REVISED 2/19/2025 5:12 PM
City of Capitola
Special City Council Meeting Agenda
Wednesday, February 19, 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 Closed Session – 6 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.
1. Roll Call
Council Members Gerry Jensen, Margaux Morgan, Melinda Orbach, Vice Mayor Alexander Pedersen, and Mayor Joe Clarke
2. Oral Communications by Members of the Public
Oral Communications allows time for members of the Public to address the City Council regarding the Closed Session item below. 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. Additional Materials - Item 3A - Correspondence Received
3. Closed Session Items
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Govt. Code § 54956.9(d)(2) One Case
4. Report on Closed Session
5. Adjournment - The City Council will hold a special meeting on February 26, 2025, at 5:30 PM. _____________________________________________________
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. 1 Special City Council Meeting Agenda – February 19, 2025 City of Capitola Page 2
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 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. 2 1
Gautho, Julia
From: Bill Gray <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 2:25 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Members of the Council
I am unable to attend tonite's meeting owing to personal conflicts and lateness of notification. However, if I had, these would be the points I would have raised:
1. If the Council votes to ignore Measure L, two outcomes are clear: There will be recall petitions filed for those members chosing to vote against the will of the voters, and residents like me will either file suit or join ongoing litigation. I would expect the outcome would tie up the project for 5-10 years.
2. By voting against the will of the people, you will be tearing this comminity apart. Please do not do that.
Sincerely,
William H. GRAY, PhD
1440 Prospect Ave
Capitola
3 Item 2 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: John <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 11:23 AM
To: City Council; Gautho, Julia
Subject: Closed Session 2/19
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello Neighbors
Spent a lot of my life around corporate lawyers in NYC, London, DC, Boston, LA and Sacramento. I recognize the name Fenton and Keller. Don’t let their boutique scale fool you, they are power brokers.
Pretty sure one of the Panetta’s runs it.
In our current budget crisis after years of unfortunate choices, and litigation on the rent control for mobile home leases, we can’t afford to challenge what we shouldn’t challenge anyway. Measure L is clear. All the rail votes are clear. Rail Trail on the corridor. Fully diverting it through Capitola is just silly.
There is an 103M portion of an ATP grant has to be spent on rail trail this cycle. Segments 13-15 are unlikely to happen for over a decade with funding gaps and estimated costs.
Let’s just skip segment 11 for now like we are 13-15 (maybe even 12 &16) and advocate for trail over the trestle on the corridor which is easily doable even now y’all, especially if Capitola insists we deserve a Class I rail trail too.
This myth that we have to do what the state says only applies if you add in, if we are local politicians enriching ourselves. If you aren’t looking for an ED position like Alex and Yvette got soon after joining council you can easily focus on local interests over state with no consequences.
Warmly JM
4 Item 2 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Susan Westman <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 11:19 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Special City Council Meeting
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mayor and Council Member,
I received a notice that the Council is holding a special meeting tonight to discuss potential litigation. I am not an attorney and cannot offer legal advice. However, I can say that Measure L was voted on by the citizens of Capitola, and the majority clearly indicated that they did not want the RTC to run a bicycle/pedestrian trail through Capitola Village. Instead, they wanted the trail to remain on the train corridor and go over the trestle. We were assured by the RTC and FORT that there was sufficient room for both a trail and a rail.
It seems unfortunate that the Council is now considering spending a significant amount of money on litigation because some Council Members prefer a trail through the Village. Wouldn’t it be much simpler to take Measure L back to the voters and let them decide? Shouldn’t you be representing what is best for Capitola, not the RTC?
Sincerely,
Susan Westman
5 Item 2 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Kevin Maguire <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 4:58 PM
To: City Council; Gautho, Julia; Goldstein, Jamie ([email protected]) Subject: Special City Council meeting - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION : Potential Measure L Violations Regarding Park Avenue Traffic Calming and Rail Trail Diversion Dear Members of the Capitola City Council,
I am writing to express serious concerns regarding potential violations of Measure L, particularly in relation to the ongoing discussions and actions surrounding the Park Avenue Traffic Diet and the rail trail's alignment.
As you know, Measure L was approved by voters to ensure the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line is preserved for future rail use while allowing for the development of the Coastal Rail Trail alongside it. The intent of Measure L is clear: the rail corridor should be used primarily for rail service, with the trail remaining within the rail right-of-way (ROW) to preserve continuity and safety for pedestrians and cyclists.
Diverting the trail out of the rail ROW onto Park Avenue constitutes a violation of Measure L, as it fundamentally alters the trail’s alignment and shifts it away from its designated space.
I understand that City staff and the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) have been actively engaging in efforts to calm traffic and implement traffic diets on Park Avenue.
However, these efforts, which include moving the rail trail onto Park Avenue's ROW, could be viewed as a diversion of the trail—a move that runs counter to the provisions of Measure L, which clearly stipulates that the trail must remain within the rail corridor.
The diversion of the trail, will have long-term implications for the project’s goals and for the public’s trust in the integrity of the Measure L framework. It will no longer offer the continuous, safe, and uninterrupted path originally promised to the community, impacting both pedestrian safety and the overall experience of the trail. Diversion is in the same ball park as a detour. regardless routing the trail through Capitola will be a fatal decision. As there is no dedicated bike lanes, conflicts with vehicles, and would require removing all parking on Capitola Ave to provide a safe passage..
City of Capitola has an ADA Transition Plan and the RTC Option A and B both violate Title II.
Moreover, I would like to bring attention to the ongoing recall effort for Councilmember Pedersen, who is also on the RTC Board. Councilmember Pedersen had to recuse himself from voting on the Park Avenue traffic diet due to a conflict of interest. This raises serious concerns about the appropriateness of his involvement in decisions related to the rail trail and the broader transportation planning process.
The recall effort is a clear signal from the community that the actions of certain council members are not in alignment with the will of the Capitola citizens.
Should the council proceed with ignoring the will of the people, this recall effort will likely gain momentum, and the citizens of Capitola will continue to take action. It’s also important to note that if the council ignores Measure L and diverts the trail off the rail corridor, the city could face significant 6 Item 2 A.
2 legal consequences, including a lawsuit. There is real potential for violations of Measure L to be accounted for, and the city could be held accountable for acting against voter intent.
I respectfully request that the City Council reconsider these efforts and ensure that Measure L's provisions are upheld. Specifically, I urge the City to:
1. Reevaluate the alignment of the rail trail and ensure it stays within the designated rail corridor as stipulated in Measure L.
2. Cease any actions or plans that would divert or permanently move the trail out of the rail right-ofway, particularly onto Park Avenue.
3. Seek further legal counsel to ensure compliance with Measure L and avoid any potential violations.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I trust that the City Council will act in the best interest of the community and honor the intentions of Measure L.
Sincerely,
Kevin Maguire
Cliffwood Heights - Capitola
7 Item 2 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Jim MacKenzie <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 11:59 AM
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Possible Spam Rail Trail alignment through Capitola City of Capitola Mayor Clarke and Councilmembers Jensen, Morgan, Orbach, and Pederson:
As Capitola City Councilmembers, you are undoubtedly already aware of the informaƟon I am providing below regarding Rail Trail Segment 11, the trail's alignment through Capitola, and the validity of Measure L. Regardless, I am providing this informaƟon as background for my suggesƟons to you regarding your pending decision to either approve or reject the RTC’s two-opƟon proposal for Trail Segment 11’s alignment along Park Avenue, rather than physically restricƟng it to the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line (SCBRL) corridor.
First, regarding the Rail Trail alignment through the City of Capitola, page 4-51 of the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail (MBSST) Master Plan, released in 2013, states the following in its descripƟon of Trail Segment 11, which runs through the City of Capitola (I have bolded some of that text for emphasis):
"The rail right-of-way heading down the coast toward Capitola along Cliff Drive has diagonal parking spaces that encroach from Cliff Drive, on the coastal side of the tracks, and steep sloping grades up to an exisƟng pedestrian overlook adjacent to Prospect Avenue on the inland side of the tracks. This stretch will need retaining walls or to be rerouted with grade changes to accommodate the trail on the inland side of the tracks. The greatest challenge in this segment is the rail trestle crossing of Soquel Creek. The current rail trestle passes through a historic district. There are current discussions about improvements to this bridge trestle due to structural condiƟons. Coastal trail access through this area will need to conƟnue on exisƟng surface streets and sidewalks to cross Soquel Creek and navigate through Capitola Village. Future plans for the rail trestle replacement should include a new bike/pedestrian facility in the bridge design. This crossing could also consider an iconic bike and pedestrian bridge that will span the five hundred- (500-) footlong Soquel Creek crossing. This iconic bridge will require intricate design soluƟons to accommodate the fooƟngs and superstructure in the severely limited space below the bridge. The cost for this larger iconic bridge structure has not yet been determined and does not appear in this Master Plan." On April 9, 2015, the Capitola City Council voted 4 to 1 in favor of adopƟng the MBSST Master Plan, including the language quoted above.
But in 2018, the passage of a "Greenway Capitola"–funded ballot iniƟaƟve that applied only to the city of Capitola, "Measure L, Greenway,” fundamentally prohibited the rouƟng of a bicycle/pedestrian trail along the streets and sidewalks of Capitola, seemingly negaƟng the language of the 2013 MBSST Master Plan the Capitola City Council had already approved.
The ballot quesƟon posed by Measure L was as follows:
8 Item 2 A.
2 "Shall the Capitola Municipal Code be amended to direct Capitola consƟtuent departments to take all steps necessary to preserve and maintain the Capitola segment of the Santa Cruz Regional TransportaƟon Commission's Rail Corridor and Trestle over Soquel Creek for bicyclists, pedestrians and other human powered transportaƟon, and to prohibit expenditures to route bicyclists, pedestrians and other human powered transportaƟon from the rail corridor to Capitola streets and sidewalks?"
It is clear to me that the language and intent of Measure L, which passed by a slim 200-vote margin, was in direct conflict with both the spirit and leƩer of the 2013 MBSST Master Plan that the City of Capitola had, in good faith, adopted only three years earlier.
It should be noted here that there was no language within Measure L staƟng that, if approved by voters, it would rescind or reverse the Council’s previous adopƟon of the MBSST Master Plan. It should also be noted that the one Capitola city councilmember opposing approval of the MBSST Master Plan in 2015, Stephanie Harlan, reversed her posiƟon and later signed both the RebuƩal to Argument in Favor of Measure L and the Argument Against Measure L in the November 2018 elecƟon voter’s guide.
Currently, two trail alignment opƟons, designed in accordance with the language and intent of the MBSST Master Plan, for placing the Rail Trail along Park Avenue have been proposed by the Santa Cruz County Regional TransportaƟon Commission (RTC) and Santa Cruz County Planning. Both of these opƟons were presented at the Capitola City Council meeƟng of February 14, 2025.
According to the RTC, the City of Capitola would incur ZERO expense whether either of these two opƟons are executed; the project is fully funded. In other words, consistent with Measure L, no City of Capitola resources would be required to route the Rail Trail along Park Avenue. Even so, some Capitolans and other county residents cited Measure L as a reason to reject these proposed trail-alignment opƟons. One speaker, ciƟng Measure L, even threatened to take legal acƟon if either of the RTC’s proposals were accepted.
But does Measure L preclude the Council from considering RTC’s proposals for aligning Rail Trail Segment 11 along Park Avenue?
The Capitola city aƩorney, in his 2018 imparƟal analysis of Measure L, provided this legal perspecƟve: "The Rail Corridor and Trestle are owned by the Santa Cruz County Regional TransportaƟon Commission (RTC). In 2013, aŌer a mulƟ-year process with extensive public input, RTC adopted the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail Master Plan (Master Plan), establishing the proposed alignment for the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail Network, including the Coastal Rail Trail and associated spur trails. 'Segment 11' of the Rail Trail would run along the rail right-of-way approximately 3.2 miles down the coast from Jade Street Park to State Park Drive, diverƟng onto surface streets through Capitola Village to bypass the Trestle. Although contemplated as part of a future project, the Master Plan does not include funding for building the Rail Trail across the Trestle due to cost and exisƟng structural condiƟons. In 2015, the Capitola City Council adopted the Master Plan, which is contemplated by and consistent with several policies enumerated in Capitola’s General Plan, adopted in 2014, the 'Bicycle TransportaƟon Plan,' adopted in 2011 and Local Coastal Plan, adopted in 1981."
9 Item 2 A.
3 In his imparƟal analysis of Measure L, the city aƩorney went on to state: "The measure raises a number of legal concerns, including: First, whether it proposes a legislaƟve act, or merely directs administraƟve or execuƟve acƟons, which are generally not subject to iniƟaƟve or referendum; Second, whether the Measure’s terms are too vaguely defined and ambiguous to be enforceable; Third, whether its restricƟons on expenditure of funds improperly interfere with the City Council’s authority over the City’s fiscal affairs. For these reasons the measure may be vulnerable to a legal challenge as to its validity.”
I encourage the Capitola City Council to move forward as soon as possible to approve one of the two Park Avenue trail alignment opƟons presented by the RTC and County Planning at the council meeƟng of Febuary 13, 2025. These plans were developed in accordance with recommendaƟons for Trail Segment 11 set forth in the 2013 Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail Master Plan, which was adopted by the Capitola City Council on April 9, 2015 — three years prior to the passage of Measure L.
The stated fact that the City of Capitola would need to expend ZERO city resources on the execuƟon of either of these plans seems to be in complete compliance with Measure L’s fiscal requirements.
Regarding the first condiƟon of Measure L — restricƟon of “bicycles, pedestrians, and other human-powered transportaƟon" to the SCBRL corridor and off the streets and sidewalks of Capitola — it would be advisable to consult the city aƩorney regarding the legality of aligning Trail Segment 11 along Park Avenue, considering both the potenƟal legal invalidity of Measure L and also Measure L’s inconsistency with the MBSST Master Plan, which had been approved in both leƩer and spirit by the Capitola City Council in 2015, three years prior to the passage of Measure L.
I also ask you to consider a potenƟally major consequence of not approving trail alignment along Park Avenue. The RTC is in no way obligated to comply with Measure L and place a bicycle/pedestrian trail on the Capitola Trestle, which the RTC owns. Without adopƟng one of the two Park Avenue trail alignment opƟons, the City of Capitola may be physically disconnected from the Rail Trail, forcing any cyclists to use what ever means possible — on the streets or sidewalks, safely or not — to traverse Capitola Village to exit and re-enter the trail. The physical exclusion of the City of Capitola from the otherwise conƟguous Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail would be a loss to Capitola Village businesses, residents of Capitola, and visitors.
Thank you for your consideraƟon.
Jim MacKenzie
Santa Cruz, California
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
MBSST Master Plan:
hƩps://sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/MBSST-NETWORK-FULL_MASTER_PLAN.pdf ImparƟal analysis of Greenway's Measure L (November 2018):
hƩps://www.cityofcapitola.org/sites/default/files/fileaƩachments/city_administraƟon/page/15591/measure_l_imparƟal _analysis.pdf
10 Item 2 A.
4 Measure L - Capitola Greenway IniƟaƟve, Santa Cruz County ElecƟons Department hƩps://votescount.santacruzcountyca.gov/Home/PastElecƟons/November6,2018CaliforniaGeneralElecƟon/Nov18localm easures/L-CAPgreenway1118.aspx
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
11 Item 2 A.
12 Item 3 A.
13 Item 3 A.
14 Item 3 A.
15 Item 3 A.