Agenda packet — Capitola City Council, April 17, 2025 (part 2 of 2)

v1.3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

ATP APPLICATION FORM
LAPG 25-U (REV 05/2022) Coastal Rail Trail Segments 10 and 11 5-Santa Cruz County-1
Part A3: Project Type
PROJECT TYPE: (Use the drop down menu to select.) Infrastructure + NI - Large Infrastructure + NI - Large Will construction funds be requested for this project?
* Large Projects are not required to request construction funds Yes No
Explain when and what funds are proposed to fund the construction phase.

Should this project be awarded funding, construction is expected to start in spring/summer 2025 and last approximately 18 months. A combination of ATP Cycle 6 funds and local Measure D Active Transportation funds from the Regional Transportation Commission will fund the construction and noninfrastructure programming included in this application.

Indicate any of the following plans that your agency currently has: (Check all that apply) Bicycle Plan Pedestrian Plan Safe Routes to School Plan Active Transportation Plan None Other plans that include Bicycle and/or Pedestrian Improvements RTP, Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail Master Plan Is your project in a current Plan? Yes No
PROJECT SUB-TYPE (check all Project Sub-Types that apply):

Bicycle Transportation % of Project 50 %
Pedestrian Transportation % of Project 50 %
Safe Routes to School (Also fill out Bicycle and Pedestrian Sub-Type information above) For a project to qualify for Safe Routes to School designation, the project must directly increase safety and convenience for public school students to walk and/or bike to school. Safe Routes to Schools infrastructure projects must be located within two miles of a public school or within the vicinity of a public school bus stop and the students must be the intended beneficiaries of the project. For Safe Routes to School non-infrastructure, the program must benefit school students/parents and primarily be based at the school.

Safe Routes for Seniors
Safe Routes for Seniors projects increase walking, biking, and safety among older adults and create routes that connect to activities that improve quality of life.

Trails (Multi-use and Recreational): (Also fill out Bicycle and Pedestrian Sub-Type information above) Do you feel a portion of your project is eligible for federal Recreational Trail funding? Yes No If yes, estimate the total project costs that are eligible for the Recreational Trail funding: $67,600,000 If yes, estimate the % of the total project costs that serve “transportation” uses? 100 % Applicants intending to pursue “Recreational Trails Program funding” must submit the required information to the California Department of Parks and Recreation prior to the ATP application submissions deadline. (See the Application Instructions for details) *Recreational Trail funding can only fund work outside of the roadway Right-of-way.

Fill out the school information only if you selected the Safe Routes to school project sub-type option above.

How many schools does the project impact/serve: 10
For each school benefited by the project: 1) Fill in the school and student information; and 2) Include the required attachment information.
309
Item 2 B.
1 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To: Kailash Mozumder and Steve Jesberg, City of Capitola From: Derek Wu P.E. and Frederik Venter P.E., Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Date: May 26, 2022
Re: Park Avenue Traffic Calming – Corridor Alternatives and Recommended Improvements This technical memorandum presents the findings of potential traffic calming impacts to Park Avenue in the City of Capitola. The City of Capitola (City) is planning to construct traffic calming improvements on Park Avenue from Monterey Avenue to Coronado Street to reduce vehicle speeds and improve accessibility for bicyclists and pedestrians along the corridor.

1. Existing Conditions
Park Avenue between Monterey Avenue and Coronado Street is an existing east-west two-lane arterial facility with a curb to curb roadway width between approximately 30 to 40 feet. It is an asphalt paved road with one lane in each direction and provides direct access to single-family homes on the north side, the City’s downtown village to the south, and freeway access to Highway 1 to the north. Numerous residential driveways and local streets, such as Washburn and Cabrillo, intersect Park Avenue as stop control on the minor approach. This section of Park Avenue is also part of the Pacific Coast bike route that runs from Half Moon Bay to Watsonville.

The Park Avenue roadway cross-section generally consists of 10.5-foot travel lanes, Class II bike lanes, a 5-foot wide sidewalk on the northside, and a variable wide shoulder on the southside. On-street parking is prohibited along Park Avenue except for signed areas on the southside. The posted speed limit is 25 mph, and an existing electronic speed feedback sign is located east of Cabrillo Street in the eastbound direction. An overview map of the study roadway segment is shown below in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Overview Map
Park Ave
310
Item 2 B.
2 2. Speed Survey Review
Speed zones are primarily established to protect the public from the unreasonable behavior of reckless, unreliable, or other dangerous drivers. Typically, speed limits are generally established at or near the 85th percentile speed (critical speed), which is defined as the speed at or below which 85 percent of traffic is moving.

In January 2020, the City conducted an Engineering and Traffic Study to determine vehicle speed limits per the California Vehicle Code and using speed survey data. For Park Avenue, the observed 85th percentile speed was 31 mph in the eastbound and westbound direction. The study recommended that a 25 mph speed limit be implemented in concurrence with the MUTCD. The 25 mph speed limit was obtained by a 5 mph reduction of the critical speed of 30 mph due to the existing number of access points, residential district density, and pedestrian and bicycle safety.

In July 2021, an additional speed survey was conducted. The speed survey collected an average daily traffic of 6,294 using tube counters to calculate vehicle speeds traveling along Park Avenue. The observed 85th percentile speed was 33 mph in the eastbound direction and 35 mph in the westbound direction. These observed 85th percentile speeds exceed the 25-mph posted speed limit on Park Avenue. A copy of the 2020 and 2021 speed surveys are attached in the Appendix.

3. Traffic Calming Design Alternatives
Kimley-Horn was tasked to evaluate potential traffic calming alternatives on Park Avenue that would reduce vehicle speeds and improve roadway conditions for bicycle and pedestrian access. Georeferenced aerial photographs and Santa Cruz County GIS data were used to establish a base map for determining existing topographic features and developing preliminary concepts.

Up to three (3) alternative traffic calming concepts were developed for Park Avenue between Monterey Road and Coronado Street. The layouts of each traffic calming alternative are summarized below and attached in the Appendix.

Alternative 1 – Road Diet Striping
Improvements under Alternative 1 consist of striping buffer bike lanes and narrowing the vehicle traffic lanes enhance bicycle accessibility along Park Avenue. The existing Park Avenue roadway cross-section between Monterey and Cabrillo is 30’ to 34’ wide. Since this arterial facility needs to maintain Class II bike lanes and one vehicle travel lane in each direction, there is limited space and opportunities to introduce multiple traffic calming features. However, a road diet striping layout that incorporates green bike markings and buffer bike striping where there is adequate space is feasible. In addition, an electronic speed feedback sign in the westbound direction is proposed at the Washburn intersection. • Road diet striping from Monterey to Coronado
• Buffered Class II bike lanes and green bike striping at conflict zones • Speed feedback sign at Washburn
311
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: yarmi74 <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2025 1:53 PM
To: City Council
Subject: YES on the Rail Trail!!
I support the construction of a wide, safe, separated, protected Rail Trail next to Park Avenue and am looking forward to using it. Please vote YES in support of the Rail Trail to increase alternative transportation connecting Capitola and Santa Cruz.

Thank you for your consideration!
Amy Thompson
Santa Cruz resident
312
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Moose <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2025 2:03 PM
To: City Council
Subject: The Rail Trail option B!
Hey city council and the mayor of Capitola. I like opƟon B and A is also preƩy good. Please vote for this and get it done so we can move forward. There’s a lot of malarkey flying around this Rail Trail we voted for I think twice in this county posiƟvely And people keep trying to screw it up!! let’s go forward with the Rail Trail thank you very much.

Morris Mitchell.
313
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Bill Gray <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2025 2:30 PM
To: City Council
Subject: UpComing Public Hearing on Park Ave Routing of Trail Traffic As a longterm Capitola resident, I object to the entire process. As I understand the chronology, it is: the RR tracks, trestle, and road system are pre-existing; the RTC purchased or otherwise gained legal control over the RR; City of Capitola voters passed Measure L forbidding the City to use any resources to relocate trail traffic to City streets - a proxy for keeping trail traffic on the trestle; and the RTC proposes to relocate trail traffic to Park Ave in violation on Measure L.

You may not like the wording of Measure L, but you all know what the will of the people is. End of story.

Should any of you chose to vote contrary to the will of the residents, you will be responsible for tearing this community apart. Please do not do that. Let's work to heal this country, starting here in Capitola, not pit neighbor against neighbor.

Thank you for listening,
Bill Gray
1440 Prospect Ave
Capitola
314
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Eva Brunner <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2025 4:43 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Rail and Trail Project - Choose Option A or B
Hello Capitola City Council Members -
I support the rail and trail project. I understand that the .7 mile segment through Capitola is controversial and confusing to some folks. I fully support Options A and B. I hope that you do too. The fact that neither option A or B will require funding from the City of Capitola. My preference is option B, but I support option A as well.

I look forward to completion of each segment of the trail over time. I look forward to using this section of the trail in the future. I also look forward to using the train when that day comes.

Thank you.

Eva Brunner
Santa Cruz, CA
--

Eva Brunner
Bookkeeping services & consulting
for small business and non-profit organizations
Serving Santa Cruz since 1990
315
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Joe Williams <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2025 5:44 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Coastal Rail Trail Segments 10 & 11
Dear City Council Members,
I am a Live Oak resident living near 38th & Brommer on Garden St. The rail corridor is right around the corner from me.

I am employed by Dominican Hospital, a voting delegate on the Monterey Bay Central Labor Council and President of the Board of Directors at the Resource Center for Nonviolence.

I am writing to urge you to accept RTC's Option A at your Thursday 4/17 council meeting as the best solution for this segment of the rail trail.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best regards,
Joe Williams
.
316
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: mj slade <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2025 6:00 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Please move forward with option B or A
Hello,
I am a long time resident of Rio Del Mar and would love to see a rail and trail option, with no rail banking.

Please choose option B or A. Both options provide affordability and will remain within budget. Both options provide a fully seperated raised class 1 trail w a 3 foot buffer offering a safe route between Depot Hill and New Brighton state beach. This will offer spectacular views of Monterey Bay and will beautify the area even more. Option B is shifted further inland , leaving more habitat for the monarch butterfly with no cost to Capitola. This important section links Capitola to Seacliff, Rio Del Mar & Aptos.

I agree w residents of Capitola that do not want ebikes in the village. The trestle bridge will need to be rebuilt, but state and federal funds will be required for such a major transportation asset.

Safe active transportation is critical to our shared future. I greatly appreciate the work of Capitola City Council, city staff, county employees and especially the RTC for their diligence in creating our Coastal Rail Trail.

Please vote to proceed...successful completion of this project is contingent on moving forward with the fully funded plan that will benefit the entire community for generations. Failure to advance will jeopardize funding.

Thank you!
With respect for you and our future,
Maryjane Slade
Rio Del Mar
317
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Jonah Henry <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2025 8:42 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Re: Public comment for meeting on April 17, 2025 Good evening,
Could you please make sure that my comment is entered into the record as received correspondence? I do not see it in the current agenda packet.

Thanks,
Jonah
On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 9:22 PM Jonah Henry <[email protected]> wrote:

Mayor Clarke, Vice Mayor Pederson, and City Council Members Jensen, Morgan, and Orbach, I was not able to attend the April 2 special meeting in person but I watched the video recording online and have reviewed the February 13 staff report. Thank you for hosting the meeting and for making these materials accessible.

I am emailing to ask that you please vote yes to approve the trail alongside Park Avenue. As someone who relies on the bus and biking to get around Santa Cruz County, protected bike lanes like these make my commute safer, faster, and less stressful. In addition, as other community members have already addressed, I am concerned that the City's failure to approve this segment of the rail trail could potentially threaten the County's eligibility for the $67.6 million state grant for segments 10-11 of the rail trail. This is a loss that County residents would rue for generations to come. I respect that the City Council wants to examine this issue as carefully as possible before reaching its final conclusion, but I think it is clear now that the benefits outweigh the costs. The delays cannot continue any longer; I ask that you please vote yes today. Thank you for considering my input.

Sincerely,
Jonah Henry (he/him)
318
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Bennett Williamson <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2025 9:25 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Vote yes on the Rail Trail on the 17th
Dear Capitola City Council -
I urge you to vote to approve the Rail Trail at your special meeting on April 17th.

Capitola has a charming, walkable, and beautiful downtown, and while I live nearby in the County I rarely visit, as the traffic congestion from cars detracts from the experience and makes it frustrating to get in and out. By contrast, I have really enjoyed biking (and taking the bus, and walking, and riding BCycle) into and around Capitola. Those have been the times that I have stayed and spent my money at Mijo's and enjoyed the ocean views.

The Rail Trail will bring more people like me to spend our dollars in Capitola without adding to the car congestion that is in the village today. This unprecedented $67 million dollar grant - literally the largest Active Transportation Grant ever awarded by California - is an incredible opportunity that you should not refuse, especially given the uncertainty of Federal and State funding under the current administration.

Please vote Yes!
- Bennett Williamson
Santa Cruz County District 5
319
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Forest, Karl ([email protected])
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2025 9:30 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Please Vote Yes on Rail Trail Option
Hello,
My name is Karl Forest and I live at 516 Oak Dr in Capitola. I would like to advocate for the City Council to approve the RTC’s recommendation to move the trail portion of the trail from the Village along Park Avenue so it is between Park Ave and the existing line. This means changing the original plan to add the trail alongside the tracks on the ocean side.

This would cost less, better connect the Village and Cliffwood Heights, and would impact the butterfly habitat less. The trail will be separated from the road, and of the two options, it seems removing bikes from the road entirely and having them ride the trail seems the safer option.

As I understand it, this option would also lessen encroachment impacts with properties along the right of way.

As I understand Measure L, it was designed to stop Capitola from participating in relocating the trail from the rail on the trestle. This was designed to try to stop the rail at a key point in the path and to force bike traffic onto Village streets. That intent has nothing to do with this portion of the rail/trail.

If the city needs to donate a small bit of land to accomplish this, it seems like a win for our community. We also need to show leadership for the county; time and time again county residents, including Capitola residents, have supported the rail/trail concept. Capitola should do its part to contribute.

Please vote yes on one of the options presented to you on Thursday night. To vote no seems to me to be shirking our community’s responsibility to the rest of Santa Cruz County, and to be playing into the hands of a minority of wealthy residents who have one goal in mind: to tear out the rails now.

Thank you for your consideration.

Karl Forest
320
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Nanou <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 8:29 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I’m a Capitola resident—Vote YES on the trail and Keep the Rail Dear Capitola City Council,
As a resident of Capitola, I am writing to strongly encourage you to vote YES on the construction of the trail for our community. This project will provide safe, easy, and accessible recreation and transportation options for residents of all ages.

I also urge the council not to get involved in an expensive and unnecessary legal battle over control of the rail line, which the city does not own. Such a fight would be a waste of Capitola’s limited resources—resources that would be far better spent on projects that directly benefit our residents, like the trail.

Please support the trail and keep Capitola’s focus on what matters most: improving the quality of life for everyone in our city.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Anne Guionnet
Capitola Resident since 2010
321
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Alfred carlson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 10:53 AM
To: Alfred Carlson; Kahn, Jessica; City Council; GERRY JENSEN Subject: Re: RAIL/ TRAIL SPECIAL MEETING
LET'S DO IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME. GOING THROUGH TOWN AND REPLACE THE

STOCKTON BRIDGE WOULD BE MORE EXPRESSIVE THAN DONG IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME

BY UPGRADING THE RAILROAD BRIDGE AND ADDING THE TRAIL TO SIDE OF R/R BRIDGE LIKE SANTA CRUZ DID. AL CARLSON
Capitola City Council to weigh in on contested
rail trail design at special meeting
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Author
By PK Hattis | [email protected] | Santa Cruz Sentinel 322
Item 2 B.
2 PK Hattis
PK reports on health, transportation and the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors for the Sentinel. He was bor...

PUBLISHED: April 14, 2025 at 3:07 PM PDT
CAPITOLA — After a two-month delay, the stage has been set for Capitola leaders to weigh in on the design of a multi-use trail that traverses the cityscape.

At a special meeting set for 5:15 p.m. Thursday, the Capitola City Council will choose where it would like a pair of Coastal Rail Trail segments stretching 4.5 miles across the city to be placed.

Segments 10 and 11 of the rail trail project, spearheaded by Santa Cruz County in partnership with the county Regional Transportation Commission, move from 17th Avenue in Live Oak to State Park Drive in Aptos and are part of a larger trail network that is planned to span the entire county and region.

But for the county to secure a $67.6 million Active Transportation Program grant it was previously awarded by the California Transportation Commission, it must finalize the design and put in a request for construction funding. And while that request doesn’t need to be submitted until April 2027, the final design, permitting, utility coordination and rightof-way agreements are laborious enough to require about 24 months of work.

Two possible alignments for Capitola’s trail segments along Park Avenue have been proposed by city staff in consultation with the county and transportation commission, but both would result in a new 12-foot-wide trail along the coastal side of the roadway, separated by a 5-foot buffer.

The recommended first option, referred to in the staff report as “option A,” preserves the existing bicycle lane on the inland side of the thoroughfare with a dedicated space for onstreet cyclists heading toward Capitola Village, according to the staff report. On the other hand, option B eliminates the inland bicycle lane to reduce construction costs and minimize tree removals. Either alignment also requires construction of a new pedestrian rail crossing at Coronado Street.

The video player is currently playing an ad. You can skip the ad in 5 sec with a mouse or keyboard
But there’s a third option that has been the subject of much public debate and scrutiny.

The City Council reviewed similar Park Avenue designs at a Feb. 13 meeting, but it decided to punt the decision after a contingent of city and county residents arrived at the meeting in protest of the choices. They did so on the basis of Measure L, passed by Capitola voters in 2018.
323
Item 2 B.
3 Capitola City Council takes look at rail trail
segments, roundabout alon...

Planning at a couple of high-profile transportation corridors in Capitola will be scrutinized this week by city ...

The measure added a section to city code, Chapter 8.72 Greenway Capitola Corridor, encouraging development of the trail within the rail line corridor, according to city staff.

But those against the Park Avenue plans contend that it’s more than just encouragement, and they demand that the planning involves placement of the trail in the rail corridor.

However, planners say this poses a problem, especially at the aging Capitola Trestle, which is not included in the segment 10 and 11 design or funding plans. A cantilevered pedestrian or bicycle path attached to the trestle is infeasible, according to the staff report, and if a trail was planned on it, it would require an estimated $7 million investment in repair and construction work previously detailed in a 2021 study.

Any repurposing of the trestle would also require railbanking, an elaborate process managed by the federal Surface Transportation Board with an aim to temporarily repurpose the rail corridor.

If the council declines to approve the Park Avenue alignment, according to the staff report, the county is likely to pursue a previously studied route along a coastal bluff. This will bring with it engineering and construction challenges that carry significantly higher financial burdens and fewer neighborhood connections, among other things.

Still, that is the option that is likeliest to get a serious look because if the section of trail running 0.7 miles through Capitola is removed entirely from planning, it disrupts the broader trail’s network — something state authorities have cautioned would jeopardize the $67.6 million grant that makes the project possible.

After the February delay, the city staff organized a town hall to further engage with the public about the Park Avenue alignments. The event drew a crowd and provoked at least 400 questions from more than 170 community members.
324
Item 2 B.
4 At the request of the council, some kind of discussion or clarification of Measure L has also been agendized for the Thursday meeting.

If you go
What: Special Capitola City Council meeting.

When: 5:15 p.m. Thursday.

Where: 420 Capitola Ave.

Why: Park Avenue alignment for Coastal Rail Trail segments 10 and 11. 


Around the Web
325
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Mark Block <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 11:05 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Rail Trail Segments 10 & 11
Dear Council Members,
We are writing to let you know of our strong opposition to the RTC's requested changes for segments 10 & 11 of the Coastal Rail Trail. As you know, these changes to the initial plans include diverting the trail off the Capitola trestle, taking pedestrians and bicyclists through the village, and moving the Park Avenue portion away from the rails onto the Park Ave. right of way. We attended the February council meeting as well as the follow up meeting the RTC sponsored at New Brighton Middle School. Unfortunately we were out of town for the April 2nd town hall. We are absolutely convinced there is no real safe way to implement these changes. We are very appreciative that council member Jerry Jensen insisted on more information at the February meeting and council members Margaux Morgan and Joe Clarke supported that. The definite feeling we had was that the RTC and the County were attempting to pressure the council and the whole community to quickly acquiesce and be done with it. I strongly urge you to reject these changes and keep the trail as originally planned. We have lived in Aptos, and now Capitola, for the last 43 years and are committed to keeping our community safe for all.

Thank You,
Gretchen Werner & Mark Block
Mark Block
[email protected]
326
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Hil <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 11:14 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Please consider….

Dear Mayor Clarke, Council members Orbach, Morgan, Jensen and Pedersen, For the safety and enhancement of the quality of life of county citizens and visitors both current and future, please Vote YES for Option A or Option B to allow the RTC Rail Trail project to proceed.

Thank you very much,
Hil Hamm
Santa Cruz, CA
327
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Jim MacKenzie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 11:37 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Capitola City Council Meeting, April 17, 2025: Park Avenue Alignment of the Coastal Rail Trail
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Mayor Clarke, Vice Mayor Pedersen, and Councilmembers Jensen, Morgan, and Ohrbach:

I strongly urge you to APPROVE either Option A or Option B of the SCCRTC’s proposed alignment of Segment 11 of the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail (MBSST) along Park Avenue, without fear of favor, and notwithstanding the numerous threats, veiled or overt, made by various members of the public during the Oral Communications period of your April 10, 2025, meeting.

These individuals included the principal sponsor of Greenway’s Capitola Measure L*, which, following its narrow passage by only 206 votes in 2018 became codified as Section 8.72 of the Capitola Municipal Code.

Threats included:
• Recall proceedings against any Capitola Councilmember who votes YES on the RTC’s Park Avenue trsil alignment;
• A lawsuit against the City of Capitola for not applying Section 8.72 of the Capitola Municipal Code to reject the RTC’s proposed Park Avenue trail alignments; • Lawsuits by residents of rail-adjacent Pine Tree Lane for something (not sure what).

I would like to add that this is not a vote for or against RTC’s passenger rail project. It is solely about approving a proposed alignment of the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail Segment 11 — a section of the California Coastal Trail, as established and codified as a statewide intiiative in the California Coastal Act(s) of the 1970s — alongside, and physically separated from, Park Avenue in the City of Capitola.

This is also not a vote having anything to do with the Capitola Rail Trestle.

No “promises” were ever made in the MBSST master plan, adopted by the Capitola City Council on April 9, 2015. to keep the all sections pf the MBSST completely within the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line right-ofway.

In fact, regarding trail alignment, the MBSST Master Plan (https://sccrtc.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/10/MBSST-NETWORK-FULL_MASTER_PLAN.pdf) stated the following in its Executive Summary (CAPs are mine, for emphasis):
328
Item 2 B.
2 "The spine, or primary alignment, of the MBSST Network will be built parallel to (not in place of) the operational rail line, within the rail right-of-way, TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE…” ………………
* Measure L was never really about “saving the trestle” — it was about forcing the RTC to route the MBSST onto the trestle, railbanking the rail right-of-way, and putting an end to passenger rail planning in Santa Cruz County.
329
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Jim MacKenzie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 12:13 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Capitola City Council Meeting, April 17, 2025: Park Avenue Alignment of the Coastal Rail Trail
To: Capitola City Council
From: Jim MacKenzie, resident of Santa Cruz
Mayor Clarke, Vice Mayor Pedersen, and Councilmembers Jensen, Morgan, and Ohrbach:

This is also not a vote having anything to do with the Capitola Rail Trestle.

In fact, regarding trail alignment, the MBSST Master Plan (https://sccrtc.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/10/MBSST-NETWORK-FULL_MASTER_PLAN.pdf) stated the following in its Executive Summary (CAPs are mine, for emphasis):
330
Item 2 B.
2 "The spine, or primary alignment, of the MBSST Network will be built parallel to (not in place of) the operational rail line, within the rail right-of-way, TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE…” ………………
* Measure L was never really about “saving the trestle” — it was about forcing the RTC to route the MBSST onto the trestle, railbanking the rail right-of-way, and putting an end to passenger rail planning in Santa Cruz County.
331
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Sasha Kramer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 12:53 PM
To: City Council
Subject: vote YES to support rail AND trail!
Hello,
I'm writing as a resident of 38th Ave to express my strongest support for allowing Santa Cruz County to build the already-funded Rail Train from Monterey & Park to New Brighton State Beach. We need a safer way to bike in our community, and a YES vote on this issue will allow residents to get to the beach safely while preserving the existing Rail Trail grant funding.

Please vote YES on this issue! I'm so excited to have a safe bike trail to get to the beach and enjoy our town without worrying about being hit by a car that's speeding and veering into the bike lane! Sasha Kramer
332
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: dreymerbizvideo2 <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 1:09 PM
To: City Council
Subject: No trail on Park avenue
Keep it on the tracks and do not violate what we, the voters have trusted you with...the law.

D Reymer
Sent from my Galaxy Tab A
333
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: J Lighthill <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 1:19 PM
To: City Council; Clarke, Joe; Pedersen, Alexander; Gerry Jensen; Margaux Morgan; Melinda Orbach
Subject: Path User Safety
Dear Capitola City Council Members,
Thank you for your commitment to keeping your community safe. RTC and County Staff have assured you that the proposed path diversion onto Park Ave would be safe but state and national active transportation planning guides suggest otherwise. “Bike paths immediately adjacent to streets and highways are not recommended.” They “are not a substitute for designing the road to meet bicyclist’s mobility needs….” “[M]any bicyclists will perceive these paths as offering a lower level of mobility compared with traveling on the road, particularly for utility trips.”(1) Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM) The width of this proposed shared-use path should be used “in very rare circumstances,” where “bicycle traffic is expected to be low….” and “pedestrian use of the facility is not expected to be more than occasional.” (2) American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
“…significant user conflict should be expected.”(3) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Removing existing active transportation infrastructure—one or both bike lanes and a sidewalk— and constructing one deficient shared-use path as a replacement cannot be considered a safety improvement.

Finally, please consider who is to assume responsibility for injuries sustained on a path that does not meet the design standards recommended by most state and national active transportation planning guides.

Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Johanna Lighthill
1) https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/chp1000-a11y.pdf 1003.1-1a, 1003.1-1b, 1003.1-7
2) https://njdotlocalaidrc.com/perch/resources/aashto-gbf-4-2012-bicycle.pdf 334
Item 2 B.
2 P. 5-3
3) https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/05138/05138.pdf p. 15
335
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Jim MacKenzie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 1:34 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Park Avenue alignment of the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail (aka Coastal Rail Trail) Segments 10 and 11
April 15, 2025
City of Capitola Mayor Clarke, Vice Mayor Pedersen, and Councilmembers Jensen, Morgan, and Ohrbach:

As a decades-long resident of the Westside of Santa Cruz and an avid walker, I use and enjoy the completed Segment 7 of the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail/California Coastal Trail (MBSST/CCT) almost every day — both for recreation and for practical errands. This trail has been a real boon to the Westside and is very popular with pedestrians, runners, cyclists, young families with children, as well as tourists and other visitors. I believe that completed Segments 10 and 11 of the MBSST/CCT would be just as beneficial to residents of, and visitors to, the City of Capitola, and I urge you to approve, without delay, the RTC’s and the county’s proposed plans for the Park Avenue alignment of the trail.

I look forward to using new sections of the MBSST/CCT in Capitola, which will connect New Brighton State Beach to Capitola.

I’m concerned that, if you do not approve the MBSST/CCT Park Avenue alignment, Capitola may lose the opportunity to be connected to the MBSST/CCT, which is the Santa Cruz County spine of the California Coastal Trail, which was established as part of the California Coastal Act of 1972.

Thank you for your consideration.

Jim MacKenzie
Santa Cruz
336
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Rebecca Raney <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 1:48 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Trail Alignment
Dear City Council Members,
I have for 7 years lived & owned a residence in Capitola at Brook Vale Terrace Modular Home Park just a few blocks from Gayle's Bakery, Depot Hill and The Village Esplanade.

I am writing now to register my opposition to moving the proposed bike trail off The Historic Trestle, to proceed down through The Village, already an area congested with vehicles (parked & not), bikes, locals, tourists & . . . dogs (usually leased!?).
**To what outcome would This Council agree to act unlawfully (to refute Measure L/ 8.72)? **Secondly, I'm disturbed that The Council also appears to be considering support of a trail reroute along Park Avenue, a narrow option for congruence of vehicular & human-powered transport, even after proposed slaughter of existing wealth of eucalyptus on its water side. **Simply put, please refute further time & monetary expenditures to promote, or even further examine, the unlawful, disruptive, unnecessary, & unpopular conclusions being erringly presented as reasonable & beneficial to Our Community,
Thank You.

Warmly,
Rebecca Raney
300 Plum St. #98
Capitola, CA 95010
337
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: terre thomas <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 2:09 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Resubmittal of Letter dated April 11th
I am resubmitting my letter so it will show up in the agenda packet for April 17th, as I will not be in town for the meeting.

Thank You, Terre Thomas
April 10, 2025
To: The City Council of Capitola CA
Re: RTC Desire to Have the Trail on Park Avenue

Dear Council Members,

I am Terre Thomas, a 52 year resident living on Park Avenue.

Since we will be out of town for the Special Council meeting on the 17th, I am here to voice my serious concerns about putting the proposed Option A or B RTC Trail on Park Avenue. Not only is Park Avenue a speed corridor, because it is rarely patrolled, but it already has a sidewalk and two bike lanes.

These Options will cause the loss of 26 parking spaces, and removal of nearly all the trees along the street. (They are home to owls, hawks, crows, and other birds, and frequented by osprey, eagles, and various floor dwellers.) That will obviously necessitate installing a retaining wall to keep the compromised hillside in place. So you may as well stick with the original plan of putting the Trail on the Coastal side of the tracks.

The Train proposal is getting more and more expensive, and might become operable maybe 30 years from now. Measure D funds are being eaten up by cost overruns on Highway 1. We don’t need more taxes or bond measures to pay these escalating prices, and the current federal government may not be inclined to contribute. I believe that buses would be a more precise alternative to train service to and from Watsonville.
338
Item 2 B.
2 At the April 3rd RTC meeting, which I listened to, it was directed by a board member that the staff come back soon with a full explanation of Rail Banking, hopefully at their next meeting May 1st here in Capitola.

I am asking, no begging, you to postpone any decision regarding placement of the Trail until the issue of Rail Banking is fully disclosed and resolved. It may be possible to Rail Bank the Trestle and Park Avenue, thus saving our town now from over congestion. Don’t let the RTC rush you in to making a decision because of their funding and timing issues. If that is the case, then I hope you decide to stick to the original plan of a Coastal Trail that has already been designed, and is in the EIR.

For the RTC to rush you, our representatives, to decide now, is not your problem. You must do what is best for Capitola, and that is to understand ALL the alternatives before you make a permanent decision.

Thank you for your consideration in doing the right thing for us.

339
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Luann Tommerdahl <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 3:06 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Please Support what we Voted for!
Dear Capitola City Counsel,
My husband and I have been long time residents of this beautiful area. A few years ago, we voted in favor of Prop. 30 so we could walk, ride our bikes and take the rail from Davenport to Monterey. We were excited that so many residents supported the idea and Prop 30 passed with flying colors! However, it saddens us that you continue to discuss alternate plans. What happened to what we voted for? The funds are there! It was agreed upon, correct? We would like to enjoy the rail, the bike path, and walk on it before we die. I teach in Aptos and was hoping I could ride my bike to work or if the weather is bad, ride the train. Is that ever going to happen? Please support what we voted for.

Thank you very much,
Luann Tommerdahl
340
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Suzanne Cochran <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 3:09 PM
To: City Council
Subject: DO NOT SUPPORT MOVING TRAIL ON PARK AVE and KEEP ALL TRAIL ON THE

CORRIDOR
City Council Members,
We need to take all steps necessary to preserve and utilize the Corridor and Trestle for active transportation and recreation that was voted on in Measure D. Also follow the Measure L law CMC 8.72 - Capitola can’t reroute or detour trail onto Capitola streets, including Park Ave and Capitola Village. PLEASE listen to the residence of Capitola and not outside influences including RTC, and FORT that will not be here to live or deal with any trail going through the village or on city streets. KEEP THE RAIL ON THE CORRIDOR AND wait until ZERT/ RTC rail budget study is complete in fall 2025. We do not need RTC taking over city owned property. They own the rail corridor and it should be used for rail and trail, not on our city property. We also need to keep our street safe. Another reason to keep the trail on the rail.

Regards,
Suzanne Cochran
Voter and Property Owner on Garnet Street
Sent from my iPhone
341
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Vern <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 3:15 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Concerns Regarding Rail Trail
To Whom it May Concern,
I voted for Rail Trail, and it passed by a great majority. It saddens that now a minority is holding up the construction of it. I feel very powerless that vote does not seem to count in this county. I do not understand what and why this is happening and would love to have an answer to this. I am writing this hoping that you will respect the decision of the voters. Please share with me the reason why you will not respect the will of the voters.

Thank you,
Vernon Caron
verncaron.com
342
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Clark Cochran <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 3:39 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Runaway Train
Dear Mayor and Council Members -
The more I learn about the RTC and it’s actual agenda the more alarmed and concerned I am for Capitola.

We want and voted for a trail and instead are getting a multi-billion dollar partially defined plan for a rail with trail. The RTC is not our friend and we must not bend our laws to help them achieve their evolving plan if it does not benefit Capitola as agreed in Measure L.

As a reminder, Measure L states we (a) agreed to preserve the RTC rail corridor and trestle over Soquel Creek for bicyclists, foot traffic, and other forms of non-motorized transportation, and (b) prohibit expenditures to reroute pedestrians and bicyclists from the corridor.

Don’t let the RTC threats to go over our heads if we don’t approve their plans that no longer adhere to Measure L and out city code.

BEFORE we agree on ANY path through our city we must have an agreed plan, especially over Soquel Creek. Otherwise the RTC will wait until everything else is decided and force their village trail plan. They claim a separate trail trestle doesn’t have sufficient right of way. They also claim there can’t be a rail with trail trestle because of required trestle inspections. Read the railroad inspection laws. It states ONE inspection each year. 364 days of trail use isn’t sufficient so the village route is required? Then what about our two rail stations? Riders aren’t going to walk to the train. Where will they park? How many spaces will be needed? The RTC has no plans.

We cannot incrementally bend and approve our way into a planned RTC box. Start now by voting NO on everything outside the corridor. Vote NO on both A and B. Don’t try to bend to RTC’s plans. Support your residents who voted for you to lead us. Tell the RTC to come back with plans that adhere to Measure L and our city law. Is this too much to ask?
The RTC is changing their own plans as they go. What changes will be next? STOP this runaway train now before it is too late for us.

Sincerely,
Clark Cochran
4530 Garnet Street
Capitola
343
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Peter Gibson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 3:52 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Please Make Existing Bike Lanes Safer In Capitola Village And Approve The RTC Option for Park Ave.

On 4/15/25, Gail Ortiz wrote an op-ed in which she opines that “Capitola voters passed Measure L to ensure that the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail (MBSST) would stay in the rail corridor and not be rerouted onto Capitol streets.” This point needs to be clarified.

First, the MBSST, released in 2013, said the following about the Capitola Trestle:

“Coastal trail access through [the rail corridor in Capitola] will need to continue on existing 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.”

On April 9, 2015, the Capitola City Council voted 4 to 1 in favor to adopt the MBSST Master Plan, especially the part that pertains to Capitola.

Second, on November 6, 2018, 2,526 (52%) of the votes cast that day in Capitola voted for Measure L, which was supported by Greenway Capitola. 2,320 (48%) of the votes were against Measure L. This is hardly an overwhelming mandate. However, Prior to the November election, the Capitola City Attorney issued an impartial legal analysis to the City Council, that said:

“[Measure L] expressly does not amend or rescind the General Plan, Local Coastal Program or Zoning Code, but rather states that it “shall be construed and harmonized in a manner to strengthen and define such provisions.” The measure raises a number of legal concerns, including: First, whether it proposes a legislative act, or merely directs administrative or executive actions, which are generally not subject to initiative or referendum; Second, whether the Measure’s terms are too vaguely defined and ambiguous to be enforceable; Third, whether its restrictions 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."

Finally, the realignment of the trail along Park Avenue will come at no cost to the city and will provide a safer alternative for pedestrians and cyclists than what is currently there on that road, or what could be built along the corridor. It offers a consistent 12' wide elevated trail along Park Avenue, where the trail on the corridor would start off as 8.5' wide and then broaden out to 12' feet wide. And even if the RTC trail is built in the corridor, people will use the Park Avenue trail, which is too narrow and too unsafe.

Measure L was and remains a yoke around the neck of the Capitola City Council, which contradicts their earlier commitment to the MBSST. Measure L, which passed by a narrow margin, should not prevent the City Council from approving a common-sense approach to transit.

There are already bike lanes through Capitola Village, why not make them safer? 344
Item 2 B.
2 345
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Scott Carson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 3:56 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Rail Trail on Park Ave.

Dear City Council,
I am writing to express my opposition to placing the trail portion of the Rail Trail on Park Avenue. The RTC's current trail proposal on Park Avenue will be an inconvenient, unpleasant, less efficient, and less safe diversion than a trail in the rail corridor, where it belongs. This is not what has been promised by the RTC. How ironic is it that the RTC told us there was room for both rail and trail on the corridor so we voters should support rail plus trail and not just trail, but now they say there may only be room for one or the other in Capitola, so we should support just rail and no trail along the Park Avenue section of corridor. The RTC appears to have had poor planing and budgeting for the Capitola segment of the rail trail. I do not believe that the RTC has even now fully vetted all of the options for this segment of the rail trail. Capitola should not suffer an inferior trail due to the RTC's mismanagement.

At the RTC "townhall", an RTC representative told my that although there is currently room for the trail in the corridor in Capitola, because a train route might possibly be built there in 10 to 20 years, and although they are uncertain on what the train configuration needs will be, they would hate to have to possibly spend additional money then to possibly reroute the trail if necessary. That is a lot of uncertain speculation about possible future needs and costs, to justify an undesirable trail for now and likely forever. If a train is actually ever routed through Capitola in the distant future, we can make adjustments if necessary at that time. Please reject putting the trail portion of the rail-trail on our City streets, and especially on busy and noisy Park Avenue.

Scott Carson
Columbus Drive
Capitola, CA 95010
346
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Capitola Morrissey <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 4:00 PM
To: City Council; Clarke, Joe; Gerry Jensen; Pedersen, Alexander; Margaux Morgan; Melinda Orbach; Goldstein, Jamie ([email protected]); Gautho, Julia Subject: Comments for Agenda Item 3B: Opposition to Park Avenue Alignment and Support for Coastal Bluff Alignment of the Coastal Rail Trail (Segments 10 & 11) Dear Capitola City Council,
This letter outlines the key reasons why the City of Capitola should reaffirm its support for the previously approved Coastal Bluff alignment of the Coastal Rail Trail and formally reject the recently proposed Park Avenue alignment options A and B.

The Coastal Bluff Alignment: The Clear and Compliant Path Forward The Coastal Bluff alignment remains the only legally, environmentally, and regionally appropriate option for Segment 10/11 of the Rail Trail. It keeps the trail within the designated rail corridor, consistent with Capitola Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 8.72, which mandates preservation of public pathways within that corridor.

Moving the trail out of the rail corridor and onto city streets—such as in the Park Avenue alternatives—is inconsistent with that mandate and unequivocally violates CMC Chapter 8.72.

Importantly, City staff have stated that if the Park Avenue options are rejected, the RTC and County would likely pursue the previously studied Coastal Bluff alignment. Contrary to previous public speculation, rejecting Park Avenue does not kill the project—it returns it to its more appropriate, originally envisioned route.

Further advantages of the Coastal Bluff alignment include:
• Preservation of ATP grant eligibility: This original alignment is already the sole focus on the existing grant and has been environmentally cleared, keeping the County on track to meet the April 2027 construction funding deadline and protecting the $67.6 million ATP grant.
• Improved safety and experience: A dedicated, vehicle-free trail ensures a protected, scenic, and serene environment for walkers, cyclists, and families.
• Enhanced regional connectivity: The coastal route preserves the trail’s scenic value and accessibility for neighborhoods, ensuring continuity across the corridor. • Supports rail-trail integration: The coastal alignment keeps future passenger rail and trail co-location on the table and is a natural location to place the trail if the cost of a train is deemed to be overwhelmingly expensive in the future.
• Preservation of Capitola’s historic trestle: This alignment allows for long-term plans to repurpose the trestle for public use, maintaining cultural heritage and a visually iconic coastal gateway.

Park Avenue Options A & B: Unsafe, Uncertain, and Misaligned with Capitola’s Goals 347
Item 2 B.
2 While framed as lower-impact alternatives, the Park Avenue alignments introduce a number of serious legal, safety, regulatory, and financial issues that undermine the integrity and future of the Rail Trail:

1. Violates Local Law
The Park Avenue options shift the trail out of the rail corridor, a move that violates Capitola Municipal Code Chapter 8.72, which calls for preserving public use within the existing rail corridor.

2. Exposes Trail Users to Traffic Hazards
Both options A and B place trail users, including children and seniors, immediately adjacent to a busy street.

With minimal buffers and signage, this creates clear conflict zones at driveways, intersections, and narrow roadway sections. These conditions contradict the Rail Trail’s core promise of a safe, separated, family-friendly pathway.

3. Relies on an Unapproved and Risky Rail Crossing
The success of the Park Avenue route depends on building a new pedestrian crossing at Coronado Street— which still lacks final approval from the CPUC. This crossing is not guaranteed. If denied, the Park Avenue route would fail to connect to the rest of the Rail Trail, rendering it incomplete and non-functional.

4. Triggers Costly and Time-Consuming Environmental Review Adopting the Park Avenue alignment would necessitate a new environmental review, possibly even a Supplemental EIR, introducing significant delay and uncertainty. In contrast, the Coastal Bluff route is already cleared and ready to proceed.

5. Breaks Regional Continuity and Reduces Trail Access
The Park Avenue design deviates from the scenic coastal route and reduces connections to the beach. It sacrifices regional usability and trail identity for a temporary workaround that is disconnected from the rest of the trail system.

6. Undermines Future Use of the Capitola Trestle
Choosing the Park Avenue route deprioritizes the long-term plan to restore the Capitola Trestle for trail use.

Without a commitment to the rail corridor, the opportunity to fund and transform the trestle into a public asset could be lost.

7. Offers False Economy at Long-Term Cost
While tree removals may be slightly reduced, this comes at the expense of user safety and long-term efficiency. The Park Avenue options require significant new infrastructure—including curb realignments, signalized crossings, and sidewalk reconstruction—all for an inferior trail experience. These “savings” could ultimately cost more in both dollars and lost value.

Conclusion: Restore the Coastal Bluff Alignment by Rejecting Park Avenue Alignment Options A and B 348
Item 2 B.
3 The Coastal Bluff alignment is not just a preferred route—it is the right route. It is safer, legally compliant, environmentally cleared, and ready to be built. It preserves Capitola’s scenic beauty, historical landmarks, and future mobility options.

By contrast, the Park Avenue alignment introduces safety risks, legal concerns, new delays, and an uncertain future for the Rail Trail. Most importantly, staff have confirmed that rejecting Park Avenue will likely result in a return to the Coastal Bluff route—not a cancellation of the project.

Capitola has a chance to protect its community’s safety, values, and vision. We urge the Council to:
• Reaffirm support for the Coastal Bluff alignment as the correct path forward for Capitola and the region, and,
• Reject Park Avenue options A and B.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Mike and Meghan Morrissey
Capitola
349
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Valerie Mishkin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 5:14 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Rail And Trail Vote
Honorable Concilmembers,
As you discuss this vote amongst yourselves, keep in mind the timeline and projected future growth of our communities. In 20 to 30 years as they say, it takes that long to get any major project done.

Local population will continue to grow with younger people becoming adults, families, and community leaders. The lifestyle of today's youth is not what a boomer's life was like. The trends are headed toward less car ownership, fewer licenses, more dependance by choice to use public transportation.

Young people today do not all get a licence and a car at 16. Many do not drive or buy a car till they start a family. 30 is a common age to start driving. These young families often buy one car, not two. I understand some of the concerns of Capitola residents, but I think the greater good should prevail here. Change the plans where we need to not shut them down. An alternative route through town not on the busiest streets could be a change. The Park Ave plan A or B looks good to me. Save the trestles for proper rebuilding looks good to me.

Please vote yes to keep Rail a future transportation route through our county.

Valerie
--

To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Valerie Mishkin
350
Item 2 B.
2 DRE# 02092111 AHWD, C2EX, SFR, ABR
[email protected]
831 - 238 - 0504
1602 Ocean Street Santa Cruz CA. 95060
Local Government Relations Committee
Smart Coast California Board of Directors
Santa Cruz City Master Recyclers
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. .

To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

All material is intended for informational purposes only and is compiled from sources deemed reliable but is subject to errors, omissions, changes in price, condition, sale, or withdrawal without notice. No statement is made as to the accuracy of any description or measurements.
351
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Lynn Jackson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 6:01 PM
To: City Council
Subject: keep the trail on the rail!
I'm a resident of Capitola for almost 50 years. I will not stand by and allow the trail to be directed into the streets of the village!! It's the law! It's dangerous! It will change the character of the village in a negative way! The city will lose revenue! The village will lose parking spaces which are so important to the businesses! I will be there Thursday night to bare witness that you vote against the detour of the trail through the village!!!
Lynn Jackson
216 Central Ave
352
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Nancy Ward-McChesney <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 6:06 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Park Avenue trail
My husband and I are long term homeowners and residents of Capitola. I have lived here since the 70s. We have lived on Sir Francis Avenue for 34 years and use Park Avenue every day. We drive, walk, and bike.

WE ARE STRONGLY OPPOSED TO A TRAIL GOING THROUGH THE VILLAGE AND ALONG PARK AVENUE.

Park Avenue has a sidewalk that goes from Monterey to Cabrillo St, which we use all of the Ɵme. We have a crosswalk at Cabrillo to cross over to the other sidewalk that goes all the way to Coronado with beauƟful ocean views. We also have the railroad tracks, which many people use as a walking trail. The bike path is funcƟonal, although it could use some improvement, from Monterey, all the way to Soquel. We love our town and our neighborhood as is and use all of these features regularly.

LEAVE PARK AVENUE AS IT IS. THE TRACKS ARE AN IDEAL LOCATION FOR A TRAIL.

WE DO NOT NEED A RAIL OF ANY KIND.

Thanks, Nancy and Keevin McChesney
821 Sir Francis Ave
Sent from my iPad
353
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Westman, Nels ([email protected])
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 6:25 PM
To: City Council
Subject: April 17th Agenda Item 3 B.

Dear City Council,
In my 40+ years in Capitola I have never seen Capitola citizens so angry. Angry at the RTC, angry at the city staff and most particularly at the City Council, a majority block of whom clearly march to instructions from the RTC,FORT and other outside politicians.

They fear for Capitola’s identity: the loss of their iconic Trestle, the demolition of its similarly iconic Stockton Street Bridge, the degradation of the “Vibe”, safety and flow of the Village as hundreds, possibly even thousands of pedestrians, bicyclers and e-bikers descend into the Village. They feel betrayed to learn that both the spirit of Measure L and letter of that law have been blatantly and repeatedly ignored and violated by both Council and city staff for a year or more. Then finally at the April 2ndCapitola Town Hall its citizens were essentially threatened by RTC staff that if Capitola didn’t bend the knee to FORT and the RTC on the Park Ave realignment project that the whole Ultimate Trail project would implode and that it would all be Capitola’s fault. There was the clear implication that there would be consequences for Capitola.

It is time for Capitola to say , “enough already.” We are not going to stampeded into an illegal vote to divert the so-called Ultimate Trail off the rail corridor and onto city streets for most of corridor that runs through Capitola. All to help the RTC to reduce the cost of the error in their own their own design and engineering plans. The RTC’s bad job of designing and spectacularly underestimating cost projections should not be Capitola’s to cure. In desperation the RTC is now proposing to borrow money secured by future revenues from Measure D. So now taxpayers countywide are also being asked to take on the financial consequences of the RTC’s sloppy work by mortgaging the County’s future transportation revenues while spending much of the proceeds on interest and bonding fees. This is a very dangerous bail-out strategy. But what do you expect considering the RTC’s decades long performance on the Rail Corridor? Millions of dollars of expenses and very little to show for it.

Nels Westman
Riverview Terrace, Capitola
354
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Daniel Spero <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 6:35 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Build the trail on the rail corridor!
Follow the vote of the people of Capitola!

1. There will never be a train.

2. It is not safe for bikes to put the trail through the village

3. Use the train trestle for a bike path.
.·´¯`·.. <º))))><`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸<º))))><
¸.·´¯`·.¸., . .·´¯`·..¸¸.·´><((((º>¸¸.·´¯`·..¸¸.·´><((((º> .·´¯`·.. <º))))><`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸

٩(๏̯๏)۶ Daniel Spero
300 Plum St #13
Capitola CA 95010
355
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Welch, Troy (TJ) ([email protected])
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 6:38 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Concerned Citizens Of Capitola
Subject: 4/17/25 Agenda items 3A and 3B
Dear Council Members,
There has already been much discussion and information shared with you regarding both CMC 8.72, and the proposed Park Ave project. I am hopeful that by now you understand that this is truly a Capitola issue. Yes, it may affect the county, but the RTC’s lack of proper planning is not your responsibility or concern at this point.

Regardless of how the past council perceived or interpreted CMC 8.72, I think it is clear what it means. If you have any doubts, read the “Purpose” statement. The community has made it clear, that past City Council members did not interpret it through the lens of what the community voted for it. The community voted for Measure L put the safety of our kids, cyclists and pedestrians first. Recently, they have voiced their concern that City staff and City Council Members betrayed them by working with the RTC on a project that was and is in clear violation of the code 8.72.

Like the City, you can try twisting words, like realignment, or saying it is not trail, so therefore it’s not a detour, or the City is not paying for it. All of these statements are false or misleading and in clear violation of our City Municipal Code.

I urge to support the will of the people, uphold City law and support CMC 8.72 to the fullest extent by voting NO on the Park Ave project. The future of the RTC project is not your responsibility, and I am confident they will find a solution to resolve this issue. Maybe they will even follow through with their original commitment and put the trail on the RTC corridor.

I understand the pressure from the RTC, FORT and others, but I trust you will take the high road and support the community you serve. See you Thursday!
All the Best,
TJ Welch
Concerned Citizens of Capitola
356
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: David Pais <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 6:46 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Council Meeting Tomorrow Night
Hello City Council,
Please vote yes to allow Santa Cruz County to build the already-funded Rail Trail from Monterey & Park to New Brighton State Beach. This will give Capitola and Santa Cruz County residents a safer way to travel to New Brighton Beach and preserve existing Rail Trail funding. --
Thanks,

David Pais
357
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Michael Sherman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 7:24 PM
To: City Council
Cc: 'Kathy Sherman'
Subject: (for 4/17 meeting) a win-win deal for Capitola & RTC Dear Capitola City Council members:

We live on Park Ave near the Village. It seems to us there is a clear win-win deal for Capitola & RTC:

Capitola approves the Park Ave diversion. In exchange, RTC runs the trail over the trestle.

Why this is feasible
RTC has made these points:
- no train will ever run across the existing trestle (a new bridge is required), - the trail could run across the existing trestle with some refurbishment, - the Park Ave diversion saves them lots of money and time.

Thus railbanking or paving over just the tracks that cross the trestle cannot interfere in any way with future rail plans. Any objection must be purely bureaucratic so can be overcome by suƯiciently motivated parties.

Why this complies with Measure L
The purpose of Measure L was to stop the trail from going through the Village. This deal gets that done.

The legislative history of Measure L, still available online, makes it very clear what the purpose was. No one was thinking about Park Ave then.

Why this is a good deal for everyone

1. RTC saves $13M by building the trail on Park Ave, though they’ll have to spend some of that on refurbishing the trestle. Give them Option B for max savings. They still come out ahead.

2. We get the Park Ave road diet, a beautiful trail now rather than never, and maintenance forever at no cost.

3. The trail doesn’t run through the Village (which absolutely no one thinks is a good idea).

There is no need to negotiate this with RTC. They are very resourceful. We believe that if this is the deal they are faced with, they’ll make it work.

Sincerely,
Michael and Kathy Sherman
312 Park Ave
Capitola
358
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Forest, Karl ([email protected])
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 8:12 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Extra Thoughts: Please Vote Yes on Rail Trail Option Esteemed Council Members,
After reading Gayle Ortiz’s well-written article in the LookOut, a few more thoughts occurred to me.

I was motivated to read that actual code (8.72). I know you have legal opinions on what you can and cannot do from city lawyers. What I would like to point out is if land contiguous to the current Corridor is made available and/or is transferred to the County to create a trail between Park Avenue and the existing rail line, then it would become part of the Corridor, and thus would not violate municipal code 8.72.

This would also remove what I believe will happen if you vote no: The RTC will continue with the original plan which will need to address adjacent land owners who have encroached on the Corridor, which will most likely land in lawsuits that are not needed and may involve the city.

Let’s get this built! Please do what is what I think is best for the community to improve that section of Park Avenue at what looks like no cost to Capitola. Please vote yes! Thank you for once again indulging my thoughts. I hope you take them into consideration.

Karl Forest
On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 9:29 PM Karl Forest <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello,
My name is Karl Forest and I live at 516 Oak Dr in Capitola. I would like to advocate for the City Council to approve the RTC’s recommendation to move the trail portion of the trail from the Village along Park Avenue so it is between Park Ave and the existing line. This means changing the original plan to add the trail alongside the tracks on the ocean side.

As I understand it, this option would also lessen encroachment impacts with properties along the right of way.
359
Item 2 B.
2 As I understand Measure L, it was designed to stop Capitola from participating in relocating the trail from the rail on the trestle. This was designed to try to stop the rail at a key point in the path and to force bike traffic onto Village streets.

That intent has nothing to do with this portion of the rail/trail.

Thank you for your consideration.

Karl Forest
360
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Kerrie McCaffrey <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 8:22 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Kerrie McC
Subject: YES on CRT Segments 10 & 11 from Capitola Resident Dear Capitola Council Members,
Please vote YES on the Coastal Rail Trail Segments 10 & 11.

I prefer Segment 11 Option B, but either Options A or B is ultimately fine with me.

I am a Cliffwood Heights, Capitola Resident and homeowner.

Thanks for supporting the trail improvements along Park Ave to keep cyclists, walkers and kids safe and to provide a safer path for kids to travel back & forth to the skateboard park and through the village.

Kerrie McCaffrey
329 Loma Ave
Capitola, CA 95010
361
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Bridget Hawkins <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 8:37 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Michael Gutierrez
Subject: Support for the Park Avenue Trail Segment
Bridget Hawkins Gutierrez & Michael Gutierrez
4320 Clares St. #C
Capitola, CA 95010
[email protected] 831.566.0893
[email protected] 831.566.0718

April 15, 2025
Capitola City Council
420 Capitola Ave.

Capitola, CA 95010

Subject: Support for the Park Avenue Trail Segment
Dear Honorable Members of the Capitola City Council,
We are writing to express our strong support for the proposed Park Avenue segment of the Coastal Rail Trail. We urge you to vote in favor of this project, which promises to bring significant benefits to our community.

We attended the recent town hall meeting at New Brighton Middle School regarding the Coastal Rail Trail. While we acknowledge that a large number of attendees expressed opposition to the Park Avenue segment, we believe it's important to recognize that the sentiments expressed at that meeting may not reflect the views of a majority of Capitola residents. It was apparent that many in attendance were aligned with anti-rail, pro-Greenway interests, which made it difficult to gauge the broader community's support for the project. We understand there is concern that some of you may feel undue pressure due to the overwhelming vocal opposition. We urge you to also consider the many residents who support this project but may not have been as vocal at that particular meeting.

The Coastal Rail Trail is a vital project for Capitola, and the Park Avenue segment is a crucial link that will enhance connectivity and accessibility for all residents. We believe that this segment offers several key advantages:
 Improved Safety: A separated multi-use trail along Park Avenue will provide a safer route for pedestrians, cyclists, and other non-motorized users, reducing potential conflicts with vehicular traffic.  Enhanced Connectivity: This segment will better connect Capitola Village with the Cliffwood Heights neighborhood, making it easier for residents to access local businesses, parks, and other amenities.  Increased Recreational Opportunities: The trail will provide a beautiful and convenient space for recreation, promoting a healthier and more active lifestyle for our community.  Economic Benefits: The trail can attract visitors and boost local businesses, contributing to the economic vitality of Capitola.
 Environmental Considerations: We understand that the Park Avenue alignment has been designed to minimize environmental impacts, including protecting monarch butterfly habitats. 362
Item 2 B.
2 Furthermore, we understand that funding for this project has already been secured. At this stage, the primary obstacle to completion appears to be the opposition from those attempting to stall the broader Coastal Rail Trail project. We urge you not to let the vocal minority derail a project that will bring substantial benefits to Capitola.

We urge you to consider the long-term benefits of this project for our community and vote in favor of the Park Avenue segment of the Coastal Rail Trail. Your support will help create a more connected, vibrant, and healthy Capitola for all.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Michael D. Gutierrez & Bridget Hawkins Gutierrez
363
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Jason Dewberry <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 8:39 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Rail Trail Plans
Council Members,
Please put an end to the Rail & Trail discussion. A local rail line does not seem to be in our best interest.

So, can we please move forward in a common sense and fiscally responsible way by not supporting the rail and trail option. Please, let us finally move forward with the coastal trail only option and get it going so we can start to enjoy biking and walking on it one day soon.

Thanks for doing good work for our community,
Heather & Jason Dewberry
215 Saxon Ave.
364
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Jerome <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 9:30 PM
To: City Council
Subject: I’m a Capitola resident—Vote YES on the trail and Keep the Rail Dear Capitola City Council,
As a resident of Capitola, I strongly encourage you to vote YES on the construction of the trail for our community. This project will provide safe, easy, and accessible recreation and transportation options for residents of all ages.

I also urge the council not to get involved in an expensive and unnecessary legal battle over control of the rail line, which the city does not own. Such a fight would waste Capitola’s limited resources— resources that would be far better spent on projects that directly benefit our residents, like the trail.

Please support the trail and keep Capitola’s focus on what matters most: improving quality of life for everyone in our city.

I appreciate your consideration.

Sincerely,
Jerome Guionnet
Capitola Resident since 2010
365
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Matt Farrell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 9:47 PM
To: City Council; Clarke, Joe; Pedersen, Alexander; Gerry Jensen; Margaux Morgan; Melinda Orbach
Subject: [PDF] Please Approve Option A for the Park Avenue Alignment Attachments: Capitola City Council Park Avenue 04172025.docx.pdf Mayor Clarke and Councilmembers,
Santa Cruz County Friends of the Rail and Trail supports the efforts of the city of Capitola, Santa Cruz County and Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) staff to develop this alternative. It will save the city of Capitola an estimated $80,500 and provide a multi-use trail serving pedestrians and bicyclists with an estimated value of $3-$5 million.

This project represents the county and the RTC contributing resources and staff time to perform safety work (crosswalks and pedestrian activated flashing beacons) to benefit the city's residents and visitors; and does not require a contribution from the city of Capitola.

We have attached a letter outlining our reasons for supporting this alignment and why we urge you to reject the pursuit of railbanking or adverse abandonment. Both county voters and Capitola residents overwhelmingly rejected this proposal in 2022.

Matt Farrell
Chair
Santa Cruz County Friends of the Rail and Trail (FORT)
366
Item 2 B.

April 15, 2025
Mayor Clarke and City Councilmembers
Capitola City Hall
420 Capitola Avenue
Capitola, CA 95010
RE: April 17 Agenda Item 3b. Park Avenue Alignment of the Coastal Rail Trail (Segments 10 and 11)
Mayor Clarke and Councilmembers,
Santa Cruz County Friends of the Rail and Trail (FORT) is a local, non-profit community organization made up of over 12,000 supporters, 200 of whom live in the city of Capitola. These are people who agree with expanding Santa Cruz County’s transportation system to include passenger rail service and a 32-mile multi-use trail as detailed in the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail Master Plan. We are excited to see the next segments of the coastal rail trail link more of the County together.

We urge the city council to approve Option A for the proposed Park Avenue Alignment of the Coastal Rail Trail. City, county and Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) staff have worked together to develop a solution which serves both the City Council’s identified goals of increasing safety on Park Avenue and improving access for adjacent neighborhoods to the trail, all while reducing trail project costs.

City and County staff estimate that the RTC’s offer to install these safety and traffic calming measures (improved crosswalk markings, pedestrian-activated flashing beacons) along with the multi-use trail will save the city $80,500. These funds can be used for other needed projects in Capitola
We agree with city staff’s analysis that this alignment conforms with Measure L. It preserves active transportation and recreation in the rail corridor; it is not a detour; and it does not propose construction on city streets or sidewalks.

P.O. Box 1652, Capitola, CA 95010 • [email protected] Fiscally sponsored by Social Good Fund (EIN) TAX ID: 46-1323531 367 Item 2 B.

Though the staff report offers you the option to hire a Surface Transportation Board (STB) attorney to look into railbanking, we strongly suggest you don’t waste city resources on this dead end. The Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) explored this option years ago and determined that the cost in time and resources were excessive in view of the risk and uncertainty of the result.

The decision to reject the “Interim Trail” was ratified by the vote on Measure D in 2022.

Countywide, 73% of voters rejected this proposal. In the city of Capitola, 60% of voters rejected Measure D. Clearly the citizens of Capitola and Santa Cruz County want to preserve the opportunity for rail.

Railbanking the trestle effectively railbanks the whole line. Is Capitola prepared to be responsible for maintenance of the whole line? Is Capitola prepared to argue the case for adverse abandonment before the STB without the support of the RTC and against the position of Progressive Rail, Roaring Camp, and the majority vote of the community?
Pursuing adverse abandonment/railbanking will only delay moving forward on the trail for the benefit of the community of Capitola, and may jeopardize the largest Active Transportation grant in the history of the state.

Protect the safety of everyone who lives and visits Capitola. Move forward with the Park Avenue alignment. Please vote yes on moving forward with staff’s recommendation: approve Option A for the Park Avenue alignment.

Sincerely,
Matt Farrell
Chair
Santa Cruz County Friends of the Rail and Trail (FORT)
P.O. Box 1652, Capitola, CA 95010 • [email protected] Fiscally sponsored by Social Good Fund (EIN) TAX ID: 46-1323531 368
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Natalie Goff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 10:49 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Option A or B, Please vote YES:

April 15, 2025
Dear Mayor Joe Clarke, Councilmember Marguex Morgan, Councilmember Melinda Orbach, Councilmember Gerry Jensen, and Councilmember Alex Pedersen:

I am writing to ask you to accept either Option A or B for the Rail Trail segment currently offered to Capitola by the RTC at no cost to Capitola. It is truly a gift that will increase Public Safety along a busy throughway.

I am for safe pedestrian and bike safety along Park Avenue and through Capitola Village. Both Option A and B separate pedestrians and bikes from vehicles by creating a curb AND a buffer zone between them.

Either option will be wonderful and an improvement over what is currently in place I love that our children will be separated from traffic and will be visible to drivers as they walk or ride along Park Avenue east of the Village. I am a senior and I know that Option A or B will make me feel safer, as well. I feel safer these days when I can see who and what is up ahead when on walks. Also, I will feel safer walking at street level rather than in the gully because other pedestrians and drivers can keep an eye out for my safety, as well.

I attended the Town Hall meeting at New Brighton Middle School a few weeks ago and was dismayed by some of the themes of presenters. We in Santa Cruz County need additional modes of transportation badly. Workers from Watsonville sit in their cars or on buses sometimes 3 hours per day during their daily commute. The RTC is working hard and diligently to provide a fair and safe plan for all of us. I felt that topics such as Railbanking, arguing for 20 parking spaces, arguing against the widening because cars are wider were offered as a tactic to muddy the meeting’s purpose - to discuss Safety improvements for pedestrians and bikes along what is currently a rather dangerous roadway. • Railbanking. During the meeting, it was mentioned that the city council planned to revisit Railbanking.

Several years ago, it was decided that this was an expensive and a complicated task. The ground underneath the tracks contains asbestos, tar, and years of oil that had dripped from the trains that passed over the tracks. Experts pointed out that removal of the soil to another location would release the contaminants and carcinogens that are currently encased within the packed soil and course gravel.

Consensus by the RTC then was that it was safer for all of us to leave those materials in situ. Where would this soil and rubble be discarded? Who would do the work? Who would pay for the removal of the soil?
369
Item 2 B.
2 • Yes, I want for the Rail and Trail project to succeed. And your decision might put the entire 32-mile-long project in jeopardy. The California Transportation Commission allocated $70 million towards the development of Segment 10 and 11. More recently, the project received a Federal Grant to help develop these segments, as well. These grantors have recognized our need to connect to the California Passenger Railway System that is being planned for and is being built currently. Capitola sits right in the middle of the county project. The thousands of students who attend Cabrillo College, a short distance from Capitola, will surely use the corridor’s bike lanes and train system when built. If you refuse the project, the RTC will be asked to return the largest grant the CTC has ever given to a community our size.

Afterwards, would the RTC and the County ever be considered as a contender for another grant? • Some at the Town Hall meeting argued for 20 parking spaces they deemed important to the community.

Another person argued that the bike trail should not become wider because people currently drive SUVs that are wider, These really are not viable arguments against Public Safety. • Finally, there was a group of people who argued that constructing bridges would prove too costly and therefore the project will never come to pass. However, the RTC design team is excellent – they have found many cost-saving measures for this project and I trust that they will find cost savings as they research bridges. The CTC and the State demonstrated clearly with large grants that they believe the Rail Trail will succeed. The Santa Cruz County voters, 73% of them, said with their votes that they want the Santa Cruz Rail Trail to succeed.

Thank you for your attention,
Natalie Goff, Santa Cruz County Resident for 40 years
370
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Leslie Nielsen
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 11:33 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Item 3A and 3B Comments for 4/17
Capitola City Council,
Item 3A - Provide Direction to Staff on Municipal Code 8.72 There is only ONE direction - Direct staff to follow the municipal code, stop making staff recommendations that violate it, and stop having the city attorney say it's up to us to interpret when we pay her to guide us. PERIOD.

If City staff would like you to take action that contradicts the current unambiguous municipal code, tell staff to follow the code language and have it amended by a vote of the people before they spend any more time, money and resources promoting and recommending actions that violate the current and binding language.

This is not hard, and anything short of properly directing your staff to follow the code would be a clear indication of your bias to a cause that exceeds your ethical obligation to uphold your oath of office and truly represent the people of the City of Capitola that elected you.

Item 3B - Recommended Action - Discuss and provide direction to staff regarding the Park Avenue alignment for the Coastal Rail Trail.

Again, not hard. It doesn't matter what you think personally about the RTC project challenges and threatened risk to funding.

The staff report says until the City confirms its preferred alignment through Capitola, the County is unable to finalize the design scope with it's constituents or begin the next phase of work.

You have 3 choices;

1. Support Staff recommendation of Option A - Based on Item 3A - a very bad idea. If you think this will speed things up, think about the fallout from violating the municipal code.. it will wreak havoc on our City financially and culturally.

2. Discuss and DELAY action and give everyone more to do - spend more time, money and resources. This does NOT help the RTC finalize the scope design and manage the funding deadline.

3. DENY realignment. Stick with the current plan. The $67M grant was awarded for Segment 10 and 11 only. It is an ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION GRANT awarded specifically in response to an application offering a full corridor solution ;
This project uses best practices to completely separate bicyclists and pedestrians from motor vehicle traffic by constructing a 12’ wide multiuse path in the rail right of way.

The RTC cost overrun does NOT risk the entire Rail Trail project. It just makes the RTC's job of saving $27M easier, and puts the financial burden of defending lawsuits, running recall elections etc. on the City of Capitola. Rod Tidmore himself said that if Capitola says NO, they would likely go forward with the coastal alignment. The County and Rail Trail advocates have navigated much tougher problems than a $27M cost overrun. The threats of leaving Capitola out of the full scale project are just that .. threats. 371
Item 2 B.
2 They can put up "trail ends here" signs on both ends of Capitola and watch the entire vision of the project implode. I would be fine suggesting the CTC keep their grant money that is slated for just the Capitola section over misusing the largest ATP grant awarded in California history in a way that completely contradicts the basis for which it was awarded.

It feels fraudulent to ask for that amount of money to do A .. and then propose B to save $27M.

We look like unsophisticated small town players being 'handled' by the County.

NOTE, the current approved plan for the Park Ave. section is in the corridor, with an approved EIR,and an agreement by the City to engage in a consolidated Coastal Development Permit (CDP) with the County to streamline the process of getting a CDP from the Coastal Commission. What could be faster if TIME is your agenda than staying the course?
The realignment would CHANGE THE SCOPE from the GRANT intent putting the funding at great risk, require a new EIR, and another attempt to get the City of Capitola to approve that EIR and initiate the required Coastal Development Permit. If getting a trail sooner than later matters, seems like staying the course is the best answer.

I would encourage you to be very thoughtful and swift in your decision making on Thursday. DENY the Park Ave. realignment.

Leslie Nielsen
Capitola resident
372
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Malia Horn <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 8:54 AM
To: City Council
Cc: Clarke, Joe
Subject: Park ave detour
Dear Capitola City Council,
I wanted to thank you for your recent out reach to the community in regards to the proposal of rerouting the trail to Park Ave. I appreciate you pausing to get all the information needed to make a decision on this matter as it holds a lot of importance to our family and residences in the Cliffwood heights neighborhood and beyond.

With that said, it is time for the city and RTC to pivot from the idea of a train and trail "Ultimate trail" and to adopt the Interim trail plan. Keeping the trail only on the corridor is the safest, most cost effective, and will benefit our community's transportation needs. It appears that there are too many negatives that will affect Capitola as a whole, that out weigh any positive outcome from having a train coming through our community and rerouting the trail on to Park Ave. and through the village.

I also feel that you should wait to make a decision on the Park Ave realignment until the new cost estimate analysis for the passenger rail comes out this fall. If a train is not feasible, then why make a plan to disrupt a community and neighborhood without knowing all information and which direction the overall project will go? Please continue to listen to the residences of Capitola.

Sincerely,
Malia Horn
Here is a photo of our family walking towards the village on the quiet stretch of tracks below Park Ave.. We utilize this path weekly along with other community members.
373
Item 2 B.
2 374
Item 2 B.
3 375
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Tricia Proctor <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 9:34 AM
To: City Council
Subject: NO Trail on City Streets
Dear Capitola City Council,
I am writing to you as a long-time resident of Capitola, having lived here for over 50 years and raised fifthgeneration residents in our community. It is with great concern that I address the current discussions surrounding the proposed trail on city streets.

As citizens, we trust the council members we elected to uphold the municipal code outlined in Measure L. It is essential that you adhere to the laws that govern our community; no one is above the law. As a retired law enforcement oƯicer, Council Member Joe Clark should understand that while it may be possible to break the law, such actions will ultimately have consequences.

I do not support the idea of a trail on city streets, and I question the rationale behind this proposal. Is there an underlying benefit to this plan that has not been fully disclosed to the public? It is crucial for transparency that you communicate any potential benefits to the community.

The trail should remain on the rail corridor, where it is both safe and practical. I believe that the council is more than capable of recognizing that this solution is viable, especially given the numerous options that have already been presented.

I urge you to listen to the voices of the residents and business owners of Capitola. Our community deserves a solution that prioritizes safety and adheres to the established guidelines.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I hope you will take our concerns seriously and work towards a solution that reflects the wishes of the community.

Sincerely,
Tricia Proctor
Riverview Dr. Capitola, CA
376
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Westman, Nels ([email protected])
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 9:26 AM
To: City Council
Subject: April 17 Agenda Item 3B - Re-sending
Note: I believe I had a technical issue sending this email yesterday. So I am re-sending to insure it appears in the meeting packet. Thank you.

Nels Westman
Riverview Terrace, Capitola
377
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 12:15 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Park Avenue Trail
City Council Members,
Please support OpƟons A or B for this trail segment. It will be a great improvement to this area and is superior to the opƟon south of the rail line.

The Countywide Rail Trail Project is long-range in nature and various trail segments will be planned and constructed a different Ɵmes. Future construcƟon of a trail connecƟon bridge across Soquel Creek will give pedestrians and bikes an opƟon to avoid Capitola Village.

Thanks for your consideraƟon,
Don Lauritson
34 year resident of mid County
378
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Therese Kilpatrick <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 11:20 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I live really close to Capitola
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
I am writing to urge the Council to move ahead with the rail trail being built on the non-coastal side, i.e. adjacent to Park Avenue so we can get a safe way to bike and walk in this part of town.

I would use a route like this to go to classes at Cabrillo College, and to just enjoy riding my bike in a safe place, on a safe route.

Yours sincerely,
Therese Kilpatrick
--
Therese Kilpatrick
“Life is for the living.

Death is for the dead.

Let life be like music.

And death a note unsaid.”
― Langston Hughes, The Collected Poems
379
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 10:34 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Rail trail
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
I am totally against putting the trail on Capitola streets. It was voted on and passed 8.72 to keep the trail within the rail. We have enough traffic on the streets of Capitola without adding more . Someone is going to get hurt and it will be your fault, and you will be held liable.

Ted Woods
312 Cherry Ave
Capitola ca. 95010

380
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Bob F <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 11:47 AM
To: City Council; Regional Transportation Commission
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Brown, Kristen; Justin Cummings; [email protected]; Matt Machado; Sarah Christensen; [email protected]; rlj12 @comcast.net; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Matthew Wetstein; [email protected]; [email protected]; Corey Aldridge;
[email protected]; Justin Cummings;
[email protected]; Kimberly De Serpa; [email protected]; Monica Martinez; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: Purpose of Government / Watsonville <=> Santa Cruz in Less Than 20 Minutes During Rush Hours
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
=== Purpose of Government ===
The purpose of our local government (supposedly formed OF the PEOPLE, BY the PEOPLE, and FOR the PEOPLE) is to best serve those within its borders.

To help quality of life, our local governments should include the safe transportation of people from where they are within local borders to where they want to be as safely and expeditiously as possible at reasonable costs. This includes to businesses to bring in revenue to allow this quality of life to be sustained as well as to allow those who only intend to pass through, to not get impeded or to contribute unfavorably to congestion.

A means to accommodate this common sense should be encouraged. No one with an understanding of high school level physics can deny the following truth:
per hour / 50 miles x 15 miles x 60 minutes / per hour = 18 minutes This simple calculation proves that once a bus is assured of traveling a steady 50 MPH (but safe in a dedicated lane within the Highway 1 median) between Watsonville and Santa Cruz (15 miles), it can travel that distance in less than 20 minutes during rush hours! (Note that while at 50 MPH it would take 18 minutes, in a 90 MPH future it would take 10 minutes. What can be guaranteed today with commonsense existing safe buses upon Highway 1 (where high speeds belong (not traffic where one can jog faster), would be a challenge for any commuter train system upon our limited non-circular singletrack supposed Rail PLUS Trail Corridor environment to even safely exceed 10 MPH! Proponents intending a limited single-track commuter train system over such relatively short distances are playing very, VERY dangerous games with naive passenger lives! What would the inherently safe two-track BART commuter system be if it were downgraded to only a single track? No amount of "magic" sidings could 381
Item 2 B.
2 forever eliminate the possibility of the next 57 passengers losing their lives in another already experienced head-on train collision!
Rather than wait any more years for this billion+ dollar boondoggle to continue to drain taxpayer funds AND further waste resources while delaying more favorable transportation, consider the following which can be implemented for a fraction of the cost while achieving something that will ease traffic on Highway 1!
Squeeze in at least one dedicated bus lane within the median on Highway 1 for at least 15 miles that can accommodate a string of buses (B1-B5). During rush hours, buses B1 & B2 can travel 50 MPH non-stop between Watsonville and Santa Cruz in less than 20 minutes, B3 & B4 can travel non-stop to the halfway points, and B5 can pick up all the in-between stops. (Note that B1 could be a HWY17 bus and focus upon continuing onto Highway 17 and over the hill into Santa Clara County, B2 could focus upon serving UCSC as well as the Boardwalk and locale while B3 & B4 could accommodate Cabrillo College and the 41st locale. Again, safer and more expeditious than any train and at a fraction of the costs!) This process could continue every 15 minutes during rush hours and tail off as per demand. This is just one possibility that can be tweaked to cost far less than the billion+ dollar single track train system that <> will be an endless money pit and
<> will default to a slow-moving freight and tourist train as was intended over 100 years ago (but now at naive taxpayer expense) and
<> will be the next "unsinkable" Titanic if it continues upon a path to be a commuter train in our active environment which makes it even more likely to default to a slow-moving train that doesn't exceed 10 MPH.

The advantage of providing such an effective mass transportation system over on Highway 1 is that it opens up what was an unused extremely level transportation corridor to easily be viable to accommodate local traffic limited to 30 MPH. This includes tourists who want to appreciate our county's environment at their own various paces, many traveling upon rented bicycles while spending money in our community.

As an engineer with over 50 years of experience in designing and developing a variety of robust computer systems (now retired) as well as achieving a patent for an All-Express Passenger Train System (so I am pro-train in applications that makes sense but our environment forever limited to a single track in a noncircular configuration is not appropriate), I am 100% certain that implementing the Santa Cruz County version of Trail PLUS Rail would be a mistake.

A VERY concerned resident of Santa Cruz County,
Bob Fifield
382
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 1:44 PM
To: City Council
Subject: [PDF] Comment for Special City Council Meeting 4.17.25 Attachments: Capitola City Council 4.17.25.pdf
Thank you for receiving our comments.

Melani Clark
CEO
Roaring Camp Railroads
hƩp://www.roaringcamp.com
383
Item 2 B.

April 16, 2025
City Council
City of Capitola
420 Capitola Avenue
Capitola, CA 95010
Re: Agenda Item 3, April 17, 2025: Park Avenue Alignment for Coastal Rail Trail Segments 10 and 11
Dear Honorable Council,
Prior to your consideration of the materials provided for your meeting of April 17 on the Park Avenue Alignment of the Coastal Rail Trail, we wanted to provide our thoughts on the issues addressed in the staff report, in particular the concept of "adverse abandonment." As you know, Roaring Camp, through its subsidiary, the Santa Cruz, Big Trees and Pacific Railway, operates passenger rail service between Felton and the Santa Cruz Boardwalk, utilizing a portion of the Santa Cruz Branch Line (Line). It also assists the freight operator of the Line, Progressive, with freight operations in the segment of the Line that is currently open for service in the Watsonville area. Roaring Camp has a particular interest in the preservation of rail service on the Line, as it represents the only connection between Roaring Camp and the national rail system and is therefore essential to the long-term ability of its business to function.

As a rail operator, Roaring Camp is also interested in facilitating the operation of passenger rail service on the Line and fully supports regional efforts to obtain funding and implement such service.

We understand the challenging situation that your Council has been put in due to the passage of Measure L. This measure, which is of uncertain legal validity (see City Attorney's Impartial Analysis of Measure L) places the Council in the uncomfortable position of potentially blocking an important regional project that seeks to construct a desired coastal trail while preserving the community's ability to implement rail transit service in the future. The City is being asked to confirm its preferred alignment of the trail along Park Avenue. The City has been presented with a very workable alternative that minimizes impacts to existing trees and provides needed traffic and safety improvements. As part of the consideration of the Park Avenue alignment, we understand that the City is also considering the long-term future of the Capitola Trestle. One option under consideration is the potential removal of the rails and the installation of a deck for train use. This would effectively prevent the use of the bridge for rail service and would likely forestall the use of the line for future rail service. The report does not clearly note that the City 384
Item 2 B.
does not own the bridge and would not have the legal right to make any such changes to it. The Santa Cruz Branch Line, including the Capitola Trestle, is owned by the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission and is licensed to a private freight rail operator, Progressive.

The staff report, on pages 8 and 9, discusses the prospect of "railbanking" a status that can be imposed under a federal regulatory process that considers abandonment of the rail line. We have frequently stated our objections to railbanking, which, in this context would likely foreclose the prospect of future passenger rail service on the line. Railbanking is only available as part of the federal Surface Transportation Board's consideration of an application to abandon (remove from federal regulatory jurisdiction) a rail line. As the freight rail operator, Progressive would be the party that would normally seek abandonment of the line, which removes the line from federal jurisdictional control. Progressive, however, currently has no intention of filing for abandonment.

Therefore, an abandonment could only be pursued by means of an unusual "adverse abandonment" proceeding, brought by a third party to force the abandonment. It is extremely unlikely that such an action would be approved simply to control the use of a single bridge, as it would not only sever the line from Santa Cruz, but would impair the utility of the entire branch line in the future. Therefore, the entire line (at least from Capitola north) would need to be abandoned. And such an action is unlikely to succeed when it is in direct conflict with the clear preference of the county, as show by the results of Measure D in June of 2022.

Perhaps more importantly, abandonment of the line may create significant practical and legal obstacles to the renewal of rail service on the line in the future. Nationally, although almost 25,000 miles of track have been railbanked, only one eight-mile segment has been returned to service. Any action that substantially impairs future prospects for rail service should only be considered as part of a comprehensive regional process that considers the full implications of such an action. Before embarking on such a course, the City should very carefully consider not only whether such an approach will provide the desired benefits sought, but also the permanent damage such an action would have on prospects to renew service on the line. And given the clear mandate provided by the electorate in 2022, such an action by the City would be in stark contrast to the clear preference of the County as a whole.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide our thoughts to the Council and ask that you reject consideration of any action to seek to abandon the rail line.

Sincerely,
Melani Clark
CEO, Roaring Camp
385
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Barry Scott <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 1:25 PM
To: Goldstein, Jamie ([email protected]); City Council; Gautho, Julia Cc: Regional Transportation Commission
Subject: From Barry Scott, Please Approve Park Avenue - Do not wait for the ZEPRT report.

Attachments: Capitola Three Trail Segments.png; Park Ave Ultimate notes copy.jpeg Dear Capitola City Council, Staff, and others.

The ZEPRT report in September will neither assure rail transit nor end planning for a rail transit project.

The report will inform the RTC on the benefits and challenges of the initial plans and how to proceed with revised plans.

It will not result in a way to build the Coastal Trail on the railbed through railbanking, as many trailonly advocates insist.

Please resist using the ZEPRT report as a reason to take no action at the April 17th meeting.

Park Avenue Options A and B save the City expenditures and expedite City Traffic-Calming plans for Park Avenue without running a trail "onto streets and sidewalks." This section is entirely disconnected from the trestle and the Village, so claims that CMC 8.72 violations are in play are questionable.

Collaboration between City and County governments has been working well for other parts of the Coastal Trail project, and I hope Capitola will join them now.

Aware of the pressure and intimidation you are being subjected to by a minority of activists, I urge all of you to find the courage and resolve needed to support the City staff recommendation to permit the County to pursue the inclusion of Option A or B as an included alternative so that state funds are not lost and a superior trail is built in this section.

I am sharing with you two documents: one describing how Park Avenue is a separate project from the rest of the trail through your city and a second image showing the new Park Avenue alignment next to the prior "Ultimate Trail" alignment on the coastal side of the tracks.

PS, A trail-only option with raibanking and track removal is not achievable within the timeframe required of grants, if it's attainable at all.

We can't have a California Coastal Trail without Capitola's collaboration.

Please come together with the other cities and approve the Park Avenue Option.

Warm regards,
Barry Scott in Aptos
--
Barry Scott
386
Item 2 B.
2 Office: 831.612.6574
Mobile: 209.482.5663

387
Item 2 B.
388
Item 2 B.
389
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Scott Miller <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 1:25 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Rail Trail - Park Ave & Monterey Ave
Please approve the rail trail design adjacent to Park Avenue so we can get a safe way to bike and walk in this part of town.
--
Scott Miller
Santa Cruz, CA
390
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Robert Suess <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 1:21 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Fw: Rail Trail -NOT on Park Avenue!
To the City Council of Capitola:

The Rail Corridor was purchased for the Rail trail, Keep the Trail on the Rail please. CMC 8.72 - 8.72.040 Implementation. 1. The City of Capitola, through its constituent departments, shall take all steps necessary to preserve and utilize the Corridor and Trestle for active transportation and recreation. 2. No City of Capitola department, agency or employee shall expend any funds or resources related to the construction, reconstruction, operation, maintenance, financing, marketing, or signage for a detour of the Trail onto Capitola streets or sidewalks.

Bob Suess
391
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Jeb Bishop <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 1:16 PM
To: City Council
Subject: vote YES for rail & trail!
To the Capitola City Council:

At tomorrow’s 04/17 City Council meeting, please vote yes to further the aims of the rail and trail. This is a County-wide and regional project that needs all of us to step up and do our part to make it happen. With ever more people and ever more congestion on our roads, it becomes ever more imperative to make the rail and trail a reality. We need a safe trail for all of us to be able to walk and bike on away from traffic. We need the alternative of a train to take us around Monterey Bay and connect to the State system as traffic gets ever heavier.

Please vote tomorrow for the trail in Capitola. Please don’t jeopardize grant funds for a successful rail and trail and don’t sabotage the long range vision.

Thank you,
Jeb Bishop
Santa Cruz CA 95062
392
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Matt Miller <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 1:09 PM
To: City Council
Subject: [PDF] Comment on Item B: Park Avenue Alignment Attachments: City of Capitola - Letter of Support for Park Ave Rail Trail Alignment 4.16.25.pdf Hello Mayor Clarke and City of Capitola Council,
Please find the attached letter regarding Item B Park Avenue Alignment for tomorrow's special meeting. Thank you for your consideration and leadership on this significant project.

Best,
Matt Miller (he/him)
Director, Mobility Transformation

Office 831.515.1324
877 Cedar St. Suite 240, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
letsmodo.org | vamosmodo.org
393
Item 2 B.
4/16/25
City of Capitola City Council
420 Capitola Avenue
Capitola, CA 95010
RE: Item B Park Avenue Alignment
Dear Mayor Clarke and Capitola City Council,
Ecology Action, a California environmental non-profit headquartered in Santa Cruz, supports the investment in active transportation infrastructure with the Park Avenue Alignment of the Coastal Rail Trail to construct a continuous Class I bicycle and pedestrian facility that will enhance safety, equity, reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), and improve access to jobs, housing, and recreational opportunities for community members and visitors. The Coastal Rail Trail is part of the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail Network — envisioned over 20 years ago by then-U.S. Congressman Sam Farr—providing a continuous bicycle/pedestrian path through the most densely populated areas of Santa Cruz County.

Ecology Action's mission is to advance equitable climate solutions in high GHG emitting sectors, including transportation and this paved path will significantly enhance safe, convenient and accessible bike and pedestrian transportation in Capitola and points east and west.

We acknowledge that the Park Avenue Alignment deviates from the ultimate trail configuration and therefore represents a departure from the idea of this project that has been promoted and socialized for years. We also appreciate that in the face of all the variables, funding, and timeline at play, this clarifies the needed direction at this moment. Approving Park Avenue offers the city and surrounding community a much more likely and timely project that can materially improve safety, mobility, and quality of life. A no vote would introduce much more uncertainty, higher costs, and put at risk the funding and completion of a beautiful segment of the county-wide network. We need more high-quality active transportation facilities, and this is the way to get there with available funds. Being able to deliver a project with a historic grant amount from the state of California bodes well for momentum and future funding while not delivering it risks this project and potential opportunities down the road.

The project is particularly important for enhancing safety. Santa Cruz County has unacceptably high, and ultimately avoidable, rates of collisions involving bicyclists and pedestrians. The project will provide separation for people biking and walking from vehicular traffic, which is one of the most effective strategies for reducing bicycle/ pedestrian and vehicle collisions. Previous community engagement in Capitola has indicated a desire for safety and traffic calming measures on Park Avenue.

The project supports mode shift from single-occupancy vehicles to bicycling and walking and reduces VMT and GHG emissions by providing an attractive, direct, comfortable, and convenient alternative to driving. Residents and visitors will especially choose to bicycle and walk during periods of high car congestion on parallel roadways to reduce travel times and achieve personal health benefits.
394
Item 2 B.

Ecology Action supports the Park Avenue alignment, with either design. It will provide a new connection for Santa Cruz County’s active transportation network and improve the livability, equity, and quality of life for residents and visitors in Capitola and Santa Cruz County. We hope the City of Capitola can help propel this exciting project forward.

Sincerely,
Matt Miller
Director, Mobility Transformation
395
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Tina Andreatta <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 1:05 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Reduce Park Avenue Fire Danger - Approve Option A or Option B for the Park Avenue alignment
Dear Mayor Joe Clarke and City Council-members,
I am a former business owner in Capitola — in fact about 30 years. I lived in the heart of Capitola Village on Cherry Avenue, and Del Monte Avenue, Capitola. Now I live across the street from the Coastal Rail Trail.

I am wriƟng about the issue of fire safety. The large eucalyptus trees on both sides of the Park Avenue and Coastal Rail Trail pose a dangerous fire hazard- similar to Pacific Palisades and Alta Dena.

The RTC and County has offered Capitola a choice of OpƟon A and OpƟon B which saves Capitola from spending needed money on Park Avenue. No cost to Capitola.

OpƟon A and OpƟon B protects MORE Monarch BuƩerflies habitat.

Leave a legacy for your children, grandchildren and future generaƟons.

Sincerely,
Tina AndreaƩa
Santa Cruz County Resident
396
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Mark Ban <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 12:29 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Park Avenue rail trail
Riding my bicycle on Bay Avenue in Santa Cruz I can’t help wondering why if the RTC needs to save money, they didn’t put the trail on Bay Avenue. It appears to me a direct comparison to Park Avenue in Capitola. The RTC is just taking advantage of a small town. City council members please stand up for your consƟtuents and not let the RTC take advantage of us. The rail Corredor is beauƟful and it should not be sold out to a busy street. Santa Cruz didn’t do it and neither should we.

Mark Ban
I am a long-term Capitola resident on McCormick Avenue
Sent from my iPhone
397
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Alicia L. Amaro <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 2:01 PM
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 (4-16-25) Morrissey Public Comments on Agenda Items 3(A) & 3(B) (Measure L)
Attachments: LTT Capitola City Council 4-16-25 Morrissey Public Comments on Agenda Items A B (Measure L) (01729963).pdf
Good afternoon,
Please see the attached letter, providing public comments from Mike and Meghan Morrissey, on agenda items 3(A) & 3(B) (Measure L) of the City Council’s meeting on April 17, 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. 398
Item 2 B.

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
1925 - 2005

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-01729595;2}
DERRIC G. OLIVER
April 16, 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 Items 3(A) & 3(B) (Measure L) Capitola City Council meeting 4-17-25
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’ position regarding Agenda Item 3(A), Measure L, and Agenda Item 3(B), regarding 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.”

1. Agenda Item 3(A): Measure L
Measure L was passed in 2018 pursuant to the initiative power reserved by the People in the California Constitution. As such, the City Council cannot amend or repeal Measure L, absent further voter initiative to do so. (Cal. Const., art. II, § 10, subd. (c).) A statute, once duly enacted, is presumed to be constitutional, and if challenged, unconstitutionality must be clearly shown, with doubts resolved in favor of the statute’s validity. (Lockyer v. City & County of San Francisco (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1055, 1084.) This is particularly so in the case of statutes passed through voter initiatives, which the courts “jealously guard” and liberally construe so as not to improperly annul the will of the voters. (California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland (2017) 3 Cal.5th 924, 934.)
399
Item 2 B.

Capitola City Council
April 16, 2025

Page 2 ends

{DGO-01729595;2}
It is the courts, not this City Council, who have the authority to determine the validity and enforceability of Measure L. (See, Perry v. Brown (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1116.) The City had the opportunity to challenge the validity of Measure L after its passage. The City did not do so, nor has Measure L unlawfully invaded the province of the City Council’s jurisdiction or essential functions.

While City Staff has correctly acknowledged the validity and enforceability of Measure L in their staff reports, City Staff has misinterpreted the plain and unambiguous language and express purpose of Measure L in several important respects. As outlined in my February 12, 2025 letter to the City Council, contrary to previous City Staff assertions, Measure L establishes directives and limitations, as opposed to abstract “goals,” which clearly and plainly require the City to keep the Trail on the Corridor, and refrain from using City funds and resources (including bike lane easements, dedications of land, staff time, attorney time, etc.) to allow the contrary.

City Staff, in relying on a dictionary definition of the word “detour,” have ignored the statutory context in which the term “detour” is required to be interpreted, which makes clear that any planned, temporary, or permanent diversion of the Trail through City streets is considered a “detour” from the Corridor and expressly prohibited by Measure L.

Measure L is not “vague” or unclear, let alone unconstitutionally so. It provides more than adequate notice of required and prohibited conduct, as the City is well aware of, given its compliance with it for the past six, almost seven, years. Any challenge to Measure L’s validity would assuredly fail, as its opponents would be hard-pressed to meet the exacting tests applied by the Courts for such claims. As such, the Morrisseys urge and demand you to direct City Staff to interpret the Measure L consistent with its plain terms, and to conform your votes to its directives and the will of the voters.

2. Agenda Item 3(B): Park Lane Avenue Realignment
The Morrisseys object to the realignment of the Trail on Park Avenue because it violates Measure L. Both Option A and Option B relocate/detour the Trail onto Capitola streets in direct contravention of Measure L’s operational provisions prohibiting such diversion. Additionally, both Option A and Option B will require the City to spend funds and resources to support the detouring of the Trail into City streets. While the Staff Report notes there is no “immediate cost” to the City, the City will still have to grant easements and potentially land dedications to allow City-owned streets to be utilized by the RTC and County, in violation of the prohibition of spending “resources” in support of a detour. Further, the Staff Report makes clear the City will be obligated to commit $16,000 to $22,000 annually to maintain this detour. This is a plain violation of Measure L and the City Council cannot approve it without violation Measure L.

In contrast, a reexamination of prior plans to maintain the Trail within the Corridor is not only feasible, but appropriately honors both the law and the will of the people. The Morrisseys urge you to vote against both Options A and B, and return to the reexamination of plans which keep the Trail within the Corridor.
400
Item 2 B.

Capitola City Council
April 16, 2025

Page 3 ends

{DGO-01729595;2}

3. Conclusion
The Morrisseys and the voters who enacted Measure L demand and expect the City to fully comply with its limits, the express “purpose” of which is to “keep” the Trail “in” the Corridor “to improve safety and reduce traffic.” (CMC § 8.72.010.) They expect you to honor its provisions that Measure L “shall not be amended or repealed except by vote of the people.” (CMC § 8.72.050.) 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:rjs
cc:

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]) 401
Item 2 B.
402
Item 2 B.
403
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Samantha Wildman <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 2:28 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Coastal Rail Trail
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello, regarding the Segments 10 & 11 project:

I live off Park Avenue and walk my dog on the railroad tracks to get exercise safely off the street. I am hoping the project can move forward to help both Capitola residents, nearby Soquel residents ( such as myself) and visitors. This new segment can provide a safe way for walkers, bicyclists to travel up and down Park Avenue in a safe manner.

Please move forward with this safety improvement. Thank you! I am unable to make the meeting this Thursday. But I wanted to voice my opinion here.

Sincerely,
Samantha Wildman
2856 Lindsay Lane, Soquel CA 95073
(831) 431-0389
Sent from my iPhone
404
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Saladin Sale <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 2:54 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Please Support Park Avenue Trail Option A or Option B Now Dear Councilmembers –
Please endorse either Option A or Option B tomorrow evening to take the next steps towards building a better bike and pedestrian trail along Park Avenue.

In this matter, you are looking at a rare opportunity to dramatically improve an obsolete and inferior city asset, the current Park Avenue bike lane, by accepting the offer to build a wider and safer trail paid for entirely by RTC funds. The alternative is to lose this opportunity by bowing to the small number of obstructionists who at every opportunity are still trying to block progress on a funded regional infrastructure project, in this case by promoting an inferior and more costly trail design below Park Avenue that would be much more difficult for Capitola residents to access.

I favor Option A because it preserves the existing Class II bike lane on the opposite side of Park Avenue but would also support Option B if the Council prefers. The important thing is to endorse one or the other and move forward with positive action.

Respectfully,

SALADIN SALE
Santa Cruz, CA
405
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 4:43 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Lynne Ann DeSpelder; Albert Lee Strickland
Subject: Fwd: Listen to Capitola Residents NOT the RTC
To all Council members, Sorry for the duplication but my earlier email did not show up on emails received for the meeting so Rosie said to use the "all Council" Address -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Listen to Capitola Residents NOT the RTC
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 16:25:15 -0400
From: [email protected]
To: Gerry Jensen <[email protected]>, Melinda Orbach <[email protected]>, Margaux Morgan <[email protected]>, Joe Clarke <[email protected]>, Alexander Pedersen <[email protected]>
Cc: Lynne Ann DeSpelder <[email protected]>, Albert Lee Strickland <[email protected]>

Dear Capitola City Council,
This email will be among the many already posted in your agenda packet regarding items 3A and 3B.

Please read the comments sent to you regarding the RTC's move to put the "trail" on city streets.

We urge you to uphold your legal and civic duty to follow Measure L and previously litigated Section

8.72 of our Municipal Code. We all heard in the April 10th section "Oral Communications by Members of the Public", the intent and clarity to preserve the trail within the rail corridor and prohibit its diversion onto Capitola City Streets.

Sincerely, Lynne DeSpelder & Albert Lee Strickland
Homeowners and 33-year residents of Capitola Village

406
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Michael Ballen <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 4:10 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Support for the Rail Trail
Dear Capitola City Council,
I want to add my voice to the support for compleƟng the Rail Trail from Monterey & Park to New Brighton State Beach.

I am an avid biker, but being a senior ciƟzen, I am restricƟng myself to ride only on dedicated bicycle trails nowadays. No more off road or sharing the road with cars. It’s way too scary for me now.

My sister lives in Capitola, and I visit her oŌen. One acƟvity that we can sƟll do together is ride bikes, like we did when we were kids. It’s very meaningful for me to get cardio exercise and maintain my engagement with my family, so riding safely in Santa Cruz County is desirable for me.

Please preserve the exisƟng Rail Trail grant funding, and be a part of a great thing for all Bay Area residents.

Thanks very much,
Respecƞully,
Michael Ballen
407
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Carl A. Seibert <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 4:08 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Please Approve The Park Avenue Trail Project
Dear Mayor Clark and Capitola City Council Members:

My name is Carl Seibert, I reside in Soquel.

I've had the privilege of speaking before you several times, thank you.

I've called our "Mid-County" area home since the late 1950s (I'm a proud graduate of Capitola Elementary, Class of 1965 too.) I encourage you to please vote "Yes" for either "Trail Option A" or "Trail Option B" on Park Avenue
from Monterey Avenue to New Brighton. (Personally, I prefer Trail Option A, it is more practical.)
The consequences of your vote won't just affect the City of Capitola, it will resonate throughout
our county.

A grant of 67 million dollars is already in-place for construction of this trail segment.

If that isn't getting to "Play With House Money", I don't know what is! (I consider it all the more exceptional because our county is the second-smallest in California.

How great is that, for us to get that kind of consideration?) Please don't pass on this opportunity to fund a beautiful, safe stretch of a county-wide trail.

Since funding and the costs of this project are frequently the focus of this issue, I don't understand why
it isn't considered more often in terms of an "Investment".

Not just an investment in tangibles like bridges, trestles, rail crossings and other much-needed physical improvements,
but in our greater community as well.

The funding will provide for good-paying jobs, employment for local residents; many of them "Green Jobs".

The money those folks earn will largely be spent here locally, to pay for their families, their homes, their groceries,
household needs, etc. - and taxes. Those tax revenues will be put back into our communities as well.

I believe it creates a "Beneficial Cycle", revenue-wise for the City of Capitola and our county.

In the process, Capitola and the greater Santa Cruz County area get a world-class bike and pedestrian trail that many
generations of us get to use and enjoy.

Again, please vote "Yes" to move forward on this project, thanks again.

Sincerely,
Carl Seibert
Soquel
P.S. Have you seen pictures of the "Westside to Boardwalk" segment of the trail? 408
Item 2 B.
2 It looks terrific - and with your approval we gain an even more beautiful - and safe - stretch of it on Park Avenue!
[email protected]
409
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Klank Diolosa <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 4:05 PM
To: City Council
Subject: NO on Rail Project.

I love here in Capitola and I’m very much against this project. I strongly vote NO and ask you to as well. We don’t need to have all that major construcƟon leading to unnecessary congesƟon in our small beach town. We don’t need the damage to the trees and the current ecosystem.

I cannot stress enough how much I am against this project, and I hope you will hear not only my voice, but the others in our community here who feel the same way as I do.

Thank you
Daren Diolosa
Sent from my iPhone
410
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: rockinrmb <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 3:53 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Rail-Trail Community Input
Dear Mayer and Members of the Capitola City Council,
The rail & trail decisions made in Capitola will have repercussions for all County residents that have already voted in favor of Rail and Trail by a supermajority, in two separate elecƟons. Now, at stake is the loss of the rail/trail grant and then the requirement to return the approximately $70million, due to incessant obstrucƟonism by a minority of well-funded, property developers and their minions that have a personal greed interest in sabotaging rail. They are a serious public nuisance, fighƟng with deep pockets the will of the voƟng majority by causing perpetual delays every step of the way, unnecessary study aŌer study, disinformaƟon and divisiveness, at great cost to our community well being. Enough is enough!
“In 2022, Santa Cruz County received the largest acƟve transportaƟon grant ever awarded to a county by the California TransportaƟon Commission, totaling over $105 million. Approximately $70 million of this funding is allocated for the development of the Coastal Rail Trail Segments 10 and 11, including the porƟon passing through Capitola. More recently, a significant federal grant was awarded for construcƟon of the same project.” Can we just be grateful for the State support and assistance and move forward expediƟously? Please just say, “No,” to the incessant obstrucƟonists.

Thank you,
R. M. Belkin
Soquel, CA
Sent from my iPhone
411
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Jim MacKenzie <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 3:32 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Measure L (Capitola Municipal Code Section 8.72) and MBSST trail alignment To: Capitola City Council
From: Jim MacKenzie, resident of Santa Cruz
April 16, 2025
Mayor Clarke, Vice Mayor Pedersen, and Councilmembers Jensen, Morgan, and Ohrbach:

You have my wholehearted support in approving either Park Avenue alignment (Option A or B) of MBSST Segment 11, as proposed by the SCCRTC.

The Capitola City Council’s pending decision regarding the county's and RTC’s proposed alignment of Segment 11 of the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail (MBSST) along Park Avenue has been characterized as being “controversial.” But I believe that the “controversy” surrounding this decision has been manufactured and amplified by a small cadre of trail-only, anti-rail activists bent on ending, forever, the possibility of future passenger rail transit in Santa Cruz County.

Despite the overwhelming countywide 73%-to-27% defeat of Greenway’s 2022 anti-rail Measure D, the same wellheeled lobbying group, four years prior to Measure D, concocted, collected signatures for, and provided overwhelming campaign funding to effectuate the narrow 206-vote passage of a Capitola-only ballot initiative, Capitola Measure L (Greenway), in 2018.

Measure L stipulated that any segment of the MBSST designed to run through Capitola Village must be contained completely within the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line (SCBRL) right-of-way, i.e., the Capitola rail trestle. And saying thst Measure L was also designed to make Capitola Village streets safer by routing bicycles off of them left out the very important fact thst Village streets already had designated bike lanes and that it would never be unlawful for bicycles to use these streets to traverse the Village. This seems even more ludicrous in light of the fact that the City of Capitola is currently in the process of installing 100 BCycle docking stations and bringing 50 for-rent e-bikes to its streets — including in the Village. And thst Capitola Village is also hosting a day-long event that will ban cars and allow only cyclists and pedestrians on the streets..

Following its passage seven years ago, Measure L (Capitola Municipal Code Section 8.72) became a ticking time bomb embedded in Capitola’s municipal code, designed to do one thing and one thing only when the right time came: force the trail, as it passed through Capitola Village, onto the rail trestle — which would require removing the rails, thus making it nearly impossible for rail to ever be reinstated there — rather than routing the trail temporarily, through village streets until a new bicycle-pedestrian bridge could be constructedf across Soquel Creek.

It should be pointed out that Measure L (Greenway, 2018) was enacted in direct contradiction with the Capitola City Council’s unanimous resolution only three years before, in 2015, to adopti the 2013 MBSST Master Plan, which clearly stated, regarding Segment 11:
“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 conditions. Coastal trail access through this area will need to continue on existing surface streets and sidewalks to 412
Item 2 B.
2 cross Soquel Creek and navigate through Capitola Village.” It also should be noted, for the record, that the Capitola rail trestle IS NOT OWNED BY the City of Capitola, and that Capitola has no jurisdiction over its use. The rail corridor, right-of-way, and rail infrastructure, including the trestle, were purchased by the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) — a state-established regional transportation planning agency (RTPA) — with state rail bond funds from a 1990 statewide ballot initiative, Proposition 116, which stipulated that the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line would be used for the development of passenger and other rail uses. So, in essence, the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line corridor, right-of-way, and rail infrastructure belong to the people of California.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Jim MacKenzie
Santa Cruz
413
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Kieran Horn <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 4:45 PM
To: City Council; Clarke, Joe
Subject: Coastal Rail Trail / Park Ave
Dear Capitola City Council,
I wanted to thank you for your recent outreach to the community in regards to the proposal of rerouƟng the trail to Park Ave.

I am a supporter of a pedestrian and bike path being completed as soon as possible, but I appreciate you pausing to get all the informaƟon needed to make a decision on this maƩer that holds a lot of importance to us that live in Cliffwood Heights and all of Capitola.

Without the following informaƟon, it seems illogical to move the trail of the planned railway:
-Is the budget secured to build and operate a train from Santa Cruz to Watsonville (is the plan fiscally possible? If not, a pedestrian and cycling path should be prioriƟzed) -The esƟmated passenger costs discussed about 7-8 years ago at a city hall meeƟng was $300/month for someone to travel by train from Watsonville to Santa Cruz for work. With inflaƟon, what is that cost today? An electric bike on a bike path would be much more affordable -According to Measure L, will the trail go on the trestle and not send an increased number of cycles to the village? -If Measure L is ignored and the bicycle trail does not go on the trestle, has there been a traffic study of the impact of an increased number of cyclists riding through the village (as we know pedestrians and cyclists create a lot of traffic in the summer, not just cars)
Best regards,
Kieran Horn
414
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Iwalani Faulkner <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 5:00 PM
To: City Council
Subject: [PDF] City Council Meeting Support for. April 17th Park Ave Alignment Attachments: 2025-04-16_CapitolaParkAveAlignment_EquityTransit.pdf Please find attached our letter of support:
--
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.
415
Item 2 B.
1840 41st Ave, Ste 102, #227
Capitola, CA 95010
831-278-1007
Capitola City Council Members
420 Capitola Ave
Capitola, CA 95010
April 16, 2025
RE: Approve FULLY FUNDED Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail segment along Park Avenue segment
Dear Honorable Capitola Council Members:

Thank you for your work on behalf of Capitola Community. Capitola extends beyond the village along the border of Live Oak near 30th all the way past Park Ave through New Brighton State Beach to Pot Belly Beach Road. Capitola runs adjacent to the beautiful Monterey Bay. Capitola and all county residents have the fortune of being able to access the beautiful parks and beaches and striking vistas in Capitola. The addition of a Coastal Trail for our community will provide families from all over the county with a safe beautiful place to walk, ride and roll.

In November of 2023, 70-year-old Debra Town was struck and killed crossing the street at Bay Ave and Crossroads Loop. Her family was devastated just as they were heading into Thanksgiving season. Many residents called for improved infrastructure seeking to calm traffic speeds and ensure safety for people walking and biking in Capitola. Capitola City Council members acted quickly with an investigation, report and implemented temporary infrastructure that slowed traffic and ensure safer passage for pedestrians. A number of local drivers expressed rage and opposition to the changes, despite the fact that the improved infrastructure made the streets safer for everyone.
https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2023/11/20/pedestrian-killed-in-capitola-hit-and-run/ If this were a rare occurrence in Capitola, those complaining might be justified in arguing that being made to slow down is unnecessary. However, in comparison to 76 similarly sized cities across California, the City of Capitola ranked 1st for the number of pedestrian injuries/fatalities for those ages 65 and older!
Families are afraid to let their children bike and walk to school, to the parks and beaches, and to local activity. This translates into more cars on the roads transporting kids to and from every activity, more traffic, increased frustration, and reduced safety. Compared to decades past when kids could safely walk or bike to school and activities, most families feel forced into driving their kids everywhere since they do not feel our streets are safe for their families to use outside of the car.
416
Item 2 B.
1840 41st Ave, Ste 102, #227
Capitola, CA 95010
831-278-1007
The voices of a relatively small group of loud community members seeking to stop the construction of a 0.7 mile segment of the MBSST along Park Avenue, not all of them residents of Capitola, have overshadowed the greater sentiment of local families and the community at large. They offer misinformation and misdirection, bullying and proclamations which sound certain, but really are forms of posturing to push for their agenda.

The greater community wants a trail! We have been granted millions of dollars to construct a trail! The Capitola staff and RTC have identified an outstanding option to build a completely separated trail along Park Ave, in most respects better than the prior option proposed along the coast side which we cannot afford.

The vociferous opponents to the Park Ave. trail are trying to reopen an issue which has been closed. They want to reopen conversations about building the trail across the trestle and on the tracks. This is neither a feasible or timely solution. In order to build a trail on the tracks, the tracks would have to be railbanked which would require adverse abandonment. Attempts to adversely abandon the rail line would cost HUGE amounts of time and money and would not likely result in the outcome the opponents are seeking. Most of these opponents are retired or self-employed and have time to spend threatening council members, posting misinformation on social media, and expressing their opinions as facts.

Most Capitola families work full time and are extremely busy shuttling kids and commuting to and from work, often over-the-hill, and do not have the time to read Capitola City Council agendas and attend long council meetings. Many elders and people with disabilities are unable to attend the city council meetings in person – which means they can no longer speak publicly on Zoom, which is not equitable.

Capitola has a very high incidence of traffic violence. At the same time, Capitola has a handful of very aggressive outspoken residents who do not want to see changes implemented that would make Capitola safer for everyone.

Equity Transit supports the 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 417
Item 2 B.
1840 41st Ave, Ste 102, #227
Capitola, CA 95010
831-278-1007
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 would like to see a world class trail as soon as possible, we are excited about the proposed staff recommendations.

Sincerely,
Lani Faulkner, Director
418
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 5:22 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Fwd: Listen to Capitola Residents NOT the RTC

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Fwd: Listen to Capitola Residents NOT the RTC
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 19:43:09 -0400
From: [email protected]
To: Capitola City Council <[email protected]> Cc: Lynne Ann DeSpelder <[email protected]>, Albert Lee Strickland <[email protected]>

To all Council members, Sorry for the duplication but my earlier email did not show up on emails received for the meeting so Rosie said to use the "all Council" Address -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Listen to Capitola Residents NOT the RTC
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 16:25:15 -0400
From: [email protected]
To: Gerry Jensen <[email protected]>, Melinda Orbach <[email protected]>, Margaux Morgan <[email protected]>, Joe Clarke <[email protected]>, Alexander Pedersen <[email protected]>
Cc: Lynne Ann DeSpelder <[email protected]>, Albert Lee Strickland <[email protected]>

Dear Capitola City Council,
This email will be among the many already posted in your agenda packet regarding items 3A and 3B.

Please read the comments sent to you regarding the RTC's move to put the "trail" on city streets.

We urge you to uphold your legal and civic duty to follow Measure L and previously litigated Section

Sincerely, Lynne DeSpelder & Albert Lee Strickland
Homeowners and 33-year residents of Capitola Village

419
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 5:24 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Fwd: Listen to Capitola Residents NOT the RTC
3A & 3B Special City Council Meeting 17 April 2025
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Listen to Capitola Residents NOT the RTC
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 16:25:15 -0400
From: [email protected]
To: Gerry Jensen <[email protected]>, Melinda Orbach <[email protected]>, Margaux Morgan <[email protected]>, Joe Clarke <[email protected]>, Alexander Pedersen <[email protected]>
Cc: Lynne Ann DeSpelder <[email protected]>, Albert Lee Strickland <[email protected]>

Dear Capitola City Council,
This email will be among the many already posted in your agenda packet regarding items 3A and 3B.

Please read the comments sent to you regarding the RTC's move to put the "trail" on city streets.

We urge you to uphold your legal and civic duty to follow Measure L and previously litigated Section

Sincerely, Lynne DeSpelder & Albert Lee Strickland
Homeowners and 33-year residents of Capitola Village

420
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Brian Peoples <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 7:11 PM
To: Matt Machado
Cc: Michael Rotkin; Sarah Christensen; Justin Cummings; [email protected]; [email protected]; Corey Aldridge; Kimberly De Serpa; Manu Koenig; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Monica Martinez; City Council; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Vanessa Quiroz; Pedersen, Alexander Subject: public information request - Capitola City Council - staff misrepresenting information Matt,
We often get Public Information request reports from our Trail Now supporters. With the big Capitola Trestle repurposing to trail debate, I received a 76-page Public Information Request report from Capitola advocacy group that has you participating in a meeting and making comments.

The issue with the PIR report has county staff making statements to purposely misguide Capitola City Council members on scheduling requirements. In short, staff stated that they are intentionally misguiding Capitola City Council. They actually make statements "to not disclose information to city council on extension plans for CTC funds".

I am no expert, but I think it is illegal that staff purposely misguided city council on a project scope.

You are part of the conversation (Dec-March/2025), so I think you may be implicated in this misrepresentation to public officials because you didn't recommend to staff that they do not misrepresent information to Capitola City Council. I appreciate your work as Director of Public Works so I am not looking to implicate you or others, but it is really unacceptable that County Staff is dishonest to Capitola City Council about the proposed trail project schedule.

We have more people and AI looking at the public records - but I wanted to express my disappointment in county staff purposely providing false information to the public and council members .

Best regards,
Brian Peoples
421
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Alfred carlson <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 7:33 PM
To: City Council; Mick Caph-Routh; Kahn, Jessica; GERRY JENSEN Subject: Re: SAVE OUR RAIL TRAIL

KEEP THE TRAIL NEXT TO THE RAIL , NOT SPEND MANY BILLIONS REPLACING STOCKTON BRIDGE TO ADD BIKE LANE AND MAKE BIKES GO TROUGH THE VILLAGE. AL
:

Tomorrow night's city council meeting
Aol/Old Mail

The linked image cannot
be displayed. The file
may have been moved,
renamed, or deleted.

Verify that the link
points to the correct file
and location.

Gayle Ortiz
From:[email protected]
To:Gayle Ortiz
Wed, Apr 16 at 7:02 PM
Dear Friends and Neighbors,
This is our moment to stand up and be heard. Tomorrow night, the Capitola City Council will be making critical decisions that will shape the future of our town—and they need to see that we’re paying attention.

Outside agiators (FORT - Friends of the RAIL trail) will be showing up in bus loads handing out Free T-shirts trying to influence our City Council, telling us what to do with our Land, detouring the Trail out of the RTC Purchased Rail Corridor, due to their mismanagement of funds.

They are also ignoring our municipal code 8.72 which states that the trail must remain on the corridor in Capitola
422
Item 2 B.
2 We’re calling on everyone who cares about:
Protecting our neighborhoods from unjust land grabs and new tax burdens Preserving our trees, monarch habitat, and open space. The Realignment hasn’t been studied and critical Windbreak trees and roosting habitat will be lost. Stopping the Rail Trail boondoggle until a proper study is done - It will take $3-5 BILLION dollars before we see a Train. More Sales Taxes, More Property Taxes, for a few hundred people to ride it?  Upholding Measure L and Capitola Municipal Code 8.72—which require a public vote on projects like this. This states "The City of Capitola, through its constituent departments, shall take all steps necessary to preserve and utilize the Corridor and Trestle for active transportation and recreation." City officials are fast-tracking a project that will cost millions, threaten sensitive areas, and potentially violate the will of the voters. They need to know we are watching—and we will not let this slide without a fight.

A group of Concerned Citizens will be there at 3:30 holding spots in line! come up get a CONCERNED CITIZENS of CAPITOLA Flyer, and we will save you a seat! Or come at 5-53-6 pm
跚跛跜距 Council Meeting:
괜괝괞괟괠괡괢괧괣괤괥괦 Tuesday, April 17, Capitola City Hall – 420 Capitola Ave 꽚꽛꽜꽇꽝 5:15 PM - Public Comment, then Agenda item 3 A CMC 8.72 (Probably about 5:45) Agenda item 3 B: (6 pm ish) B. Park Avenue Alignment of the Coastal Rail Trail (Segments 10 & 11)
Where:
굗굙굘
This is our Capitola—not the developers’, not the bureaucrats’. Let’s make history tomorrow night.

Thanks so much,
G
423
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Beatrice Campbell <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 8:35 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Kids opinions about safer bike lanes
Hi my name is Beatrice and I am in 8th grade. I live in capitola and have done Junior Life Guards since I was 6. I interviewed kids at my school to get their opinions on having a bike path through the village.

Below are opinions of teenagers who can’t make it to a city council meeting because they are so busy.

Theo Gradek - 11th grade
“The roads are very dangerous. One time I was biking to my friend's house and people in cars were honking at me because there was no space for me on the road.” Will Rey-Cenevaz - 10th grade
“When turning into Capitola sometimes cars don’t see you and that’s dangerous” How would you feel if we had a bike path from the east side to the west side? “That’d be amazing”
Grace Nicely - 11th grade
“We need to protect our younger people on bikes because they are the future.” “If we had a bike path there would be a lot less injuries and people wouldn’t be as scared to bike, people are careless and will open their doors into the bike lane without looking so its important to keep bike lines out of the door-zone.”
“I think younger kids are not as aware of what’s going on on the road and there are bike safety skills that the kids should know but when they are biking with their friends they often forget and the responsibility lies on those who received a license, to keep kids safe.” Sascha Fon - 11th grade
“Having a bike line would promote biking more. We don’t have a continuous path from the westside to Capitola so this would promote people biking to work and school , it’s better for the environment to bike than to drive a car.”
Corissa Johnson Swalve - 8th grade
“It’s the only way that kids can get around, they’re too young to drive, if you’re trying to get a job to save up to get a car you need a bike, so you need a bike lane “The economy of Capitola village is supported by kids. I go there every weekend. The shops are primarily aimed to please kids and teens: candy, ice cream, boba , trendy bathing suits. There are more businesses advertising to adolescents than there are bars meaning kids and teens are bringing in more revenue than adults.”
“If you have to work, as a kid, you’re going to have to rely on a bike to get to your job which is important to support your family and you are not legally allowed to drive a car.” Diana Deyhim - 8th grade
“A bike lane would keep kids safe when they bike home through the village.” 424
Item 2 B.
2 Olivia Tinkey - 12th grade
“Bike lanes, especially protected bike lanes, are really important for safety, I’ve seen people on bikes being hit by cars before.”
“I’m pro-bike because it’s good for the environment, for the future, it's exercise and recreation.” Rosa Novembre - 8th grade
“It’s the exact path to my friends house and my school and would be helpful to get anywhere quickly without traffic.”
Natasha Tarbox - 10th grade
“A lot of people bike in this community so it is important to protect bikers.” Calvin Davis- 7th grade
“There are lots of bumps in the bike lane and sometimes cars go into it so it’s really dangerous.

I would really like to have a bike path.”
Julia Guth - 11th grade
“I got hit by a car, so I don’t want to get hit by a car again.” Mira Stern - 8th grade
“I am stuck in traffic for half an hour on the way to school, and an hour or more after school. I just got an e-bike to make commuting easier on my parents and me. I know that a bike path would help many kids to get to school easier and safely. Biking is good for the environment, community, and way better than cars. Biking is the only way we can get around town because we can’t drive. For families without cars, kids in different schools, or ones with low income parents, having a bike path to get around would make it so much easier for kids to get to school, appointments, food, and friends' houses.”
Vivi Bevirt - 8th grade
“It would be amazing to have a bike path that went all the way through town. It would make it so much easier and safer to see my friends.”
Nola Gordan
“As someone who bikes to school often, a bike path would make me feel much more secure and safe on the road.”
Randy Garrett - parent and teacher
“It would be a dream. If we can have a rail and a bike path that would be nice but if we can’t do the rail the bike path is more essential and needed. I bet with the tenth of the cost it would take to build a rail we could be the dedicated bike path mecca of the west coast.” 425
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Amy West <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 11:22 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Rail trail approval
Hello Council Members,
Riding my bike through Capitola is the only way I dont lose my mind. I feel a relieved every time I pass the long line of cars trying to get through- made worse by all the traffic construction- reroutes and bridge lane shutdown. It's always a mess trying to navigate Capitola village and other side roads leading to and from the tight traffic area, and it's why it's critical for you to move forward with safety improvement for Capitola residents and visitors. Please approve the rail trail design adjacent to Park Avenue so we can get a safe way to bike and walk in this part of town. I am not sure what people are waiting for - it gets worse every year and this issue seems to have gone on for years.

Thank you,
Amy West
426
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Vicki Miller <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2025 7:23 AM
To: City Council
Cc: Vicki Miller
Subject: Trail through Capitola - yes vote
Council Members,
Please vote yes for the continuation of the Rail Trail segments 10 and 11 today, April 17, 2025. Please do not let the very loud small group of nay sayers sway you from the forward path. (pun intended) Please remember that the majority of the County of Santa Cruz want a continuous trail and rail. This small group of nay sayers have looked for all of the negative and none of the positive that this trail via either option A or B provided by the RTC to Capitola will provide to the City. It is also important to note that the City of Capitola will not be spending any funds to make one of these 2 options happen. Please remember that the decision made by the Capitola City Council will not only affect your City but the entire County.

I realize that the nay sayers have been loud, they have threatened recalls and have compared voting yes to aligning decisions made with what is happening in DC. You have a very important decision to make, the entire County have their eyes on you. Your decision will affect not just the 9,456 residents of Capitola but 262,572 County residents.

Today, please do not continue to kick the path down the road, make a positive decision moving either option A or option B forward.

Respectfully,
Vicki Miller
County Resident
427
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Katharine Parker <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2025 7:59 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Rail/Trail Diversion
To the City Council,
Regarding the proposed rail/trail alignment,
this is indeed a complex situation and choices made now will have quite an impact on the city for years to come. Business and resident disruption might be a part of the problem in running a trail through the village, but public safety is foremost in
many peoples’ minds. Each time I drive or ride a bike through the village I strain to watch other cars, pedestrians (and especially tourists who act unpredictably in crossing streets), and bicyclists.

Also it sounds like, according to a reading by a member of the public at last month’s meeting the original grant was given for passage along the abandoned rail line, not through other parts of the city. I hope the City Council will encourage the RTC to find a way to direct the trail as it was initially planned.

Respectfully,
Tom and Katharine Parker
Sent from my iPhone
428
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Margie Way <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2025 8:40 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Rail & Trail
I really don’t understand the holdup in Capitola for adding segments 10 & 11 to the rail-trail system being created for our County. We have the money & the plan in place and I hope you will vote Yes on OpƟons A or B to complete the countywide rail and trail route.

We need more ways to travel not less. As a Sr ciƟzen (75) who has lived in Santa Cruz County since 1971, my days of bicycling long distances are over and I’ve been very excited watching the progress of the rail and trail in other parts of the county. Please do not block this progress! Vote YES! Thank you!
Marjorie Way
831-234-0292
429
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Kisling, Niels ([email protected])
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2025 10:00 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Railroad Trestle
Honorable Council MembersWe need to keep our historical train trestle.

Imagine the positive impact to our tourism if bikes and pedestrians can "fly over" Capitola Village.

It also makes good, common sense, to keep the trail on the trestle. Imagine the bad publicity each time a bike or a pedestrian is hit by a car while transiting thru the village.

SincerelyNiels Kisling
1820 Wharf Road
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S22 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone 430
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Rich Didday <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2025 10:00 AM
To: City Council
Subject: On 3B, please follow 8.72
In the City Council meeting tonight,
On 3B, please direct the City to plan for keeping the trail in the existing rail corridor Thank you,
Rich Didday
323 Riverview Ave
431
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Kinstler, Margaret ([email protected])
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2025 10:11 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda item 3B
In the City Council meeting tonight,
On 3B, please direct the City to plan for keeping the trail in the existing rail corridor Thank you,
Margaret Kinstler
323 Riverview Ave
432
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Liz McDade <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2025 10:12 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Vote YES for option A or B
Dear City Council members,
I am writing to ask you to vote YES for either option A or option B and move forward with a rail trail in Capitola.

I live 2 houses off of Park Avenue in Capitola. I am a small business owner and have an office on 41st Ave. I’m also mom to 2 daughters who both ride their bikes around Capitola. I ride my bike around Capitola as well several times a week and would love for Capitola to move forward with the RTC’s plan.

Despite some opposition to the RTC’s plan, it is important to consider the greater good when making your decision. The entire community will benefit from safer bike and pedestrian paths, as well as the eventual rail line through our community. Who benefits when we block this plan? A select few individuals with private interests and opposition to change.

You have the opportunity to lead our community forward into the future with a positive vision for sustainability and growth. Your role is to address the larger issues without getting bogged down in the details of how these come to life.

Those who oppose options A and B as well as the RTC plans for moving through the village can’t see the forest for the trees. It is your job to help guide us through the confusion and misinformation.

Your responsibility is to make decisions based on facts rather than opinions. In this case, the facts are that measure L, according to the city attorney, does NOT preclude you from approving the RTC’s plan. In addition, the idea that moving the bike path into the village would create major issues is also not a fact. The fact is that bikes already travel through the village everyday. The RTC’s plan would just make it a safer experience for our bikes and pedestrians.

Please move forward by voting yes for option A or B and approving the RTC’s plan to move the trail through the village. It is time to say yes to the rail trail, even if that means it will not be exactly as everyone hoped originally (myself included).

Thank you for your consideration.

If the investigation identifies negligence as the cause of the accident, the family of Helen Hines may consider filing a wrongful death lawsuit. They may be able to recover compensation for their devastating loss and hold the negligent party accountable."
434
Item 2 B.
2 As a concerned resident of Capitola and an advocate for responsible, data-driven public planning, I am writing to raise serious objections to the proposed realignment of the Coastal Rail Trail along Park Avenue, specifically where it would remove existing Class II bike lanes and sidewalks in favor of a narrow, mixed-use path shared by high-speed e-bikes, pedestrians, strollers, and seniors.

This proposed design is not only unsafe, but legally risky, inconsistent with best practices in active transportation planning, and a clear violation of Vision Zero principles, which aim to eliminate trafficrelated deaths and serious injuries.

The largest ATP grant in State history is for the Recreational Trail, inside the Rail Corridor. Are those being misused and abused to downgrade existing safe, heavily used class II bike facilities in the Roadway, against the rules of Recreational Trail funding by building in the Roadway and not the Rail Corridor?
뢏뢐 A Recipe for Tragedy: Mixing E-Bikes and Pedestrians The realignment would replace our safe, proven Class II bike lanes and dedicated sidewalks with a 12-foot-wide shared-use path. This path will serve all modes—including: (Design standards state 2 foot shoulder on each side, so this is really an 8 foot sidewalk, 70-90% in the City of Capitola, Park Avenue Roadway)
 Commuter and recreational e-bikes reaching speeds of 20–28 mph (classified as a Commuter Corridor - We must maintain existing class II bike lanes)  Children walking to school
 Seniors on foot or with assistive devices
 Parents pushing strollers
 Experienced cyclists and local commuters
This mixture is inherently hazardous. As documented in Helen “Pookie” Hines’ tragic death on September 29, 2024, when she was struck and killed by an e-bike during a routine walk along Opal Cliff Drive, even low-traffic residential routes become dangerous when pedestrians and e-bikes are forced into the same space.

This is not a hypothetical risk. It has already happened. And it will happen again if this design is approved.
 Legal Liability and Municipal Risk
From a legal standpoint, the proposed design opens the City, County, and partnering agencies to substantial liability:
 Negligent design claims may arise if the mixed-use path fails to meet safety standards for shared mobility.
435
Item 2 B.
3  Failure to separate incompatible travel modes, especially when existing infrastructure (bike lanes and sidewalks) is removed, will be scrutinized in any injury or wrongful death litigation.  If the plan is approved despite known safety concerns and expert warnings, this constitutes deliberate disregard for public safety—a major red flag in liability law. 롴롵롶롷롸롹롺롻롼롽 Vision Zero Violation
The proposed realignment flies in the face of Vision Zero, a policy adopted by many California jurisdictions—including Santa Cruz County—committed to eliminating traffic deaths through safe design, equity, and community engagement.

Vision Zero is not a slogan. It is a promise to prevent loss of life by design.

This plan breaks that promise.

Instead of prioritizing safety and mode separation, the current design sacrifices it—pitting speed against vulnerability, in direct opposition to the data-backed goals of Vision Zero and Caltrans’ own Active Transportation Design Guidelines.
뭛뭜뭝뭞뭟뭠뭡 We Already Have the Safer Alternative
The irony is: we don’t need to choose this risk.

We already have a dedicated rail corridor, legally protected by Measure L and Capitola Municipal Code 8.72, and purchased with the intent of becoming a separated trail and/or future rail system. This corridor is:
 Off-street and protected from vehicle traffic
 Wide enough to safely separate users
 Already public land, requiring no further property seizure  Consistent with Class I design guidelines
Why are we sacrificing safety, legal certainty, and public trust to avoid using the very space built for this purpose?
귉귆귇귈 Our Request
We urge all responsible agencies to take the following actions immediately:

1. Reject the proposed realignment along Park Avenue in its current form.

2. Commission a formal safety and liability review of all proposed shared-use path segments.

3. Honor Vision Zero commitments by refusing to approve designs that knowingly mix incompatible speeds and user types.
436
Item 2 B.
4 4. Preserve and utilize the rail corridor, consistent with the law, public expectations, and transportation best practices.

Let this be the moment we affirm our commitment to life, law, and logic.

The memory of Helen Hines—and the safety of every child, cyclist, and grandmother in this town— deserves no less.

Sincerely,
Kevin Maguire
Capitola Resident & Bike Safety Advocate
The California Highway Patrol says an 82-year-old woman has died in the hospital after being hit by a man on an electric bicycle Friday morning.

The crash was reported at around 5:50 a.m. on Opal Cliff Drive, east of Court Drive. An 80-year-old man from Santa Cruz was using an e-bike on the right shoulder of Opal Cliff Drive at an unknown speed.

An 82-year-old woman from Santa Cruz was walking east of the bicyclist, said CHP. For an unknown reason, the two crashed. The woman suffered major injuries and was taken via air ambulance to Valley Medical Center.

She later died from her injuries at the hospital, per CHP.

The victim was identified as Helen "Pookie" Hines by her daughter, Cindy Diola. Diola said her mother was on her morning walk when she was hit.

The man was also injured and taken to Dominican Hospital by way of a ground ambulance.

The cause of the crash is under investigation. CHP says drugs and alcohol are not suspected factors at this time.

Diola described her mother as the matriarch of the family, who was a "vibrant, active, funloving lady who was a loving mom, grandmother, great-grandmother, aunt, wife, crafter and all-around beautiful person. Not a mean bone in her body. Very giving, had a lot of grace and a huge family."
She added her mother had walked Opal Cliffs for 25 years. 437
Item 2 B.
5 438
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2025 1:10 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Stopping the Rail Trail
Dear City Council Members,
My wife (Linda) and I are full Ɵme residents of Capitola. We live here, shop here, socialize here, and deeply care about this unique and beauƟful city that we call “home.” Due to unforeseen circumstances beyond our control we are unable to aƩend tonight’s meeƟng, but I cannot let that prevent us from expressing our strong opposiƟon to any proposal that the Council push forward with plans to build the so-called “Rail Trail.” First of all, our city needs a rail going through it about as much as we our Village needs a tsunami. Not only would a rail in or around Capitola ruin our jewel of a community, but it will end up cosƟng the city, the county, possibly the state, literally BILLIONS OF DOLLARS (!!!), and FOR WHAT….a few hundreds of people who wish to periodically go from Watsonville to Capitola! Yes, there is no quesƟon that traffic congesƟon, parƟcularly in the early morning and late aŌernoon is congested going north and then south, respecƟvely, on Hy. 1, HOWEVER, the vast majority (upwards of 80%), is for people commuƟng from Watsonville “over the hill” on Hy. 17, rather than into and from Capitola or even Santa Cruz.

Moreover, if the so-called “California Bullet Train” has taught us nothing more—-and it certainly should have!—-it is that NOTHING gets built in California anywhere near on schedule nor anywhere near within budget. (The bullet train was approved how many years ago, supposedly to go from L.A.to S.F. at “only a few” billion dollars, and is now UNLIKELY to go from Bakersfield to Merced—-and how many people want to do that?—- before 2033, and at HOW MANY TIMES OVER the iniƟal esƟmated costs of the ENTIRE route??!!) Just as important to the absurd cost versus the minuscule amount of need such a rail system would have, however, is the DAMAGE that such a rail system would have to the character., quaintness and quality of our community. We live in one of the most beauƟful communiƟes in the country, if not the enƟre world. You, as our city’s representaƟves, are empowered and expected by us, your consƟtuents, to PRESERVE that beauty and character. We are NOT San Francisco or Los Angeles, nor are we Fresno, Bakersfield, San Jose or San Diego—-and we do not want to be those communiƟes.

Most of us choose to live here—-and tourists choose to come here—-BECAUSE we are a small, picturesque, unique haven. Slapping a rail system through our beauƟful town would be like using a knife to slash the Mona Lisa.

Finally, from a legal standpoint, we implore you to uphold Measure L as well as Capitola Municipal Code 8.72 which require a PUBLIC VOTE on projects such as this. This is parƟcularly significant when a measure significantly impacts not just our streets, roads and populaƟon, but the environment in which we live and which currently consƟtutes home for countless forms of wildlife, much of which is threatened by forces far beyond it’s control—-but not beyond ours.

In closing, please do not accede to the wishes of a few outsiders who do not live here, work here, or truly care about Capitola, but rather are only interested in making money and foisƟng something upon our community which we AND they know will only reek negaƟve consequences to the fabric of the town that some 10,000 people lovingly call home.

Instead, please exercise the courage, wisdom, foresight and community-based leadership that brought you to the Council and which, we believe, should cause you to derail the so-called push for a rail trail in Capitola.

Thank you.
439
Item 2 B.
2 Mario & Linda Beltramo
705 Riverview Drive
Capitola
Sent from my iPhone
440
Item 2 B.
441
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Alfred carlson <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2025 1:33 PM
To: Alfred Carlson; Bill Gray; Pam** SilBaugh; Victor Hanson; Mike Halley ***; Kisling, Niels ([email protected]); Mick Caph-Routh; City Council; Kahn, Jessica Subject: Re: ROARING CAMP R/R
:

THEY HAVE IT RIGHT 'WE NEED TO SAVE OUR RAIL
442
Item 2 B.
2 443
Item 2 B.
3 444
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: jeff anderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2025 2:09 PM
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Rail Line
My wife and I are bike riders and tax payers in Santa Cruz County. We are 100% against the idea of a train on the path. It is a major waste of money, and will not be used by enough people to support it once it is operable. This burden will fall on the taxpayers to subsidize.

STOP THIS FOOLISH PROJECT. BUILD A TRAIL THAT CAN BE SAFELY USED BY PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS!
Jeff and Sandy Anderson
Live Oak
445
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Lynn Yocum <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2025 2:20 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Gerry Jensen
Subject: Future Rail/Bike rail
I’m asking each of you to please keep the Rail/Bike Trail in the rail corridor property and do not reroute it onto Capitola village streets.. Our streets are already congested enough, and rerouƟng it would compound the problem, especially on weekends, and also for long-term Capitola residents who don’t bicycle or walk easily and need to drive (8.72.030E).

Also, making Monterey Avenue one-way going into the village would be a further traffic nightmare for people who live in that vicinity.

Even though some people feel that the Trail will support the economy by aƩracƟng more tourists, we really don’t need more crowds of tourists and traffic in our neighborhoods, or more e-bikes whose operators don’t feel the need to obey traffic and speed laws. Our neighborhood is ideal for people walking; not having to compete with more traffic and more parking problems.

Thank you,
Lynn Yocum
208 Oakland Avenue
Capitola, CA

446
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Tanjie Campbell <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2025 2:20 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Train Bill
Hello,
My name is Tanjie and I live here in Santa Cruz County. I just want to say how badly I want the train to be built. I’m a huge fan of public transportation. Public transportation is the future!! Please build the train.

It’s the greatest act of public good.

Thank you,
Tanjie Campbell
447
Item 2 B.
1 Wyatt, Rosie
From: Lynn Yocum <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2025 2:28 PM
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RTC Park Avenue and Village project
I’m asking each of you to please keep the Rail/Bike rail in the rail corridor property and do not reroute it onto Capitola neighborhood or village streets. Our streets are already congested enough, and rerouƟng the Rail/Bike trail would compound traffic congesƟon and parking problems that we already have, especially on the weekends , and especially for long-term Capitola residents who don’t bicycle or walk easily and who need to drive for errands and appointments (8.72.030E).

Also, making Monterey Avenue one-way going into the village will be a further nightmare, especially for those who live in that vicinity.

Even though it is thought that theTrail will support the economy by aƩracƟng more tourists, we really don’t need more crowds of tourists in our neighborhoods, especially more traffic and more e-bikes whose operators don’t seem to heed traffic laws or the speed limit. Our neighborhood is ideal for people who enjoy walking without compeƟng with more traffic.

So please vote No on the Park Avenue and Village rerouƟng and enforce Municipal Code 8.72 and keep the trail on the rail corridor property.

Thank you,
Lynn Yocum
208 Oakland Avenue
Capitola
448
Item 2 B.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Pam Greeninger <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2025 3:11 PM
To: City Council
Subject: PLEASE Vote NO on Item 3.B. Park Avenue Alignment of the Coastal Rail Trail Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Members of the Capitola City Council:

I understand that as representatives of the Capitola citizenry, you will be considering the above referenced project. As a former Capitola City Clerk and city employee for over 32 years and a resident for 46 years, I have seen many issues come before the City Council; however, the decision before you tonight pertaining to the Rail/Bike Trail through the City of Capitola is particularly critical.

Not following various issues as closely as I did while working for the city, I was not aware of what was happening with the trail until recently. After researching this matter and learning that the RTC wants to put the trail on city streets through Capitola Village and Park Avenue, I felt I should express my concerns to all of you as our elected officials, and ask that you carefully consider the negative impacts such a trail would have on Capitola.

When myself and other Capitola citizens voted for Measure L, it was our understanding that any future Rail/Bike Trail that the RTC would build would only be built in the rail corridor. The proposed project does not reflect the voters understanding, nor is it in compliance with Capitola Municipal Code 8.72 that requires the trail to be on the rail corridor, not on the public streets. I can’t tell you how many council meetings I attended regarding traffic and parking in the Village! Being a beach destination, traffic and parking will always be at the forefront of issues for Capitola. We cannot afford to lose any more parking in the Village. The RTC is not keeping Capitola in mind in its proposal. Capitola needs to stand up and do what is best for the City.

It is with sincere concern that I ask each and every one of you to carefully review and consider what you are being asked to vote for. I urge you to listen to your constituents and vote for what is BEST for CAPITOLA ~ not for the RTC. Please uphold the city’s law codified in Municipal Code Chapter 8.72 to keep the trail in the RTC Rail Corridor and vote NO on the proposal to put the RTC trail on Capitola streets.

Thank you for all the work you do as council members. I know personally from experience as the City Clerk that some decisions are harder than others; this is one of them. There were always two sides to an issue and each felt passionate about their view. As our elected representatives it is important to always remember to keep what’s best for Capitola first and foremost in your mind.

Sincerely,
Pam Greeninger
449
Item 2 B.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: STEPHANIE HARLAN <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2025 3:33 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Proposed Trail
Dear Mayor and Council members, I have followed closely the Trail for a long time . It was first proposed by the Santa Cruz County Interagency Task Force Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary many years ago. It was later greatly changed by the RTC to include a train. I do not believe that we can afford to build it, maintain it, or that it will have the ridership to sustain it. I think it has been a huge waste of money, staff time, the public's time.

It reminds me of the proposal in the past to study gondolas to UCSC from Harvey West Park because there was grant money for such a project.

Please listen to the community's concerns and vote appropriately.

When this project was first proposed, I was assured by RTC Board Members that there was plenty of money to remodel the Trestle. What happened? Too many studies later, there is no money for that.

Thank you very much for your work for Capitola.

Stephanie Harlan
Former Chairperson Interagency Task Force
Capitola
831 475-7184
450
Item 2 B.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Anthony Rovai <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2025 4:04 PM
To: City Council
Subject: [PDF] RTC- Sept 2,2021 Meeting Highlights
Attachments: RTC 9-12-2021 Highlight.pdf
Council Members,
RTC staff recommended repairing the trestle in 2021 and using it for the interim trail, so why did they not follow through?
Why did they not start the Rail Banking Process?
Why?
The funding is for a MulƟ-use Trail!
Please let the RTC know tonight build the Trail in the Railway as adverƟsed in Measure D and conform to Measure L Thanks
Anthony J. Rovai | President
CA Insurance License #0791019
o: 831.475.3442 Cell: 831.273.6639
w: RovaiWealthManagement.com
a: 1715 42nd Ave., Suite C | Capitola, CA 95010
e: [email protected]

All SecuriƟes offered through Money Concepts Capital Corp., Member FINRA/SIPC.

Rovai Wealth Management is an independent firm not affiliated with Money Concepts Capital Corp. 451
Item 2 B.
2 Important: This Email is being sent by or on behalf of a broker-dealer. It is intended exclusively for the individual or enƟty to which it is addressed. This communicaƟon may contain informaƟon that is proprietary, privileged, or confidenƟal, or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, or disseminate this Email or any part of it. If you have received this Email in error, please noƟfy the sender immediately by email or fax, and destroy all copies of this communicaƟon.

Please be advised that you may conduct securiƟes transacƟons only by speaking directly with your Registered RepresentaƟve. To help protect your privacy, we strongly recommend that you avoid sending sensiƟve informaƟon, such as account numbers and social security numbers, via email.

I cannot accept trade instrucƟons using email or voicemail. If any trade instrucƟons are leŌ, they will not be acted upon.

Please be further advised that, pursuant to the Bank Secrecy Act, the USA PATRIOT Act, and similar laws, any communicaƟon in this email is subject to regulatory, supervisory, and law enforcement review.
452
Item 2 B.
453
Item 2 B.
454
Item 2 B.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Julie Williams <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2025 4:17 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Carey Williams
Subject: Rail Trail
Dear Council Members,
My husband and I are totally against the proposed project of the rail trail!!!! There is no need for it in our small county and the expense is already predicted to be staggering, and way over budget!!! In addiƟon, it would change our beauƟful, charming community in ways that can never be undone!!! We are all for a walking and even a bike trail but adding a rail system makes no sense at all.

Anything proposed that is this expensive, and controversial, should definitely be voted on by our enƟre community. We are counƟng on you to make that happen and support a NO stance on the rail trail!!!! Sincerely,
Julie and Carey Williams
620 Riverview Drive
Capitola, CA 95010
455
Item 2 B.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Aidan Hosler <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2025 4:57 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Please approve of the park avenue alignment
Hi,
I wrote to ask you to please approve of the park avenue alignment.

This will improve bike safety at no cost to the city.

I'm a small business owner, I operate all over the county, but I live just a mile from Capitola.

I'll use this trail regularly.

Thanks!
Aidan Hosler
Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
456
Item 2 B.

Capitola City Council
Agenda Report
Meeting: April 17, 2025
From: City Manager’s Department
Subject: Chapter 8.72 of the Capitola Municipal Code
Recommended Action: Provide direction to staff.

Background: On April 10, City Council requested an item on this meeting’s agenda concerning Measure L. Measure L is codified in Chapter 8.72 (Greenway Capitola Corridor) of the Capitola Municipal Code. A copy of that code section is attached.

Attachments:

Chapter 8.72 (Greenway Capitola Corridor)
Reviewed By: Julia Gautho, City Clerk
Approved By: Jamie Goldstein, City Manager
457
Item 3 A.

Chapter 8.72

GREENWAY CAPITOLA CORRIDOR
Sections:

8.72.010 Purpose.

8.72.020 Definitions.

8.72.030 Findings.

8.72.040 Implementation.

8.72.050 Changes.

8.72.060 Effect of adoption.

8.72.070 Severability.

8.72.010 Purpose.

It is the purpose of this chapter to improve safety and reduce traffic by keeping the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail (Trail) in the Santa Cruz Branch Line Rail Corridor (Corridor) within the city of Capitola while protecting the Capitola Trestle (Trestle). (Ord. 1026 § 1 (part), 2018)

8.72.020 Definitions.

For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings set forth in this section:

A. “Active transportation” means any form of human-powered transportation including walking, cycling, using a wheelchair or other mobility device, in-line skating or skateboarding. Such forms of transportation may include an electric assistance such as e-bikes, e-skateboards, or motorized wheelchairs.

B. “Greenway” means the space within the Corridor to be used for recreation and active transportation via a continuous pathway. (Ord. 1026 § 1 (part), 2018)

8.72.030 Findings.

A. New Public Asset. In 2012, the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (SCCRTC) acquired the Corridor from Union Pacific. The Corridor includes the historic Trestle. For the first time, the Corridor and Trestle have the potential to be accessible for bike and pedestrian use. The SCCRTC is planning bike and pedestrian use along the majority of the Corridor.

B. Trestle Detour. The SCCRTC has proposed making the Trestle off-limits to pedestrians, bikes, electric bikes, The Capitola Municipal Code is current through Ord. 1067, and legislation passed through November 14, 2024.

Capitola Municipal Code Chapter 8.72 GREENWAY CAPITOLA CORRIDOR Page 1 of 3 458
Item 3 A.
and skateboarders, detouring pedestrian and bike traffic from the Corridor onto bike lanes and sidewalks in the local Capitola street network and across the Stockton Avenue Bridge.

C. Accessibility. A detour from the Trestle through Capitola Village would require an approximately two-hundredfoot grade change on both ends of the Trail. Keeping the Trail on the Trestle provides a flat path across Capitola, which increases accessibility for people of all ages and abilities.

D. Skateboarding for Transportation. A detour would enter Capitola’s “no skateboarding zone,” inhibiting skateboarding for transportation to New Brighton Middle School and the McGregor Pump Track and Skateboard Park. In contrast, a trail that crosses the Trestle would provide safe access to both locations.

E. Traffic and Safety. Capitola Village streets are often congested, preventing residents and visitors from getting from one side of Capitola to the other quickly and safely. Increasing pass-through bicycle and pedestrian traffic would exacerbate the existing problem.

F. Safe Routes to School. It is the stated goal of Santa Cruz County, California, Transportation Sales Tax Measure D (November 2016) to “provide safe routes to schools.” Walking and biking via the Trestle will provide safe access to New Brighton Middle School. A detour that navigates a significant grade change on narrow, busy streets will not.

G. Stated Preference. Eighty-two percent of residents who provided input regarding the Corridor in Vision Capitola 2016 supported using the Corridor for active transportation and recreation rather than a train.

H. Efficient Route. Keeping the Trail in the Corridor as it crosses the Trestle will provide a direct pathway from one side of Capitola to the other.

I. Tourism. The ability to actively use the Trestle will support the local economy by attracting tourists with a safe new way to experience breathtaking views.

J. Healthy Community and Sustainable Transportation. Bicycling and walking are by far the healthiest, most sustainable forms of transportation. Building a safer Trail will encourage more people to choose these options. (Ord. 1026 § 1 (part), 2018)

8.72.040 Implementation.

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

B. No city of Capitola department, agency or employee shall expend any funds or resources related to the construction, reconstruction, operation, maintenance, financing, marketing, or signage for a detour of the Trail onto Capitola streets or sidewalks. (Ord. 1026 § 1 (part), 2018) The Capitola Municipal Code is current through Ord. 1067, and legislation passed through November 14, 2024.

Capitola Municipal Code Chapter 8.72 GREENWAY CAPITOLA CORRIDOR Page 2 of 3 459
Item 3 A.

8.72.050 Changes.

This chapter shall not be amended or repealed except by vote of the people. (Ord. 1026 § 1 (part), 2018)

8.72.060 Effect of adoption.

Adoption of this chapter by the people shall not be construed as amending or rescinding any provisions of the general plan, local coastal program or zoning ordinances, but rather shall be construed and harmonized in a manner to strengthen and define such provisions. (Ord. 1026 § 1 (part), 2018)

8.72.070 Severability.

If any section, sentence, clause, phrase, or part of this chapter is held to be invalid, the remainder of the chapter shall be given full effect consistent with the intent and purpose of the chapter. (Ord. 1026 § 1 (part), 2018) The Capitola Municipal Code is current through Ord. 1067, and legislation passed through November 14, 2024.

Capitola Municipal Code Chapter 8.72 GREENWAY CAPITOLA CORRIDOR Page 3 of 3 460
Item 3 A.

Measure L
April 17, 2025
461
Item 3 A.

Measure L
• 2018 citizen initiative.
• Passed with 52.13% of the vote.
• Codified at Capitola Municipal Code Chapter 8.72.

Long-Term Development Process Measure L
462
Item 3 A.

Municipal Code
Chapter 8.72

GREENWAY

CAPITOLA

CORRIDOR

8.72.010 Purpose.

GREENWAY CAPITOLA CORRIDOR
463
Item 3 A.
• Advises on the law.
• Advises on various options, including legal risks and potential benefits.
• Supports Council’s decision.
• Decision and direction are always up to the Council.

Long-Term Development Process Role of City Attorney
464
Item 3 A.

Prior Council
Direction
• 2018 Council: directed City Attorney to file pre-election challenge to Measure L.
• 2022 Council: determined the decisions before it at the time were consistent with Measure L, and that the Measure was unconstitutionally vague.

Long-Term Development Process Prior Council Direction
465
Item 3 A.

City’s PreElection
Challenge
• In 2018, City filed a challenge to Measure L, seeking an injunction preventing Measure L from being placed on the ballot.
• City alleged that Measure L was invalid because it:
• Called for administrative rather than legislative action; • Conflicts with City’s General Plan;
• Interferes with the Council’s fiscal discretion; and
• Is void for vagueness.

Long-Term Development Process City’s Pre-Election Challenge 466
Item 3 A.

City’s PreElection
Challenge
• Court did not permit the pre-election challenge, but did not rule on the merits of Measure L. In its Ruling and Judgment, the Court did not rule on the parties’ substantive arguments at all.
• “The Petition is denied in its entirety because, as explained more thoroughly in the Ruling, the claims asserted in the Petition are not appropriate for preelection review.” (Judgment, 9/11/18.) • “Pursuant to [guidelines and instructions from the Supreme Court, and in light of both (1) the ‘rushed atmosphere’ created by the shortened time for hearing this petition, and (2) conflicts in the interpretation of the Initiative…this court finds that it is preferable to exercise caution by deferring a judicial resolution of Petitioner’s challenge until after the election, when the court will have the benefit of ‘full, unhurried briefing, oral argument, and deliberation.’” (Tentative Ruling, issued 8/20/18, adopted 9/11/18.) Long-Term Development Process City’s Pre-Election Challenge 467
Item 3 A.

8.72.010 Purpose.

8.72.040 Implementation
A. The City of Capitola, through its constitute departments, shall take all steps necessary to preserve and utilize the Corridor and Trestle for active transportation and recreation
B. No City of Capitola department, agency or employee shall expend any funds or resources related to the construction, reconstruction, operation, maintenance, financing, marketing, or signage for a detour of the Trail onto Capitola streets or sidewalks
Long-Term Development Process Municipal Code Chapter 8.72 468
Item 3 A.
• RTC/County may build a trail in the corridor within City of Capitola
• RTC/County can not build a trail on City property or right of way
• Until a contiguous trail is built in Capitola, City can no longer maintain or improve bike or pedestrian facilities on streets or sidewalks that could be used to connect segments of trail Implications
• RTC/County can not construct any improvements through Village, or on the Park Ave right of way.
• Many future street, sidewalk, infrastructure
maintenance/improvement projects could not be built on
routes that allow trail users to detour off corridor
Long-Term Development Process Interpretation Option 1
469
Item 3 A.
• RTC/County may build a trail in the corridor within City of Capitola • RTC/County cannot build a trail on City property or right of way • City can construct and maintain its streets, sidewalks and bike paths as City Council sees fit, provided City does not affirmatively promote a detour of the trail
Implications
• RTC/County can not construct any improvements through Village • City can not approve Park Ave alignment.
• City can use City funding or apply for grant funding to make bike and ped safety improvements on city streets the City Council determines necessary
Long-Term Development Process Interpretation Option 2
470
Item 3 A.

Same as Option 2 plus:

Section 8.72.040 requires City to “take all steps necessary to preserve and utilize the Corridor and Trestle for active transportation and recreation.” Only way Trestle may be used for anything other than rail is for federal Surface Transportation Board (STB) to approve either a railbanking agreement or adverse abandonment of tracks over Trestle, or construction of new bridge that accommodates both rail and trail.
“All steps necessary” thus means City must pursue railbanking or adverse abandonment of tracks on Trestle.

Implications
• RTC/County may build a trail in corridor within City of Capitola • Unlikely either railbanking or adverse abandonment could be accomplished within timeline for current County ATP grant, therefore Park Ave alignment and Village improvements would not be completed at this time
• Would require City hire rail legal counsel
Long-Term Development Process Interpretation Option 3
471
Item 3 A.

Long-Term Development Process
Overview Railbanking and Adverse
Abandonment
Railbanking
• Formal process to preserve a rail corridor for future use by converting it to trail – Public agency maintains railway corridor as trail/park – Rail operator retains ownership and future rights to reactivate rail service • Requires agreement between rail owner and public agency – Agreement must be approved by STB
• Timeline and cost depend on negotiations and STB review Adverse Abandonment
• “Adverse abandonment” when a non-owner (e.g., a public agency) initiates decommissioning of railway
• Requires City application and EIR
• Public comment period: 45 days
• Timing varies by project complexity - 110 days – 5+ years • Costs: Depends on project complexity and opposition 472 Item 3 A.
• RTC/County cannot now, or in the future, build a
“detour” of trail onto City street or sidewalks
• City can allow RTC/County to build on Park Ave right of way, as it is not a City street or sidewalk, and would be physically separated from City street by a buffer of at least 3’
• Improvements through Village are not a “detour,” they are the mapped route of trail.

Implications
• Park Ave alignment can be approved
• Planned improvements for Village can be approved
Long-Term Development Process Interpretation Option 4
473
Item 3 A.

Long-Term Development Process Summary
Option Park Ave
Realignment
RTC Village
Improvements
City ability to
maintain/improve
streets and sidewalks
Notes
1 No No No City’s legal
argument in 2018
2 No No Yes Proponent’s legal
argument in 2018
3 No No Yes Requires outside
counsel and filing
with STB
4 Yes Yes Yes
474
Item 3 A.

Capitola City Council
Agenda Report
Meeting: April 17, 2025
From: Public Works Department
Subject: Park Avenue Alignment of the Coastal Rail Trail (Segments 10 & 11) Recommended Action: Discuss and provide direction to staff regarding the Park Avenue alignment for the Coastal Rail Trail Segments 10 and 11.

Background: The Coastal Rail Trail project is a regional initiative led by the County of Santa Cruz in partnership with the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC), with participation from the City of Capitola and other local jurisdictions. Segments 10 and 11 of the trail is planned to span approximately

4.5 miles from 17th Avenue in Live Oak to State Park Drive in Aptos, serving pedestrians and cyclists through a Class I multi-use pathway. The portion of the project within Capitola presents several unique design challenges due to geography, rail corridor limitations, and community priorities.

The project is supported by a combination of state and federal funding sources, including a $67.6 million Active Transportation Program (ATP) grant awarded by the California Transportation Commission (CTC), $8.5 million in federal RAISE grant funding, and additional RTC Measure D funding. Together, these represent the largest potential investment in active transportation infrastructure in Santa Cruz County history.

On February 13, 2025, the City Council considered the proposed Park Avenue alignment and directed staff to organize a town hall meeting to further engage the public and gather additional input. That town hall took place on April 2, 2025 at New Brighton Middle School and included presentations from City staff, RTC, and County representatives. The event was well attended and informed by substantial public input collected in advance, including more than 400 questions submitted by over 170 community members.

The meeting addressed a range of concerns, including safety, funding, project scope, environmental impacts, and the potential use of the Capitola Trestle.

Discussion: The County of Santa Cruz has indicated it must request construction funding for the Coastal Rail Trail Segments 10 and 11 by April 2027 in order to retain the awarded ATP grant. Although this deadline is two years away, completing the final design, permitting, utility coordination, and right-of-way agreements will require that entire period. County staff advises that, until the City confirms its preferred alignment through Capitola, the County is unable to finalize the design scope with its consultants or begin the next phase of work.

Two alignment options for the Park Avenue segment were developed. Both would construct a new 12- foot-wide multi-use trail along the coastal side of Park Avenue, separated from vehicle traffic by a minimum five-foot buffer and supported by pedestrian enhancements such as new crosswalks, signalized crossings, and lighting. Option A preserves the existing Class II bicycle lane on the inland side of Park Avenue, offering a dedicated space for on-street cyclists heading toward Capitola Village. Option B eliminates the inland bike lane in order to reduce construction costs and minimize tree removals.

Either alignment would require the construction of a new ADA accessible pedestrian rail crossing at Coronado Street in order to connect the Park Avenue trail segment to the coastal-side alignment that continues through New Brighton State Beach to State Park Drive. This crossing must be approved by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Preliminary discussions with CPUC staff have been positive and the County is optimistic the crossing will be approved, but final approval has not yet been granted.

The County indicates the Park Avenue alignment has been designed to minimize impacts to existing trees, including those that serve as a windbreak near the Escalona Gulch monarch butterfly habitat. The previously-approved “coastal alignment” would have required the removal of 141 trees between Monterey 475
Item 3 B.

Avenue and Coronado Street. Option B of the Park Avenue alignment reduces that number to 94 trees, while Option A would require removal of approximately 122. Both alternatives would result in fewer total tree removals than the coastal alignment, although Option A may require more removals along the Monterey to Grove Lane segment. The project team is coordinating with environmental specialists to evaluate potential impacts to the monarch habitat and to identify opportunities for habitat enhancement and mitigation.

If the City approves either the Option A or B Park Avenue alignment, additional environmental review will be required to assess any new impacts. This review will either take the form of an addendum to the previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or, if the impacts are significant enough, a supplemental EIR. That document will be brought back to the City Council for acceptance before project construction can proceed.

The Park Avenue alignment accomplishes most of the traffic calming goals expressed by community members in past outreach efforts. Elements such as narrower travel lanes, new signage, improved lighting, and safe pedestrian crossings were identified as priorities. If the trail improvements are approved, staff recommends deferring the City’s separate traffic calming project on Park Avenue, since many of the desired improvements would be constructed as part of the Rail Trail project using outside funds.

If the Council wishes to move forward with the Park Avenue alignment, Staff recommends the City Council approve Option A due to its preservation of inland bicycle infrastructure and consistency with local transportation goals.

Future Use of the Capitola Trestle, Railbanking, and Adverse Abandonment Regardless of the Park Avenue alignment, the City is interested in the potential long-term use of the Capitola Trestle as part of the Coastal Rail Trail. A future conversion of the rail bridge for trail use would require significant coordination, regulatory action, and funding and is not currently part of the funded Segment 10 and 11 project.

The Capitola Trestle spans Soquel Creek and includes five distinct bridge segments of varying construction types. Due to the structural characteristics of the bridge—including a wrought iron span and timber trestles—a cantilevered pedestrian or bicycle path (such as used on the San Lorenzo River bridge) is not feasible. There is also limited space within the rail right-of-way to build a new standalone pedestrian bridge adjacent to the trestle.

However, according to the 2021 Capitola Railroad Bridge Repurposing Conceptual Study, the existing trestle could be repurposed as a bicycle and pedestrian bridge if substantial structural repairs are made.

These would include replacing the wrought iron bearings, all timber bracing, and approximately 30–40% of the timber piles. Following those repairs, the rails and ballast could be removed and replaced with a new deck suitable for pedestrian and bicycle use. The study estimated this work would cost approximately $7 million (in 2021 dollars).

Any repurposing of the Capitola Trestle for trail use would require the rail corridor be railbanked through the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB). Railbanking is a formal process by which the owner of a railway and a non-owner (often another public agency) enter into a written agreement in which the nonowner assumes maintenance responsibilities of the former railway and agrees to operate it as a trail or park, while the rail operator maintains ownership of the railway and may choose at a future date to resume railway operations. The agreement must be approved by the STB. While railbanking is legally distinct from full abandonment, it removes the freight service obligation and allows the corridor to be temporarily repurposed.
“Abandonment” refers to decommissioning a railway, meaning the railway can no longer be used for future rail service. A railway may have been unused for many years, but it is not “abandoned” until abandonment proceedings are complete. Typically, abandonment proceedings are initiated by the owner of the railway to be abandoned. “Adverse abandonment” is the process by which a third party, who does not own the railway, initiates abandonment.
476
Item 3 B.

A key difference between adverse abandonment and railbanking is that, if the STB approves adverse abandonment, the railway cannot be used for rail service in the future whereas, with railbanking, the railway owner may reactivate the railway in the future.

To initiate the adverse abandonment process, the City would request the STB allow the owner to abandon the railway via a written application. Members of the public and other interested parties would be given 45 days to submit comments on the application. Within 15 days after public comments are due, the applicant must reply to any opposition comments. If there are no requests for extensions or other delays, the STB issues a decision within 110 days of the date the application was submitted. If abandonment applications are opposed, including by the owner of the railway, the process can take longer.

Along with an application the City would need to file an Environmental Report. This report is specific to the abandonment process and is substantively different from either a NEPA or CEQA environmental analysis report. The filing fee for an abandonment application is $32,600; however, if the rail line has been unused for two or more years, the fee is reduced to $5,200.

Since railbanking requires a negotiated agreement, the timeline and cost depend on the negotiations between the parties, as well as the time required by the STB to review and rule on the application.

In addition to regulatory steps, an interim trail over the Capitola Trestle would require design, environmental clearance, permitting, and new funding. The current Segment 10 and 11 project does not currently include funding for a bridge crossing at the trestle or structural upgrades to enable such use.

However, the project’s environmental documents do consider both the “Ultimate Trail” and an “Interim Trail” configuration, which allows for environmental clearance of a future trail over the rail line—including the trestle—if conditions allow.

If the Council wishes to explore railbanking or adverse abandonment, staff recommends that Council direct staff to retain rail counsel to advise the City on preparing an adverse abandonment application or pursuing railbanking.

Reverting to the Coastal Bluff Alignment
Should the Park Avenue alignment not be approved, it is Staff’s understanding the County of Santa Cruz would likely pursue funding for the previously studied coastal bluff alignment.

The coastal alignment poses engineering and construction challenges that significantly increase project cost. This route would require bluff stabilization, more extensive retaining structures, impacts to private encroachments, and erosion control measures, complicating both design and permitting. It also provides fewer connections to adjacent neighborhoods, reducing local access.

Initially, the County explored whether eliminating the 0.7-mile trail segment through Capitola entirely might avoid these complications. However, Caltrans staff advised that CTC would not support the removal of this portion of the trail. Eliminating the segment would introduce a significant gap in the trail network and reduce project benefits, which could trigger a reduction—or full revocation—of the ATP grant. As a result, if the Park Avenue alignment is not approved, the County would need to request RTC support to proceed with the coastal alignment despite its drawbacks.

From the RTC’s perspective, reverting to the coastal alignment doesn’t take advantage of the value engineering strategies the Commission approved in April 2024 to fund Segments 10 and 11. These strategies included realigning portions of the trail, such as the segment in Capitola, to reduce costs and improve feasibility. Pursuing the coastal route would likely require new approval from the Commission. It also raises potential compatibility issues with future passenger rail service.

Caltrans has also indicated that omitting the Capitola segment entirely—such as by skipping the 0.7-mile gap between Monterey Avenue and Coronado Street—is not a viable option, as it would reduce project continuity and jeopardize grant eligibility. If neither alignment is approved, the $67.6 million ATP grant could be subject to revocation by the CTC, and the County may be unable to deliver the trail segment within the grant deadline.
477
Item 3 B.

Fiscal Impact: There is no immediate cost to the City associated with approving the Park Avenue alignment or moving forward with additional environmental review. Construction of the trail, including bicycle and pedestrian improvements along Park Avenue, will be funded by state and federal grants administered by the County and RTC. These improvements have an estimated value between $3 and $5 million and would otherwise likely be infeasible for the City to implement on its own.

The City’s only potential future obligation would relate to trail maintenance. Ongoing maintenance costs for similar trail segments range between $32,000 and $44,000 per mile annually. Based on preliminary discussions and precedent agreements in other jurisdictions, Capitola’s share of this cost may range from $16,000 to $22,000 annually. Final terms would be subject to negotiation with the RTC.

The City has already allocated $100,000 in its FY 2024–25 Capital Improvement Plan for a Park Avenue Traffic Calming Project. To date, $19,500 has been spent. If the Rail Trail project is approved, staff recommends the remaining $80,500 be redirected to other street priorities or returned to the General Fund.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): The Final EIR for the Coastal Rail Trail Segments 10 and 11 was certified by the County of Santa Cruz on March 26, 2024. Any modification to the trail alignment, including the Park Avenue segment, will require additional environmental analysis. Once that analysis is completed, staff will return to the City Council with the updated environmental documentation for formal acceptance.

Attachments:

1. February 13, 2025 Park Avenue Traffic Calming Improvements with Coastal Rail Trail Options Staff Report and Attachments (Item 9c):
https://meetings.municode.com/adaHtmlDocument/index?cc=CAPITOLACA&me=22dcaa307be 5437dbb1328e7ace00934&ip=True

2. April 2, 2025 Town Hall Informational Materials:
https://www.cityofcapitola.org/community/page/town-hall-informational-materials

3. Correspondence Received as of Agenda Packet Publication, April 11 at 3 PM:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/ib6a8jgms0zti4tbs2tsv/AEt3wxo0UZkQtYhUkP6su8k?rlkey=fok 6ehue87m7cxme1bayeqp2j&e=1&st=p36sejhv&dl=0
Report Prepared By: Jessica Kahn, Public Works Director Reviewed By: Julia Gautho, City Clerk; Samantha Zutler, City Attorney Approved By: Jamie Goldstein, City Manager
478
Item 3 B.

Park Avenue Alignment
Coastal Rail Trail
Segments 10 & 11
City Council
April 17, 2025
479
Item 3 B.
• Regional effort led by
the County of Santa
Cruz & RTC
• 4.5-mile Class I multiuse trail from 17th
Ave (Live Oak) to
State Park Dr (Aptos)
• Segment through
Capitola faces unique
design and permitting
challenges
Long-Term Development Process Project Overview: Key Elements Park Ave Alignment – Coastal Rail Trail
480
Item 3 B.
481
Item 3 B.
482
Item 3 B.

Long-Term Development Process Funding Overview (2023)
Park Ave Alignment – Coastal Rail Trail
Funding Source Amount
Measure D (Active Transportation) $17.4 million
State ATP Grant $67.6 million
Federal RAISE Program Grant $8.4 million
Total Funding $93.4 million
Total Estimated Costs $111.7 million
Funding Need* $18.3 million
*Funding need is based on 2023 cost estimates and does not incorporate design changes and savings from the RTC value engineering analysis or the removal of track relocation costs from the project. 483
Item 3 B.

Grant deadline to request construction funding
by April 2027 for the $67.6M ATP grant
• Final design, permitting, utility coordination,
and ROW require full timeline
• County cannot proceed with final design
scope until an alignment is selected
• Project delay risks missing the ATP funding
window
Grant Timeline & Design Coordination Long-Term Development Process Park Ave Alignment – Coastal Rail Trail
484
Item 3 B.

DRAFT PROJECT SCHEDULE
485
Item 3 B.
• Feb 13, 2025: Staff
presented Park Avenue
Alignment
• April 2, 2025: Town hall
held at New Brighton
Middle School
• Over 170 attendees
and 400+ questions
submitted
• Key topics: safety,
funding, environmental
impact, trestle use
Long-Term Development Process Prior Meetings
Park Ave Alignment – Coastal Rail Trail
486
Item 3 B.
• Option A –
preserves inland
Class II bike lane
• Option B –
maximizes use of
ROW for trail
(removes bike
lane)
Long-Term Development Process Park Avenue Alignment Options Park Ave Alignment – Coastal Rail Trail
487
Item 3 B.

Escalona Gulch (Monarch habitat)
• Coastal alignment: 141 trees removed
• Option A: 122 trees | Option B: 94 trees
Long-Term Development Process Environmental Considerations Park Ave Alignment – Coastal Rail Trail
488
Item 3 B.

Long-Term Development Process Coronado ADA Pedestrian Crossing Park Ave Alignment – Coastal Rail Trail
Stairs to New Brighton SP
Trail continues to Aptos
489
Item 3 B.
• Existing Conditions – Park Avenue
• Sidewalk sections are failing
• Bike lane width and surface conditions
are inconsistent
• Road edge is undefined
• 2020 Speed Study
• Identified community concerns about
vehicle speeds
Long-Term Development Process City Traffic Calming Project Park Ave Alignment – Coastal Rail Trail
490
Item 3 B.

Community Outreach (2022–2024): Key Concerns
Traffic Safety: Need
for bike separation,
radar signs, and
speed bumps
Road Diet: Support
for wider bike lanes,
narrower travel
lanes
Traffic Patterns:

Unsafe cut-through
routes
Community Input:

Desire for
transparency and
engagement
Visual Impact:

Concerns about
neighborhood
character
Parking: Worries
about reduced
spaces
Long-Term Development Process City Traffic Calming Project Park Ave Alignment – Coastal Rail Trail
491
Item 3 B.

Long-Term Development Process City Traffic Calming Project Park Ave Alignment – Coastal Rail Trail
Preliminary Plan (Limited Budget)
• Narrow lanes (10.5 ft) • Pedestrian safety improvements • Speed feedback signs • Buffered bike lanes + green markings • Intersection upgrades (e.g., Park & Monterey)
492
Item 3 B.
12-ft trail on coastal side
with 5-ft buffer
• Trail design includes
traffic calming features: – Narrower drive lanes – Signage, lighting – Safer pedestrian crossings • May eliminate need for
separate traffic calming
project
Options A and B Traffic Calming Benefits Long-Term Development Process Park Ave Alignment – Coastal Rail Trail
493
Item 3 B.
• Preserves bike lane and aligns with transportation goals • Improves connectivity for on-street cyclists accessing Capitola Village
Option A
• Addendum or Supplemental EIR
• Council must accept final EIR
Additional Environmental Review
If Council moves forward with the Park Avenue
alignment
Long-Term Development Process Recommendation for Park Ave Alignment Park Ave Alignment – Coastal Rail Trail
494
Item 3 B.

County will likely pursue
the trail alignment within
the rail corridor
• Requires erosion
control and retaining
structures
• Private encroachments
• Environmental impacts
• Fewer neighborhood
connections
Long-Term Development Process If Park Avenue Alignment is Not Approved Park Ave Alignment – Coastal Rail Trail
Park Ave Escalona Dr
495
Item 3 B.

Caltrans Feedback
• Caltrans advised against eliminating Park Avenue segment • CTC would likely not support a new trail gap due to:
• Reduced connectivity
• Decreased project benefits
• Risk of ATP grant reduction
RTC Considerations
• Coastal alignment not included in April 2024 value
engineering strategy
• Coastal alignment is more expensive
• Potential conflict with future passenger rail plans
Grant Funding Impacts Long-Term Development Process
Park Ave Alignment – Coastal Rail Trail
496
Item 3 B.
• Trestle spans Soquel
Creek; 5 segments
of varied construction
• 2021 study estimated
$7M to retrofit for trail
• Cantilever path
infeasible due to
limited ROW
• Not part of the
currently funded
Segment 10 & 11
Long-Term Development Process Capitola Trestle & Future Trail Use Park Ave Alignment – Coastal Rail Trail
497
Item 3 B.
498
Item 3 B.

Long-Term Development Process Capitola Trestle & Future Trail Use Park Ave Alignment – Coastal Rail Trail
Trail use requires:
• Railbanking or abandonment via Surface
Transportation Board (STB) – Railbanking preserves corridor for potential rail reactivation – Abandonment permanently removes railway designation – Both require outside Counsel • Design, environmental
clearance, permitting, and new funding – Project EIR allow for future trail use if feasible
499
Item 3 B.
• Construction ($3M–$5M) funded through grants and RTC
• Improvements would be infeasible for City
• Future obligation: Trail maintenance ($16K–$22K annually, est.).

No immediate cost for approving Park Avenue
alignment
• $100,000 allocated in FY 2024–25
• $19,500 spent to date
• Remaining $80,500 may be redirected or returned to General Fund Park Avenue Traffic Calming Funds
Long-Term Development Process Fiscal Impact
Park Ave Alignment – Coastal Rail Trail
500
Item 3 B.

Capitola City CouncilApril 17, 2025

Capitola City Council
April 17, 2025