.64

0.0%

0.0% 0.76
EB
WB
NB
SB
All
Interval Heavy Vehicles
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0
Interval Bicycles on Roadway
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1
7:15 AM 0 1 2 0 3
7:30 AM 0 0 1 2 3
7:45 AM 0 2 1 5 8
8:00 AM 0 1 1 6 8
8:15 AM 0 3 3 15 21
8:30 AM 0 1 2 4 7
8:45 AM 0 0 1 1 2
Count Total 0 8 11 34 53
Peak Hour 0 7 7 30 44
Interval Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 3 0 1 1 5
7:15 AM 5 0 0 3 8
7:30 AM 2 0 2 0 4
7:45 AM 6 0 2 1 9
8:00 AM 6 0 2 5 13
8:15 AM 4 0 5 4 13
8:30 AM 7 0 3 4 14
8:45 AM 8 0 5 6 19
Count Total 41 0 20 24 85
Peak Hour 23 0 12 14 49
347
Item 9 A.

PARK AVE PARK AVE MONTEREY AVE MONTEREY AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 7 MONTEREY AVE & PARK AVE AM
Date: Thursday, March 7, 2024
Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

0.91 N
S
EW

0.75 0.94

0.81 0.63
(248) (347)
(816)
(416)
(12)
(14)
(846) (543)
4041
100
3 418
1 9
0 0
0 121
01123 225

PARK AVE PARK AVE MONTEREY AVE

MONTEREY AVE
3 18
4 29
N
S
W E 6 12
3 1
1 2 12 17
000
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
01 0
0 N
S
W E
0 0 0
0000
Interval
Start Time Left Thru Right Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Hour 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 8 0 0 13 10 0 0 10 0 76 575
7:15 AM 0 1 0 0 0 46 1 12 0 1 13 26 0 1 13 0 114 739
7:30 AM 0 0 1 1 0 71 1 14 0 0 19 34 0 2 24 0 167 912
7:45 AM 0 1 0 0 0 83 1 23 0 0 20 58 0 9 23 0 218 1,028
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 94 2 27 0 1 22 57 0 11 25 1 240 1,046 8:15 AM 0 0 4 0 0 101 0 28 0 0 46 63 0 13 32 0 287
8:30 AM 0 0 3 0 0 116 0 22 0 0 30 55 0 12 44 1 283
8:45 AM 0 0 2 1 0 107 1 23 0 0 25 50 0 5 20 2 236
Count Total 0 2 10 2 0 653 6 157 0 2 188 353 0 53 191 1,621 4 Peak Hour 0 0 9 1 0 418 3 100 0 1 123 225 0 41 121 1,046 4 HV% PHF

0.63 0.94

0.81 0.75

0.0%

0.2%

0.0%

0.1% 0.91
EB
WB
NB
SB
All
Interval Heavy Vehicles
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 1 0 1
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 1 0 1
Peak Hour 0 0 1 0 1
Interval Bicycles on Roadway
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 0 0 1 1 2
7:15 AM 0 0 2 1 3
7:30 AM 0 5 2 0 7
7:45 AM 0 2 2 1 5
8:00 AM 0 6 2 3 11
8:15 AM 0 4 6 1 11
8:30 AM 0 4 2 0 6
8:45 AM 0 0 0 1 1
Count Total 0 21 17 8 46
Peak Hour 0 14 10 5 29
Interval Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 5 1 1 0 7
7:15 AM 6 1 3 1 11
7:30 AM 3 1 4 2 10
7:45 AM 7 2 2 3 14
8:00 AM 7 2 2 0 11
8:15 AM 4 1 8 0 13
8:30 AM 8 0 4 2 14
8:45 AM 10 1 4 1 16
Count Total 50 9 28 9 96
Peak Hour 29 4 18 3 54
348
Item 9 A.

HILL ST HILL ST CAPITOLA AVE CAPITOLA AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 8 CAPITOLA AVE & HILL ST AM
Date: Thursday, March 7, 2024
Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

0.77 N
S
EW

0.71 0.78

0.88 0.66
(439) (288)
(164)
(57)
(325)
(137)
(279) (209) 102013
44 54
11 19
23 42
0 0 169
031985 HILL ST HILL ST CAPITOLA AVE

CAPITOLA AVE
2 6
3 4 N
S
W E 3 3
1 2
1 1 3 1
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
00 0
0 N
S
W E
0 0 0
0000
Interval
Start Time Left Thru Right Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Hour 7:00 AM 0 9 0 3 0 0 3 4 0 2 8 0 0 2 9 18 58 338
7:15 AM 0 10 3 1 0 0 11 3 0 6 14 1 0 2 13 19 83 428
7:30 AM 0 8 4 0 0 1 12 3 0 8 10 1 0 0 20 21 88 543
7:45 AM 0 12 2 1 0 1 13 4 0 6 19 0 0 1 31 19 109 605
8:00 AM 0 7 6 4 0 3 19 14 0 9 18 1 0 0 37 30 148 611
8:15 AM 0 13 12 7 0 5 9 13 0 11 27 0 0 10 75 16 198
8:30 AM 0 12 1 3 0 1 17 14 0 4 27 3 0 2 33 33 150
8:45 AM 0 10 4 5 0 2 9 3 0 7 26 1 0 1 24 23 115
Count Total 0 81 32 24 0 13 93 58 0 53 149 7 0 18 242 179 949 Peak Hour 0 42 23 19 0 11 54 44 0 31 98 5 0 13 169 102 611 HV% PHF

0.66 0.78

0.88 0.71

0.0%

0.0% 0.77
EB
WB
NB
SB
All
Interval Heavy Vehicles
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0
Interval Bicycles on Roadway
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 1 1
7:30 AM 0 0 0 1 1
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 1 1 1 2 5
8:15 AM 1 1 0 4 6
8:30 AM 0 0 1 2 3
8:45 AM 0 0 0 1 1
Count Total 2 2 2 11 17
Peak Hour 2 2 2 9 15
Interval Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 1 0 3 2 6
7:15 AM 0 2 2 1 5
7:30 AM 0 0 3 0 3
7:45 AM 0 0 7 0 7
8:00 AM 3 1 1 1 6
8:15 AM 0 2 3 1 6
8:30 AM 1 0 0 0 1
8:45 AM 0 0 2 0 2
Count Total 5 5 21 5 36
Peak Hour 4 3 6 2 15
349
Item 9 A.

HIGHWAY 1 NB RAMPS HIGHWAY 1 NB RAMPS BAY AVE BAY AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 1 BAY AVE & HIGHWAY 1 NB RAMPS PM
Date: Thursday, March 7, 2024
Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Motorized Vehicles Heavy Vehicles Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Peak Hour
Peak Hour: 04:00 PM - 05:00 PM
Peak 15-Minutes: 04:00 PM - 04:15 PM
Traffic Counts - Heavy Vehicles, Bicycles on Road, and Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk 958 594
303
0 749 689
0 607

0.95 N
S
EW

0.97 0.92

0.84 0.00
(1,819) (1,195)
(602)
()
(1,153)
()
(1,394) (1,321) 3160
0 195
1 107
0 0
0 0
0 642
0290 3990 HIGHWAY 1 NB RAMPS HIGHWAY 1 NB RAMPS BAY AVE

BAY AVE
0 4
0 8 N
S
W E 1 3
0 0
0 0 5 3
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
10 0
0 N
S
W E
0 0 0
0010
Interval
Start Time Left Thru Right Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Hour 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 51 0 88 116 0 0 0 154 70 511 1,950 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 23 1 48 0 69 100 0 0 0 169 84 494 1,948 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 43 0 64 82 0 0 0 157 83 452 1,935 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 53 0 69 101 0 0 0 162 79 493 1,883 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 58 0 73 103 0 0 0 167 83 509 1,792 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 68 0 50 102 0 0 0 170 72 481
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 47 0 65 83 0 0 0 117 68 400
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 43 0 59 97 0 0 0 108 76 402
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 190 1 411 0 537 784 0 0 0 1,204 3,742 615 Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 107 1 195 0 290 399 0 0 0 642 1,950 316 HV% PHF

0.00 0.92

0.84 0.97

0.0%

0.1%

0.0%

0.1% 0.95
EB
WB
NB
SB
All
Interval Heavy Vehicles
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 0 1 0 0 1
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 1 1
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 1 0 1 2
Peak Hour 0 1 0 0 1
Interval Bicycles on Roadway
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 0 0 0 2 2
4:15 PM 0 1 0 2 3
4:30 PM 0 0 0 3 3
4:45 PM 0 3 0 1 4
5:00 PM 0 2 0 1 3
5:15 PM 0 0 0 2 2
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 4 4
Count Total 0 6 0 15 21
Peak Hour 0 4 0 8 12
Interval Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 1 0 3 0 4
4:15 PM 5 0 0 0 5
4:30 PM 1 0 1 0 2
4:45 PM 1 0 0 0 1
5:00 PM 1 0 2 0 3
5:15 PM 0 0 6 0 6
5:30 PM 1 0 0 0 1
5:45 PM 0 0 2 0 2
Count Total 10 0 14 0 24
Peak Hour 8 0 4 0 12
350
Item 9 A.

HIGHWAY 1 SB RAMPS HIGHWAY 1 SB RAMPS BAY AVE BAY AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 2 BAY AVE & HIGHWAY 1 SB RAMPS PM
Date: Thursday, March 7, 2024
Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

0.96 0.00

0.76 0.96
(1,394) (1,328)
()
(1,102)
()
(1,578)
(1,551) (1,009)
00 276
0 0
0 347
208
234
0 0 471
00457 91 HIGHWAY 1 SB RAMPS HIGHWAY 1 SB RAMPS BAY AVE

BAY AVE
0 4
0 6 N
S
W E 1 3
0 0
0 0 3 3
000
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 1
0 0
11 1
0 N
S
W E
0 0 0
0010
Interval
Start Time Left Thru Right Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Hour 4:00 PM 0 56 57 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 151 30 0 58 132 0 567 2,084 4:15 PM 0 52 52 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 119 19 0 71 120 0 519 2,048 4:30 PM 0 53 57 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 25 0 74 109 0 488 2,034 4:45 PM 0 73 42 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 17 0 73 110 0 510 1,998 5:00 PM 0 60 53 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 114 27 0 72 125 0 531 1,897 5:15 PM 0 67 53 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 20 0 83 100 0 505
5:30 PM 0 49 56 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 13 0 52 91 0 452
5:45 PM 0 75 40 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 15 0 43 81 0 409
Count Total 0 485 410 683 0 0 0 0 0 0 843 166 0 526 868 3,981 0 Peak Hour 0 234 208 347 0 0 0 0 0 0 457 91 0 276 471 2,084 0 HV% PHF

0.96 0.00

0.76 0.96

0.1%

0.0%

0.2%

0.0%

0.1% 0.92
EB
WB
NB
SB
All
Interval Heavy Vehicles
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 0 1 0 0 1
4:15 PM 1 0 0 0 1
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 1 1
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 1 1 0 1 3
Peak Hour 1 1 0 0 2
Interval Bicycles on Roadway
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 0 0 0 2 2
4:15 PM 0 1 0 2 3
4:30 PM 0 0 0 3 3
4:45 PM 0 3 0 1 4
5:00 PM 0 2 0 1 3
5:15 PM 0 0 0 2 2
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 4 4
Count Total 0 6 0 15 21
Peak Hour 0 4 0 8 12
Interval Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 0 0 2 0 2
4:15 PM 4 0 1 0 5
4:30 PM 1 0 1 0 2
4:45 PM 1 0 0 0 1
5:00 PM 1 0 2 0 3
5:15 PM 0 0 5 0 5
5:30 PM 1 0 0 0 1
5:45 PM 0 0 2 0 2
Count Total 8 0 13 0 21
Peak Hour 6 0 4 0 10
351
Item 9 A.

CROSSROADS LOOP CROSSROADS LOOP BAY AVE BAY AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 3 BAY AVE & CROSSROADS LOOP PM
Date: Thursday, March 7, 2024
Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

0.87 N
S
EW

0.96 0.62

0.77 0.82
(1,524) (932)
(73)
(103)
(199)
(155)
(1,329) (811) 112050
37 1
4 38
2 49
0 0 629
044129 CROSSROADS LOOP CROSSROADS LOOP BAY AVE

BAY AVE
0 3
0 3 N
S
W E 0 3
0 0
0 0 0 3
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 0
11 0
0 N
S
W E
0 0 1
0010
Interval
Start Time Left Thru Right Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Hour 4:00 PM 0 14 1 10 0 1 1 15 0 0 135 3 0 11 151 43 385 1,347 4:15 PM 0 15 1 11 0 2 0 8 0 1 91 0 0 13 165 25 332 1,306 4:30 PM 0 9 0 8 0 1 0 7 0 0 93 5 0 13 140 30 306 1,286
4:45 PM 0 11 0 9 0 0 0 7 0 3 93 1 0 13 173 14 324 1,287 5:00 PM 0 16 0 7 0 0 0 12 0 1 100 3 0 8 170 27 344 1,216 5:15 PM 0 11 0 8 0 3 0 3 0 1 87 2 0 10 175 12 312
5:30 PM 0 6 0 10 0 4 0 4 0 1 94 2 0 10 160 16 307
5:45 PM 0 7 0 1 0 1 1 3 0 2 91 2 0 5 119 21 253
Count Total 0 89 2 64 0 12 2 59 0 9 784 18 0 83 1,253 2,563 188 Peak Hour 0 49 2 38 0 4 1 37 0 4 412 9 0 50 629 1,347 112 HV% PHF

0.82 0.62

0.77 0.96

0.0%

0.2%

0.1%

0.1% 0.87
EB
WB
NB
SB
All
Interval Heavy Vehicles
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 0 1 0 0 1
4:15 PM 0 0 0 1 1
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 1 0 1 2
Peak Hour 0 1 0 1 2
Interval Bicycles on Roadway
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 0 0 1 2 3
4:15 PM 1 0 0 2 3
4:30 PM 0 0 0 3 3
4:45 PM 0 4 0 1 5
5:00 PM 0 2 0 1 3
5:15 PM 0 0 0 2 2
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 1 4 5
Count Total 1 6 2 15 24
Peak Hour 1 4 1 8 14
Interval Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 0 0 1 0 1
4:15 PM 0 0 1 0 1
4:30 PM 2 0 1 0 3
4:45 PM 1 0 0 0 1
5:00 PM 0 0 3 0 3
5:15 PM 0 0 5 0 5
5:30 PM 3 0 0 0 3
5:45 PM 0 0 2 0 2
Count Total 6 0 13 0 19
Peak Hour 3 0 3 0 6
352
Item 9 A.

HILL ST HILL ST BAY AVE BAY AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 4 BAY AVE & HILL ST PM
Date: Thursday, March 7, 2024
Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

0.89 N
S
EW

0.98 0.84

0.75 0.79
(1,329) (810)
(231)
(404)
(246)
(390)
(1,120) (630) 490 146
76 33
18 84
45 92
0 0 474
046256 21 HILL ST HILL ST BAY AVE

BAY AVE
5 1
12 3 N
S
W E 1 0
4 8
3 2 2 1
010
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 1
10 0
0 N
S
W E
0 0 0
0010
Interval
Start Time Left Thru Right Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Hour 4:00 PM 0 30 12 28 0 5 11 22 0 16 85 7 0 35 113 12 376 1,340 4:15 PM 0 19 12 19 0 4 11 17 0 6 57 6 0 37 129 14 331 1,293 4:30 PM 0 20 11 20 0 5 7 25 0 12 52 4 0 35 101 12 304 1,278 4:45 PM 0 23 10 17 0 4 4 12 0 12 62 4 0 39 131 11 329 1,289 5:00 PM 0 24 7 18 0 2 6 15 0 10 69 0 0 43 122 13 329 1,240 5:15 PM 0 18 5 23 0 3 6 14 0 13 53 1 1 44 128 7 316
5:30 PM 0 11 10 12 0 2 7 19 0 13 68 2 0 35 127 9 315
5:45 PM 0 15 11 15 0 4 11 15 0 12 64 2 0 32 88 11 280
Count Total 0 160 78 152 0 29 63 139 0 94 510 26 1 300 939 2,580 89 Peak Hour 0 92 45 84 0 18 33 76 0 46 256 21 0 146 474 1,340 49 HV% PHF

0.79 0.84

0.75 0.98

0.0%

0.3%

0.1%

0.1% 0.89
EB
WB
NB
SB
All
Interval Heavy Vehicles
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 0 1 0 0 1
4:15 PM 0 0 0 1 1
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 1 0 1 2
Peak Hour 0 1 0 1 2
Interval Bicycles on Roadway
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 0 0 0 2 2
4:15 PM 0 0 0 2 2
4:30 PM 1 0 0 3 4
4:45 PM 2 2 2 1 7
5:00 PM 0 3 0 1 4
5:15 PM 1 0 0 2 3
5:30 PM 3 0 1 0 4
5:45 PM 0 0 0 4 4
Count Total 7 5 3 15 30
Peak Hour 3 2 2 8 15
Interval Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 0 6 0 2 8
4:15 PM 1 1 0 1 3
4:30 PM 1 2 1 2 6
4:45 PM 1 3 0 0 4
5:00 PM 0 4 7 0 11
5:15 PM 1 7 2 2 12
5:30 PM 1 0 1 2 4
5:45 PM 0 4 1 0 5
Count Total 5 27 12 9 53
Peak Hour 3 12 1 5 21
353
Item 9 A.

CAPITOLA AVE CAPITOLA AVE BAY AVE BAY AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 5 BAY AVE & CAPITOLA AVE PM
Date: Thursday, March 7, 2024
Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

0.89 N
S
EW

0.94 0.91

0.82 0.90
(1,002) (584)
(311)
(335)
(447)
(337)
(775) (491) 124056
31 72
61 8
84 72
0 0 337
029200 23 CAPITOLA AVE CAPITOLA AVE BAY AVE

BAY AVE
9 2
13 5 N
S
W E 2 0
6 7
5 4 3 2
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
00 0
0 N
S
W E
0 0 0
0000
Interval
Start Time Left Thru Right Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Hour 4:00 PM 0 28 23 4 0 19 14 12 0 6 66 5 0 18 80 34 309 1,097 4:15 PM 0 16 19 1 0 16 21 4 0 9 40 11 0 13 91 29 270 1,064 4:30 PM 0 11 19 1 0 13 21 10 0 6 45 2 0 13 71 29 241 1,063 4:45 PM 0 17 23 2 0 13 16 5 0 8 49 5 0 12 95 32 277 1,090 5:00 PM 0 22 14 6 0 14 26 5 0 7 47 11 0 19 74 31 276 1,044 5:15 PM 0 14 24 5 0 13 19 7 0 8 42 5 0 22 83 27 269
5:30 PM 0 19 18 3 0 12 18 6 0 6 51 5 0 12 86 32 268
5:45 PM 0 24 22 2 0 4 16 7 0 9 37 11 0 9 67 23 231
Count Total 0 151 162 24 0 104 151 56 0 59 377 55 0 118 647 2,141 237 Peak Hour 0 72 84 8 0 61 72 31 0 29 200 23 0 56 337 1,097 124 HV% PHF

0.90 0.91

0.82 0.94

0.0%

0.0% 0.89
EB
WB
NB
SB
All
Interval Heavy Vehicles
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0
Interval Bicycles on Roadway
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 2 5 0 1 8
4:15 PM 0 3 2 1 6
4:30 PM 0 0 1 4 5
4:45 PM 0 2 1 2 5
5:00 PM 0 2 1 2 5
5:15 PM 0 0 0 2 2
5:30 PM 0 0 1 0 1
5:45 PM 0 0 1 5 6
Count Total 2 12 7 17 38
Peak Hour 2 10 4 8 24
Interval Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 0 3 2 4 9
4:15 PM 2 2 0 1 5
4:30 PM 2 7 0 2 11
4:45 PM 1 1 0 2 4
5:00 PM 4 4 2 2 12
5:15 PM 2 5 1 3 11
5:30 PM 2 2 2 2 8
5:45 PM 2 3 4 1 10
Count Total 15 27 11 17 70
Peak Hour 5 13 2 9 29
354
Item 9 A.

MONTEREY AVE MONTEREY AVE MONTEREY AVE BAY AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 6 MONTEREY AVE & MONTEREY AVE PM
Date: Thursday, March 7, 2024
Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Motorized Vehicles Heavy Vehicles Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Peak Hour
Peak Hour: 04:45 PM - 05:45 PM
Peak 15-Minutes: 05:00 PM - 05:15 PM
Traffic Counts - Heavy Vehicles, Bicycles on Road, and Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk 439 228
139
389
170 209
0 0

0.98 N
S
EW

0.96 0.71

0.93 0.00
(829) (444)
(274)
(723)
()
()
(331) (395)
00 304
104
0 35
0 0
0 0
0 135
00124 85 MONTEREY AVE MONTEREY AVE MONTEREY AVE

BAY AVE
21 19
0 24
N
S
W E 11 8
0 0
16 5 17 7
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
00 0
0 N
S
W E
0 0 0
0000
Interval
Start Time Left Thru Right Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Hour 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 40 0 0 26 17 0 63 39 0 201 753
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 26 0 0 32 15 0 78 43 0 200 753
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 18 0 0 24 21 0 63 27 0 158 748
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 17 0 0 33 23 0 78 36 0 194 787
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 36 0 0 28 17 0 81 26 0 201 745
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 22 0 0 31 24 0 70 42 0 195
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 29 0 0 32 21 0 75 31 0 197
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 20 0 0 30 21 0 56 21 0 152
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 66 0 208 0 0 236 159 0 564 265 1,498 0 Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 104 0 0 124 85 0 304 135 0 787 HV% PHF

0.00 0.71

0.93 0.96

0.0%

0.0% 0.98
EB
WB
NB
SB
All
Interval Heavy Vehicles
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0
Interval Bicycles on Roadway
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 0 0 7 2 9
4:15 PM 0 0 6 1 7
4:30 PM 0 1 0 4 5
4:45 PM 0 1 3 2 6
5:00 PM 0 1 1 1 3
5:15 PM 0 1 2 2 5
5:30 PM 0 0 3 1 4
5:45 PM 0 1 0 2 3
Count Total 0 5 22 15 42
Peak Hour 0 3 9 6 18
Interval Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 7 0 3 5 15
4:15 PM 3 0 6 2 11
4:30 PM 6 0 0 2 8
4:45 PM 3 0 5 3 11
5:00 PM 7 0 5 3 15
5:15 PM 10 0 8 11 29
5:30 PM 4 0 1 4 9
5:45 PM 7 1 1 4 13
Count Total 47 1 29 34 111
Peak Hour 24 0 19 21 64
355
Item 9 A.

PARK AVE PARK AVE MONTEREY AVE MONTEREY AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 7 MONTEREY AVE & PARK AVE PM
Date: Thursday, March 7, 2024
Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Motorized Vehicles Heavy Vehicles Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Peak Hour
Peak Hour: 04:00 PM - 05:00 PM
Peak 15-Minutes: 04:15 PM - 04:30 PM
Traffic Counts - Heavy Vehicles, Bicycles on Road, and Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk 176 192
245
593
289 647
11 5

0.96 N
S
EW

0.81 0.94

0.97 0.44
(331) (396)
(466)
(1,142)
(6)
(43)
(541) (1,245)
1092
39 3
203
3 3
5 0
0 83
01148 498

PARK AVE PARK AVE MONTEREY AVE

MONTEREY AVE
19 29
7 34
N
S
W E 14 15
5 2
13 6 19 15
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
00 0
0 N
S
W E
0 0 0
0000
Interval
Start Time Left Thru Right Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Hour 4:00 PM 0 4 1 0 0 51 0 6 0 0 34 128 0 22 31 1 278 1,079 4:15 PM 0 0 0 3 0 57 0 10 0 0 37 122 0 27 24 0 280 1,063 4:30 PM 0 0 2 0 0 47 3 7 0 0 37 130 0 20 11 0 257 1,040 4:45 PM 0 1 0 0 0 48 0 16 0 1 40 118 0 23 17 0 264 1,036 5:00 PM 0 7 9 2 0 53 0 10 0 0 27 116 0 19 19 0 262 1,006 5:15 PM 0 2 5 1 0 41 0 12 0 0 42 108 0 27 19 0 257
5:30 PM 0 0 5 0 0 40 0 10 0 0 42 114 0 21 20 1 253
5:45 PM 0 0 1 0 0 42 0 13 0 0 39 110 0 14 15 0 234
Count Total 0 14 23 6 0 379 3 84 0 1 298 946 0 173 156 2,085 2 Peak Hour 0 5 3 3 0 203 3 39 0 1 148 498 0 92 83 1,079 1 HV% PHF

0.44 0.94

0.97 0.81

0.0%

0.0% 0.96
EB
WB
NB
SB
All
Interval Heavy Vehicles
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0
Interval Bicycles on Roadway
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 0 2 2 2 6
4:15 PM 0 1 1 2 4
4:30 PM 0 1 2 3 6
4:45 PM 0 6 0 3 9
5:00 PM 0 3 2 1 6
5:15 PM 0 2 5 1 8
5:30 PM 0 4 1 2 7
5:45 PM 1 1 1 0 3
Count Total 1 20 14 14 49
Peak Hour 0 10 5 10 25
Interval Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 7 1 4 2 14
4:15 PM 5 0 10 3 18
4:30 PM 12 6 7 7 32
4:45 PM 10 0 8 7 25
5:00 PM 6 2 16 2 26
5:15 PM 5 3 9 0 17
5:30 PM 11 1 0 7 19
5:45 PM 10 0 3 5 18
Count Total 66 13 57 33 169
Peak Hour 34 7 29 19 89
356
Item 9 A.

HILL ST HILL ST CAPITOLA AVE CAPITOLA AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 8 CAPITOLA AVE & HILL ST PM
Date: Thursday, March 7, 2024
Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

0.94 N
S
EW

0.86 0.74

0.95 0.90
(360) (472)
(97)
(149)
(201)
(386)
(277) (256) 68020
19 25
11 31
42 125
0 0 98
0159411 HILL ST HILL ST CAPITOLA AVE

CAPITOLA AVE
1 5
4 2 N
S
W E 4 1
0 4
1 0 1 1
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
00 0
0 N
S
W E
0 0 0
0000
Interval
Start Time Left Thru Right Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Hour 4:00 PM 0 38 8 6 0 3 3 3 0 8 26 1 0 5 25 19 145 559
4:15 PM 0 29 11 11 0 0 9 6 0 1 24 4 0 4 29 21 149 551
4:30 PM 0 30 10 6 0 3 7 2 0 2 18 1 0 2 28 16 125 547
4:45 PM 0 28 13 8 0 5 6 8 0 4 26 5 0 9 16 12 140 559
5:00 PM 0 22 15 13 0 1 5 4 0 7 25 2 1 4 28 10 137 540
5:15 PM 0 35 17 4 0 2 6 2 0 4 28 2 0 5 29 11 145
5:30 PM 0 28 11 2 0 1 5 4 0 3 32 2 0 3 28 18 137
5:45 PM 0 23 12 6 0 3 7 2 0 1 28 2 0 1 20 16 121
Count Total 0 233 97 56 0 18 48 31 0 30 207 19 1 33 203 1,099 123 Peak Hour 0 125 42 31 0 11 25 19 0 15 94 11 0 20 98 68 559 HV% PHF

0.90 0.74

0.95 0.86

0.0%

0.0% 0.94
EB
WB
NB
SB
All
Interval Heavy Vehicles
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0
Interval Bicycles on Roadway
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 0 0 0 1 1
4:15 PM 0 2 0 3 5
4:30 PM 0 1 0 1 2
4:45 PM 0 0 2 1 3
5:00 PM 0 2 0 2 4
5:15 PM 1 0 0 0 1
5:30 PM 3 0 0 2 5
5:45 PM 0 2 0 1 3
Count Total 4 7 2 11 24
Peak Hour 0 3 2 6 11
Interval Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 0 2 1 0 3
4:15 PM 0 0 2 0 2
4:30 PM 1 1 1 0 3
4:45 PM 1 1 1 1 4
5:00 PM 0 3 2 1 6
5:15 PM 0 4 4 2 10
5:30 PM 0 2 0 0 2
5:45 PM 0 2 3 0 5
Count Total 2 15 14 4 35
Peak Hour 2 4 5 1 12
357
Item 9 A.

Site Description: Bay Ave S.O Center St
Site Number: 14
Start Date:

End Date:
1 NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB NB SB NB SB 12:00 AM - - - - - - - - - 9 6 15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1:00 AM - - - - - - - - - 1 4 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2:00 AM - - - - - - - - - 2 8 10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3:00 AM - - - - - - - - - 5 8 13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4:00 AM - - - - - - - - - 6 7 13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5:00 AM - - - - - - - - - 44 35 79 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6:00 AM - - - - - - - - - 123 60 183 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7:00 AM - - - - - - - - - 286 207 493 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8:00 AM - - - - - - - - - 440 414 854 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9:00 AM - - - - - - - - - 352 325 677 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10:00 AM - - - - - - - - - 343 368 711 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11:00 AM - - - - - - - - - 383 400 783 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12:00 PM - - - - - - - - - 399 406 805 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1:00 PM - - - - - - - - - 358 409 767 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2:00 PM - - - - - - - - - 340 457 797 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3:00 PM - - - - - - - - - 448 435 883 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4:00 PM - - - - - - - - - 307 548 855 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5:00 PM - - - - - - - - - 279 498 777 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6:00 PM - - - - - - - - - 275 344 619 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7:00 PM - - - - - - - - - 169 190 359 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8:00 PM - - - - - - - - - 121 143 264 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9:00 PM - - - - - - - - - 66 90 156 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10:00 PM - - - - - - - - - 32 30 62 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11:00 PM - - - - - - - - - 13 23 36 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6:00 AM - 9:00 AM - - - - - - - - - 849 681 1530 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3:00 PM - 6:00 PM - - - - - - - - - 1034 1481 2515 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6:00 AM - 7:00 PM - - - - - - - - - 4333 4871 9204 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12:00 AM - 12:00 AM - - - - - - - - - 4801 5415 10216 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - 47.0% 53.0% 100.0% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - AM Peak - - - - - - 8:00 AM 9:00 AM - - - - - -
PM Peak - - - - - - 3:00 PM 4:00 PM - - - - - -
7 Day Avg
Vehicle Volume Report - Hourly
03/07/2024
03/07/2024
Time
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 3 Day Avg 5 Day Avg 3/10/24 Tue-Thu Mon-Fri Mon-Sun 3/11/24 3/12/24 3/13/24 3/7/24 3/8/24 3/9/24 0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500 Northbound / Eastbound Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
Southbound / Westbound Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

Page 1 ends

Capitola City CouncilFebruary 13, 2025

Capitola City Council
February 13, 2025