L. “L” Terms.
1. “Land use” means an activity conducted on a site or in a structure, or the purpose for which a site or structure is designed, arranged, occupied, or maintained. The meaning of the term “use” is identical to “land use.”
2. “Landscaping” means the planting and maintenance of living plant material, including the installation, use, and maintenance of any irrigation system for the plant material, as well as nonliving landscape material (such as rocks, pebbles, sand, mulch, walls, fences, or decorative paving materials).
3. “Liquor store” means a business selling alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption with the sale of alcoholic beverages constituting its primary source of revenue.
4. “Local coastal program (LCP)” means the city’s land use plan and implementation plan which includes portions of the municipal code, portions of the zoning code, zoning map (as more specifically identified in Chapter 17.44 (Coastal Overlay Zone) and actions certified by the Coastal Commission as meeting the requirements of the California Coastal Act of 1976.
5. Light Manufacturing. See “Manufacturing, light.”
6. “Lodging” means an establishment providing overnight accommodations to transient patrons for payment for periods of less than thirty consecutive days.
a. “Bed and breakfast” means a residential structure that is in residential use with one or more bedrooms rented for overnight lodging and where meals may be provided. b. “Hotel” means an establishment providing overnight lodging to transient patrons. Hotels and motels may provide additional services, such as conference and meeting rooms, restaurants, bars, or recreation facilities available to guests or to the general public. Includes motor lodges, motels, extended-stay hotels, and tourist courts, but does not include group housing or bed and breakfast establishments, which are separately defined and regulated.
7. Lot. See “Parcel.”
M. “M” Terms.
1. “Maintenance and repair services” means businesses which provide construction, maintenance and repair services off site, but which store equipment and materials or perform fabrication or similar work on site.
Includes off-site plumbing shops, general contractors, contractor’s storage yards, appliance repair, janitorial services, electricians, pest control, heating and air conditioning, roofing, painting, landscaping, septic tank service, and other similar uses.
2. “Manufacturing, custom” means establishments primarily engaged in on-site production of goods by hand manufacturing or artistic endeavor, which involves only the use of hand tools or small mechanical equipment and the incidental direct sale to consumers of only those goods produced on site. Typical uses include ceramic studios, candle making shops, woodworking, and custom jewelry manufacturers.
3. “Manufacturing, light” means the manufacture, predominantly from previously prepared materials, of finished products or parts, including processing, fabrication, assembly, treatment, and packaging of such products, and incidental storage, sales and distribution of such products, but excluding basic industrial processing and custom manufacturing.
4. “Material change” means any significant alteration, by private or public action, in the external appearance or surface of an improvement, landscape or vista. This shall not include ordinary maintenance which does not require a permit.
288
Item 8 E.
5. “Micro-unit’ means a multifamily dwelling unit three hundred fifty square feet or less with a fully functioning kitchen and bathroom.
6. “Ministerial action” means a city decision on a planning permit which involves only the use of fixed standards or objective measurements and does not require the exercise of discretion.
7. “Mini-bar/convenience area” means a supplemental food preparation area within a single-family home subject to the standards in Section 17.16.030(B)(8) (Mini-Bar/Convenience Areas).
8. “Medical offices and clinics” means a facility where medical, mental, dental, or other personal health services are provided on an outpatient basis using specialized equipment. Includes offices for physicians, dentists, and optometrists, diagnostic centers, blood banks and plaza centers, and emergency medical clinics offered exclusively on an out-patient basis. Hospitals are excluded from this definition.
9. “Mixed use” means two or more different land uses located in one structure or on one parcel or development site.
10. “Mobile food vendors” means businesses selling food or drinks from temporary and semi-permanent structures or mobile equipment such as food trucks or pushcarts.
11. Mobile Home Park. See Section 17.100.030 (Definitions).
12. “Modification” means any construction or physical change in the internal arrangement of rooms or the supporting members of a structure, or a change in the external appearance of any structure, not including painting.
13. “Multifamily dwelling” means a building that contains three or more dwelling units, with each unit providing complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation.
N. “N” Terms.
1. “Nonconforming parcel” means a parcel that was lawfully established but that no longer conforms with the parcel size or dimension standards of the zoning district in which it is located.
2. “Nonconforming structure” means a structure which does not meet the current development standards for the district in which the structure is located. Development standards include, but are not limited to, setbacks, height or lot coverage regulations of the zoning district, but do not include standards contained in the uniform codes, such as the building code.
3. “Nonconforming use” means a use that lawfully occupied a building or land at the time the use was established, but that no longer conforms with the use regulations of the zoning district in which it is located.
O. “O” Terms.
1. “Open space, private” means open areas for outdoor living and recreation that are adjacent and directly accessible to a single dwelling unit, reserved for the exclusive use of residents of the dwelling unit and their guests.
2. “Open space, common” means areas for outdoor living and recreation that are intended for the use of residents and guests of more than one dwelling unit.
3. “Outdoor kitchen” means an outdoor space used or intended or designed to be used for cooking or the preparation of food for a single dwelling unit subject to the standards in Section 17.16.030(B)(9). Outdoor pizza ovens are included in the definition of an outdoor kitchen.
4. “Overlay zone” means an additional zoning district as shown on the zoning map that prescribes special regulations to a parcel in combination with the base zoning district. 289
Item 8 E.
P. “P” Terms.
1. “Parcel” means a lot, tract, or area of land whose boundaries have been established by a legal instrument such as a deed or map recorded with the county of Santa Cruz, and which is recognized as a separate legal entity for purposes of transfer of title, except public easements or rights-of-way. The meaning of “lot” is identical to “parcel.”
2. Parcel Area, Gross. “Gross parcel area” means the total horizontal area included within the parcel lines of the parcel, including one-half the width of any alley or portion thereof abutting a parcel line.
3. Parcel Area, Net. “Net parcel area” means the gross parcel area excluding: (a) any recorded easements to allow others to use the surface of the property for necessary access to an adjacent property or other similar use such as a shared driveway or public access agreement (excludes utility easements), and (b) any area under the high water mark that extends into a waterway.
4. Parcel, Corner. “Corner parcel” means a parcel situated at the junction of two or more intersecting streets, with a parcel line bordering on each of the two or more streets.
5. “Parcel depth” means the average distance from the front parcel line to the rear parcel line, measured in the general direction of the side parcel lines.
6. “Parcel line” means the lines bounding a parcel.
7. Parcel Line, Front. “Front parcel line” means that dimension of a parcel or portion of a parcel, abutting on a street except the side of a corner parcel. On a corner parcel the narrowest street frontage is considered the front parcel line. The community development director has the authority to determine and designate the front parcel line based on existing conditions and function of the lot.
8. Parcel Line, Rear. “Rear parcel line” means, ordinarily, the line of a parcel which is generally opposite the front parcel line of said parcel. The community development director has the authority to determine and designate the front parcel line based on existing conditions and function of the lot.
9. Parcel Line, Interior Side. “Interior side parcel line” means any boundary line not a front line or a rear line shared with another parcel.
10. Parcel Line, Exterior Side. “Exterior side parcel line” means any boundary line not a front line or a rear line adjacent to a street.
11. Parcel, Reversed Corner. “Reversed corner parcel” means a corner parcel, the side street line of which is substantially a continuation of the front line of the parcel upon which it rears.
12. “Parcel width” means the average distance between the side parcel lines, measured at right angles to the parcel depth.
13. “Parking lot” means an open area of land, a yard or other open space on a parcel other than a street or alley, used for or designed for temporary parking for more than four automobiles and available for public use, whether free, for compensation, or as an accommodation for clients or customers.
14. “Parking space” means land or space privately owned, covered or uncovered, laid out for, surfaced, and used or designed to be used for temporary parking or storage of standard motor vehicles.
15. “Parks and recreational facilities” means noncommercial public facilities that provide open space and/or recreational opportunities. Includes parks, community gardens, community centers, passive and active open space, wildlife preserves, playing fields, tennis courts, swimming pools, gymnasiums, and other similar facilities.
16. “Pergola” means an unenclosed structure with vertical posts or pillars that supports crossbeams and/or an open lattice. A pergola may be freestanding or attached to a building. 290
Item 8 E.
17. “Personal services” means an establishment that provides services to individuals and that may provide accessory retail sales of products related to the services provided. Includes barber shops and beauty salons, nail salons, dry cleaning establishments, self-service laundromats, tailors, tanning salons, state-licensed massage therapists, fitness studios, yoga studios, dance studios, pet grooming services, veterinary clinics, and other similar land uses. Also includes establishments that primarily offer specialized classes in personal growth and development such as music, martial arts, vocal, fitness and dancing instruction. This does not include professional offices that offer classes in addition to the professional office spaces.
18. “Planning permit” means any permit or approval required by the zoning code authorizing an applicant to undertake certain land use activities.
19. Potential Historic Resource. See Section 17.84.020(B) (Potential Historic Resource).
20. “Primary use” means the main purpose for which a site is developed and occupied, including the activities that are conducted on the site a majority of the hours during which activities occur.
21. “Primary structure” means a structure that accommodates the primary use of the site.
22. “Professional office” means a place of employment occupied by businesses providing professional, executive, management, or administrative services. Includes offices for accountants, architects, advertising agencies, insurance agents, attorneys, commercial art and design services, nonretail financial institutions, real estate agents, news services, photographers, engineers, employment agencies, and other similar professions.
Also includes research and development facilities that engage in research, testing, and development of commercial products or services in technology-intensive fields.
23. “Public safety facility” means a facility operated by a governmental agency for the purpose of protecting public safety. Includes fire stations and other fire-fighting facilities, police stations, public ambulance dispatch facilities, and other similar land uses.
Q. “Q” Terms. None.
R. “R” Terms.
1. “Recreational vehicle (RV)” means a motor home, travel trailer, truck camper, or camping trailer, with or without motive power, originally designed for human habitation for recreational, emergency, or other occupancy, which meets all of the following criteria:
a. Contains less than three hundred twenty square feet of internal living room area, excluding built-in equipment, including wardrobe, closets, cabinets, kitchen units or fixtures, and bath or toilet rooms; b. Contains four hundred square feet or less of gross area measured at maximum horizontal projections; c. Is built on a single chassis; and
d. Is either self-propelled, truck-mounted, or permanently towable on the highways without a towing permit.
2. “Recycling collection facility” means a center for the acceptance by donation, redemption, or purchase, of recyclable materials from the public.
3. “Remodel” means a change or alteration in a building that does not increase the building’s net square footage.
4. “Residential care facility” means a residential facility providing social and personal care for residents.
Includes children’s homes, homes for the elderly, orphanages, self-help group homes, supportive housing, and transitional housing for the homeless. Excludes facilities where medical care is a core service provided to residents, such as nursing and convalescent homes.
291
Item 8 E.
a. “Residential care facility, large” means a residential care facility for seven or more persons. b. “Residential care facility, small” means a residential care facility for six or fewer persons.
5. “Residential mixed use” means one or more structures on a single parcel that contains both dwelling units and nonresidential uses such as retail, restaurants, offices, or other commercial uses. Different land uses may be within a single structure (vertical mixed use) or in separate structures on a single parcel (horizontal mixed use).
6. “Residential use” means any legal use of a property as a place of residence, including but not limited to dwelling units, group housing, and the residential component of a mixed-use residential building.
7. “Retail” means stores and shops selling merchandise to the general public. Includes drug stores, general merchandise stores, convenience shops, pet stores, department stores, grocery stores and other similar retail establishments.
8. “Retail cannabis establishment” means a retail store in which cannabis or cannabis products are sold for adult use and/or medicinal use.
9. “Review authority” means the city official or city body that is responsible, under the provisions of the zoning code, for approving or denying a permit application or other request for official city approval.
10. “Roof deck” means an occupied roof space created by a walkable exterior floor system located above the top story of a structure, not including access, and supported by the roof of a building.
S. “S” Terms.
1. “Salvage and wrecking” means storage and dismantling of vehicles and equipment for sale of parts, as well as their collection, storage, exchange or sale of goods including, but not limited to, any used building materials, used containers or steel drums, used tires, and similar or related articles or property.
2. “Schools, public or private” means public or private facilities for education, including elementary, junior high, and high schools, providing instruction and study required in public schools by the California Education Code.
3. “Setback” means the minimum allowable distance from a given point or line of reference such as a property line to the nearest vertical wall or other element of a building or structure as defined in this chapter, or from a natural feature such as a bluff edge or an environmentally sensitive habitat area. Setbacks for buildings or structures shall be measured at right angles from the nearest property line establishing a setback area line parallel to that parcel line. Where a property line is located within a street, the setback shall be measured from the edge of the right-of-way containing the street.
4. Sign. See Chapter 17.80 (Signs).
5. “Single-family dwelling” means a residential structure designed for occupancy by one household. A singlefamily dwelling provides complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation. “Single-family dwelling” includes employee housing for six or fewer persons as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 17008.
6. “Single-room occupancy” means housing consisting of a single-room dwelling unit that is the primary residence of its occupants. A single-room occupancy must include either food preparation or sanitary facilities (or both) and must be four hundred square feet or less.
7. “Site” means a parcel or adjoining parcels that are under single ownership or single control, and that are considered a unit for the purposes of development or other use.
8. “Site area” means the total area included within the boundaries of a site. 292
Item 8 E.
9. “Self-storage” means a structure or group of structures with controlled access that contains individual and compartmentalized stalls or lockers for storage of customers’ goods.
10. “Split zoning” means a parcel on which two or more zoning districts apply due to zoning district boundaries crossing or otherwise not following the parcel boundaries.
11. “Story” means that portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the topmost story shall be that portion of a building included between the upper surface of the topmost floor and the ceiling or roof above. If the finished floor level directly above a basement, cellar or unused under-floor space is more than six feet above grade as defined in this chapter for more than fifty percent of the total perimeter or is more than twelve feet above grade as defined in this chapter at any point, such basement, cellar or unused under-floor space shall be considered as a story.
12. Story, Half. “Half story” means a partial story under a gable, hip or gambrel roof, the wall plates of which are at least two opposite exterior walls and which are not more than four feet above the floor plate of the second floor, and may include shed or dormer projections from those walls. Dormers may constitute not more than one-third of the length of the wall upon which they are located, whether as a single unit or multiple dormers.
13. “Street” means a public way more than twenty feet in width which affords a primary or principal means of access to abutting property. “Streets” includes private roads and highways.
14. “Structural alterations” means any change in the supporting members of a building, such as bearing walls, columns, beams, girders, floor, ceiling or roof joists and roof rafters, or change in roof exterior lines which would prolong the life of the supporting members of a building.
15. “Structure” means anything constructed or erected that requires attachment to the ground, or attachment to something located on the ground. Pipelines, poles, wires, and similar installations erected or installed by public utility districts or companies are not included in the definition of “structure.” In the coastal zone, “structure” includes, but is not limited to, any building, road, pipe, flume, conduit, siphon, aqueduct, telephone line, and electrical power transmission and distribution line.
16. “Structured parking” means a permanent, non-temporary parking facility in which parking spaces are provided within or on a building or structure, including multilevel parking garages, podium parking, and parking located above or below grade. Includes stand-alone parking garages and areas for parking integrated into a building containing other uses. Structured parking does not include open, surface parking lots or on-street parking
176. “Supportive housing” means housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by low income adults with disabilities, and that is linked to on-site services that assist the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community.
T. “T” Terms.
1. “Tandem parking” means an arrangement of parking spaces such that one or more spaces must be driven across in order to access another space or spaces.
2. “Tasting room” means a room or rooms, open to the general public, primarily used for the retail marketing of winery, brewery, distillery, and/or food products.
3. “Temporary structure” means a structure that is erected for a limited period of time, typically no longer than one hundred eighty days, and that does not permanently alter the character or physical facilities of a property.
4. “Temporary use” means a short-term activity that may or may not meet the normal development or use standards of the applicable zone, but that occurs for a limited period of time, typically less than twelve months, and does not permanently alter the character or physical facilities of a property. 293
Item 8 E.
5. “Transitional housing” means temporary housing, generally provided for a period of six months to several years, with supportive services that prepare individuals or families to transition from emergency or homeless shelters to permanent housing. Such housing may be configured for specialized needs groups such as people with substance abuse problems, mental illness, domestic violence victims, veterans, or people with specified illnesses. Such housing may be provided in apartment complexes, boarding house complexes, or in singlefamily homes.
6. “Trellis” means a structure made from an open framework or lattice of interwoven or intersecting pieces of wood, bamboo or metal made to support and display climbing plants. A trellis may be freestanding or attached to a building wall or other structure.
U. “U” Terms.
1. “Upper floor” means any story of a building above the ground floor.
2. “Urban agriculture” means activities involving the raising, cultivation, processing, marketing, and distribution of food in urban areas.
a. “Home garden” means the property of a single-family or multifamily residence used for the cultivation of fruits, vegetables, plants, flowers, or herbs by the residents of the property, guests of the property owner, or a gardening business hired by the property owner. b. “Community garden” means privately or publicly owned land used for the noncommercial cultivation of fruits, vegetables, plants, flowers, or herbs by multiple users. Community gardens may be divided into separate plots for cultivation by one or more individuals or may be farmed collectively by members of the group and may include common areas maintained or used by group members.
3. Use. See “Land use.”
4. “Utilities, major” means generating plants, electric substations, solid waste collection, including transfer stations and materials recovery facilities, solid waste treatment and disposal, water or wastewater treatment plants, and similar facilities of public agencies or public utilities.
5. “Utilities, minor” means infrastructure facilities that are necessary to serve development within the immediate vicinity such as electrical distribution lines and underground water and sewer lines.
V. “V” Terms.
1. “Vacation rental” means the occupancy for hire of residential property or a portion thereof for a period of less than thirty consecutive calendar days. See Section 17.40.030 (Vacation rental use (-VRU) overlay zone). “For hire,” for purposes of this section, does not include:
a. The owner or long-term lessee of the property, without consideration, allowing family or friends to use the property;
b. An arrangement whereby the owner or long-term lessee of the property agrees to a short-term trade with another property owner or long-term lessee whereby the sole consideration is each concurrently using the other’s property.
2. “Valet parking service” means a parking service provided to accommodate patrons of one or more businesses that is accessory and incidental to the business and by which an attendant on behalf of the business takes temporary custody of a patron’s motor vehicle and moves, parks, stores or retrieves the vehicle for the patron’s convenience.
3. “Vehicle repair” means an establishment for the repair, alteration, restoration, or finishing of any vehicle, including body repair, collision repair, painting, tire and battery sales and installation, motor rebuilding, tire recapping and retreading, and towing. Repair shops that are incidental to a vehicle sales or rental establishment on the same site are excluded from this definition.
294
Item 8 E.
4. “Vehicle sales and rental” means an establishment for the retail sales or rental of new or used vehicles.
Includes the sale of vehicle parts and vehicle repair; provided, that these activities are incidental to the sale of vehicles.
5. “Vehicle sales display room” means an establishment for the retail sales of new vehicles conducted entirely within an enclosed building. Outdoor storage and display of vehicles are not permitted.
W. “W” Terms.
1. “Wall” means a permanent upright linear structure made of stone, concrete, masonry, or other similar material.
2. “Warehousing and distribution” means an establishment used primarily for the storage and/or distributing of goods to retailers, contractors, commercial purchasers or other wholesalers, or to the branch or local offices of a company or organization. Includes vehicle storage, moving services, general delivery services, refrigerated locker storage facilities, and other similar land uses.
3. “Wholesaling” means indoor storage and sale of goods to other firms for resale. Wholesalers are primarily engaged in business-to-business sales, but may sell to individual consumers through mail or internet orders.
Wholesalers normally operate from a warehouse or office having little or no display of merchandise, and are not designed to solicit walk-in traffic.
4. “Wireless communications facility” means a facility that transmits or receives electromagnetic signals for the purpose of transmitting voice or data communications. See Chapter 17.104 (Wireless Communications Facilities).
X. “X” Terms. None.
Y. “Y” Terms.
1. “Yard” means an open space, other than a court, on the same parcel with a building, unoccupied and unobstructed from the ground upward, except for such encroachments allowed by the zoning code.
2. Yard, Front. “Front yard” means a yard extending across the full width of the parcel, the depth of which is the minimum horizontal distance between the front line of the parcel and the nearest line of the main building or enclosed or covered porch. On a corner parcel the front line of the parcel is ordinarily construed as the least dimension of the parcel fronting on a street.
3. Yard, Rear. “Rear yard” means a yard extending across the full width of the parcel, and measured between the rear line of the main building or enclosed or covered porch nearest the rear line of the parcel; the depth of the required rear yard shall be measured horizontally.
4. Yard, Side. “Side yard” means a yard on each side of the main building extending from the front yard to the rear yard, the width of each yard being measured between the side line of the parcel and the nearest part of the main building or enclosed or covered porch.
295
Item 8 E.
Capitola City Council
Agenda Report
Meeting: March 26, 2026
From: Community and Economic Development Department
Subject: Housing Element Annual Progress Report 2025
Recommended Action: Receive report and direct staff to submit the annual report to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) by April 1, 2026.
Background: The Housing Element Annual Progress Report (APR) is a required submission to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) that tracks the City’s progress in implementing its Housing Element and meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) goals.
The APR provides details on housing production, permit activity, and implementation of housing programs. The report is due to HCD and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research by April 1 each year.
Discussion: As part of Capitola’s 6th Cycle Housing Element (2023–2031), the City has committed to various programs and policies to facilitate housing production, affordability, and preservation. The APR includes data on building permits issued, housing unit completions, and updates on housing programs.
The report also helps ensure compliance with state housing laws and maintains eligibility for state funding opportunities.
Staff will present the highlights of the APR at the City Council meeting. The APR will be published as additional materials before the meeting. Upon Council’s acceptance of this report, staff will submit the APR to HCD in compliance with state housing law.
Fiscal Impact: There is no fiscal impact associated with this presentation.
Alignment with 2025-2029 Strategic Plan Priority: Accountable Government; Attainable Housing; and Healthy Families, Community, and Environment.
Report Prepared By: Katie Herlihy, Community and Economic Development Director Reviewed By: Julia Gautho, City Clerk
Approved By: Jamie Goldstein, City Manager
296
Item 8 F.
Capitola City Council
Agenda Report
Meeting: March 26, 2026
From: Public Works Department
Subject: Stockton Avenue Bridge Investigation Update
Recommended Action: Receive report on the Stockton Avenue Bridge investigation.
Background: The Stockton Avenue Bridge Replacement Project was initially advanced following a feasibility study that identified bridge replacement as the most effective long-term solution to address flood risk and debris accumulation.
On January 30, 2025, City Council considered an amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with CSWST2 to advance preliminary engineering. At a subsequent meeting on March 27, 2025, Council modified the direction and instead prioritized additional due diligence investigation prior to advancing design. Council directed staff to conduct an internal analysis of the existing bridge, expand public outreach, and further evaluate historic preservation considerations.
In response to this direction, staff initiated additional investigation efforts to better document the structural condition of the existing bridge and inform future decision-making.
Discussion: Staff first conducted a non-destructive investigation of the bridge by accessing the interior through existing manholes. This approach was intended to minimize impacts while allowing for observation of internal structural elements. However, visibility was limited and the investigation did not provide sufficient information to fully assess the bridge’s condition.
Based on these limitations, staff proceeded with a more direct investigation method to confirm existing conditions. This included saw-cutting and opening portions of the bridge deck to allow for direct observation of the bridge interior. That inspection was completed and staff expects to return to City Council in April 2026 with the investigation results.
However, during this work portions of the bridge were damaged that require repair. The extent of the appropriate repair is currently being evaluated in coordination with the project engineer, a third-party bridge engineer, and contractor.
At the March 26 meeting, staff will provide any additional information available at that time regarding the near-term repair method and timeline.
Fiscal Impact: Costs associated with the investigation and necessary repairs are currently being evaluated. These efforts are generally consistent with Council direction to utilize project funding for internal analysis; however, additional appropriations may be required depending on the final repair scope.
Staff will return to Council with updated cost information as it becomes available.
Alignment with 2025-2029 Strategic Plan Priority: Accountable Government; Community Safety; Sustainable Infrastructure
Report Prepared By: Jessica Kahn, Public Works Director Reviewed By: Julia Gautho, City Clerk
Approved By: Jamie Goldstein, City Manager
297
Item 9 A.
Stockton Avenue Bridge
Investigation & Repair Update
City Council
March 26, 2026
298
Item 9 A.
Ongoing bridge investigation
Initial inspection had limited
visibility
Additional access points were
created to verify structure
Investigation activities resulted
in damage requiring repair
Project Background and Current Conditions
Stockton Avenue Bridge Update
299
Item 9 A.
• Repair approach
verified
• Coordinating with:
• Engineer of record
• Third-party
engineering firm
• Contractor
Current Work
Stockton Avenue Bridge Update
300
Item 9 A.
Construction Progress
Stockton Avenue Bridge Update
301
Item 9 A.
302
Item 9 A.
• Concrete pour
303
Item 9 A.
• Final condition
304
Item 9 A.
Concrete pour: Tuesday (complete)
Forming: through tomorrow
morning
Second pour: tomorrow afternoon
Reopen bridge: Monday (3/30)
Schedule (Tentative)
Stockton Avenue Bridge Update
305
Item 9 A.
• April 9, 2026
Full Peer-Reviewed Condition Report
• Structural findings
• Recommended next steps
• Cost implications
Will include
Next Steps
Stockton Avenue Bridge Update
306
Item 9 A.
Capitola City Council
Agenda Report
Meeting: March 26, 2026
From: City Manager Department
Subject: Community Action Board Appointment
Recommended Action: Appoint a representative to the Santa Cruz County Community Action Board.
Background: City Council Members appoint representatives to several County and Multi-Jurisdiction boards, one of which is the Santa Cruz County Community Action Board (CAB). CAB’s purpose is to partner with the community to eliminate poverty and create social change through advocacy and essential service.
Kristen Brown served as Capitola’s representative since 2014. On December 1, 2025, Kristen Brown submitted her resignation. Staff presented the item to Council on January 8, 2026, and the Council directed staff to advertise the vacancy to the public. Staff received two applicants for the position. A letter of recommendation to appoint Manuel Castro from CAB is included as Attachment 1.
Discussion: The City Council should (by motion and vote) appoint a new representative. The Council may appoint a Council Member or a member of the public to represent Capitola on the Board. The term for this position will expire on December 31, 2027.
CAB meets on the third Wednesday of the month, with its next meeting on April 15, 2026.
Fiscal Impact: None.
Attachments:
1. Letter of Recommendation
Alignment with 2025-2029 Strategic Plan Priority: Community Safety; Economic Opportunity; Healthy Families, Community, and Environment
Report Prepared By: Rosie Wyatt, Deputy City Clerk
Reviewed By: Julia Gautho, City Clerk
Approved By: Jamie Goldstein, City Manager
307
Item 9 B.
Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc. a nonprofit- EIN # 94-2523780 406 Main St. Suite 207, Watsonville, CA 95076 – 831-763-2147 – www.CABinc.org March 09, 2026
Re: Support for Appointment of Manuel Enrique Castro to the CAB Board of Directors Dear Honorable Mayor Margaux Morgan & Capitola Members of the City Council, On behalf of the Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc. (CAB), I am pleased to support the appointment of Manuel Enrique Castro as the City of Capitola’s representative to the CAB Board of Directors.
Mr. Castro’s professional and personal experience, dedication, and perspective align with CAB’s mission to partner with the community to eliminate poverty.
As a first-generation Mexican- American, a resident of Capitola for seven years, and a science teacher in the local school district, Mr. Castro combines deep community knowledge with professional and civic leadership. He has actively promoted equity and advocacy through service on the Racial Justice Task Force, his leadership with the Environmental Club at a local community college, and engagement in programs that support youth and communities CAB serves.
We are confident that he will serve with integrity, diligence, and commitment to CAB’s mission. We respectfully request the City Council’s consideration and approval of his appointment.
Sincerely,
MariaElena De La Garza
Chief Executive Officer
Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc.
308
Item 9 B.
Capitola City Council
Agenda Report
Meeting: March 26, 2026
From: Public Works Department
Subject: Local Roadway Safety Plan
Recommended Action: Receive an informational presentation on the draft Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) and provide feedback.
Background: In October 2025, the City Council received an informational update on the City’s Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). The LRSP is a data-driven safety planning tool encouraged by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Caltrans that helps local agencies analyze crash patterns, identify safety concerns, and develop strategies to reduce severe and fatal collisions.
Completion of an LRSP is an important step toward eligibility for the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and other state and federal transportation safety funding programs. The plan provides a structured framework for evaluating traffic safety conditions throughout the City and identifying potential safety improvements.
Crash data analysis and community outreach have now been completed, and a draft Local Roadway Safety Plan has been prepared. The draft plan is being presented to the City Council for review and input prior to finalization.
Discussion: The Local Roadway Safety Plan evaluates traffic safety conditions throughout Capitola using five years of collision data and community input. The purpose of the plan is to better understand the factors contributing to collisions within the City and to identify strategies that can reduce severe and fatal crashes.
The analysis included a review of crash history across the City’s roadway network, roadway characteristics and traffic volumes, and behavioral factors associated with collisions. The plan also incorporated public input gathered through community outreach and an online interactive safety survey.
The crash data analysis identified several trends consistent with staff observations and community feedback. Collisions involving pedestrians and bicyclists represent a significant portion of severe injury crashes within the City. State safety ranking data also indicates that Capitola experiences relatively high rates of pedestrian and bicycle crashes compared to jurisdictions of similar size.
The crash analysis identified contributing factors associated with collisions in Capitola, including impaired driving and driver right-of-way conflicts involving pedestrians and bicyclists. The analysis also highlighted speeding as a safety concern raised through both crash data and community input.
To address these trends, the LRSP identifies both location-specific and systemwide strategies. The plan highlights several locations where crash patterns suggest that additional safety evaluation may be warranted. These locations are presented as case studies illustrating potential approaches the City could consider when evaluating future safety improvements.
The plan also recommends a range of potential safety strategies. These include infrastructure improvements such as enhanced pedestrian crossings, traffic calming treatments, improved visibility at intersections, and improvements to bicycle facilities where feasible. In addition, the plan identifies programmatic strategies focused on education, outreach, and enforcement that may help address behavioral risk factors contributing to crashes.
Public engagement was an important component of the LRSP process. Outreach included a community meeting, an online safety survey, and an interactive map that allowed residents to identify locations where they have experienced safety concerns. Public feedback emphasized concerns related to speeding, 309
Item 9 C.
pedestrian crossings, bicycle safety, and e-bike behavior, particularly along corridors that serve both neighborhood access and regional travel.
The LRSP is intended to serve as a planning framework that helps guide future safety investments.
Adoption of the plan does not commit the City to specific capital projects but provides a data-driven foundation for identifying safety priorities and pursuing grant funding opportunities.
Staff is seeking Council input on the Draft LRSP prior to finalizing the document. Following Council feedback, staff anticipates returning to Council with the final LRSP for formal adoption.
In reviewing federal transportation safety funding programs, staff has also identified that certain grant programs, including the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program, encourage jurisdictions to adopt a policy commitment aimed at eliminating traffic fatalities and serious injuries. In order to strengthen the City’s eligibility for these programs, staff anticipates returning with a future agenda item that would include both adoption of the final LRSP and consideration of a resolution establishing a long-term roadway safety goal consistent with these principles.
Fiscal Impact: Preparation of the Local Roadway Safety Plan was budgeted in FY 2024–25 and rolled over into the current fiscal year. Adoption of the LRSP does not commit the City to specific capital improvements but will help position the City to pursue external funding opportunities for safety-related projects.
Attachments:
1. Draft Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Alignment with 2025-2029 Strategic Plan Priority: Community Safety; Healthy Families, Community, and Environment; Sustainable Infrastructure
Report Prepared By: Jessica Kahn, Public Works Director Reviewed By: Julia Gautho, City Clerk; Marc Tran, City Attorney Approved By: Jamie Goldstein, City Manager
310
Item 9 C.
Copyright © 2026 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 311
Item 9 C.
2 DRAFT REPORT
CITY OF CAPITOLA
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP)
Prepared for:
City of Capitola
Engineering Department
420 Capitola Avenue,
Capitola, California 95010
(831) 475-7300
Prepared by:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
10 Almaden Blvd, Suite 1250
San Jose, California 95113
(669) 800-4130
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
March 2026
312
Item 9 C.
3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The City of Capitola’s employees and partners were instrumental in the development, review, and refinement of this LRSP. The City of Capitola and Kimley-Horn would like to express their appreciation to the supporting staff and partners for their participation and contributions.
City of Capitola Staff
Jessica Kahn (Director)
Kailash Mozumder (Project Manager)
Matt Kotila (Operation Maintenance Supervisor)
Sarah Ryan (Chief of Police)
Pedro Zammora (Police Captain)
External Agency Stakeholders
Paula Bradley (SCCRTC Bicycle Advisory Committee)
Claudia Romero (Santa Cruz County, Health Program
Specialist)
Marin Rocha (Santa Cruz County, Health Program
Specialist)
Ernst Bauen (Division Chief- Operations, Central Fire
District)
Bent Paulson (Capitola Signal Maintenance Contractor
(Bear Electric)
Consultant Team (Kimley-Horn)
Ali Mustafa, PTP, RSP1
Zachary Ramalingam, EIT
Shahrzad Rahgozar
STATUTORY NOTICE
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code - Section 409: Discovery and admission as evidence of certain reports and surveys
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway- highway crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any highway safety construction improvement project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data. 313
Item 9 C.
4 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 10
1.1. Document Organization ............................................................................................... 10
2. VISION, GOAL, AND OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................ 12
3. PROCESS .................................................................................................................... 14
3.1. Guiding Manuals .......................................................................................................... 14
3.1.1. Local Roadway Safety: A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners .................. 14
3.1.2. Highway Safety Manual ..................................................................................... 15
3.2. Analysis Techniques .................................................................................................... 16
3.2.1. Crash and Network Screening Analysis .............................................................. 16
3.2.2. Critical Crash Rate (CCR) Analysis ..................................................................... 17
3.2.3. Probability of Specific Crash Types Exceeding Threshold Proportion ................... 17
3.2.4. Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) .......................................................... 17
4. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT .............................................................................................. 18
4.1. In-Person Community Event ......................................................................................... 18
4.2. Online Community Outreach........................................................................................ 23
4.2.1. Interactive Map ................................................................................................. 23
4.2.2. Safety Survey .................................................................................................... 25
5. REVIEW OF PLANNING DOCUMENTS ................................................................................... 27
6. DATA SOURCES ............................................................................................................ 29
6.1. Roadway Network ........................................................................................................ 29
6.2. Intersections ............................................................................................................... 29
6.3. Crashes ....................................................................................................................... 29
7. SAFETY TRENDS ............................................................................................................ 30
7.1. Capitola KSI Crashes Compared to Statewide KSI Crashes ........................................... 30
7.2. California OTS Rankings for Capitola ............................................................................ 30
7.3. Severity Level ............................................................................................................... 31
7.4. Annual Crashes ........................................................................................................... 35
7.5. Crash Causes .............................................................................................................. 36
7.6. Crash Types ................................................................................................................. 37
7.7. Impaired Driving Crashes ............................................................................................. 38
7.8. Non-Motorized Crashes ............................................................................................... 40
7.8.1. Bicycle Crashes ................................................................................................ 40
7.8.2. Pedestrian Crashes ........................................................................................... 40
8. DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIOECONOMIC ASSESSMENT .............................................................. 44
9. RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................... 49
9.1. Engineering Countermeasures ..................................................................................... 49
9.1.1. Crash Modification Factors ................................................................................ 49
9.1.2. Engineering Countermeasures Toolbox .............................................................. 49
9.1.3. Case-Study Locations ....................................................................................... 55 314
Item 9 C.
5 9.2. Non-Infrastructure Countermeasures .......................................................................... 58
10. EVALUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................... 60
10.1. Evaluation ................................................................................................................ 60
10.2. Implementation ........................................................................................................ 60
10.2.1. Near- and Mid-Term Focus Areas .................................................................... 60
10.3. Funding .................................................................................................................... 61
10.3.1. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) .................................................. 61
10.3.2. Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) .............................................................. 61
10.3.3. Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP) .................................................. 61
10.3.4. State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) ........................................... 62
10.3.5. California SB 1 ................................................................................................ 62
10.3.6. California OTS Grants ..................................................................................... 62
10.3.7. ABAG Regional Funding Programs ................................................................... 63
11. NEXT STEPS ................................................................................................................. 64 315
Item 9 C.
6 LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Intersection Network Screening Results
Appendix B Segment Network Screening Results
Appendix C Public Comments
Appendix D Summary of Programs, Policies, and Practices for the City of Capitola
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 — Interactive Engagement Poster for Pop-Up Event ........................................................ 18 Figure 2 — Intersection and Segment Crash Map (2019 – 2023) .................................................... 19 Figure 3 — Flyer for City of Capitola LRSP .................................................................................... 20 Figure 4 — Bilingual Palm Card Developed for Distribution (Front & Back) .................................... 21 Figure 5 — Comment Card for City of Capitola LRSP.................................................................... 21 Figure 6 — Interactive Engagement Poster – Summary of Input Received...................................... 22 Figure 7 — Online Interactive Map Platform with Comments ........................................................ 23 Figure 8 — Summary of Safety Concerns from Capitola’s Online Survey Platform ......................... 24 Figure 9 — Summary of Safety Concerns – County of Santa Cruz and Capitola Online Survey Platforms ................................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 10 — Summary of Challenge Areas in the City of Capitola .................................................. 26 Figure 11 — Crashes by Severity (2019 - 2023) ............................................................................. 32 Figure 12 — Citywide Crashes (2019-2023) ................................................................................. 34 Figure 13 — Annual Crashes (2019-2023) .................................................................................... 35 Figure 14 — Annual KSI Crashes (2019-2023) .............................................................................. 35 Figure 15 — Total Crashes by Cause (2019-2023) ........................................................................ 36 Figure 16 — KSI Crashes by Cause (2019-2023) ........................................................................... 36 Figure 17 — Crashes by Type (2019-2023) ................................................................................... 37 Figure 18 — KSI Crashes by Type (2019-2023) ............................................................................. 38 Figure 19 — Impaired Driving Crashes ......................................................................................... 39 Figure 20 — Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes ............................................................................... 40 Figure 21 — Non-Motorized Crash Map ....................................................................................... 42 316
Item 9 C.
7 Figure 22 — Intersection and Roadway Segment Injury Crashes ................................................... 43 Figure 23 — Household Income of road users along 41st Ave ....................................................... 44 Figure 24 — Household income for road users along Stockton Ave .............................................. 45 Figure 25 — Low Income Network Link Volumes Originating in Capitola ....................................... 47 Figure 26 — Low Income Pedestrian and Cyclist Network Link Volumes Originating in Capitola .... 48 Figure 27 — CMF Calculation ..................................................................................................... 49
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 — Capitola KSI Crashes Compared to Statewide KSI Crashes .......................................... 30 Table 2 - Capitola OTS Ranking (2023) ......................................................................................... 31 Table 3 — KSI Crashes by Facility Type ........................................................................................ 32 Table 4 — Crashes by Severity (2019 – 2023) ............................................................................... 33 Table 5 — Capitola Engineering Countermeasures Toolbox ......................................................... 51 Table 6 — Case-Study Locations ................................................................................................ 55 Table 7 — Countermeasures for Selected Case Study Locations ................................................. 57 Table 8 — Capitola Non-Infrastructure Countermeasures Toolbox............................................... 59 317
Item 9 C.
8 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND TERMINOLOGY
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ATP Active Transportation Program
ARIDE Advance Roadside Impaired Enforcement
CA MUTCD California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CEJST Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool
CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
CMF Crash Modification Factor
CRF Crash Reduction Factor
CTC California Transportation Commission
DAC Disadvantaged Communities
DEV Daily Entering Volume
DRE Drug Recognition Expert
EO Executive Order
EPDO Equivalent Property Damage Only
FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
GIS Geographic Information System
HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program
HFST High Friction Surface Treatment
HSM Highway Safety Manual
IIP Interregional Improvement Program
ITIP Interregional Transportation Improvement Program
KSI Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes
LRSP Local Roadway Safety Plan
LRSM Local Roadway Safety Manual
318
Item 9 C.
9 MEV Million Entering Vehicles
NEV Neighborhood Electric Vehicle
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
PD Police Department
PDO Property Damage Only
RRFB Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
RIP Regional Improvement Program
RSTP Rural Surface Transportation Program
RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Program
R/W Right-of-Way
SARC School Accountability Report Card
SB Senate Bill
SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan
SRTS Safe Routes to School
SS4A Safe Streets and Roads for All
STIP State Transportation Improvement Program
SWITRS Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System
TCAS Traffic Collision Analysis System (Draft)
TDM Transportation Demand Model
TIMS Transportation Injury Mapping System
US ACS United States Census American Community Survey
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
319
Item 9 C.
10 1. INTRODUCTION
This Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) identifies factors associated with the most prevalent vehicle crashes occurring in the City of Capitola and proposes matching countermeasures to reduce or eliminate those crashes. This report identifies emphasis areas to inform and guide further safety evaluation of the City’s transportation network. The emphasis areas include the type of crash, certain locations, and notable relationships between current efforts and crash history. The LRSP analyzes crash data on an aggregate basis as well as at specific locations to identify high-crash locations, high-risk locations, and city-wide trends and patterns. The analysis of crash history throughout the City’s transportation network allows for the following opportunities:
Identify factors in the transportation network that inhibit safety for roadway users of all modes of travel.
Improve safety at high-crash locations and locations which experience a disproportionately high number of fatal and severe injury crashes.
Develop safety measures aligning with the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Five Es of safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Services, and Emerging Technologies, to encourage safer driver behavior and more favorable severity outcomes.
The process and analysis performed for the City’s LRSP includes a summary of vision and goals, crash history analysis, the establishment of emphasis areas, a demographic and socioeconomic assessment, a countermeasure toolbox, and a set of policy recommendations. The information compiled will provide a foundation for decision making and prioritization of safety countermeasures and projects that enhance safety equitably for all modes of travel within the City. The expanded implementation section will provide guidance to the City on applying for grant funding from various safety programs.
The intent of the LRSP is to:
Create a greater awareness of road safety and risks
Reduce the number of fatal and severe-injury crashes
Develop lasting partnerships
Provide support for grant funding opportunities
Aid in the prioritization of investments in traffic safety
1.1. Document Organization
The LRSP is organized into the following sections:
Section 1 presents an introduction to the LRSP.
Section 2 presents the vision, goal, and objectives for the LRSP. Section 3 presents the LRSP development process including guidance documents and analysis techniques.
Section 4 presents the community engagement.
Section 5 reviews City planning documents and policies. Section 6 contains the LRSP data sources.
Section 7 provides a summary of safety trends.
Section 8 presents demographic and socioeconomic assessment. 320
Item 9 C.
11 Section 9 includes recommended engineering and non-infrastructure countermeasures for case-study locations.
Section 10 summarizes the evaluation and implementation of the safety countermeasures. Section 11 identifies next steps.
Appendices
321
Item 9 C.
12 2. VISION, GOAL, AND OBJECTIVES
The Capitola LRSP evaluates the transportation network as well as non-infrastructure programs and policies within the City. Mitigation measures are evaluated using criteria to analyze the safety of road users (drivers and passengers, bicyclists, and pedestrians), the interaction of modes, influences on the roadway network from adjacent municipalities, and the potential benefits of safety countermeasures. This effort utilizes historical data to identify trends and develop a toolbox of countermeasures applicable to conditions in the City that can be used for proactive identification and implementation of opportunities, without relying solely on a reaction and response to crashes as they occur.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) maintains a list of Proven Safety Countermeasures. The list currently has 20 Proven Safety Countermeasures, and LRSPs are included on the list of 20 Proven Safety Countermeasures. Implementation of LRSPs has improved safety in local jurisdictions across the country by providing a guide for local jurisdictions to systematically address the conditions that lead to fatal and severe-injury crashes. They provide a locally developed and customized roadmap to directly address the most common safety challenges in the given jurisdiction. Vision zero plans include a similar safety analysis as LRSPs, but also include a vision zero resolution and goal, establishing a collaborative working group to monitor safety performance and progress.
Following discussions with Capitola staff and a review of existing plans and policies for the area, the following Vision, Goals, and Objectives have been established for this project. 322
Item 9 C.
13 Vision - Support the California vision of moving towards significantly reducing fatalities and severe injuries for all road users.
Goal Objectives
Goal 1: Identify areas with a high
risk for crashes.
Evaluate the City’s roadway network for crash
activity.
Identify intersections and segments in need of
mitigation.
Identify areas of interest with respect to safety
concerns for pedestrians and bicycles.
Goal 2: Illustrate the value of a
comprehensive safety program
and the systematic process.
Demonstrate the systematic process, ability to
identify locations with higher risk for crashes based
on present characteristics closely associated with
severe crashes.
Demonstrate, through the systematic process, the
gaps and data collection activities that can be
improved upon.
Goal 3: Define safety
improvements for the near-,
mid- and long-term, including
projects for HSIP, SS4A and
other programs with funding
consideration.
Create the outline for a prioritization process that can be used in forth-coming funding cycles.
Demonstrate the correlation between the proposed
safety countermeasures with the Vision Zero Initiative
and the California State Highway Safety Plan (SHSP).
Goal 4: Identify emphasis areas
to prioritize countermeasure
application.
Use systematic crash analysis to identify emphasis
areas.
Prioritize emphasis areas for countermeasure
development.
Align emphasis areas with City goals & objectives.
Align emphasis areas with current City areas of
concern.
Goal 5: Proposed List of
Conceptual Priority Projects for
Implementation of
Countermeasures.
Identify conceptual priority projects for
implementation.
Identify similar areas where countermeasures can be
implemented.
Prioritize these countermeasures for implementation
based on cost, effort, and timeline.
323
Item 9 C.
14 3. PROCESS
The primary goal for the City of Capitola and their safety partners is to provide safe, sustainable, and efficient mobility choices for their residents and visitors. Through the development and implementation of this LRSP, the City will continue its collaboration with safety partners to identify and discuss safety issues within the community.
Guidance on the LRSP process is provided at both the national (FHWA) and state (Caltrans) level, and both agencies have developed a general framework of data and recommendations for an LRSP.
The FHWA encourages:
The establishment of a working group (Stakeholders) to participate in developing a LRSP The review of crash, traffic, and roadway data to identify areas of concern The establishment of goals, priorities, and countermeasures to recommend improvements at spot locations, systemically, and comprehensively
Caltrans guidance follows a similar outline with the following steps:
1. Establish leadership
2. Analyze the safety data
3. Determine emphasis areas
4. Identify strategies
5. Prioritize and incorporate strategies
6. Evaluate and update the LRSP
This LRSP documents the results of data and information obtained, including the vision, goals, and objectives for the LRSP; existing safety efforts; crash analyses; emphasis areas; the City’s existing countermeasure toolbox; and potential countermeasures for select priority locations. The development of the LRSP recommendations considers the Five Es of traffic safety defined by the California SHSP: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies throughout its process.
3.1. Guiding Manuals
The following section describes the analysis process undertaken to evaluate safety within the City at a systemic level. Using a network screening process, locations within the City that will most likely benefit from safety enhancements were identified. Using historic crash data, crash risk factors for the entire network are derived. The outcomes will inform the identification and prioritization of engineering and non-infrastructure safety countermeasures that address certain roadway characteristics and related behaviors that contribute to motor vehicle crashes as well as active transportation users.
This process uses the latest national and state best practices for statistical roadway analysis described in the following sections.
3.1.1. Local Roadway Safety: A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners The purpose of Local Roadway Safety: A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners (Version 1.7, April 2024) (LRSM) is to encourage local agencies to pursue a proactive approach to identifying and analyzing safety issues, while positioning themselves to be eligible for competitive federal, state, and local grant programs for project implementation funding opportunities. A proactive approach is 324
Item 9 C.
15 defined as analyzing the safety of the entire roadway network through either a one-time, network wide analysis, or by routine analyses of the roadway network.
According to the LRSM, “The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) – Division of Local Assistance is responsible for administering California’s federal safety funding intended for local safety improvements.”
To provide the most benefit and to be competitive for grant funding, the analysis leading to countermeasure selection should focus on both intersections and roadway segments and be considerate of roadway characteristics and traffic volumes. The result should be a list of locations that are most likely to benefit from the implementation of cost-effective countermeasures, preferably prioritized by benefit/cost ratio. The LRSM suggests using a mixture of quantitative and qualitative measures to identify and rank locations that consider both crash frequency and crash rates. These findings should then be screened for patterns such as crash types and severity to aid in the determination of issues causing higher numbers of crashes and the potential countermeasures that could be most effective. Qualitative analysis should include field visits and a review of existing roadway characteristics and devices. The specific roadway context can then be used to assess what conditions may increase safety risk at the site and systematic level.
Countermeasure selection should be supported using Crash Modification Factors (CMFs). These factors are the peer reviewed product of before-and-after research that quantifies the expected rate of crash reduction that can be expected from a given countermeasure. If more than one countermeasure is under consideration, the LRSM provides guidance on how to apply CMFs appropriately.
3.1.2. Highway Safety Manual
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Highway Safety Manual (HSM), published in 2010, presents a variety of methods for quantitatively estimating crash frequency or severity at a variety of locations. This four-part manual is divided into Parts: A) Introduction, Human Factors, and Fundamentals, B) Roadway Safety Management Process, C) Predictive Method, and D) Crash Modification Factors.
Chapter 4 of Part B of the HSM discusses the network screening process. The network screening process is a tool for an agency to analyze their entire network as well as identify and rank locations that (based on the implementation of a countermeasure) are most to realize a reduction in the frequency of crashes.
The HSM identifies five steps in this process:
1. Establish Focus: Identify the purpose or intended outcome of the network screening process. This decision will influence data needs, the selection of performance measures and the screening method that can be applied.
2. Identify Network and Establish Reference Populations: Specify the types of sites or facilities being screened (i.e. segments, intersections, or geometrics) and identify groupings of similar sites or facilities.
3. Select Performance Measures: There are a variety of performance measures available to evaluate the potential to reduce crash frequency at a site. In this step, the performance measure is selected as a function of the screening focus and the data and analytical tools available.
325
Item 9 C.
16 4. Select Screening Method: There are three screening methods described in this chapter: ranking, sliding window, and peak searching. Each method has advantages and
disadvantages; the most appropriate method for a given
situation should be selected.
5. Screen and Evaluate Results: The final step in the process is to conduct the screening and analysis and evaluate the
results.
The HSM provides several statistical methods for screening roadway networks to identify high risk locations based on overall crash histories.
3.2. Analysis Techniques
3.2.1. Crash and Network Screening Analysis
Intersections and roadways were analyzed using four crash metrics:
Number of Crashes
Critical Crash Rate (HSM Ch. 4)
Probability of Specific Crash Types Exceeding Threshold Proportion (HSM Ch. 4) Equivalent Property Damage Only (HSM Ch. 4)
The initial steps of the crash analysis established sub-populations of roadway segments and intersections that have similar characteristics. For this LRSP, intersections were grouped by their control type (signalized and unsignalized) and segments by their roadway category (arterial, collector, minor collector, and local). Individual crash rates were calculated for each subpopulation. The sub-population level crash rates were then used to assess whether a specific location has more or fewer crashes than expected. These sub-populations were also used to determine typical crash patterns to help identify locations where unusual numbers of specific crash types are occurring.
The network screening process ranks intersections and roadway segments by the number of crashes that occurred at each one over the analysis period and then identifies areas that had more of a given type of crash than would be expected for that type of location. The crash type factors were:
Crash severity - fatal, severe injury, other visible injury, complaint of pain, and property damage only (PDO)
Crash type - broadside, rear-end, sideswipe, head-on, hit object, overturned, bicycle, pedestrian, and other
Environmental factors – lighting and wet roads
Driver behavior - impaired, aggressive, and distracted driving From the results of the network screening analyses, a short-list of locations was chosen based on crash activity, crash severity, crash patterns, location type, and area within the City to provide the greatest variety of locations covering the widest range of safety opportunities for countermeasure toolbox development. The intent is to populate the safety countermeasure toolbox with mitigation measures that will be applicable to most of the crash activity in the City. 326
Item 9 C.
17 3.2.2. Critical Crash Rate (CCR) Analysis
Reviewing the number of crashes at a location is a good way to understand the cost to society incurred at the local level, but does not provide a complete indication of the level of risk for those who use that intersection or roadway segment on a daily basis. The HSM describes the CCR method, which provides a statistical review of locations to determine where risk is higher than that experienced by other similar locations. It is also the first step in analyzing for patterns that may suggest systemic issues that can be addressed at that location, and proactively at others to prevent new safety challenges from emerging.
The CCR analysis compares the observed crash rate to the expected crash rate at a particular location based on facility type and traffic volume using a locally calculated average crash rate for the specific type of intersection or roadway segment being analyzed. Based on traffic volumes and a weighted Citywide crash rate for each facility type, a critical crash rate threshold is established at the 95-percent confidence level to determine locations with higher crash rates that are unlikely to be random. The threshold is calculated for each location individually based on its traffic volume and the crash profile of similar facilities. A CCR value of greater than zero reflects a location that has a higher crash rate than facilities with similar volumes, while a negative CCR value signifies a belowaverage crash rate. It should be noted that the CCR does not reflect the severity of the crashes occurring at the location, but rather the number of crashes for the given volume.
3.2.3. Probability of Specific Crash Types Exceeding Threshold Proportion When analyzing crash data systematically, it is important to identify areas where certain types of crashes are occurring with greater frequency. The HSM describes a method of identifying locations where probability of a specific crash type exceeds the threshold population. This method prioritizes locations based on the probability that the true proportion (long-term predicted proportion) of a type of crash or injury level will exceed the threshold proportion. The threshold proportion is based on the proportion of a specific crash type/severity to all crashes within the dataset (HSM, Chapter 4). This analysis identifies locations where certain crash types are over-represented to be isolated for further analysis.
3.2.4. Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO)
The EPDO method is described in the Highway Safety Manual. This method assigns weighting factors to crashes based on injury level to develop a property damage only score. In this analysis, the injury crash costs were calculated for each location based on the latest Caltrans injury costs. This value is then divided by the injury cost for a property damage only crash. The resulting number is the equivalent number of property damage only crashes at each site. This value allows all locations to be compared based on injury crash costs. (HSM, Chapter 4).
The results of the network screening analysis for both intersections and roadway segments are presented in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively.
327
Item 9 C.
18 4. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
The City of Capitola’s LRSP public engagement plan included strategies and activities to reach a broad cross-section of the community throughout the City. The plan included one round of public outreach as well as extensive stakeholder engagement with agency partners and interested parties.
Stakeholder engagement and outreach efforts for the LRSP occurred between September 2025 and January 2026 and consisted of the following components:
1. In-person pop-up meeting
2. Online Community Outreach
Interactive Map hosted on Social Pinpoint
Safety Survey
4.1. In-Person Community Event
In person public engagement took place on October 28, 2025, at New Brighton Middle School. In this meeting, the City’s LRSP project was introduced to the public. An interactive poster board identifying the safety concerns throughout the City was stationed, and participants were asked to identify the top three safety challenges faced by them by placing dots. Along with interactive poster board, a poster board showing intersection and roadway segment crashes within the last five years (2019 – 2023) was also stationed. Additionally, Postcards featuring a QR code to the City of Capitola LRSP survey and interactive map were developed and handed out at this meeting. All collateral was disseminated in both English and Spanish, including flyers, interactive boards, and palm cards (pictures shown below).
Figure 1 — Interactive Engagement Poster for Pop-Up Event 328
Item 9 C.
19 Figure 2 — Intersection and Segment Crash Map (2019 – 2023) 329
Item 9 C.
20 Figure 3 — Flyer for City of Capitola LRSP
330
Item 9 C.
21 Figure 4: Bilingual Palm Card Developed for Distribution (Front & Back) Additionally, comment cards were distributed at this pop-up meeting for participants to write down additional safety concerns they might have within the City, shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5: Comment Card for City of Capitola LRSP
Key safety challenges identified by the public at this in-person public engagement on October 28, 2025, at New Brighton Middle School included unsafe or improper use of e-bike/e-scooters, speeding, and drivers failing to yield to pedestrians and cyclists. The safety challenges identified during this in person event are summarized in Figure 6 below. 331
Item 9 C.
22 Figure 6 — Interactive Engagement Poster – Summary of Input Received Pictures from the in-person community event are shown below:
332
Item 9 C.
23 4.2. Online Community Outreach
4.2.1. Interactive Map
Social Pinpoint, which is an online map survey tool that utilizes the same survey logic and dynamic answer format available on standard survey platforms, combined with interactive mapping and location-specific data collection capabilities, was used to collect safety concerns of the public.
A pre-populated menu (shown below) was provided to narrow down the known safety concerns.
Using this online tool, survey respondents were able to drop “pins” on the City map and select from the list of pre-populated safety concerns menu or select others and provide text associated with their concern. Additionally, the survey respondents also could provide an up-vote or a down-vote on an existing comment. The pre-populated concerns were as follows:
Pedestrian Safety
Bicycle Safety
Vehicle Safety
Transit Safety
Others
The online engagement survey resulted in a total of 215 contributions. The online interactive social map had 163 contributors and site-specific comments recorded, and the survey form received 52 contributions. A total of one (1) in-person survey was also completed. The online survey platform in addition to the in-person interactive poster board. Comments and surveys received during online engagement can be found in Appendix C. A link to the Social Pinpoint online map tool and survey was also provided on City’s LRSP homepage to facilitate more public input (https://www.cityofcapitola.org/publicworks/page/capitola-local-roadway-safety-plan ).
Figure 7 — Online Interactive Map Platform with Comments 333
Item 9 C.
24 Pedestrian safety was identified as the top safety concern area by the survey respondents, followed by bicycle safety, and vehicle safety. Summary of the safety concern feedback received from the Interactive Map is shown in Figure 8.
Figure 8 — Summary of Safety Concerns from Capitola’s Online Survey Platform As part of Santa Cruz County Safety Action Plan (SCCSAP), a similar exercise was conducted using online survey platform to gather public input on safety concerns. The SCCSAP was a joint effort with Santa Cruz County and the Cities of Watsonville and Scotts Valley. Although City of Capitola was not part of the SCCSAP, the plan received 53 posts identifying safety concerns in the City of Capitola.
These posts were added to the posts received on the City’s online survey platform and are summarized in Figure 9 and these posts related to the City of Capitola can be found in Appendix C. 43%
37%
4% 15%
1%
Pedestrian Safety
Bicycle Safety
Transit Safety
Vehicle Safety
Other
334
Item 9 C.
25 With the addition of safety concerns from the SCCSAP, a higher percentage was observed for bicycle safety, followed by pedestrian safety and vehicle safety as the top three safety concerns.
Figure 9 — Summary of Safety Concerns – County of Santa Cruz and Capitola Online Survey Platforms
4.2.2. Safety Survey
As part of the online community engagement, an online survey was also conducted to identify the top three safety challenges the residents and visitors face within the City of Capitola. Demographic data was also collected from this survey. The online survey was made public similar to the interactive map from mid-September to January 19, 2026, and promoted on City of Capitola website (Capitola Local Roadway Safety Plan | City of Capitola California). A total of 52 survey responses were received for this online survey. Most respondents noted that they mainly drive solo as their primary mode of travel, with a large handful of participants noting that they mainly bike and walk. Survey participants expressed that they feel the safest as a driver when traveling through City of Capitola. The top three safety challenges expressed by survey users were:
1) Aggressive driving (speeding Stop sign or red-light running violations) 2) Pedestrian crossing (long crossing distance, deteriorated pavement), and 3) Distracted driving.
These top three safety challenges were followed by traffic signals, and bicycle lanes. Summary of safety challenges are shown in Figure 10.
335
Item 9 C.
26 Figure 10 — Summary of Challenge Areas in the City of Capitola A complete list of all survey questions and all comments received can be found in Appendix C.
Some of the key comments from the online map survey tool (i.e., Social PinPoint) are summarized below:
Pedestrian Safety Concerns
1. “Mid-block crossing is not well lit, difficult to see pedestrians at night.” [41st Avenue and Reposa Avenue]
Bicycle Safety Concerns
2. “Kids on bikes don’t have a dedicated bike lane or safe route to school.” [Monterey Avenue] Vehicle Safety Concerns
3. “Vehicles Are Going Like 35 - 40 MPH!! SLOW DOWN!!!” [Monterey Avenue] 336
Item 9 C.
27 5. REVIEW OF PLANNING DOCUMENTS
Existing plans, policies, and projects that were recently completed, planned, or are on-going within the City were compiled at the start of the LRSP process in order to gain perspective on the existing efforts for transportation-related improvements within the City. High-level key points regarding transportation improvements and safety-related topics were identified to inform decision making in this LRSP. The following plans and documents were reviewed:
City Plans and Policies
Capitola General Plan (2019)
o Provides the long-term vision and policy framework for the City o Establishes goals and policies to guide growth and community development o Includes a Mobility Element that addresses multimodal transportation o Supports safe and efficient access for pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicles, transit, and emergency services
Bicycle Transportation Plan (2011)
o Identifies priority bicycle improvement projects
o Establishes a network of bikeways, including commuter and recreational routes o Supports increased bicycle use for commuting, recreation, and tourism Municipal Code (relevant sections)
o Establishes regulations related to transportation, safety, and land use o Supports implementation of transportation and safety policies Programs and Initiatives
Street Smarts Education Campaign
o Countywide traffic safety program implemented in coordination with Capitola o Uses media campaigns and outreach to promote safe driving, walking, and biking
Community Traffic Safety Coalition
o Regional partnership supporting Vision Zero efforts
o Provides crash data analysis and safety education resources used by the City Recent Projects and Studies
Engineering and Traffic Study (2020)
o Evaluated and established speed limits citywide
o Supports safe and enforceable speed limits
o Considers pedestrian and bicycle safety
Park Avenue and Clares Street Traffic Calming Projects o Evaluates traffic calming measures to reduce speeds
o Improves safety and accessibility for pedestrians and bicyclists o Focuses on key corridors with community input
337
Item 9 C.
28 The City of Capitola seeks to improve roadway safety by implementing the Safe System Approach.
The Safe System Approach, as defined in the Caltrans SHSP, is built upon the following principles1:
Death and serious injuries are unacceptable
Humans make mistakes
Humans are vulnerable
Responsibility is shared
Safety is proactive
Redundancy is crucial
While engineering countermeasures are a critical part of preventing fatal and severe injury crashes, the City also recognizes that policy plays a key role in safety as well.
The city performed a literature review of relevant policies and programs to identify other means by which the Safe
System Approach and road safety could be further
established. Appendix D presents a summary of local
programs, policies, and practices as well as
considerations of how they can be improved or
enhanced to further support and prioritize road safety. 1 2020-2024 SHSP – Jan 2023 (PDF), Caltrans. January 2023. dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safetyprograms/documents/shsp/2023-shsp-full-report-2020-2024-a11y.pdf Source: What Is a Safe System
Approach? USDOT 2025.
338
Item 9 C.
29 6. DATA SOURCES
The following data was obtained from the City for use in crash data analysis.
6.1. Roadway Network
The crash analysis, which is described in detail in Section 3, requires each corridor within the City to be classified. The City’s roadway network was obtained from Caltrans GIS database and roadway classification for roads were categorized using the data provided by City of Capitola. The roadway network classification was assigned to each corridor roadway segment as either a major arterial, minor arterial, collector, or local road. This was done in order to compare the functional design and capacity to better stratify analysis results, only comparing roadway segment safety performance with similar peer roadways (i.e., only arterials are compared to arterials, etc.) within the City.
6.2. Intersections
The crash analysis also requires each intersection within the City to be classified by control type.
Intersections throughout the City were classified by control type as either signalized or unsignalized (including roundabouts). The safety analysis also only compares intersection safety performance with similar control types (i.e., signalized intersections are only compared to signalized intersections, etc.) within the City.
6.3. Crashes
Injury collision data for the most recent five-year period (January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2023) was used for the collision analysis. Using data from the past five-year period is sufficient to identify potential trends in crashes by location and types, while not being so long as to have data that would include long-term technology and cultural changes. The collision data was obtained from UC Berkeley’s SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS). Collision records were allocated to intersection and the roadway network segments.
Knowing the impacts of the crash (the injuries or type of damage which occurred) is a key part of assessing the environment and safety factors around the site of the crash. The TIMS dataset used for this analysis categorizes crashes in the following categories:
1 – Fatality
2 – Severe injury
3 – Other Visible Injury
4 – Complaint of Pain
Property damage only or “fender bender” crashes that did not result in any forms of injury are not included in this dataset. This LRSP includes crashes which occurred on the City’s roadway network (including intersections which border City limits). However, crashes along Highway 1 were not included as these belong to Caltrans right-of-way and are outside the jurisdiction of the City of Capitola.
339
Item 9 C.
30 7. SAFETY TRENDS
The following sections contain the results of the analysis process which included evaluation of Capitola fatal and severe injury (KSI) crashes compared to statewide levels, among other evaluations including crashes by severity level, cause, pedestrian, and bicycle crashes.
7.1. Capitola KSI Crashes Compared to Statewide KSI Crashes The California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) focuses on 16 challenge areas identified through analysis of California KSI crash data and input from traffic safety partners around the state.
Crashes in Capitola were associated with 13 of the 16 challenge areas. Table 1 presents a summary of City’s crash trends from 2019-2023 by comparing KSI crashes to statewide averages. The City of Capitola experienced a higher proportion oof KSI crashes than the statewide average in the following five areas: Intersections, Pedestrians, Bicyclists, Distracted Driving, Impaired Driving.
Table 1 — Capitola KSI Crashes Compared to Statewide KSI Crashes Source: Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (2019 – 2023).
Driver Licensing is based on crash data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting Service (FARS) (2019 – 2023).
Note: Percentages will not add up to 100%, as a fatality or severe injury could have involved multiple Challenge Areas (i.e., a young driver that was impaired and unrestrained).
7.2. California OTS Rankings for Capitola
The California OTS publishes annual reports ranking agencies of similar population by their crash profile. Table 2 presents the City of Capitola’s 2023 (the most recent) OTS rankings. OTS notes that “Number 1 in the rankings is the highest, or ‘worst’” 2. Compared to other cities of similar population, 2 City of Capitola OTS Crash Rankings Results, California Office of Traffic Safety. Accessed February 2026. https://www.ots.ca.gov
City of Capitola Percentages Statewide Percentages
Intersections Higher 62.5% 24.3% 38.2%
Pedestrians Higher 37.5% 18.9% 18.6%
Bicyclists Higher 25.0% 7.3% 17.7%
Distracted Driving Higher 18.8% 4.4% 14.4%
Impaired Driving Higher 25.0% 23.9% 1.1%
Aging Drivers Lower 12.5% 12.8% -0.3%
Work Zones Lower 0.0% 1.6% -1.6%
Commercial Vehicles Lower 0.0% 6.7% -6.7%
Occupant Protection Lower 6.3% 13.1% -6.9%
Aggressive Driving Lower 25.0% 33.4% -8.4%
Young Drivers Lower 0.0% 12.1% -12.1%
Motorcyclists Lower 6.3% 20.8% -14.5%
Lane Departure Lower 25.0% 42.1% -17.1%
California SHSP Challenge Area Differential
City of Capitola
Comparison to
Statewide Percentages
Percent of Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes (2019-2023)
340
Item 9 C.
31 Capitola ranks among the top 50 in Total Fatal and Injury Crashes. Additionally, Capitola ranks among the Top 50 for crashes for all categories except the following categories:
Crashes Involving Drivers under Influence (21-34)
Crashes Involving Pedestrians <15 categories.
Table 2 - Capitola OTS Ranking (2023)
Crash Category Victims Killed or Injured OTS Ranking
Total Fatal and Injury 30 30/74
Alcohol Involved 9 10/74
Had Been Drinking Driver < 21 1 6/74
Had Been Drinking Driver 21 – 34 0 73/74
Motorcycles 1 50/74
Pedestrians 5 5/74
Pedestrians < 15 0 70/74
Pedestrians 65+ 3 1/74
Bicycle 11 2/74
Bicyclist < 15 3 2/74
Composite 29 10/74
Crash Category Fatal or Injury Crashes OTS Ranking
Speed Related 13 5/74
Nighttime (9:00pm – 2:59am) 2 28/74
Hit and Run 4 4/74
Type Of Arrests Arrests OTS Ranking
DUI Arrests 33 44/74
7.3. Severity Level
Over the observed five-year time period, there were a total of 116 crashes, 3 of which were fatal and 12 of which resulted in severe injuries, as shown in Figure 11.
Nearly 46 (39%) crashes resulted in other visible injuries and 62 (48%) crashes resulted in complaint of pain respectively.
341
Item 9 C.
32 Figure 11 — Crashes by Severity (2019 - 2023)
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System(TIMS) (2019-2023) Majority of all crashes in the City occurred at intersections, with nearly half of all crashes occurring at unsignalized intersections. Table 3 presents the distribution of all crashes, and especially KSI crashes across the City’s various facility types (signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and roadway segments). Sixty-seven percent (67%) of all KSI crashes occurred at unsignalized intersections, followed by 13.3% signalized intersections and 20% at roadway segments.
Table 3 — KSI Crashes by Facility Type
Facility Type Total Crashes Percentage KSI Crashes Percentage Signalized
Intersections 39 33.62% 2 13.3%
Unsignalized
Intersections 57 49.14% 10 66.7%
Roadway
Segments 20 17.24% 3 20.0%
Total 116 100% 15 100%
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) (2019-2023) Table 4 presents the distribution of all crashes by severity across the City’s facility types. Crashes were more common at unsignalized intersections, followed by signalized intersections and roadway segments. In coordination with the City, the following fatal injury crash which was not reflected in the crash data was added to the data set:
41st Ave and Clares: A fatal crash occurred in 20193
3 Capitola, CA - 1 Killed in Crash on 41st Ave Near Clares St | Brady Law Group 342
Item 9 C.
33 Table 4 — Crashes by Severity (2019 – 2023)
Severity
Signalized
Intersections
Unsignalized
Intersections Roadway Segments Total
Crashes % Crashes % Crashes % Crashes %
Fatal 1 2.56% 2 3.51% 0 0.00% 3 2.59%
Severe 1 2.56% 8 14.04% 3 15.00% 12 10.34%
Other Visible Injury 15 38.46% 23 40.35% 7 35.00% 45 38.79% Complaint of Pain 22 56.41% 24 42.11% 10 50.00% 56 48.28% Total 39 100% 57 100% 20 100% 116 100.0%
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) (2019-2023) 343
Item 9 C.
34 Figure 12 — Citywide Crashes (2019-2023)
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System(TIMS) (2019-2023) 344
Item 9 C.
35 7.4. Annual Crashes
Figure 13 presents the number of total crashes per year and Figure 14 presents the KSI crashes annually on roads in the City of Capitola. The year with the most crashes was 2022, with a total of 31 crashes. Annual crashes trended downwards in the years leading up to the COVID-19 pandemic, with 2020 having the least number of crashes. Annual crashes have generally trended upwards since 2020.
It is likely that the COVID-19 pandemic influenced crash trends in 2020 and 2021. In 2020, the number of daily household trips decreased due to widespread shelter-in-place orders; fewer vehicles on the road could be connected to fewer vehicle conflicts and thus fewer crashes. However, reduced roadway volumes and congestion could also be connected to increased vehicle speeds, a phenomenon that numerous law enforcement agencies have reported. As volumes returned to “prepandemic” levels in 2021, law enforcement agencies in California anecdotally noted that vehicle speeds remained high; it is theorized that this pandemic-era aggressive driving behavior has persisted and is partially contributing to the increase in annual crashes than can be seen since 2020.
Figure 13 — Annual Crashes (2019-2023)
Figure 14 — Annual KSI Crashes (2019-2023)
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System(TIMS) (2019-2023) 20 13
22 31 30
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Crashes
Total Linear (Total)
2 2
1 5 5
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 KSI Crashes
Total Linear (Total)
345
Item 9 C.
36 7.5. Crash Causes
As shown in Figure 15, the most frequently identified crash causes were Unsafe Speeds, Improper Turning, and Automobile Right of Way. Crash causes that accounted for less than two percent are not pictured in the figure.
Figure 15 — Total Crashes by Cause (2019-2023)
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) (2019-2023) The most common crash causes for KSI crashes include Improper Turning, DUIs, Unsafe Speed, and Pedestrian Right of Way. Crash causes which accounted for more than one crash are presented in Figure 16. Improper turning is related to vehicles turning when or where it is unsafe to do so; these crashes mostly included hit-object crashes, bicycles, broadsides and sideswipes.
Figure 16 — KSI Crashes by Cause (2019-2023)
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) (2019-2023) 346
Item 9 C.
37 7.6. Crash Types
According to reported data, approximately 116 injury crashes occurred within the City during the fiveyear study period on city owned and maintained roadways. Figure 17 indicates that aggressive driving crashes were the most common crash type within the City, followed by bicycle crashes and rear end crashes. Aggressive driving crashes are equally split between signalized and unsignalized intersections. A large proportion of rear ends occurred at signalized intersections, while bike involved crashes occurred most at unsignalized intersections. The most common crash type along roadway segments was bike involved crashes.
Figure 17 — Crashes by Type (2019-2023)
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) (2019-2023) The most common crash types which resulted in fatal and severe injuries were pedestrian crashes followed by impaired driving crashes, and broadside & bicycle crashes (Figure 18). Though crashes involving vulnerable road users (bicycles and pedestrians) accounted for 38% of all crashes, they accounted for a disproportionately higher percentage (60%) of all KSI crashes. 5 1
15 3
2 1
2 10
18 7
8 2
11 4
9 2 4
2 1
14 11
18 13 10
6 4
1 4
2 1
8 4
3 0
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Broadside Sideswipe Rear_End Head_On Hit Object Overturn Other Not Stated Pedestrian Bicycle Aggressive Impaired Dark Wet Signalized Intersections Unsignalized Intersections Roadway Segments 347
Item 9 C.
38 Figure 18 — KSI Crashes by Type (2019-2023)
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) (2019-2023) Note: The crash types with no KSI crashes are not shown in the chart.
As identified in Table 1, there are five challenge areas within the City of Capitola where the percentage of KSI crashes are higher than the statewide average. These challenge areas include intersections, pedestrians, bicyclists, distracted driving, and impaired driving. Some of these challenge areas are discussed in further detail in the sections below:
7.7. Impaired Driving Crashes
Impaired driving crashes include all crashes where there was evidence of drug or alcohol use by the driver. Drivers do not need to exceed the legally defined threshold of intoxication to be counted, as Caltrans considers any level of alcohol consumption to have the potential to impact driver responsiveness and decision making. There were 24 impaired driving crashes between 2019-2023, none of which resulted in a fatality and five of which resulted in severe injuries. Figure 19 illustrates the impaired driving crashes within the City. A list of the intersections in order of the highest to lowest number of crashes due to impaired driving are shown below:
41st Ave and Capitola Rd (2)
Capitola Rd and 30th Ave (2)
41st Ave and Clares St (1)
Clares St and Capitola Rd (1)
Esplanade and San Jose Ave (1)
Stockton Ave and Esplanade (1)
Thompson Ave and Capitola Rd (1)
1 0 0 0 0
2 0
0 5
2 2
3 2
1 0
0 2
1 0
1 2
3 4
5 6 Broadside Rear_End Head_On Hit Object Pedestrian Bicycle Aggressive Impaired Dark Signalized Intersections Unsignalized Intersections Roadway Segments 348
Item 9 C.
39 42nd Ave and Capitola Rd (1)
Bay Ave and Burlingame Ave (1)
Callas Ln and Kennedy Dr (1)
Monterey Ave and Esplanade (1)
Park Ave and Washburn Ave (1)
Bay Ave and Capitola Ave (1)
Bay Ave and Oak Dr (1)
Columbus Dr and Cortez St (1)
Figure 19 — Impaired Driving Crashes
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) (2019-2023) 7 13
4 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
Impaired
Signalized Intersections Unsignalized Intersections Segments 349
Item 9 C.
40 7.8. Non-Motorized Crashes
There were a total of 29 crashes involving bicycles and 16 crashes involving pedestrians, as shown in Figure 20. Bicycle and pedestrian crashes were most common at intersections, particularly at unsignalized intersections.
Figure 20 — Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) (2019-2023) Figure 21 illustrates the locations of pedestrian and bicycle crashes at intersections within the City.
Additional information on pedestrian and bicycle crashes is in the following sections.
7.8.1. Bicycle Crashes
There were 29 bicycle-involved crashes in the City over the study period. Of the bicycle-involved crashes, three were reported with severe injuries, 17 with visible injuries, and 9 with complaints of pain. The severe injury bicycle crashes occurred at the following locations:
Bay Avenue and Oak Drive
41st Avenue and Gross Road
Kennedy Drive and Sir Francis Avenue
7.8.2. Pedestrian Crashes
Over the study period of 2019-2023, a total of 16 pedestrian-involved crashes occurred in the City.
Of the pedestrian-involved injury crashes, 2 crashes were fatal, 4 were reported with severe injuries, 4 were reported with other visible injuries, and 6 with complaints of pain.
The fatal pedestrian crashes occurred at the following intersections:
38th Avenue and Brommer Street
Crossroads Loop and Bay Avenue
2 10
14 11
8 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
Pedestrian Bicycle
Signalized Intersections Unsignalized Intersections Segments 350
Item 9 C.
41 The severe injury pedestrian crashes occurred at the following locations:
45th Avenue and Capitola Road
Bay Avenue and Hill Street
Clares Street and 40th Avenue
Stockton Avenue and Esplanade
In 2025, a severe-injury pedestrian crash occurred at the intersection of Bay Avenue and Capitola Avenue, which is not included in the above summary.
Figure 22 illustrates the intersection and roadway segment injury crashes in City of Capitola.
351
Item 9 C.
42 Figure 21 — Non-Motorized Crash Map
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) ( 2019-2023) 352
Item 9 C.
43 Figure 22 — Intersection and Roadway Segment Injury Crashes Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) (2019-2023) 353
Item 9 C.
44 8. DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIOECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
Road user data for the City of Capitola was obtained from Replica, a travel modeling platform that uses aggregated data sources—including mobile location data, census data, and observed traffic data—to estimate travel patterns. The Spring 2025 dataset was used to reflect the most recent available conditions.
Along 41st Avenue, approximately 11.5% of roadway users are from households with incomes below $25,000, and 21% are from households with incomes below $50,000 (Figure 23).
Figure 23: Household Income of road users along 41st Ave Along Stockton Avenue in the Capitola Village area, approximately 10.5% of roadway users are from households with incomes below $25,000, and an additional 10% are from households with incomes below $50,000 (Figure 24).
354
Item 9 C.
45 Figure 24: Household income for road users along Stockton Ave Approximately 15% of resident trips are completed by walking or bicycling. Figure 26 shows that low-income pedestrian and bicycle trips are concentrated along Clares Street and Capitola Road (east of 41st Avenue), with moderate activity along the Cliff Drive/Stockton Avenue approach to the Village.
These findings indicate that key corridors in Capitola serve a mix of users, including lower-income households and active transportation users. The safety improvements identified in this LRSP are intended to benefit all roadway users and may provide particular benefits to lower-income populations by improving safety, access, and connectivity. 355
Item 9 C.
46 Figure 25 presents a map of network link volumes, representing the volume of resident trips with an annual household income of less than $25K. The 41st Ave corridor, especially the segment north of Clares St, carries a high volume of low-income road residents. Capitola Rd east of 41st Ave, Bay Ave, and Stockton Ave leading into the village also carry a higher proportion of low-income resident trips. The safety improvements proposed along these corridors would benefit these low-income Capitola residents.
Approximately 15% of resident trips were completed by walking or cycling. Figure 26 presents a map of the low-income pedestrian and cyclist trips originating in Capitola. Clares St and Capitola Rd (both east of 41st Ave) carried high proportions of daily low-income pedestrian and cyclist trips.
The Cliff Dr/Stockton Rd approach to the village carried a moderate amount of low-income pedestrian and cyclist trips. The safety improvements proposed at the intersections of Capitola Rd with Clares St and by Stockton Ave within the village will benefit these Capitola residents. 356
Item 9 C.
47 Figure 25 — Low Income Network Link Volumes Originating in Capitola 357
Item 9 C.
48 Figure 26 — Low Income Pedestrian and Cyclist Network Link Volumes Originating in Capitola 358
Item 9 C.
49 9. RECOMMENDATIONS
The following sections provide more information on potential engineering and non-infrastructure safety countermeasures that might address conditions that were observed to contribute to crash activity in the City.
9.1. Engineering Countermeasures
The following sections contain a description of Crash Modification Factors (CMFs) and Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs) associated with the engineering countermeasures toolbox.
9.1.1. Crash Modification Factors
When identifying potential systemic safety improvements, it is important to look at CMFs for the proposed improvements. The CMF Method is found in Part D of the HSM. CMFs are defined as the ratio of effectiveness of one condition in comparison to another condition and represent the relative change in crash frequency due to a change in one specific condition. Countermeasures with CMFs less than one are expected to reduce crashes if applied, while those countermeasures with CMFs greater than one are expected to increase crashes. Figure 27 illustrates the definition of CMFs.
Figure 27 — CMF Calculation
A Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) is similar to a CMF but stated in different terms. A CRF is defined as a percentage of crash reduction that might be expected after the implementation of a given countermeasure at a specific site. In application, the higher a CRF value is, the more effective the countermeasure is at preventing crashes. The countermeasures proposed in this LRSP were chosen because of their effectiveness in reducing crashes, especially those most commonly occurring in the City.
9.1.2. Engineering Countermeasures Toolbox
The systemic improvements identified as most likely effective to be for Capitola are listed in Table 5, and include a wide range of countermeasures that can be implemented in phases where appropriate. Many of these proposed countermeasures have already been implemented in the City, including but not limited to installation of high-visibility crosswalks, implementation Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI), installation of retro-reflective backplates on traffic signal heads, installation of advanced stop bar, installation of intersection lighting.
The CMF indicates how effective the countermeasure is at reducing crashes. CMFs and CRFs have been provided for reference to aid the City of Capitola in understanding potential reductions from crashes by different countermeasures. Caltrans funding levels for each countermeasure are also 359
Item 9 C.
50 provided to aid the City in determining what the local match would likely be if the City were to pursue grant funding. Most countermeasures are eligible for Caltrans funding up to 90%, though some are lower.
360
Item 9 C.
51 Table 5 — Capitola Engineering Countermeasures Toolbox Countermeasure
Also Addresses Crash
Modification
Factor (CMF)
Crash
Reduction
Factor (CRF)
CRF Applies to
Caltrans
Funding
Cost to
Implement Pedestrian Bicycle All Nightti
me
Pedestrian
and Bicycle
Signalized Intersections
Modify signal to provide a Leading
Pedestrian Interval (LPI) X 0.4 60% X 90% $
Install Left Turn Lane, Add Left Turn
Phase
0.45 55% X 90% $$$
Install High Friction Surface Treatment
(HFST)
0.45 55% X 90% $$$
Install intersection lighting 0.6 40% X 90% $$
Pedestrian scramble X 0.6 40% X 90% $$
Curb extensions X 0.63 37% X N/A $$
Install pedestrian median fencing on
approaches X 0.65 35% X 90% $$
Protected left turn phase 0.7 30% X 90% $$
Convert signal from pedestal-mounted to
mast arm
0.7 30% X 90% $$$
Install signs with LED borders as
advanced warning
0.7 30% X 90% $$
Install raised median on approaches 0.75 25% X 90% $$
Pedestrian countdown signal heads X 0.75 25% X 90% $
Signal ahead warning signs 0.85 15% X N/A $
Retroreflective backplates 0.85 15% X 90% $
Improve signal timing (coordination) 0.85 15% X 50% $$
361
Item 9 C.
52 Countermeasure
Also Addresses Crash
Modification
Factor (CMF)
Crash
Reduction
Factor (CRF)
CRF Applies to
Caltrans
Funding
Cost to
Implement Pedestrian Bicycle All Nightti
me
Pedestrian
and Bicycle
Advanced stop bar before crosswalk and
bicycle box X X 0.85 15% X 90% $
Install raised pavement markers and
striping
0.9 10% X 90% $
Flashing yellow arrow 0.94 6% X N/A $
Convert intersection to roundabout (from
signal)
Varies Varies X 90% $$$
Convert intersection to mini/compact
roundabout (from signal)
Varies Varies X 90% $$
Install a raised intersection X Not Available Not Available X N/A $$ Unsignalized Intersections
Install High Friction Surface Treatment
(HFST) 0.55 55% X 90% $$$
Pedestrian Signal or Pedestrian High
Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) X 0.45 55% X 90%
$$$
Install all-way STOP control 0.5 50% X 90% $
Directional median openings to restrict
turning movements 0.5 50% X 90%
$$
Reduced Left-Turn Conflict (R-CUT)
intersections 0.5 50% X 90%
$$$
Pedestrian refuge island X 0.55 45% X 90% $$
Install splitter-islands on minor road
approaches
0.6 40% X 90% $$
Crosswalk lighting X 0.6 40% X X 90% $$
Install splitter-islands on minor road
approaches
0.6 40% X 90% $$
Add intersection lighting 0.6 40% X 90% $$
Colored bicycle lanes X 0.61 39% X 90% $
Curb extensions X 0.63 37% X N/A $$$
362
Item 9 C.
53 Countermeasure
Also Addresses Crash
Modification
Factor (CMF)
Crash
Reduction
Factor (CRF)
CRF Applies to
Caltrans
Funding
Cost to
Implement Pedestrian Bicycle All Nightti
me
Pedestrian
and Bicycle
Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing with
enhanced safety features
X 0.65 35% X 90% $$$
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
(RRFB)
X 0.65 35% X 90% $$
Install left-turn lane 0.65 35% X 90% $$
Install flashing beacons as advanced
warning 0.7 30% X
90% (if beacons
are utilized)
$$
Upgrade pavement markings 0.75 25% X 90% $
Install raised median on approaches 0.75 25% X 90% $$
Clear sight triangles 0.8 20% X 90% $
Install right-turn lane 0.8 20% X 90% $$
Install/upgrade intersection
warning/regulatory signs
0.85 15% X 90% $
Install flashing beacons at stopcontrolled intersections 0.85 15% X 90% $$ Convert intersection to roundabout Varies Varies X 90% $$$ Retroreflective strips on sign posts Not Available Not Available X 90% $ Install a raised intersection X Not Available Not Available X N/A $$$ Partial street closure or diagonal diverter Not Available Not Available X N/A $$ Full street closure X X Not Available Not Available X X N/A $$ Roadway Segments
Improve pavement friction (High Friction
Surface Treatment) 0.45 55% X 90%
$$$
Install chevron signs on horizontal curves 0.60 40% X 90% $ Remove or relocate fixed object outside
of Clear Recovery Zone 0.65 35% X 90% $$$
Install pedestrian median fencing X X 0.65 35% X 90% $$ 363
Item 9 C.
54 Countermeasure
Also Addresses Crash
Modification
Factor (CMF)
Crash
Reduction
Factor (CRF)
CRF Applies to
Caltrans
Funding
Cost to
Implement Pedestrian Bicycle All Nightti
me
Pedestrian
and Bicycle
Install bike lanes X X 0.65 35% X 90% $
Add segment lighting 0.65 35% X 90% $$
Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with
enhanced safety features) X X 0.65 35% X 90%
$$
Install raised pedestrian crossing X X 0.65 35% X 90% $$ Install rectangular rapid flashing beacon X X 0.65 35% X 90% $$ Install curve advance warning signs
(flashing beacon)
0.70 30% X 90% $$
Install dynamic/variable speed warning
signs
0.70 30% X 90% $$
Install curve advance warning signs 0.75 25% X 90% $
Install impact attenuators 0.75 25% X 90% $$
Install centerline rumble strips/stripes 0.80 20% X 90% $$ Install edge line rumble strips/stripes 0.85 15% X 90% $$ Install/Upgrade signs with new
fluorescent sheeting (regulatory/warning) 0.85 15% X 90% $ Install delineators, reflectors and/or
object markers 0.85 15% X 90% $
Speed feedback signs (mobile or fixed) X X Not Available Not Available X Opportunity for OTS funding
$$
Install lane narrowing treatments (extend
curb inward/extend median) X Not Available Not Available X N/A $$ Install a chicane, deviation, or angled
slow point Not Available Not Available X N/A $$$
Install speed hump Not Available Not Available X N/A $$ $$$ Requires design and construction of extensive infrastructure improvements $$ Requires procurement and/or minor construction activities $ Requires limited staff resources and can be implemented in-house with current engineering and/or maintenance staff 364
Item 9 C.
55 9.1.3. Case-Study Locations
The network screening analysis identified the high-severity crash locations within the City of Capitola. The network screening analysis tables for intersections and roadway segments are summarized in Appendix A and Appendix B. Based on the network screening analysis, the highest number of crashes occurred at the following locations.
Signalized Intersections:
o 41st Avenue and Capitola Rd (6 crashes)
o 41st Avenue and Clares St (6 crashes)
Unsignalized intersections:
o 41ST Avenue and Cory St (4 crashes)
Roadway Segment
o 41st Avenue from Gross Rd to Clares St (5 crashes)
Several of the highest crash locations identified through the network screening analysis are located along 41st Avenue and Bay Avenue, which remain the City’s highest priority corridors for roadway safety improvements. These corridors are already the focus of ongoing City safety improvement efforts and capital projects. Because improvements are currently being advanced along these corridors, they were not selected as case study locations in this LRSP. Instead, the case studies presented below focus on additional locations identified through the analysis where conceptual countermeasures may help inform future project development and funding applications.
The case-study locations selected are shown in Table 6.
Table 6 — Case-Study Locations
Case Study Location Crashes EPDO Notes
Signalized Intersections
Capitola Road and 30th Avenue 4 30
1 Broadside crash
2 Rear-End crashes
1 Pedestrian crash
2 Aggressive crashes
2 Impaired crashes
2 Dark crashes
Capitola Road and Clares Street 3 28
1 Rear-End crash
2 Bike crashes
1 Aggressive crash
1 Impaired crash
1 Dark crash
Unsignalized Intersections
Esplanade and San Jose Avenue 3 29
1 Broadside crash
1 Rear-End crash
1 Pedestrian crash
365
Item 9 C.
56 Case Study Location Crashes EPDO Notes
1 Aggressive crash
1 Impaired crash
1 Dark crash
Esplanade and Stockton Avenue 3 187
1 Pedestrian crash
2 Bike crashes
1 Impaired crash
1 Dark crash
Segments (Major Arterials)
Park Avenue from Washburn Ave to Wesley
St 4 209
1 Severe Injury crash
2 Rear-End crash
1 Hit-Object crash
1 Pedestrian crash
2 Aggressive crashes
1 Impaired crash
A total of five case study locations (2 signalized intersections, 2 unsignalized intersections, and 1 roadway segment) were selected for further analysis and recommendations. For each of these locations, recommended countermeasures were developed to provide a case study to organize projects when applying for funding. While the crash analysis identified higher crash concentrations along corridors such as 41st Avenue and Bay Avenue, those corridors are already the focus of ongoing City safety improvement efforts. The case study locations were identified through the analysis process based on their crash histories, the observed crash patterns, and their differing characteristics to illustrate systemic safety countermeasures that the City can employ to achieve the most cost-effective safety benefits. The recommended countermeasures are listed in Table 7.
These countermeasures are intended to illustrate possible safety improvements and would require further evaluation and design before implementation.
An additional set of low-cost countermeasures is also recommended for systemic implementation across the City. These improvements include installing retroreflective signage and traffic signal backplates, as well as a recommendation to follow the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 413 to restrict parking within 20 feet of crosswalks on the vehicle approach side with the goal of improving visibility for all road users (also known as daylighting)5. AB 413 was signed into law on October 10, 2023, with ticketed enforcement being permitted following January 1, 2025. While daylighting may be conducted with low-cost treatments such as signage, painted curbs, or raised delineators, it is recommended that the City also conduct outreach to inform the public about this new law and its impact in removing parking spaces.
5 AB-413 Vehicles: stopping, standing, and parking. October 10, 2023. Available at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB413 366
Item 9 C.
57 Table 7 — Countermeasures for Selected Case Study Locations Countermeasure
Crash
Reduction
Factor
(CRF)
Cost
Capitola Road and 30th Avenue
Upgrade to high-visibility crosswalks 25% $$
Implement Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) 60% $$
Upgrade signal heads to incorporate retroreflective
backplates 15% $
Advanced stop bar before crosswalk and bicycle
box 15% $
Increased enforcement of speeding and aggressive
driving - -
Capitola Road and Clares Street
Implement Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) 60% $$
Upgrade signal heads to incorporate retroreflective
backplates 15% $
Advanced stop bar before crosswalk and bicycle
box 15% $
Increased enforcement of speeding and aggressive
driving - -
Esplanade And San Jose Avenue
Add intersection lighting 40% $$
Install raised pedestrian crossing across
Esplanade 35% $$
Install sharrows and bike route signage - $
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) 35% $$
Increased enforcement of speeding and aggressive
driving - -
Esplanade and Stockton Avenue
Add intersection lighting 40% $$
Install/upgrade intersection warning/regulatory
signs – Do Not Enter sign at Southern Riverview Ave
intersection approach
15% $
Bulb-out at Esplanade on either side - $$
Increased enforcement of speeding and aggressive
driving - -
367
Item 9 C.
58 Countermeasure
Crash
Reduction
Factor
(CRF)
Cost
Park Avenue from Washburn Ave to Wesley St
Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent
sheeting (regulatory/warning) 15% $
Install delineators, reflectors and/or object
markers 15% $
Flatten Crest Vertical Curve 25% $$$
Increased enforcement of speeding and
aggressive driving 5% $
9.2. Non-Infrastructure Countermeasures
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Countermeasures that Work, Ninth Edition, is a reference to assist safety stakeholders in selecting effective, science-based noninfrastructure traffic safety countermeasures for major highway safety problem areas. While many of the countermeasures are more appropriate to apply at the state-level or require legislative modifications to implement, Table 8 contains countermeasures that have demonstrated effectiveness and could be applied at the City level. Note that while there are several other noninfrastructure countermeasures available, only those which have an effectiveness rating of four stars or higher are presented. Access to Drug Recognition Experts (DREs) and Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) training for law enforcement is not included in the document but are countermeasures that could also be considered for the City. 368
Item 9 C.
59 Table 8 — Capitola Non-Infrastructure Countermeasures Toolbox Countermeasure Effectiveness Cost to
Implement Use Time to Implement
Aggressive Driving
B.A.D.G.E.S. (Before Aggressive
Drivers Get Everyone Stopped)
*****
Effective $$†
Medium Short
Impaired Driving
Publicized Sobriety Checkpoints *****
Effective $$$ Medium Short
High-Visibility Saturation Patrols
(large number of law enforcement
officers patrolling a specific area)
****
Situational $$ High Short
Occupant Protection (Seat Belts, Helmets, Child Seats)
Short-term high visibility enforcement *****
Effective $$$ Medium Medium
Distracted Driving
High visibility cellphone/text
messaging enforcement
****
Situational $$$ Low Medium
Effectiveness:
***** Demonstrated to be effective by several high quality evaluations with consistent results **** Demonstrated to be effective in certain situations Cost to Implement:
$$$ Requires extensive new facilities, staff, equipment, or publicity, or makes heavy demands on current resources $$ Requires some additional staff time, equipment, facilities, and/or publicity $ Can be implemented with current staff, perhaps with training; limited costs for equipment, facilities, and publicity †Can be covered by income from citations
Use:
High: More than two-thirds of states, or a substantial majority of communities Medium: Between one-third and two-thirds of states or communities Low: Less than one-third of states or communities
Unknown: Data not available
Time to Implement:
Long: More than 1 year
Medium: More than 3 months but less than 1 year
Short: 3 months or less
369
Item 9 C.
60 10. EVALUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
10.1. Evaluation
The success of the LRSP can be evaluated using the general process outlined below. This process can be useful to monitor progress towards implementation of safety improvement projects and strategies, and to determine when updates to the LRSP should be considered. Law enforcement continues monitoring and recording of traffic incidents on local roadways. Conduct frequent progress meetings (annually or quarterly) between City staff and a working group (i.e. traffic safety committee) to review the latest crash data, including assessing the effectiveness of safety countermeasures implemented, discussing ongoing traffic safety challenges, and tracking progress on plan implementation. Maintain a list of focus/priority areas where there are transportation safety concerns based on review of crash data. The list of priority and/or top crash locations can be updated as an outcome of review of updated crash data and trends.
Perform an update to the plan after no more than five years. It is recommended that updates to the LRSP be approved by City Council and made available to the public in accordance with Caltrans’ Local Roadway Safety Plan guidance.
10.2. Implementation
Implementation of the LRSP can be accomplished through development and implementation of safety improvement projects and strategies, the establishment of new/updated policies and programs, and development/strengthening of relationships with stakeholders.
With regard to projects, the following section identifies potential focus areas for the City in the nearto-mid-term.
10.2.1. Near- and Mid-Term Focus Areas
The opportunities identified in this LRSP provide more of the systemic countermeasures that can be applied within the City. Over the next three to five years, it is recommended that the City concentrate its efforts on the following emphasis areas:
1. Aggressive Driving
2. Speeding
3. Vulnerable Road Users (Pedestrians & Bicyclists)
4. Intersections with Unconventional Geometries
Analysis conducted at the citywide level indicated that these factors were some of the most frequent influences contributing to crashes within the City. The countermeasure opportunities previously discussed in this report for both systemic and project-specific improvements can be used as a basis for developing projects at locations where addressing these focus areas would be of the most benefit. Projects that address these focused areas can be developed with a high benefit-to-cost ratio (by applying City-wide crash rates), allowing competitive projects to be developed even at sites with little to no direct crash history, but with conditions that might contribute to future crashes. 370
Item 9 C.
61 10.3. Funding
Competitive funding resources are available to assist in the development and implementation of safety projects in Capitola. The City should continue to seek available funding and grant opportunities from local, state, and federal resources to accelerate their ability to implement safety improvements throughout Capitola. The following is a high-level introduction into some of the main funding programs and grants for which the City can apply.
10.3.1. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
The HSIP is a Federal program housed under Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. This program apportions funding as a lump sum for each state, which is then divided among apportioned programs. These flexible funds can be used for projects to preserve or improve safety conditions and performance on any Federal-aid highway, bridge projects on any public road, facilities for nonmotorized transportation, and other project types. Safety improvement projects eligible for this funding include:
New or upgraded traffic signals
Upgraded guard rails
Pedestrian warning flashing beacons
Marked crosswalks
California’s local HSIP focuses on infrastructure projects with national recognized crash reduction factors. Normally HSIP call-for-projects is made at an interval of one to two years. The applicant must be a city, a county, or a tribal government federally recognized within the State of California.
Additional information regarding this program at the Federal level can be found online at:
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/. California specific HSIP information – including dates for upcoming call for projects - can be found at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/hsip.html.
10.3.2. Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)
The SS4A Grant Program is a federal program established by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. A total of $5 billion are available from 2022-2026 in the form of planning grants and implementation grants. Grant applications for projects that implement the Safe Systems Approach, such as those related to speed management, improvements in underserved communities, and vulnerable road users, are encouraged. Implementation grant projects must be identified in an applicant’s qualifying Safety Action Plan. The SS4A Self-Certification Eligibility Worksheet describes the required elements of an Action Plan and can be accessed at: https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2024- 02/SS4A-FY24-Self-Certification-Worksheet.pdf
Additional information about implementation grants can be found at:
https://www.transportation.gov/grants/ss4a/implementation-grants
10.3.3. Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP)
Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP) is a statewide funding program, created in 2013, consolidating several federal and state programs. The ATP funds projects that encourage increased mode share for walking and bicycling, improve mobility and safety for non-motorized users, enhance public health, and decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Projects eligible for this funding include:
371
Item 9 C.
62 Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects
Bicycle and pedestrian planning projects (e.g. safe routes to school) Non-infrastructure programs (education and enforcement) This program funding is provided annually. The ATP call for projects typically comes out in the spring.
Information on this program and cycles can be found online at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/atp/
10.3.4. State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) provides state and federal gas tax money for improvements both on and off the state highway system. STIP programming occurs every two years.
The programming cycle begins with the release of a proposed fund estimate, followed by California Transportation Commission (CTC) adoption of the fund estimate. The fund estimate serves to identify the amount of new funds available for the programming of transportation projects. Once the fund estimate is adopted, Caltrans and the regional planning agencies prepare transportation improvement plans for submittal. Caltrans prepares the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) using Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) funds, and regional agencies prepare Regional Transportation Improvement Programs (RTIPs) using Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds. The STIP is then adopted by the CTC.
10.3.5. California SB 1
SB 1 is a landmark transportation investment to rebuild California by fixing neighborhood streets, freeways, and bridges in communities across California and targeting funds toward transit and congested trade and commute corridor improvements.
California’s state-maintained transportation infrastructure will receive roughly half of SB 1 revenue:
$26 billion. The other half will go to local roads, transit agencies, and an expansion of the state’s growing network of pedestrian and cycle routes. Each year, this new funding will be used to tackle deferred maintenance needs both on the state highway system and the local road system, including:
Bike and Pedestrian Projects: $100 million
o This will go to cities, counties and regional transportation agencies to build or convert more bike paths, crosswalks and sidewalks. It is a significant increase in funding for these projects through the ATP.
Local Planning Grants: $25 million
10.3.6. California OTS Grants
This program has funding for projects related to traffic safety, including transportation safety education and encouragement activities. Grants applications must be supported by local crash data (such as the data analyzed in this LRSP) and must relate to the following priority program areas:
Alcohol Impaired Driving
Distracted Driving
Drug-Impaired Emergency Medical Services
Motorcycle Safety
Occupant Protection
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety
372
Item 9 C.
63 Police Traffic Services
Public Relations, Advertising, and Marketing Program
Roadway Safety and Traffic Records
10.3.7. ABAG Regional Funding Programs
ABAG provides funding allocation for various multi-modal transportation projects in the Bay Area.
Projects that are considered for this regional funding program must be eligible for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ), Rural Surface Transportation Program (RSTP), or STIP funds.
Performance outcomes which are considered for selection include those which:
Reduce regional VMT per capita
Reduce regional congest VMT per capita
Increase multi-modal or alternative travel choices
Provide long term benefits, sustaining both rural and urban economies Improve movement of goods, in and through the region
Improve safety and security
Maintain and improve upon the existing transportation system 373
Item 9 C.
64 11. NEXT STEPS
The City has completed this LRSP to guide the process of future transportation safety improvements for years to come. In addition to the actions identified in the Implementation Plan, the City can perform the following to guide the success of this LRSP and its overall safety efforts. Develop a prioritized investment program for transportation safety improvements based on LRSP findings and available funding opportunities.
Work with state and partner agencies on implementation of large-scale programs and policies.
Incorporate safety analysis findings in future updates of safety programs. Monitor statewide safety priorities, guidance, and funding opportunities. Incorporate LRSP findings into the City’s upcoming Active Transportation Plan (ATP) process, including evaluation of pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements along key corridors. 374
Item 9 C.
65 APPENDIX A
INTERSECTION NETWORK SCREENING RESULTS
375
Item 9 C.
Network Screening Table - Intersections Intersection Crashes Local CCR Differential1 EPDO 2 Fatal Serious Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Broadside Sideswipe Rear End Head On Hit Object Overturned Other Pedestrian Bicycle Aggressive Impaired Dark Wet Signalized Intersections
41st AVE and CAPITOLA RD 6 0.00 60 5 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1
41st AVE and CLARES ST 6 0.00 160 1 2 3 4 1 1 2 1 1
CAPITOLA RD and 30th AVE 4 -0.03 30 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 2
41st AVE and EB CA 1 RAMPS 4 -0.05 24 4 4 4 1
41st AVE and GROSS RD 4 -0.03 31 1 3 2 2 1 1
CLARES ST and CAPITOLA RD 3 -0.06 28 2 1 1 2 1 1 1
41st AVE and JADE ST 2 -0.10 12 2 2 2 1
CA 1 RAMPS and PORTER ST 2 -0.09 18 1 1 1 1 2
38th AVE and CAPITOLA RD 1 -0.13 6 1 1
CA-1 WB RAMPS and PARK AVE 1 -0.13 11 1 1
41st AVE and US 1 WB OFF-RAMP 1 -0.13 6 1 1 1
Unsignalized Intersections
41st AVE and CORY ST 4 0.03 44 4 1 1 2 1
BAY AVE and HILL ST 4 0.05 190 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1
ESPLANADE and SAN JOSE AVE 3 2.69 29 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
STOCKTON AVE and ESPLANADE 3 0.05 187 1 2 1 2 1 1
CLIFF DR and WHARF RD 3 -0.02 29 2 1 1 1 1 1
THOMPSON AVE and CAPITOLA RD 3 0.00 25 1 2 2 1 1 1 1
CAPITOLA AVE and STOCKTON AVE 3 0.03 25 1 2 3
MONTEREY AVE and PARK AVE 3 0.01 25 1 2 1 1 1 2
40th AVE and CLARES ST 2 -0.04 126 1 1 1 1 1
41st AVE and REPOSA AVE 2 -0.02 14 2 1 1 1 1
42nd AVE and CAPITOLA RD 2 -0.02 173 1 1 1 1 1 1
45th AVE and CAPITOLA RD 2 -0.02 173 1 1 2
BAY AVE and BURLINGAME AVE 2 -0.03 18 1 1 1 1 1 1
CALLAS LN and KENNEDY DR 2 0.03 173 1 1 1 1 2 1 1
38th AVE and BROMMER ST 1 -0.07 165 1 1
MONTEREY AVE and ESPLANADE 1 0.25 7 1 1 1
SOMMERFIELD AVE and CAPITOLA RD 1 -0.07 7 1 1 1
PARK AVE and CORONADO ST 1 -0.07 7 1 1 1 1
49th AVE and CAPITOLA RD 1 -0.07 11 1 1
PARK AVE and WASHBURN AVE 1 -0.07 165 1 1 1
BAY AVE and CAPITOLA AVE 1 -0.07 11 1 1 1 1 1
42nd AVE and SEA PINES CT 1 0.06 11 1 1 1
BAY AVE and ROSEDALE AVE 1 -0.07 11 1 1 1
BAY AVE and OAK DR 1 -0.07 165 1 1 1 1
CENTER ST and SUNSET DR 1 0.04 7 1 1 1
MONTEREY AVE and WASHBURN AVE 1 -0.07 11 1 1
CAPITOLA AVE and CAPITOLA CT 1 -0.07 7 1 1 1
COLUMBUS DR and CORTEZ ST 1 0.49 11 1 1 1
BAY AVE and CROSSROADS LOOP 1 -0.06 165 1 1
CAPITOLA AVE and HILL ST 1 -0.07 11 1 1 1 1
1 Local Critical Crash Rate Differential
2 Equivalent Property Damage Only Crashes
376
Item 9 C.
66 APPENDIX B
SEGMENT NETWORK SCREENING RESULTS
377
Item 9 C.
Network Screening Table - Roadway Sements
Facility Limits Crashes Local CCR Differential1 EPDO
2 Fatal Serious Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Broadside Sideswipe Rear End Head On Hit Object Overturned Other Pedestrian Bicycle Aggressive Impaired Dark Wet Major Arterials
41st AVE GROSS RD to CLARES ST 5 0.3011 401 2 3 2 1 2 1 2 PARK AVE WASHBURN AVE to WESLEY ST 4 0.92508 209 1 3 2 1 1 2 1 41st AVE CAPITOLA RD to ALAMEDA AVE 3 -0.0419 23 1 2 1 2 2 2 CAPITOLA RD 41st AVE to 42nd AVE 1 -0.2879 11 1 1
Minor Arterials
CAPITOLA AVE BALBOA AVE TO GARY DR 1 1.05 6 1 1
CLIFF DR OPAL CLIFF DR/PORTOLA DR TO WHARF RD 1 -0.2652 11 1 1 Major Collectors
CLARES ST 40TH AVE to MALL DRIVEWAY 3 0.1135 28 2 1 1 1 1 38th AVE ROLAND DR to MELTON ST 2 3.88532 21 2 1 1
MONTEREY AVE WASHBURN AVE to JUNIPERO CT 1 -0.3108 6 1 1 1 Local
KENNEDY DR CHITTENDEN LN to PONSELLE LN 1 4.19559 11 1 1 1
2. Equivalent Property Damage Only Crashes
1. Local Critical Crash Rate Differential
378
Item 9 C.
67 APPENDIX C
PUBLIC COMMENTS
379
Item 9 C.
380
Item 9 C.
Kimley-Horn Social Pinpoint
Report Type: Social Map Results Summary
Date Range: 23-09-2025 - 15-12-2025
Exported: 14-01-2026 14:30:50
Closed
Untitled
Capitola Local Roadway Safety Plan
38 Contributors
163
Contributions
Key Statistics
Top-level information about the activity.
163
Posts
38 contributors
Map Post Summary
Summary of content contributed by participants including location information, voting results and more.
Posts by Location
Map showing all posts contributed by participants.
Top Contributions by Location
Top 10 most frequent postal/ZIP codes of posts submitted by participants.
Location Total Contributions % Contributions
95039, Capitola, Santa Cruz County, California, United States 149 91.41% 95062, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California, United States 7 4.29% 95073, Soquel, Santa Cruz County, California, United States 3 1.84% 95062, Live Oak, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California, United States 2 1.23% Kimley-Horn Social Pinpoint - Social Map Results Summary (23 Sep 2025 to 15 Dec 2025) Page 1 of 18 381
Item 9 C.
Posts by Category
Comparison showing the number of posts for each category, as selected by participants.
Kimley-Horn Social Pinpoint - Social Map Results Summary (23 Sep 2025 to 15 Dec 2025) Page 2 of 18 382
Item 9 C.
Categories - Pedestrian Safety
Posts by Location
Map showing posts contributed by participants for nominated category.
Top Contributions by Location
Top 10 most frequent postal/ZIP codes of posts submitted by participants.
Location Total Contributions % Contributions
95039, Capitola, Santa Cruz County, California, United States 65 92.86% 95010, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California, United States 3 4.29% 1 1.43%
95062, Live Oak, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California, United States 1 1.43% Kimley-Horn Social Pinpoint - Social Map Results Summary (23 Sep 2025 to 15 Dec 2025) Page 3 of 18 383
Item 9 C.
1. Please describe your safety concern at this location. Required Long Text | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 70 (100%)
Sentiment
No sentiment data
Tags
No tag data
Featured Contributions
No featured contributions
Kimley-Horn Social Pinpoint - Social Map Results Summary (23 Sep 2025 to 15 Dec 2025) Page 4 of 18 384
Item 9 C.
2. Please add your email to stay up to date on project updates.
Email | Skipped: 50 | Answered: 20 (28.6%)
[email protected]
Contribution 20 of 20 | December 3, 2025
[email protected]
Contribution 19 of 20 | December 1, 2025
[email protected]
Contribution 18 of 20 | December 1, 2025
[email protected]
Contribution 17 of 20 | December 1, 2025
[email protected]
Contribution 16 of 20 | November 25, 2025
[email protected]
Contribution 15 of 20 | November 23, 2025
[email protected]
Contribution 14 of 20 | November 21, 2025
[email protected]
Contribution 13 of 20 | November 13, 2025
[email protected]
Contribution 12 of 20 | October 29, 2025
[email protected]
Contribution 11 of 20 | October 29, 2025
[email protected]
Contribution 10 of 20 | October 28, 2025
[email protected]
Contribution 9 of 20 | October 28, 2025
Kimley-Horn Social Pinpoint - Social Map Results Summary (23 Sep 2025 to 15 Dec 2025) Page 5 of 18 385
Item 9 C.
[email protected]
Contribution 8 of 20 | October 28, 2025
[email protected]
Contribution 7 of 20 | October 27, 2025
[email protected]
Contribution 6 of 20 | October 25, 2025
[email protected]
Contribution 5 of 20 | October 23, 2025
[email protected]
Contribution 4 of 20 | October 22, 2025
[email protected]
Contribution 3 of 20 | October 11, 2025
[email protected]
Contribution 2 of 20 | October 11, 2025
[email protected]
Contribution 1 of 20 | October 10, 2025
Kimley-Horn Social Pinpoint - Social Map Results Summary (23 Sep 2025 to 15 Dec 2025) Page 6 of 18 386
Item 9 C.
Categories - Bicycle Safety
Posts by Location
Map showing posts contributed by participants for nominated category.
Top Contributions by Location
Top 10 most frequent postal/ZIP codes of posts submitted by participants.
Location Total Contributions % Contributions
95010, Capitola, Santa Cruz County, California, United States 53 86.89% 95062, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California, United States 4 6.56% 95073, Soquel, Santa Cruz County, California, United States 2 3.28% 1 1.64%
95010, Live Oak, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California, United States 1 1.64% Kimley-Horn Social Pinpoint - Social Map Results Summary (23 Sep 2025 to 15 Dec 2025) Page 7 of 18 387
Item 9 C.
1. Please describe your safety concern at this location. Required Long Text | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 61 (100%)
Sentiment
No sentiment data
Tags
No tag data
Featured Contributions
No featured contributions
Kimley-Horn Social Pinpoint - Social Map Results Summary (23 Sep 2025 to 15 Dec 2025) Page 8 of 18 388
Item 9 C.
2. Please add your email to stay up to date on project updates.
Email | Skipped: 57 | Answered: 4 (6.6%)
[email protected]
Contribution 4 of 4 | October 29, 2025
[email protected]
Contribution 3 of 4 | October 29, 2025
[email protected]
Contribution 2 of 4 | October 28, 2025
[email protected]
Contribution 1 of 4 | October 23, 2025
Kimley-Horn Social Pinpoint - Social Map Results Summary (23 Sep 2025 to 15 Dec 2025) Page 9 of 18 389
Item 9 C.
Categories - Transit Safety
Posts by Location
Map showing posts contributed by participants for nominated category.
Top Contributions by Location
Top 10 most frequent postal/ZIP codes of posts submitted by participants.
Location Total Contributions % Contributions
95010, Capitola, Santa Cruz County, California, United States 1 100% Kimley-Horn Social Pinpoint - Social Map Results Summary (23 Sep 2025 to 15 Dec 2025) Page 10 of 18 390
Item 9 C.
1. Please describe your safety concern at this location. Required Long Text | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 1 (100%)
Sentiment
No sentiment data
Tags
No tag data
Featured Contributions
No featured contributions
Kimley-Horn Social Pinpoint - Social Map Results Summary (23 Sep 2025 to 15 Dec 2025) Page 11 of 18 391
Item 9 C.
2. Please add your email to stay up to date on project updates.
Email | Skipped: 1 | Answered: 0 (0%)
Kimley-Horn Social Pinpoint - Social Map Results Summary (23 Sep 2025 to 15 Dec 2025) Page 12 of 18 392
Item 9 C.
Categories - Vehicle Safety
Posts by Location
Map showing posts contributed by participants for nominated category.
Top Contributions by Location
Top 10 most frequent postal/ZIP codes of posts submitted by participants.
Location Total Contributions % Contributions
95010, Capitola, Santa Cruz County, California, United States 23 95.83% 95073, Soquel, Santa Cruz County, California, United States 1 4.17% Kimley-Horn Social Pinpoint - Social Map Results Summary (23 Sep 2025 to 15 Dec 2025) Page 13 of 18 393
Item 9 C.
1. Please describe your safety concern at this location. Required Long Text | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 24 (100%)
Sentiment
No sentiment data
Tags
No tag data
Featured Contributions
No featured contributions
Kimley-Horn Social Pinpoint - Social Map Results Summary (23 Sep 2025 to 15 Dec 2025) Page 14 of 18 394
Item 9 C.
2. Please add your email to stay up to date on project updates.
Email | Skipped: 16 | Answered: 8 (33.3%)
[email protected]
Contribution 8 of 8 | December 1, 2025
[email protected]
Contribution 7 of 8 | December 1, 2025
[email protected]
Contribution 6 of 8 | October 28, 2025
[email protected]
Contribution 5 of 8 | October 28, 2025
[email protected]
Contribution 4 of 8 | October 28, 2025
[email protected]
Contribution 3 of 8 | October 11, 2025
[email protected]
Contribution 2 of 8 | October 10, 2025
[email protected]
Contribution 1 of 8 | October 10, 2025
Kimley-Horn Social Pinpoint - Social Map Results Summary (23 Sep 2025 to 15 Dec 2025) Page 15 of 18 395
Item 9 C.
Categories - Other
Posts by Location
Map showing posts contributed by participants for nominated category.
Top Contributions by Location
Top 10 most frequent postal/ZIP codes of posts submitted by participants.
Location Total Contributions % Contributions
95010, Capitola, Santa Cruz County, California, United States 7 100% Kimley-Horn Social Pinpoint - Social Map Results Summary (23 Sep 2025 to 15 Dec 2025) Page 16 of 18 396
Item 9 C.
1. Please describe your safety concern at this location. Required Long Text | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 7 (100%)
Sentiment
No sentiment data
Tags
No tag data
Featured Contributions
No featured contributions
Kimley-Horn Social Pinpoint - Social Map Results Summary (23 Sep 2025 to 15 Dec 2025) Page 17 of 18 397
Item 9 C.
2. Please add your email to stay up to date on project updates.
Email | Skipped: 4 | Answered: 3 (42.9%)
[email protected]
Contribution 3 of 3 | December 8, 2025
[email protected]
Contribution 2 of 3 | October 28, 2025
[email protected]
Contribution 1 of 3 | October 11, 2025
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Kimley-Horn Social Pinpoint - Social Map Results Summary (23 Sep 2025 to 15 Dec 2025) Page 18 of 18 398
Item 9 C.
399
Item 9 C.
Social Pinpoint Comments City of Capitola
1 of 8
Capitola Local Roadway Safety Plan Title/Question: Untitled Tool Type: Social Map Activity ID: 412
Report Date Range: 23 Sep 2025 - 15 Dec 2025
Date Exported: 1/14/2026 14:37
Exported By: KMei
Contribution ID Date Submitted Please describe your safety concern at this location. Category Latitude Longitude 25690 Dec 15, 2025, 05:30 PM mid block crossing is not well lit, difficult to see pedestrians at night. Pedestrian Safety 36.96909757 -121.9648128 25491 Dec 08, 2025, 12:02 PM
Road deterioration, location 325 Loam Ave., the downhill water runoff has degraded the asphalt curb road areas to the point that the asphalt is missing, and large gaps of earth are exposed. It will only continue to get degrade and continue to pop the asphalt up, out and down the road to Park Ave. and eventually into our Bay. And it is a safety hazard, please find a way to at least patch the area. We seem to get cute tiles on walls, sidewalks that nobody uses, and yet when it comes to the maintenance of our roads, Zero attention. Other 36.97674689 -121.9490265 25486 Dec 06, 2025, 02:16 PM A driver almost hit my daughter here. Because of the wide turning radius the drivers are able to take this corner at high speed without fully stopping at the red lights. Please consider a curb extension here to slow down the cars and give those of us on bikes and walking to have a safer way to cross this offramp.
Bicycle Safety 36.98271402 -121.9571534
25485 Dec 06, 2025, 02:14 PM This is marked as a bike lane but is so close to the parked cars that it puts me in the door zone. Meanwhile there is a turning lane down the middle of the road that is rarely used. Please consider removing the turning lane or parking to make a safe space for me to bike on Bay Ave.
Bicycle Safety 36.98019803 -121.9546782
25484 Dec 06, 2025, 02:11 PM The bike sharrow is painted in the door zone of parked cars. Encouraging people to bike this close to a parked car can cause fatal accidents.
Bicycle Safety 36.97830462 -121.9525955
25483 Dec 06, 2025, 02:10 PM The bike lane and parked cars are too close and a potentially fatal hazard for me when I ride my bike on Bay Ave. An opening car door can knock me into the road. These types of accidents can be fatal.
Bicycle Safety 36.97739289 -121.9514118
25448 Dec 05, 2025, 05:55 PM There is a section of the bike lane across from Center St that veers into a parked car that is a hazard.
Bicycle Safety 36.98039795 -121.9546854
25278 Dec 03, 2025, 09:58 PM Loma Ave. gets an intense amount of traffic during the school hours via New Brighten. Instead of the parents driving down Monterey Ave. as required they zoom down Loma Ave. as a short cut to Park Ave. There is a blind spot at the island of the McCormick - Loma Ave. intersection. Could we please have speed bumps installed to slow down the traffic. And could we have the Police make more of a presence - patrolling our Loma Ave. and McCormick corridor, not just Monterey Ave.
Pedestrian Safety 36.97673806 -121.948964
25273 Dec 03, 2025, 11:01 AM
No curb ramp and vegetation blocks clear view of people and bikes accessing the Peery Park Bridge.
Pedestrian Safety 36.97942821 -121.9562456
25272 Dec 03, 2025, 11:00 AM Visibility at this corner is obscured by the overgrowth of shrubbery Other 36.9815452 -121.9526289 25253 Dec 01, 2025, 05:48 PM Sidewalk ends here, forcing lots of kids to walk in the street. Pedestrian Safety 36.97746878 -121.9474132 25252 Dec 01, 2025, 05:46 PM Needs bike lanes for school traffic. Bicycle Safety 36.97728283 -121.9473022 25251 Dec 01, 2025, 05:45 PM Sidewalk has a large raised section that is unsafe. Pedestrian Safety 36.98144156 -121.9404998 25250 Dec 01, 2025, 05:24 PM Crosswalks at Hill and Capitola Avenue when bridge opens. Pedestrian Safety 36.98129031 -121.9525534 400
Item 9 C.
Social Pinpoint Comments City of Capitola
2 of 8
Capitola Local Roadway Safety Plan Title/Question: Untitled Tool Type: Social Map Activity ID: 412
Report Date Range: 23 Sep 2025 - 15 Dec 2025
Date Exported: 1/14/2026 14:37
Exported By: KMei
Contribution ID Date Submitted Please describe your safety concern at this location. Category Latitude Longitude 25249 Dec 01, 2025, 04:38 PM Speed table closer to the bridge would help slow down the cars going towards Capitola Village. They drive fast and barely stop at Hill Street-- especially when turning Right on Hill. Vehicle Safety 36.98317588 -121.9521559 25248 Dec 01, 2025, 04:35 PM
Would like to see a speed table placed here too. Drivers come off the bridge (heading towards Capitola Village) at a fast rate. This will help slow everyone down and make it safer for those of us living here. Vehicle Safety 36.98096806 -121.9526278 25247 Dec 01, 2025, 04:33 PM
We need crosswalks at this 4 way stop. (Hill and Capitola Ave.) I live on the corner and drivers barely make a complete stop here. There are a lot of us pedestriansthat need to cross the street here. It feels unsafe and I'm concerned that it will get worse when the bridge opens up again. Thank You for looking into this!
Pedestrian Safety 36.98155908 -121.952516
25245 Dec 01, 2025, 02:20 PM There is a lot of pedestrian traffic at this intersection. Many people blindly speed up the hills to the stop sign
Pedestrian Safety 36.98158453 -121.9524867
25225 Nov 25, 2025, 12:26 PM
Reposa is used a car thoroughfare between 38th and 41st causing unsafe conditions for families living on the street. Consider making a one-way. Traffic should be using Capitola or Brommer. This makes it safer for the pedestrians and cyclists who do use Reposa
Pedestrian Safety 36.9691533 -121.9662018
25209 Nov 23, 2025, 03:27 PM Slow down traffic Pedestrian Safety 36.97491515 -121.9503275 25208 Nov 23, 2025, 03:26 PM Slow down cars and buses. Vehiclesfly down the hills and run fail to stop for pedestrians and at stop signs Pedestrian Safety 36.97867056 -121.9399224
25207 Nov 23, 2025, 03:24 PM Slow cars and buses down. Pedestrian Safety 36.97691808 -121.9447731 25206 Nov 23, 2025, 03:22 PM Add raised, signaled crosswalk. Pedestrian Safety 36.97742789 -121.9426763 25204 Nov 23, 2025, 03:10 PM
Speeding vehicles often run this stop sign, or stop short, and endanger the many beachgoers who cross here every day. Suggest raised crosswalk with flashing lights, similar to those on Clares.
Pedestrian Safety 36.97946421 -121.9391396
25197 Nov 21, 2025, 05:27 PM
Cars are taking a right from Reposa onto 41st. Cars are taking a left from 41st to InShape. Cars are taking a left out of Grocery Outlet onto 41st. It’s extremely dangerous. I’ve seen cyclist and pedestrians hit here. There either needs to be an island, a round about or the crosswalk should not be here and put more infrastructure at the Melton crosswalk.
Pedestrian Safety 36.96910523 -121.9649666
25033 Nov 14, 2025, 12:36 PM The speeding on Park Avenue has gotten out of control. The police are rarely around to issue tickets (which would help dissuade speeders). So I am suggesting the city put two traffic controlling bumps (one on either side of Washburn) to at least control speeders in the areas where driveways are directly on the street. Vehicle Safety 36.97625438 -121.9475957 25029 Nov 13, 2025, 06:34 PM Agree, no bike lanes but lots of blind corners. The islands make it difficult to fit a bike lane but with some creativity maybe it's a problem to be solved? Bicycle Safety 36.97438183 -121.9695416
401
Item 9 C.
Social Pinpoint Comments City of Capitola
3 of 8
Capitola Local Roadway Safety Plan Title/Question: Untitled Tool Type: Social Map Activity ID: 412
Report Date Range: 23 Sep 2025 - 15 Dec 2025
Date Exported: 1/14/2026 14:37
Exported By: KMei
Contribution ID Date Submitted Please describe your safety concern at this location. Category Latitude Longitude 25028 Nov 13, 2025, 06:32 PM Cars are turning left and right from Target, and traffic is busy on Clares, but pedestrians have a 1000 foot walk to get to the next crosswalk! Pedestrian Safety 36.97465696 -121.9695428
24804 Nov 03, 2025, 04:52 PM Difficult location for pedestrians, skateboarders or bicyclist to cross McGregor when exiting park.
Bicycle Safety 36.98356888 -121.934504
24803 Nov 03, 2025, 04:46 PM Not having a distinct pedestrian path means people walk in the bike lane and in the road creating hazards for car/bike and bike/pedestrian conflicts.
Pedestrian Safety 36.97066861 -121.9548678
24802 Nov 03, 2025, 04:38 PM Particularly dangerous right turn for bikes. Bicycle Safety 36.97295585 -121.9521365 24796 Nov 03, 2025, 02:16 PM Cars merge over into bike lane area, not to turn right on MacGregor but to be in right lane as they cross the intersection.
Bicycle Safety 36.98297324 -121.9370355
24658 Oct 29, 2025, 12:53 PM Numerous complaints on vehicles , bikes and just unsafe speeds of street traffic.
Park now is nothing more than a highway with NO safety features.
Pedestrian Safety 36.97587555 -121.9494541
24657 Oct 29, 2025, 12:48 PM A constant problem here is bicycle s jump the curb and ride the sidewalk . My wife narrowly escaped being hit by working in our front yard.
Pedestrian Safety 36.97596917 -121.9490586
24656 Oct 29, 2025, 09:56 AM
Please consider speed tables on Capitola Ave between Gayle’s and Hill for Pedestrian Safety
Pedestrian Safety 36.98048466 -121.9528015
24655 Oct 29, 2025, 09:54 AM
Add a cross walk at Rosedale so kids heading to school on bikes have an easier time crossing and going between Rosedale and Monterey correctly Bicycle Safety 36.97722275 -121.9512541
24653 Oct 29, 2025, 09:50 AM No bike lanes speeding cars major bike route connecting county and Capitola Bicycle Safety 36.98245648 -121.9523352 24650 Oct 28, 2025, 07:44 PM No bike lanes but heavily used by bikes Bicycle Safety 36.97332639 -121.9505721 24647 Oct 28, 2025, 07:14 PM Shark! Other 36.97069149 -121.949532 24646 Oct 28, 2025, 07:13 PM please provide police escort so we can cross safely Pedestrian Safety 36.97852659 -121.9530667 24645 Oct 28, 2025, 07:13 PM cars dont stop for people we need police escort to cross the street Pedestrian Safety 36.98110708 -121.9556414 24644 Oct 28, 2025, 07:12 PM we need a bike trail here Bicycle Safety 36.9730015 -121.9537743 24643 Oct 28, 2025, 07:12 PM covert this to a trail so we can walk safely over this and avoid the village Pedestrian Safety 36.97311192 -121.9536799 24642 Oct 28, 2025, 07:11 PM hard to bike up the hill and no bike lane its not safe Bicycle Safety 36.9731595 -121.9542598 24640 Oct 28, 2025, 07:03 PM Cars hall A** on this road! put in speed bumps Pedestrian Safety 36.97734388 -121.9425032 24639 Oct 28, 2025, 07:02 PM
i am 74 years old i walk slow and its a challenge and stressful for me to get to cvs to get my medication, people these days dont have paitens or respect for someone in the crosswalk
Pedestrian Safety 36.98110275 -121.9554405
24638 Oct 28, 2025, 07:01 PM
Making Walking Safe Again!! Cars dont obey the laws and put our lives at risk! Roundabout is terrible we have too many pedestrains here Pedestrian Safety 36.98123108 -121.9553248
24637 Oct 28, 2025, 06:59 PM Bikes come down the hill and they want to go to the beach this way, against traffic, remove the parking spots and put in a bike path here
Bicycle Safety 36.97273579 -121.9505971
24636 Oct 28, 2025, 06:58 PM No bike lanes and stupid toursit i got hit by some guys mirror Bicycle Safety 36.97301448 -121.9513758 402
Item 9 C.
Social Pinpoint Comments City of Capitola
4 of 8
Capitola Local Roadway Safety Plan Title/Question: Untitled Tool Type: Social Map Activity ID: 412
Report Date Range: 23 Sep 2025 - 15 Dec 2025
Date Exported: 1/14/2026 14:37
Exported By: KMei
Contribution ID Date Submitted Please describe your safety concern at this location. Category Latitude Longitude 24635 Oct 28, 2025, 06:57 PM Bikes come flying down the hill and dont stop for people in the cross walk! Pedestrian Safety 36.97257393 -121.9525503 24634 Oct 28, 2025, 06:56 PM We need better biking infrastructure, make it safe please Bicycle Safety 36.98084552 -121.9646985 24633 Oct 28, 2025, 06:56 PM We need protectieve bike lanes! Bicycle Safety 36.97025444 -121.9678558 24632 Oct 28, 2025, 06:55 PM Traffic cuts thru neighborhood when Park is backed up, please stop them Vehicle Safety 36.97767475 -121.9427187 24631 Oct 28, 2025, 06:54 PM Traffic is backed up daily! Vehicle Safety 36.97931646 -121.939179 24630 Oct 28, 2025, 06:54 PM give us protected bike lanes Bicycle Safety 36.98136085 -121.9556223 24629 Oct 28, 2025, 06:53 PM Make it safe for the People!! We need police here to write ticekts to cars that dont yeild to pedstrians
Pedestrian Safety 36.98130384 -121.9555467
24628 Oct 28, 2025, 06:52 PM My brother got hit here by a car last month! Not SAFE! Pedestrian Safety 36.97884892 -121.9532247 24627 Oct 28, 2025, 06:52 PM cars dont yeild to people in the cross walk they drive up to us, stressing us out Pedestrian Safety 36.9788946 -121.9532328 24626 Oct 28, 2025, 06:51 PM No bike lane, the vehicle lane shits over and crushes us on bikes Bicycle Safety 36.97867023 -121.9530098 24625 Oct 28, 2025, 06:51 PM a lot of cars turn left here and they are not suppsoed to! Fix this!! Vehicle Safety 36.97879488 -121.9530328 24624 Oct 28, 2025, 06:50 PM Lots of cars going in and out, no bike lane Bicycle Safety 36.97820481 -121.9524214 24623 Oct 28, 2025, 06:49 PM school traffic doesnt look at people in the cross walk, too many cars! Pedestrian Safety 36.97652747 -121.9502565 24622 Oct 28, 2025, 06:49 PM Traffic is jammed and backup up to the school Vehicle Safety 36.98229614 -121.939987 24621 Oct 28, 2025, 06:48 PM Vehicles Are Going Like 35 - 40 MPH!! SLOW DOWN!!! Vehicle Safety 36.98078536 -121.9456973 24620 Oct 28, 2025, 06:48 PM Kids on bikes dont have a dedicated bike lane or safe route to school Bicycle Safety 36.98109235 -121.9454307 24619 Oct 28, 2025, 06:47 PM Speeding Cars!! Vehicle Safety 36.98179866 -121.9443762 24618 Oct 28, 2025, 06:47 PM 99 out of 100 cars dont stop at this stop sign Vehicle Safety 36.98233349 -121.9430645 24617 Oct 28, 2025, 06:46 PM a truck was turning right and never looked at us in the cross walk Pedestrian Safety 36.9810405 -121.9555511 24616 Oct 28, 2025, 06:46 PM not safe to cross please put in a stop light so we have dedicated crossing time that is the only thing that will stop cars from running us over!!! Pedestrian Safety 36.98116437 -121.9557452
24615 Oct 28, 2025, 06:45 PM no bike lanes here Bicycle Safety 36.97857988 -121.9529136 24614 Oct 28, 2025, 06:45 PM cars pulling out from street parking hit me! Bicycle Safety 36.97832984 -121.952563 24613 Oct 28, 2025, 06:44 PM People are walking in the bike lane and no room to ride in the street Bicycle Safety 36.97132442 -121.9543671 24612 Oct 28, 2025, 06:44 PM bikes flying down the hill and no safe place for us to walk Pedestrian Safety 36.97136606 -121.9543043 24611 Oct 28, 2025, 06:43 PM car hit me with their mirror and kept driving away Bicycle Safety 36.98120704 -121.9557362 24610 Oct 28, 2025, 06:42 PM cars dont care that people are trying to cross the street!! We need a stoplight! Pedestrian Safety 36.98126545 -121.9554871 24609 Oct 28, 2025, 06:41 PM cars turning right dont see us in the cross walks, and people coming off the freeway start to go before we are past the center line
Pedestrian Safety 36.98103574 -121.9555955
24608 Oct 28, 2025, 06:40 PM With the reduction to one lane, then splitting to two lanes i got ran off the road by driving trying to race to get into the other lane
Bicycle Safety 36.98113479 -121.9553929
24606 Oct 28, 2025, 05:26 PM Car speed Other 36.98206402 -121.9523998 24604 Oct 28, 2025, 05:18 PM Speed table Other 36.98269668 -121.9522909 24603 Oct 28, 2025, 03:28 PM Intersection is dangerous. Distracted, speeding drivers do not often wait for pedestrians to cross Pedestrian Safety 36.97799504 -121.9524948
24600 Oct 28, 2025, 12:51 PM Speeding cars past kids on bikes riding to school. Bicycle Safety 36.98227113 -121.9597568 403
Item 9 C.
Social Pinpoint Comments City of Capitola
5 of 8
Capitola Local Roadway Safety Plan Title/Question: Untitled Tool Type: Social Map Activity ID: 412
Report Date Range: 23 Sep 2025 - 15 Dec 2025
Date Exported: 1/14/2026 14:37
Exported By: KMei
Contribution ID Date Submitted Please describe your safety concern at this location. Category Latitude Longitude 24599 Oct 28, 2025, 12:14 PM Two speed bumps need to be put on the road in front of 905 Capitola Avenue. Cars are speeding after the bridge down to the stop sign. There are no bike lanes either. Vehicle Safety 36.98290791 -121.9522434 24598 Oct 28, 2025, 12:10 PM challenging to back out onto street, cars drive too fast Vehicle Safety 36.97659739 -121.9462003 24597 Oct 28, 2025, 12:10 PM challenging to back out onto street, cars drive too fast Vehicle Safety 36.9761415 -121.9482376 24594 Oct 28, 2025, 12:01 PM this crosswalk is hard to see at night Pedestrian Safety 36.96857743 -121.9649288 24593 Oct 28, 2025, 12:00 PM Green bike box is appreciated Bicycle Safety 36.97015867 -121.9651072 24592 Oct 28, 2025, 11:59 AM Not many places to cross Clares as a pedestrian Pedestrian Safety 36.9778962 -121.9696094 24591 Oct 28, 2025, 11:58 AM no crosswalk on Wharf from Capitola Road to Clares, that seems too far apart. Pedestrian Safety 36.97625764 -121.9567702 24590 Oct 28, 2025, 11:56 AM Crosswalks are not even in the street Pedestrian Safety 36.9720249 -121.9517362 24589 Oct 28, 2025, 11:54 AM no sidewalk to walk/skate to the skatepark Pedestrian Safety 36.98265535 -121.9372667 24588 Oct 28, 2025, 11:52 AM Bikes sharing the road on 41st is not great Bicycle Safety 36.98401795 -121.9648059 24587 Oct 28, 2025, 11:51 AM improve this connection at 40th/Deans for bikes and people, not cars Bicycle Safety 36.97963185 -121.9660869 24586 Oct 28, 2025, 11:51 AM improve this connection at 40th/Deans for bikes and people, not cars Pedestrian Safety 36.97962054 -121.9660089 24585 Oct 28, 2025, 11:50 AM I see people run across the street here all the time Pedestrian Safety 36.97469915 -121.969552 24584 Oct 28, 2025, 11:49 AM no bike lanes on Clares from Capitola Rd to 41st Bicycle Safety 36.97397184 -121.9695254 24583 Oct 28, 2025, 11:49 AM no bike lanes on Clares from 41st to Capitola Rd Bicycle Safety 36.9783527 -121.9652533 24582 Oct 28, 2025, 11:46 AM missing bike lanes in the village Bicycle Safety 36.97263403 -121.9524563 24581 Oct 28, 2025, 11:45 AM lack of adequate bike parking during many of the events Bicycle Safety 36.97209556 -121.9506131 24580 Oct 28, 2025, 11:45 AM No bike lanes anywhere in the village, but is a necessary route to get through town. Bicycle Safety 36.97287379 -121.950873 24578 Oct 28, 2025, 11:43 AM
Can we make all yellow (school) crosswalks into raised speed tables? Makes the kids more visible and reduces speeds.
Pedestrian Safety 36.97940077 -121.9478395
24577 Oct 28, 2025, 11:42 AM Missing bike lanes in the school zone Bicycle Safety 36.97891755 -121.9482973 24576 Oct 28, 2025, 11:41 AM turning left up the hill onto Monterey as a cyclist can be challenging Bicycle Safety 36.97648677 -121.95037 24575 Oct 28, 2025, 11:41 AM
We need speed tables on Capitola Ave between the newly opened bridge and Gayles. When drivers come into Capitola and head down hill they pick up speeds of up to 45 miles an hour. When this area opens again it is a major bike and walking route between the schools. There is no bike lane and no sidewalk in some areas so slowing traffic is paramount
Pedestrian Safety 36.98252048 -121.952306
24574 Oct 28, 2025, 11:34 AM
Major bike corridor for school aged children and excessive vehicle speed between Highway 1 overpass and Hill Street is an easily mitigated hazard that requires speed tables. The cars commuting through our village typically ignore speed signage and present a significant damaged to the Capitola residents and their property. Please install speed tables. Vehicle Safety 36.98215877 -121.9523939 24573 Oct 28, 2025, 11:29 AM
Speed table request. Cars ignore speed signs and cause hazards for the kids, animals and disabled people in our neighborhood. Vehicle Safety 36.98187736 -121.952263 404
Item 9 C.
Social Pinpoint Comments City of Capitola
6 of 8
Capitola Local Roadway Safety Plan Title/Question: Untitled Tool Type: Social Map Activity ID: 412
Report Date Range: 23 Sep 2025 - 15 Dec 2025
Date Exported: 1/14/2026 14:37
Exported By: KMei
Contribution ID Date Submitted Please describe your safety concern at this location. Category Latitude Longitude 24571 Oct 28, 2025, 11:24 AM Vehicles from Soquel cross the Highway 1 bridge and gain excessive speed coming into Capitola. There have been numerous accidents resulting in injuries and total property losses between Highway 1 and Hill Street.
Pedestrian Safety 36.98229057 -121.9523924
24513 Oct 27, 2025, 12:53 AM Can't cross over to Nob Hill on one side and Gayles or the bank on the other side. Pedestrian Safety 36.980476 -121.953915 24510 Oct 25, 2025, 08:31 PM These trees are blocking the signage that shows left lane turn left only and right lane goes straight. They need to be trimmed back Transit Safety 36.97759771 -121.9516256 24509 Oct 25, 2025, 08:22 PM Really scary to ride bike here! very narrow space Bicycle Safety 36.9718008 -121.9539455 24508 Oct 25, 2025, 08:20 PM put it back to what it was. I see you want to change to roundabout. Good Lord are you nuts! what a pedestrian nightmare it will be
Pedestrian Safety 36.9811668 -121.9554363
24507 Oct 25, 2025, 08:16 PM we should eliminate these parking places in between the two entrances of Gayles. It will open up greater visibility of this intersection.
Pedestrian Safety 36.97835638 -121.9526142
24501 Oct 25, 2025, 02:10 AM
Blind corner for pedestrians, bike and cars. Cars allowed to park to close to curve requiring cars to come around corner in both lanes.
Pedestrian Safety 36.97374723 -121.9500388
24500 Oct 25, 2025, 02:05 AM No crosswalk for pedestrians to cross Escalona while walking down Monterey. Pedestrian Safety 36.97496484 -121.9501662 24488 Oct 23, 2025, 11:19 PM Middle schoolers on ebike running stop signs Bicycle Safety 36.97223186 -121.9535404 24470 Oct 23, 2025, 02:07 PM Many pedestrians and bicyclists do not use the crossing button to let cars know they are going to walk across.
Pedestrian Safety 36.97371655 -121.9627394
24469 Oct 23, 2025, 02:05 PM Uneven pavement Vehicle Safety 36.98284377 -121.9644026 24468 Oct 23, 2025, 02:04 PM Hole in pavement making it unsafe for vehicles turning to Gross road. Vehicle Safety 36.98094203 -121.9648209 24467 Oct 23, 2025, 02:03 PM There’s also quite a bit of jaywalking, as pedestrianssometimes cross outside of designated areas, creating dangerous situations for both walkers and drivers.
Pedestrian Safety 36.97382698 -121.9663761
24465 Oct 23, 2025, 02:02 PM Many do not obey the "no right turn on red" sign Vehicle Safety 36.9738125 -121.9647075 24461 Oct 23, 2025, 10:49 AM Bike lane is too narrow. Bicycle Safety 36.9718563 -121.9538748 24459 Oct 23, 2025, 10:12 AM
Two lanes down to one lane has created daily traffic nightmares. This is a major thoroughfare and needs to have traffic flow Vehicle Safety 36.98051027 -121.9548723 24458 Oct 23, 2025, 10:10 AM
Cars often crowd the bike lanes when traffic backs up and then need to turn right by Carpo’s.
Bicycle Safety 36.98386336 -121.9570546
24457 Oct 23, 2025, 10:09 AM Cars often crowd into bike lanes when traffic backs up and cars want to turn right Bicycle Safety 36.98274184 -121.9568763 24456 Oct 23, 2025, 10:08 AM
Narrow bike lanes with fast cars. When traffic backs up cars often crowd into the bike lanes to make right turns.
Bicycle Safety 36.98297034 -121.956931
24455 Oct 23, 2025, 10:07 AM
A crosswalk from Burlingame Ave across to bay ave to get over to the Gayle’s complex would be helpful with how fast cara move
Pedestrian Safety 36.9780427 -121.9524405
24452 Oct 23, 2025, 09:05 AM
Sidewalks along 49th Ave between Capitola Rd and Clare's aren't clear for handicapped access
Pedestrian Safety 36.97484056 -121.956448
24450 Oct 22, 2025, 08:16 PM Large, complex intersection with long travel times for pedestrians. Given the traffic volume, this should be redesigned.
Other 36.9785972 -121.9529761
405
Item 9 C.
Social Pinpoint Comments City of Capitola
7 of 8
Capitola Local Roadway Safety Plan Title/Question: Untitled Tool Type: Social Map Activity ID: 412
Report Date Range: 23 Sep 2025 - 15 Dec 2025
Date Exported: 1/14/2026 14:37
Exported By: KMei
Contribution ID Date Submitted Please describe your safety concern at this location. Category Latitude Longitude 24448 Oct 22, 2025, 07:55 PM This entire intersection was so difficult to manage for many years. It has been much easier since the upgrade and far less confusing to figure out who goes next at this intersection. Vehicle Safety 36.981075 -121.9557094 24447 Oct 22, 2025, 07:45 PM The current setup is very protective of peds. Itseems counterproductive to go back to the way things were when folks were getting hurt walking through here. Please put in a 4 way signal light with crosswalk signals as well. I bet the traffic would flow much easier and safer if this were to happen. When a city outgrows a 4 way stop, the next step is a 4 way signal light.
Pedestrian Safety 36.98125717 -121.9557026
24418 Oct 17, 2025, 06:50 PM A car hit me while i was in the cross walk - Dan Pedestrian Safety 36.97276216 -121.9505191 24417 Oct 17, 2025, 06:49 PM Vehicle not aware of people on bikes i got ran off the road Bicycle Safety 36.97197895 -121.9507 24416 Oct 17, 2025, 06:49 PM Car backed out and hit me! Bicycle Safety 36.97216268 -121.9520186 24415 Oct 17, 2025, 06:48 PM Car turning right didnt yeild and almost hit me, i think i got hit by the mirror, i fell and they drove off
Bicycle Safety 36.96809787 -121.964935
24414 Oct 17, 2025, 06:47 PM car turned right and didnt see me, i had to swearve and i crash and they drove off Bicycle Safety 36.9691682 -121.9667207 24413 Oct 17, 2025, 06:46 PM Car turning right didnt yeild to me and i crash into the curb and they drove off!! Bicycle Safety 36.96753848 -121.9664641 24380 Oct 11, 2025, 08:55 PM
cars back up and almost hit me, and people are walking in the bike lane, its not safe to bike thru the village! There has to be a better route to bypass going down cliff drive
Bicycle Safety 36.9697428 -121.9558065
24379 Oct 11, 2025, 08:52 PM i crashed do to a car turning right and not vielding to me on my bike Bicycle Safety 36.97025836 -121.9671784 24378 Oct 11, 2025, 08:51 PM cars parked in the bike lane no stopping zone Bicycle Safety 36.97953441 -121.9391682 24373 Oct 11, 2025, 01:31 PM traffic calming needed. Often used as a thoroughfare--too narrow for neighborhood safety. Need stop sign at Fanmar/Terrace Other 36.97478456 -121.9514569 24368 Oct 11, 2025, 12:40 PM Thisintersection is a mess since you eliminated the lane. It backs up all the way to the highway and some cars turn right into Nobhill parking lot and speed through the parking lot to go around this intersection. It happens going the other way too where they speed through the neighborhood by the post office so they do not have to wait in the long line at the stop sign by Nobhill shopping center. You need to bring back the two lanes. Vehicle Safety 36.98145343 -121.9559087 24365 Oct 11, 2025, 10:58 AM It is very dangerous trying to exit Gayle’s parking lot onto Bay Ave Pedestrian Safety 36.97822324 -121.9523944 24364 Oct 11, 2025, 10:56 AM Cars are making a left turn when it is marked right turn only Pedestrian Safety 36.97866892 -121.9524603 24362 Oct 11, 2025, 10:44 AM
Pedestrians walking along Cliff Drive above the beach need protection from cars! Drivers may be distracted from the view, putting pedestrians at risk of serious injury.
Pedestrian Safety 36.96927614 -121.9559493
24361 Oct 11, 2025, 10:39 AM
Pedestrianstrying to exit the parking lot, pedestrianstrying to cross Park Ave need more distinctive signage and street markings.
Pedestrian Safety 36.97554331 -121.9501832
406
Item 9 C.
Social Pinpoint Comments City of Capitola
8 of 8
Capitola Local Roadway Safety Plan Title/Question: Untitled Tool Type: Social Map Activity ID: 412
Report Date Range: 23 Sep 2025 - 15 Dec 2025
Date Exported: 1/14/2026 14:37
Exported By: KMei
Contribution ID Date Submitted Please describe your safety concern at this location. Category Latitude Longitude 24360 Oct 11, 2025, 10:18 AM Limited visibility for cars pulling out of back parking lot at Gayle’s. Dangerous for both pedestrians and drivers. It would help if red curb was extended in both directions from the entrance/exit and making traffic one way through parking lot.
Pedestrian Safety 36.97837044 -121.9524764
24357 Oct 10, 2025, 07:07 PM No Sidewalks Pedestrian Safety 36.97546114 -121.9482391 24356 Oct 10, 2025, 07:06 PM No Sidewalks Pedestrian Safety 36.97388944 -121.9470037 24355 Oct 10, 2025, 07:06 PM No Sidewalks Pedestrian Safety 36.9735343 -121.9485877 24354 Oct 10, 2025, 07:06 PM No Sidewalks Pedestrian Safety 36.97486644 -121.9462583 24353 Oct 10, 2025, 07:06 PM No Sidewalks Pedestrian Safety 36.97431281 -121.948215 24352 Oct 10, 2025, 07:05 PM Unsafe for bikes Bicycle Safety 36.97365992 -121.9603589 24351 Oct 10, 2025, 07:05 PM Unsafe for bikes Bicycle Safety 36.97280852 -121.9510103 24350 Oct 10, 2025, 07:05 PM Unsafe for bikes Bicycle Safety 36.97657229 -121.965204 24349 Oct 10, 2025, 07:05 PM Unsafe for bikes Bicycle Safety 36.97264413 -121.9527496 24348 Oct 10, 2025, 07:05 PM Unsafe for bikes Bicycle Safety 36.97308301 -121.9517867 24346 Oct 10, 2025, 06:51 PM Bumper to bumper traffic accident Vehicle Safety 36.98049101 -121.964852 24345 Oct 10, 2025, 06:50 PM Truck ran over Kid on E-bike Critical condition Bicycle Safety 36.97837745 -121.9648593 24344 Oct 10, 2025, 06:44 PM I got hit by a car mirror the other day, driver pulled into the bike lane Bicycle Safety 36.9728282 -121.9505798 24342 Oct 10, 2025, 06:39 PM Do NOT install traffic lights. Vehicle Safety 36.98118985 -121.955581 24341 Oct 10, 2025, 06:37 PM Safety lights at each corner for pedestrians to use crosswalks. Pedestrian Safety 36.9786201 -121.9531584 24340 Oct 10, 2025, 06:35 PM Traffic is backed up, often onto freeway; 2 lanes are necessary at Bay/Hill intersection driving from freeway. Vehicle Safety 36.9812891 -121.9557494 24234 Sep 23, 2025, 07:52 PM Bikes traveling straight northbound do not interact with traffic and should not need to stop at the stop sign. Signage should be changed to reflect this.
Bicycle Safety 36.98233597 -121.9398475
24233 Sep 23, 2025, 07:38 PM Add a pathway to Auto Plaza Dr to Safely get to 41st ave & encourage biking & walking to shopping
Pedestrian Safety 36.98258793 -121.9603444
407
Item 9 C.
408
Item 9 C.
Kimley-Horn Social Pinpoint
Report Type: Social Map Results Summary
Date Range: 29-08-2025 - 23-09-2025
Exported: 14-01-2026 14:34:17
Open
Untitled
Capitola Local Roadway Safety Plan
2 Contributors
53 Contributions
Key Statistics
Top-level information about the activity.
53 Posts
2 contributors
Map Post Summary
Summary of content contributed by participants including location information, voting results and more.
Posts by Location
Map showing all posts contributed by participants.
Top Contributions by Location
Top 10 most frequent postal/ZIP codes of posts submitted by participants.
Location Total Contributions % Contributions
95010, Capitola, Santa Cruz County, California, United States 47 88.68% 95062, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California, United States 4 7.55% 95073, Soquel, Santa Cruz County, California, United States 2 3.77% Kimley-Horn Social Pinpoint - Social Map Results Summary (29 Aug 2025 to 23 Sep 2025) Page 1 of 2 409
Item 9 C.
Posts by Category
Comparison showing the number of posts for each category, as selected by participants.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Kimley-Horn Social Pinpoint - Social Map Results Summary (29 Aug 2025 to 23 Sep 2025) Page 2 of 2 410
Item 9 C.
411
Item 9 C.
Social Pinpoint Comments
County of Santa Cruz
1 of 4
Capitola Local Roadway Safety Plan
Title/Question: Untitled
Tool Type: Social Map
Activity ID: 386
Report Date Range: 29 Aug 2025 - 23 Sep 2025
Date Exported: 1/14/2026 14:37
Exported By: KMei
Contribution ID Date Submitted Please describe your safety concern at this location. Category Latitude Longitude 24230 Sep 23, 2025, 02:01 PM Narrow bike lanes Bike Safety 36.973 -121.9519 24229 Sep 23, 2025, 02:00 PM Bike lanes on street are poor quality Bike Safety 36.97363 -121.9504 24228 Sep 23, 2025, 02:00 PM
Intersection not safe for Bikes attempting to legally go straight. Often have to merge into tourist traffic that is unaware of the workings of the intersection. Better Signage, painting on the road, clearly marked bike lane would help. Paving this Bike Safety 36.9756 -121.9503
24227 Sep 23, 2025, 01:59 PM
There are some serious tree root bumps in the bike lane (which have been slightly scraped, but it's not enough). To go around you need to be in the traffic lane. It's not super safe and can mess with your bike handling. Bike Safety 36.97617 -121.9481 24226 Sep 23, 2025, 01:59 PM
Park Avenue, Capitola, CA 95010. Cars, trucks, and commercial vehicles drive fast. There isn't a buffer between bikes and motorized vehicles. Driving eastbound the street descends down a hill and vehicle speeds increase and could easily strike bikesridd
Bike Safety 36.9761 -121.9473
24225 Sep 23, 2025, 01:58 PM
Bikes traveling straight northbound do not interact with traffic and should not need to stop at the stop sign. Signage should be changed to reflect this. Bike Safety 36.98234 -121.9398 24224 Sep 23, 2025, 01:57 PM
More signage is needed to alert vehicles bikes move into the car lane from mcgreggor to park ave. Bike Safety 36.98233 -121.9375
24223 Sep 23, 2025, 01:57 PM
Drain grate is a hazard for bikers which are going around and leaving bike lane Bike Safety 36.98266 -121.9377
24222 Sep 23, 2025, 01:57 PM
Thissection of McGregor Drive isfull of potholes and rough road, making it difficult for bikes to traverse safely as cars swerve to avoid potholes.
Please repave. Bike Safety 36.98296 -121.9372
24221 Sep 23, 2025, 01:51 PM
There are two huge grates here under highway one taking up most of the bike lane. It's one thing in the daylight, but even more hazardous at night, very hard to see. To go around them you are in the traffic lane. One of them is already marked. I can't qu
Bike Safety 36.98424 -121.9371
24220 Sep 23, 2025, 01:45 PM Lane shifts are dangerous Bike Safety 36.98345 -121.9372 24192 Sep 15, 2025, 01:57 PM
This could really use some separation of the eastbound bike lane. There are always walkers in the bike lane or too close to the bike lane. I take the road often, but I can't always do that. Bike Safety 36.97177 -121.9541 24191 Sep 15, 2025, 01:56 PM
Westbound bike lane needs barrier from cars. Cars are looking off toward the ocean and veer into the bike lane. Bike Safety 36.97201 -121.9539 24190 Sep 15, 2025, 01:55 PM Cars entering freeway cross bike lanes Bike Safety 36.98153 -121.9647 412
Item 9 C.
Social Pinpoint Comments
County of Santa Cruz
2 of 4
Capitola Local Roadway Safety Plan
Title/Question: Untitled
Tool Type: Social Map
Activity ID: 386
Report Date Range: 29 Aug 2025 - 23 Sep 2025
Date Exported: 1/14/2026 14:37
Exported By: KMei
Contribution ID Date Submitted Please describe your safety concern at this location. Category Latitude Longitude 24076 Sep 02, 2025, 02:10 PM Track crossing rough Pedestrian Safety 36.96791 -121.9674 24075 Sep 02, 2025, 02:10 PM No sidewalk Pedestrian Safety 36.97024 -121.9634 24074 Sep 02, 2025, 02:07 PM No dedicated bike lane Bike Safety 36.97145 -121.9674 24073 Sep 02, 2025, 02:06 PM
Cars turning right from Clares onto Capitola Rd are generally only (barely) slowing down, even when light is red, and looking left for cars and often overlook pedestrians entering/in crosswalk. It is especially scary when crossing south because the pote Pedestrian Safety 36.97378 -121.9697 24072 Sep 02, 2025, 02:06 PM Cars speeding southbound and not slowing at all for pedestrians Pedestrian Safety 36.97556 -121.9695 24071 Sep 02, 2025, 02:05 PM
Why is there no crosswalk between the "hole in the wall" on Sommerfeld and the Capitola Mall food court area parking lot? Thisis constantly used by those of us in the neighborhood and is clearly meant as a pathway (since there is the median with cutout
Pedestrian Safety 36.97592 -121.9694
24070 Sep 02, 2025, 02:04 PM
closest pedestrian crossing is 40th and at the mall/Bay Federal, could use more Pedestrian Safety 36.97832 -121.9683 24069 Sep 02, 2025, 02:04 PM Mobility scooter, dirt hydrant in side walk, 40th&Deans Lane Pedestrian Safety 36.97944 -121.9661 24068 Sep 02, 2025, 02:04 PM
Drivers driver WAY TOO fast and aggressively along 41st avenue! Speed limits need to be reduced and speeding checked.
Bike Safety 36.97952 -121.965
24067 Sep 02, 2025, 02:02 PM
Add a pathway to Auto Plaza Dr to safely get to 41st ave & encourage biking & walking to shopping. Pedestrian Safety 36.98258 -121.9604 24066 Sep 02, 2025, 02:00 PM
Walkers and bikers share a bike lane. Frequently they're not paying attention and will walk directly in front of a bike, who then has to swerve into traffic to avoid. Extremely dangerous when the road is busy, even when biking
Bike Safety 36.97146 -121.9543
24031 Aug 29, 2025, 01:16 PM Bike lane goes away Bike Safety 36.97365 -121.9649 24030 Aug 29, 2025, 01:14 PM Lane shifts are dangerous Bike Safety 36.98346 -121.9372 24029 Aug 29, 2025, 01:11 PM
Drain grate is a hazard for bikers which are going around and leaving bike lane Bike Safety 36.98266 -121.9377
24028 Aug 29, 2025, 01:09 PM Narrow bike lanes and traffic congestion Bike Safety 36.97246 -121.9529 24027 Aug 29, 2025, 01:06 PM Narrow bike lanes Bike Safety 36.97301 -121.9519 24026 Aug 29, 2025, 01:05 PM Bike lanes on street are poor quality Bike Safety 36.97364 -121.9504 24025 Aug 29, 2025, 01:03 PM NArrow bike lane going uphill and no bike lane going downhill Bike Safety 36.97312 -121.9544 413
Item 9 C.
Social Pinpoint Comments
County of Santa Cruz
3 of 4
Capitola Local Roadway Safety Plan
Title/Question: Untitled
Tool Type: Social Map
Activity ID: 386
Report Date Range: 29 Aug 2025 - 23 Sep 2025
Date Exported: 1/14/2026 14:37
Exported By: KMei
Contribution ID Date Submitted Please describe your safety concern at this location. Category Latitude Longitude 24024 Aug 29, 2025, 01:03 PM cars run us off the road, there is no dedicated lane, and bikes dont sit in traffic like cars do. we need a safe route around not through the village Bike Safety 36.97266 -121.9525 24023 Aug 29, 2025, 01:00 PM No dedicated bike lane Bike Safety 36.97784 -121.9697 24022 Aug 29, 2025, 12:58 PM
Narrow road, speeding cars, no bike lane, cars honking when cyclists use roadway. Bike Safety 36.9675 -121.9674
24021 Aug 29, 2025, 12:55 PM
The bike loop does not change the signal is no cars are there. This has gone on for at least a couple of years. I have sent notices to the County Bike Safety 36.97229 -121.9533
24020 Aug 29, 2025, 12:54 PM
Unprotected bike path the entire length of 41st Avenue where cars/trucks often travel at 40-50 mph. The bike lane is narrow and not well not well marked with paint. It is particularly dangerous between Capitola Rd and Soquel Dr.
Bike Safety 36.97768 -121.9649
24019 Aug 29, 2025, 12:52 PM
The bike lanes are very narrow and dangerous when both side of the street have cars going trough. Bike Safety 36.98048 -121.9592
24018 Aug 29, 2025, 12:50 PM Wharf road and Soquel Dr. Cars not stopping. Bike Safety 36.98196 -121.9593 24017 Aug 29, 2025, 12:46 PM
Cars routinely drive faster than the postered speed limit of 25 and drive into the bike lane Bike Safety 36.98015 -121.9587
24016 Aug 29, 2025, 12:44 PM
Thissection of McGregor Drive isfull of potholes and rough road, making it difficult for bikes to traverse safely as cars swerve to avoid potholes.
Please repave. Bike Safety 36.98296 -121.9372
24015 Aug 29, 2025, 12:37 PM
Intersection not safe for Bikes attempting to legally go straight. Often have to merge into tourist traffic that is unaware of the workings of the intersection. Better Signage, painting on the road, clearly marked bike lane would help. Paving this Bike Safety 36.9756 -121.9503
24014 Aug 29, 2025, 12:17 PM Unprotected,no bike lane Bike Safety 36.98218 -121.9645 24013 Aug 29, 2025, 12:16 PM
This could really use some separation of the eastbound bike lane. There are always walkers in the bike lane or too close to the bike lane. I take the road often, but I can't always do that. Bike Safety 36.972 -121.9539 24012 Aug 29, 2025, 12:14 PM
Difficult for a bike to move from the bike lane to the left turn late due to car traffic. Have to go onto the side walk to use the cross walks which are narrow Bike Safety 36.97363 -121.9698
24011 Aug 29, 2025, 12:13 PM
There are some serious tree root bumps in the bike lane (which have been slightly scraped, but it's not enough). To go around you need to be in the traffic lane. It's not super safe and can mess with your bike handling. Bike Safety 36.97617 -121.9481 414
Item 9 C.
Social Pinpoint Comments
County of Santa Cruz
4 of 4
Capitola Local Roadway Safety Plan
Title/Question: Untitled
Tool Type: Social Map
Activity ID: 386
Report Date Range: 29 Aug 2025 - 23 Sep 2025
Date Exported: 1/14/2026 14:37
Exported By: KMei
Contribution ID Date Submitted Please describe your safety concern at this location. Category Latitude Longitude 24010 Aug 29, 2025, 12:11 PM There are two huge grates here under highway one taking up most of the bike lane. It's one thing in the daylight, but even more hazardous at night, very hard to see. To go around them you are in the traffic lane. One of them is already marked. I can't qu
Bike Safety 36.98424 -121.9371
24009 Aug 29, 2025, 12:10 PM
Walkers and bikers share a bike lane. Frequently they're not paying attention and will walk directly in front of a bike, who then has to swerve into traffic to avoid. Extremely dangerous when the road is busy, even when biking
Bike Safety 36.97177 -121.9541
24008 Aug 29, 2025, 12:08 PM
More signage is needed to alert vehicles bikes move into the car lane from mcgreggor to park ave. Bike Safety 36.98233 -121.9375
24007 Aug 29, 2025, 12:03 PM
Bikes traveling straight northbound do not interact with traffic and should not need to stop at the stop sign. Signage should be changed to reflect this. Bike Safety 36.98234 -121.9398 24006 Aug 29, 2025, 12:01 PM
This Soquel Creek crossing was designed for bikes and pedestrians however, the bike entrances off Wharf road and paths leading to the bridge do not comply with bike design standards. The curbs are all square and the entrance closest to Clares St required
Bike Safety 36.98025 -121.9591
24005 Aug 29, 2025, 11:55 AM
Park Avenue, Capitola, CA 95010. Cars, trucks, and commercial vehicles drive fast. There isn't a buffer between bikes and motorized vehicles. Driving eastbound the street descends down a hill and vehicle speeds increase and could easily strike bikesridd
Bike Safety 36.9761 -121.9473
24004 Aug 29, 2025, 11:53 AM
Drivers driver WAY TOO fast and aggressively along 41st avenue! Speed limits need to be reduced and speeding checked.
Bike Safety 36.98152 -121.9647
415
Item 9 C.
416
Item 9 C.
417
Item 9 C.
418
Item 9 C.
Kimley-Horn Social Pinpoint
Form Results Summary
Sep 12, 2025 - Dec 01, 2025
Project: Capitola Local Roadway Safety Plan
Form: Untitled
Tool Type: Form
Activity ID: 409
Exported: Jan 14, 2026, 02:35 PM
Exported By: KMei
Filter By: No filters applied.
419
Item 9 C.
Closed
Untitled
Capitola Local Roadway Safety Plan
47 Contributors
52 Contributions
Contribution Summary
1. What is your connection to the City of Capitola? if more than one answer, pick the one that best describes the reason you spend time there. Required
Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 52 (100%)
Answer choices Percent Count
I live in Capitola 90.38% 47
I work or volunteer in Capitola 5.77% 3
I go to school in Capitola 0% 0
My child attends a school in Capitola 3.85% 2
I shop or visit social/recreational destinations in Capitola 0% 0 I travel through Capitola on the way to a destination outside the City 0% 0 None of the above 0% 0
Total 100.00% 52
Kimley-Horn Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (12 Sep 2025 to 01 Dec 2025) Page 2 of 10 420
Item 9 C.
2. How do you typically travel throughout the City of Capitola Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 52 (100%)
Answer choices Percent Count
Drive alone 48.08% 25
Carpool with others 7.69% 4
Bus or paratransit 1.92% 1
Walk 26.92% 14
Bike or scooter 15.38% 8
I use a mobility device (like a walker or wheelchair) 0% 0 Total 100.00% 52
Kimley-Horn Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (12 Sep 2025 to 01 Dec 2025) Page 3 of 10 421
Item 9 C.
3. Please identify the top three challenge areas when it comes to travelling in the City of Capitola. Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 52 (100%)
Answer choices Percent Count
Aggressive driving (speeding, stop sign or red-light running violations) 69.23% 36 Traffic signals (poor visibility, signal timing, conflicts with pedestrians or bicyclists, etc.) 34.62% 18 Pedestrian crossings (long crossing distance, deteriorated pavement) 51.92% 27 Bicycle lanes (narrow/missing bike lanes at intersections or segments) 26.92% 14 Distracted driving 40.38% 21
Signage and pavement markings 11.54% 6
Unclear or faded, additional signage needed, etc. 13.46% 7 Street lighting 9.62% 5
Kimley-Horn Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (12 Sep 2025 to 01 Dec 2025) Page 4 of 10 422
Item 9 C.
Construction work zone safety 1.92% 1
ADA Accessibility 3.85% 2
Truck/Commercial vehicles 5.77% 3
Other 23.08% 12
Kimley-Horn Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (12 Sep 2025 to 01 Dec 2025) Page 5 of 10 423
Item 9 C.
4. Which of the following best describes you? Required
Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 52 (100%)
Answer choices Percent Count
African American/Black 1.92% 1
Asian, Pacific Islander, or Native Hawaiian 1.92% 1
Hispanic/Latino/a/x 3.85% 2
Middle Eastern/Arab 0% 0
Native American or Alaska Native 3.85% 2
White 53.85% 28
I prefer not to answer 30.77% 16
Other 3.85% 2
Total 100.00% 52
Kimley-Horn Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (12 Sep 2025 to 01 Dec 2025) Page 6 of 10 424
Item 9 C.
5. How old are you? Required
Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 52 (100%)
Answer choices Percent Count
Under 18 3.85% 2
18 to 34 5.77% 3
35 to 49 17.31% 9
50 to 64 26.92% 14
65 or older 26.92% 14
I prefer not to answer 19.23% 10
Total 100.00% 52
Kimley-Horn Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (12 Sep 2025 to 01 Dec 2025) Page 7 of 10 425
Item 9 C.
6. What is your gender? Required
Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 52 (100%)
Answer choices Percent Count
Female 46.15% 24
Male 30.77% 16
Gender non-conforming or non-binary 3.85% 2
I prefer not to answer 19.23% 10
Other 0% 0
Total 100.00% 52
Kimley-Horn Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (12 Sep 2025 to 01 Dec 2025) Page 8 of 10 426
Item 9 C.
7. What is the zip code where you reside? Required
Short Text | Skipped: 1 | Answered: 51 (98.1%)
Sentiment
No sentiment data
Tags
No tag data
Featured Contributions
No featured contributions
Kimley-Horn Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (12 Sep 2025 to 01 Dec 2025) Page 9 of 10 427
Item 9 C.
8. Is there anything else related to this survey you would like to share? Required Long Text | Skipped: 1 | Answered: 51 (98.1%)
Sentiment
No sentiment data
Tags
No tag data
Featured Contributions
No featured contributions
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Kimley-Horn Social Pinpoint - Form Results Summary (12 Sep 2025 to 01 Dec 2025) Page 10 of 10 428
Item 9 C.
68 APPENDIX D
SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND PRACTICES FOR THE
CITY OF CAPITOLA
429
Item 9 C.
City of Capitola LRSP Appendix D (i)
Topic Current Status Recommendation
Complete Streets
Policy
The Capitola General Plan Mobility
Element includes policies
supporting Complete Streets and
multimodal transportation1.
Continue implementing Complete
Streets through corridor studies and
capital improvement projects.
Traffic Impact Fees The City does not currently impose a transportation impact fee.
Consider evaluating whether a
transportation impact fee nexus
study could support future
transportation infrastructure
improvements associated with new
development.
Safe Routes to
School (SRTS)
The City completed a Safe Routes to
School plan for the Soquel Union
Elementary School District in 2014
with Caltrans funding.
Continue pursuing SRTS funding and
implementing identified safety
improvements.
Traffic Safety
Education
Capitola participates in the
countywide Street Smarts Vision
Zero public education campaign and
conducts traffic safety outreach.2
Consider expanding local education
efforts in partnership with schools
and community organizations to
promote pedestrian and bicycle
safety.
Program for
Reviewing Crash
Activity
Capitola participates in the
Community Traffic Safety Coalition,
which compiles crash and injury
data for regional safety planning and
education efforts.3
Continue reviewing crash data and
prioritize safety improvements at
locations with high crash frequency
or severity.
Crash Database
Updates
The Police Department maintains a
crash database.
Continue to provide training on the
City’s new RMS system to ensure
that the appropriate fields are
accounted for in the data, in support
of support safety analysis and
project prioritization.
Speed Limits
The City completed an Engineering
and Traffic Survey and updated
speed limits in 20204.
Continue conducting speed surveys
as required and evaluate
opportunities for speed reductions
under AB 43 guidance and CA
MUTCD guidance.
1 General Plan Update, City of Capitola, 2019.
https://www.cityofcapitola.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/page//general_plan_-_update_2019.pdf 2 Street Smarts Public Education Campaign, City of Capitola 3 Santa Cruz County, Community Traffic Safety Coalition 4 City of Capitola Engineering and Traffic Study 2020, January 2020. 430
Item 9 C.
City of Capitola LRSP Appendix D (ii)
Topic Current Status Recommendation
Enforcement of
Bicycle
Regulations
Bicycle rules are enforced under the
Capitola Municipal Code, with
increasing attention to e-bike
regulations.5
Continue public education and
targeted enforcement efforts to
support safe bicycle and
micromobility use.
Sobriety / Seatbelt
Checks
The Police Department conducts
sobriety checkpoints and traffic
safety enforcement.
Continue coordination between
Public Works and Police to support
targeted enforcement and traffic
safety campaigns.
Coordination with
Adjacent
Jurisdictions
Capitola coordinates with
neighboring jurisdictions on
enforcement and safety issues as
outlined in Police Department
policy.6
Continue coordination and pursue
grant funding for targeted
enforcement at high-crash locations
and jurisdictional boundaries.
Traffic Calming
Policies
The City has several traffic calming
and corridor improvement projects
underway or in development,
including Park Avenue, 41st Avenue
improvements, Clare Street
improvements, and Bay Avenue
corridor improvements. 7 8
Consider establishing a citywide
neighborhood traffic calming
program to promote slower speeds
and improve safety on local streets.
Transit
Accommodation of
Bicycles
Bicycles are permitted on local
transit services operating within
Capitola.
Continue supporting transit
providers in accommodating
bicycles to encourage multimodal
trips.
Coordination with
Transit Providers
The City coordinates with regional
transit providers regarding transit
operations and infrastructure.
Continue coordination on transit
stop placement and improvements,
particularly for first- and last-mile
connections.
Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Planning
The City adopted a Bicycle
Transportation Plan in 20119 and is
currently preparing an Active
Transportation Plan.10
Continue implementing priority
projects and monitoring bicycle and
pedestrian safety outcomes.
5 Capitola police seize e-bike from teen rider as city presses for new state laws, April 2025 6 City of Capitola Police Department Manual, 10/10/2024 7 City of Capitola Public Works, Park Ave. Traffic Calming Workshop 8 City of Capitola Public Works, Clare Street Traffic Calming Improvements 9 City of Capitola Bicycle Transportation Plan, 2011
10 City of Capitola ATP Grant Application, January 2025 431
Item 9 C.
City of Capitola LRSP Appendix D (iii)
Topic Current Status Recommendation
General Plan
Multimodal
Policies
The Capitola General Plan includes
a Mobility Element addressing
multimodal transportation and
safety.11
Continue implementing General
Plan mobility policies and evaluate
progress periodically.
Inventory of
Multimodal
Facilities
The City tracks bicycle, pedestrian,
parking, and other transportation
facilities through planning studies
and municipal code provisions.12
Continue maintaining and updating
facility inventories to support
transportation planning and project
development.
Traffic Safety Audit
Program
The City does not have a formal,
standalone traffic safety audit
program.
Consider implementing periodic
safety reviews or traffic safety audits
to identify and address safety
concerns.
County / Regional
Planning
Coordination
Capitola coordinates with county
agencies and regional organizations
on transportation planning and
safety initiatives.
Continue coordination to support
corridor planning and regional
transportation improvements.
Emergency
Response
Coordination
Transportation planning is
coordinated with emergency
response planning through hazard
mitigation and regional planning
efforts.13
Continue involving emergency
response representatives in
transportation planning and project
development.
Resident Feedback
Residents can provide feedback
through City Council meetings,
Planning Commission meetings, and
project-specific outreach efforts.
Continue public engagement and
evaluate feedback trends to identify
systemic safety concerns.
Maintenance of
Roadway Surfaces
The City maintains roadway
surfaces through its Pavement
Management Program and capital
improvement projects.14
Continue regular pavement
maintenance and incorporate safety
improvements where feasible.
Transportation
Demand
Management (TDM)
The Municipal Code includes
provisions encouraging reductions
in single-occupant vehicle trips. 15
Continue coordinating with the
Regional Transportation
Commission to strengthen TDM
strategies.
11 City of Capitola General Plan, 2019
12 City of Capitola Municipal Code, Chapter 8.54
13 City of Capitola Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2013
14 City of Capitola 2025 Pavement Maintenance Program
15 City of Capitola Municipal Code, Chapter 17.76
432
Item 9 C.
City of Capitola LRSP Appendix D (iv)
Topic Current Status Recommendation
Land Use and Infill
Development
Capitola uses overlay zoning and
planning tools in areas such as the
Central Village to support walkability
and multimodal access.16
Continue coordinating land use and
transportation planning to support
safe infill development.
School Zone Safety
School zone safety is supported
through enforcement and traffic
control measures.
Continue enforcement and pursue
grant funding for additional school
zone safety programs where
appropriate.
Wayfinding
Signage
Wayfinding signage is implemented
on a project-specific basis.
Continue maintaining wayfinding
signage and evaluate opportunities
for improved traveler information.
Traffic Control
Device Warrants
The City follows CA MUTCD
warrants when evaluating traffic
control devices.
Continue applying CA MUTCD
standards and consider
supplemental local guidelines
where appropriate.
Crosswalk Safety
The City installs and maintains
crosswalks and pedestrian safety
treatments as part of roadway
projects and traffic safety
improvements.
Continue evaluating crosswalk
safety at locations with high
pedestrian activity and consider
targeted enhancements such as
improved signage, visibility
improvements, or additional
pedestrian safety treatments where
appropriate.
Traffic / Bicycle /
Pedestrian Counts
The City collects traffic volumes and
ADT data through project studies
and speed feedback signs.
Continue collecting multimodal
traffic counts and incorporate
bicycle and pedestrian counts into
routine data collection.
16 City of Capitola Municipal Code, Chapter 17.40
433
Item 9 C.
Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City Council
March 26, 2026
434
Item 9 C.
Receive informational presentation
Provide feedback on Draft LRSP
Will return for adoption at a later meeting
No formal action required today
Recommended Action
Local Roadway Safety Plan
435
Item 9 C.
• Data-driven safety planning tool
• Supported by FHWA and Caltrans
• Focus on reducing fatal and severe injury crashes
Program Overview
Crash patterns
Safety risk factors
Potential improvements
Identifies
• Safer streets for all users
• Data-driven decision making
• Competitive grant applications
• Positions City for grant funding (HSIP, SS4A)
Supports
What is the LRSP
Local Roadway Safety Plan
436
Item 9 C.
5 years of crash data analysis
• Roadway conditions
• Traffic volumes
• Behavioral factors
Review of
• Public meeting
• Online survey
• Interactive map
Community Engagement
How the Plan Was Developed
Local Roadway Safety Plan
437
Item 9 C.
438
Item 9 C.
439
Item 9 C.
What We’re Seeing in
Capitola
• High share of severe
crashes involve:
• Pedestrians
• Bicyclists
• Contributing factors:
• Speeding
• Impaired driving
• Right-of-way conflicts
What the Community
Told Us
• Top concerns:
• Speeding
• Unsafe crossings
• Bicycle safety / e-bike
behavior
• Key corridors with mixed
use
Key Safety Trends
Local Roadway Safety Plan
440
Item 9 C.
Infrastructure
Improvements
• Enhanced
crossings
• Traffic calming
• Visibility
improvements
• Bike facility
upgrades
Programmatic
Strategies
• Education &
outreach
• Enforcement
strategies
Case Study
Locations
• Locations with
crash patterns
• Shows how
improvements
could be
applied
What the Plan Recommends
Local Roadway Safety Plan
441
Item 9 C.
• Mix of crash types, including
bicycle-related crashes
• Turning and crossing conflicts
• Driver behavior (speeding,
impairment)
• Visibility challenges
What We’re Seeing
• Leading Pedestrian Interval
(~60%)
• Signal visibility upgrades (~15%)
• Advanced stop bars (~15%)
Recommended
Improvements & CRF
Case Study Example: Capitola Rd & Clares St
Local Roadway Safety Plan
442
Item 9 C.
Retroreflective Signal Backplates ($)
Improves signal visibility
Advanced Stop Bars ($)
Sets vehicles back from crosswalks
Leading Pedestrian Interval ($$)
Head start for pedestrians before
vehicles
Case Study Example: Capitola Rd & Clares St
Local Roadway Safety Plan
443
Item 9 C.
• Safety benefit
• Cost
• Feasibility
Prioritization based on
• HSIP
• SS4A
• ATP
• SB1
Funding Opportunities
• Safety goal / Vision Zero-type resolution
Potential future item
Implementation & Funding
Local Roadway Safety Plan
444
Item 9 C.
• Council feedback on draft
• Finalize LRSP
• Return for adoption
Finalize Plan
• Integrate into capital planning
• Integrate into grant applications
Implementation & Integration
Next Steps
Local Roadway Safety Plan
445
Item 9 C.
Capitola City Council
Agenda Report
Meeting: March 26, 2026
From: Public Works Department
Subject: 41st Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation and Multimodal Improvements Recommended Action: 1) Award a construction contract to Granite Rock Company for the 41st Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation and Multimodal Improvements Project in the amount of $2,037,868; and 2) adopt a resolution amending the FY 2025-26 Budget in the amount of $239,500 from RMRA and Measure D Funds and $60,000 from the Gas Tax Fund identified in the FY 2025-26 Mid-Year Budget Report.
Background: On February 12, 2026, the City Council approved the plans and specifications and authorized the Department of Public Works to advertise the 41st Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation and Multimodal Improvements Project for construction bids.
The project rehabilitates pavement and implements multimodal safety improvements along 41st Avenue, a key regional corridor serving residential neighborhoods, commercial areas, and access to State Route
1. The project includes pavement rehabilitation along 41st Avenue, bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements, curb ramp upgrades, and updated pavement striping and signage.
In addition to the work shown in the bid documents, staff updated the striping design at the Clares Street intersection to reduce exposure for southbound bicyclists traveling through the intersection. The revised striping configuration improves positioning and guidance for bicyclists traveling southbound through the intersection area.
The update provides a 100-foot merge area that allows bicyclists to cross the right-turn lane and transition into the bike lane in advance of the intersection, similar to the configuration installed near the 41st Avenue on-ramp to southbound State Route 1. This change allows bicyclists to remain in the far-right bike lane longer, rather than traveling between lanes for the full length of the segment. Green striping is also added at the two driveways near the beginning of the right-turn lane to better highlight potential vehicle and bicycle crossing movements.
Figure 1. Existing Striping Configuration at Clares Street Intersection 446
Item 9 D.
Figure 2. Updated Striping Configuration at Clares Street Intersection Discussion: The project was bid using two scopes to provide flexibility during award. The Base Bid includes construction work located within Caltrans right-of-way. The Additive Alternate includes additional pavement rehabilitation and striping improvements extending from Gross Road to Clares Street.
The project was advertised for construction bids on February 23, 2026, and bids were opened on March 16, 2026. The City received two bids, summarized below.
Bidder Base Bid Add Alternate Total
Granite Construction $1,896,271 $652,068 $2,548,339
Granite Rock Company $1,429,261 $608,607 $2,037,868
Staff reviewed the bids for responsiveness and contractor qualifications. The lowest responsive and responsible bidder is Granite Rock Company with a Base Bid of $1,429,261.
Because the Base Bid plus Add Alternative came in higher than the available construction budget, staff evaluated available transportation funding to support the project. The FY 2025-26 Mid-Year Budget Report identified additional revenues in the City’s transportation funds. Staff recommends adopting a resolution allocating $239,500 in additional RMRA and Measure D funds to the project and supplementing the remaining gap with $60,000 from the Gas Tax fund.
With the inclusion of these funds, sufficient budget is available to proceed with both the Base Bid and the Additive Alternate. Awarding both components would allow the project to extend pavement rehabilitation and striping improvements from Gross Road to Clares Street as part of the construction contract.
Fiscal Impact: The construction budget allocated within the FY 2025-26 Budget for this project is $1,700,000.
The FY 2025-26 Mid-Year Budget Report identified additional transportation revenues. Staff recommends allocating $239,500 in additional RMRA and Measure D revenues to the project. After applying these funds, the project remains approximately $60,000 short of the total bid amount. Staff recommends an additional budget amendment of $60,000 from the Gas Tax fund, which currently has an available cash balance of approximately $245,000.
447
Item 9 D.
Funding Source Amount
RTC Grant $700,000
Local Transportation Funds $1,043,000
Mid-Year RMRA / Measure D Adjustment $239,500
Gas Tax $60,000
Total Available $2,042,500
Attachments:
1. Draft Construction Contract – Granite Rock
2. Budget Amendment Resolution
Alignment with 2025-2029 Strategic Plan Priority: Community Safety; Sustainable Infrastructure Report Prepared By: Jessica Kahn, Public Works Director Reviewed By: Julia Gautho, City Clerk; Marc Tran, City Attorney; Jim Malberg, Administrative Services Director
Approved By: Jamie Goldstein, City Manager
448
Item 9 D.
City of Capitola
41st Avenue Multimodal Improvements and Pavement Rehabilitation Project DO NOT REMOVE FROM BID PACKET Part 1 | Contract Documents
1 AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 23rd day of March, 2026, by and between the CITY OF CAPITOLA, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called “City,” and Granite Rock Company, hereinafter called “Contractor;”
WITNESSETH, that the parties hereto do mutually agree as follows:
ARTICLE I
That for and in consideration of the covenants and agreements herein contained and the payments at the prices stated in the bid proposal attached hereto, and by this reference made a part hereof, the Contractor hereby covenants and agrees to furnish any and all required supervision, labor, equipment, “Standard Provisions" as hereinafter defined, and will bear any and all other expense necessary or incidental to the performance of certain work hereinafter specified, and to build, construct, reconstruct, pave or repave and complete improvements for:
41ST AVENUE MULTIMODAL IMPROVEMENTS AND PAVEMENT REHABILITATION
PROJECT
General work description; Rehabilitate the existing pavement with Partial Depth Recycling (PDR) from Clares Street to the County/City boundary along 41st Avenue and also improve the striping and signing improvements to improve bicycle accessibility and lane selection for wayfinding. This includes the replacement of two signal poles and one curb ramp/return at the intersection of Gross Road and 41st Avenue, signal modifications at the State Route (SR)-1 southbound ramp terminal intersection, pavement markings for SR-1 wayfinding, and improvements for the bicycle facility in strict conformity and compliance with the City’s Special Project Specifications, the Plans, and Drawings, and to do everything required by this agreement, and by said Standard Specifications as hereinafter defined.
ARTICLE II
It is expressly agreed and understood by the Contractor that the City’s Special Project Specifications consists of the documents on file at the Office of the Director of Public Works of the City of Capitola, entitled:
“City of Capitola Special Project Specifications”
All sections of the Standard Specifications of the State of California, Department of Transportation, dated 2018 with most recent revisions, (“State Specifications”), shall apply. Where conflicts arise between the City’s Special Project Specifications and the State Specifications, the City’s Special Project Specifications shall control and apply.
ARTICLE III
It is expressly agreed and understood by each and every party to this agreement that the Notice to Contractors/Notice Inviting Sealed Proposals or Bids, Instructions to Bidders, the City’s Special Project Specifications, including the Standard Provisions, Technical Provisions, and Special Provisions, the City’s Standard Details, the State Specifications, the Bid Proposal including all required forms and bonds, the Plans, and the Drawings are hereby incorporated and made a part of this contract (hereinafter the “Contract Documents”). The parties to this agreement do hereby expressly 449
Item 9 D.
City of Capitola
41st Avenue Multimodal Improvements and Pavement Rehabilitation Project DO NOT REMOVE FROM BID PACKET Part 1 | Contract Documents
2 acknowledge that they have read, understand, and promise to comply with each and every provision of Contract Documents.
ARTICLE IV
Contractor shall conform to all laws and regulations of the United States and the State of California, as well as laws of Capitola, as may be applicable to the project.
ARTICLE V
The City hereby contracts to pay said Contractor the prices provided for in the Bid Proposal in the manner, to the extent, and at the times set forth in the Contract Documents.
ARTICLE VI
It is agreed by the parties hereto that the acceptance of the Contractor's performance will be made only by an affirmative action of the City of Capitola, by approval of a Notice of Completion, and upon the filing by the Contractor of a Release of all Claims of every nature on account of work done under this contract, together with an affidavit that all claims have been fully paid. The acceptance by the Contractor of said final payment shall constitute a waiver of all claims against the City arising out of or in connection with this contract.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this contract is executed by the City Manager of the City of Capitola, and the Contractor has affixed his/her signature hereto the day and year first hereinabove written.
CITY OF CAPITOLA CONTRACTOR:
A Municipal Corporation
By: By:
Benjamin Goldstein
City Manager Title:
Date: Date:
Approved by the City Council on March 16,
2026
ATTEST:
City Clerk
450
Item 9 D.
City of Capitola
41st Avenue Multimodal Improvements and Pavement Rehabilitation Project DO NOT REMOVE FROM BID PACKET Part 1 | Contract Documents
3 FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE & MAINTENANCE BOND
WHEREAS, the City of Capitola, a municipal corporation, in the County of Santa Cruz, State of California, has awarded to Granite Rock Company, hereinafter designated as the "Principal," a contract for constructing the work or improvement described in the contract documents entitled:
41ST AVENUE MULTIMODAL IMPROVEMENTS AND PAVEMENT REHABILITATION
PROJECT
WHEREAS, said Principal is about to enter into the contract with the City of Capitola:
NOW, THEREFORE, we, the Principal, and ____________________________________, a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, as surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City of Capitola, a municipal corporation in the County of Santa Cruz, State of California, in the sum of two million thirty-seven thousand eight hundred sixty-eight dollars ($2,037,868) being not less than one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated contract costs of the work, to be paid to the City of Capitola, for the payment of which sum, well and truly to be paid, we hereby jointly and severally bind ourselves, our heirs, administrators, executors, successors and assigns;
NOW, THEREFORE THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that if the Principal, his/her heirs, executors, administrators, successors, or assigns shall in all things abide by and well and truly keep and perform the covenants, conditions and agreements in the said contract and any alteration thereof made as herein provided, on his/her or their part, to be kept and performed at the time and in the manner therein specified, and in all respects according to the true intent and meaning, and shall indemnify and save harmless the City of Capitola, its officers and agents as therein stipulated, that this obligation shall be discharged, otherwise it shall be and remain in full force and effect.
As a condition precedent to the satisfactory completion of the said contract, the above obligation in the amount of ___________________________________________dollars ($_________), being not less than 10 percent of the estimated contract cost, shall remain in force for a period of one (1) year after the completion and acceptance of the said work, during which time if the Principal, his/her or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns shall fail to make full, complete and satisfactory repairs and replacements or totally protect the City of Capitola from loss or damage made evident during said period of one (1) year from the date of official acceptance of said work and resulting from or caused by defective materials or faulty workmanship in the prosecution of the work done, the above obligation in the sum of ___________________________________________________________________ dollars ($_________), shall remain in full force and effect, otherwise the obligation shall be discharged.
However, notwithstanding any other provisions of this paragraph, the obligation of the surety hereunder shall continue so long as any obligation of the Principal remains.
The surety, for value received, hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration, or addition to the terms of the contract or to the work to be performed thereunder or the specifications shall in any way effect its obligation on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such changes, extensions of time, alterations, or additions to the terms of the contract or to the work or to the specifications, and the surety does hereby waive its rights under California Civil Code Section 2819.
451
Item 9 D.
City of Capitola
41st Avenue Multimodal Improvements and Pavement Rehabilitation Project DO NOT REMOVE FROM BID PACKET Part 1 | Contract Documents
4 IN WITNESS whereof, the parties have executed this instrument under their seals, this____day of__________________, 20____, by its undersigned representative, pursuant to the authority of its governing body, the day and year first hereinabove written. ________________________________
PRINCIPAL
________________________________
SURETY
452
Item 9 D.
City of Capitola
41st Avenue Multimodal Improvements and Pavement Rehabilitation Project DO NOT REMOVE FROM BID PACKET Part 1 | Contract Documents
5 LABOR AND MATERIAL BOND
WHEREAS, the City of Capitola, a municipal corporation in the County of Santa Cruz, State of California, has awarded to Granite Rock Company, hereinafter designated as the "Principal," a contract for constructing the work or improvement described in the contract documents entitled:
41ST AVENUE MULTIMODAL IMPROVEMENTS AND PAVEMENT REHABILITATION
PROJECT
WHEREAS, said Principal is required under the terms of said contract to furnish a Labor and Material Bond, the surety of this bond will pay the same to the extent hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the said Principal is about to enter into the annexed contract with the City of Capitola to complete the work or improvement referred to above for the City of Capitola, County of Santa Cruz, State of California, all as more particularly and in detail as shown upon the Special Project Specifications and Contract Documents filed in the Public Works Department of the City of Capitola; NOW, THEREFORE, we the Principal, and a corporation
organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, as surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City of Capitola in the sum of two million thirty-seven thousand eight hundred sixty-eight dollars ($2,037,868) such sum being not less than one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated contract cost of the work, lawful money of the United States of America, to be paid to the City of Capitola, for the payment of which sum, well and truly to be made, we hereby bind ourselves, our heirs, administrators, executors, successors and assign jointly and severally.
THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that if said Principal or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, shall fail to pay for any materials, provisions, vendor supplies, or equipment as provided in the contract documents, upon, for, or about the performance of the work contracted to be done, or for any work or waiver thereon of any kind, or for amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Code with respect to work or labor performed by any such claimant, or fails to pay any of the persons authorized under Civil Code Section 9100 to assert a claim against a payment bond, or fails to pay for any amounts required to be deducted, withheld, and paid over to the Franchise Tax Board for the wages of employees of the Principal or his/her subcontractor pursuant to Section 18668 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, or fails to pay for any amounts required to be deducted, withheld, and paid over to the Employment Development Department from the wages of employees of the principal and all subcontractors with respect to such work and labor that the surety or sureties will pay for the same, in an amount not exceeding the sum specified in this bond, and also, in case suit is brought upon the bond, will pay, in addition to the face amount hereof, a reasonable attorney's fee, to be fixed by the Court.
The condition of this obligation is such that its terms inure to the benefit of any of the persons and entities authorized in Civil Code Section 9100 to assert a claim against a payment bond so as to give a right of action to such persons or entities or their assigns in any suit brought upon or action to enforce liability on the bond.
The surety, for value received, hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration, or addition to the terms of the contract or to the work to be performed thereunder shall in any manner affect its obligation upon this bond, and it does hereby explicitly waive notice of any such 453
Item 9 D.
City of Capitola
41st Avenue Multimodal Improvements and Pavement Rehabilitation Project DO NOT REMOVE FROM BID PACKET Part 1 | Contract Documents
6 change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the contract or to the work to be performed thereunder, and further explicitly hereby waives its rights under Civil Code Section 2819.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the above parties have executed this instrument under their seals this_____ day of____________________, 20__, and duly signed by its undersigned representation, pursuant to authority of its governing body.
__________________________________
PRINCIPAL
__________________________________
SURETY
454
Item 9 D.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPITOLA AMENDING THE 2025-26 FISCAL YEAR CITY BUDGET
WHEREAS, it is necessary to adopt the 2025-26 Fiscal Year Budget for all City funds; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted budget study sessions, heard and considered public comments, had modified and proposed a budget accordingly, and on June 26, 2025, adopted such budget for the Fiscal Year July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2026; and WHEREAS, on February 12, 2026, the City Council approved the plans and specifications for the 41stAvenue Pavement Rehabilitation and Multimodal Improvements Project (“Project”); and WHEREAS, the City advertised the Project for constructions bids on February 23, 2026 and received bids thereafter, with the lowest responsible bidder submitting a base bid of $1,429,261; and WHEREAS, the bids received were higher than the originally budgeted funds; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary to amend the 2025-26 Fiscal Year Budget to allocate additional funding towards the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Capitola that the 2025-26 Fiscal Year Budget is hereby amended as follows: (1) $239,500 from RMRA and Measure D Funds and (2) $60,000 from the Gas Tax Fund; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Finance Director is directed to enter the budget into the City's accounting records in accordance with appropriate accounting practices, and the City Manager, with the Finance Director's assistance, shall assure compliance therewith.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Capitola on the 26th day of March 2026, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Margaux Morgan, Mayor
ATTEST:
Julia Gautho, City Clerk
455
Item 9 D.
41st Avenue Pavement
Rehabilitation
and Multimodal
Improvements
City Council
March 26, 2026
456
Item 9 D.
• Residential
• Commercial
• Access to Highway 1
• Night work
Pavement rehabilitation along 41st Avenue
• Bike and pedestrian safety upgrades
• ADA curb ramps
• Striping and signage updates
Improvements include
Project Overview
41st Pavement and Multimodal
457
Item 9 D.
Project Overview
41st Pavement and Multimodal
458
Item 9 D.
Clares Street Striping Update
41st Pavement and Multimodal
459
Item 9 D.
Clares Street Striping Update
41st Pavement and Multimodal
460
Item 9 D.
• Caltrans ROW (Cory Street to Gross Road)
Base Bid
• Extends improvements (Gross Rd to Clares St)
Add Alternate
Contractor Base Bid Add Alt Total
Granite Construction $1.90M $652K $2.55M
Granite Rock $1.43M $609K $2.04M
Base Bid vs. Add Alternate
41st Pavement and Multimodal
461
Item 9 D.
• Corner of Gross Rd Ext and
41st
• Anticipated for Council
consideration on April 23
Potential Gateway
• If Corridor Study approved
staff will evaluate project
budget and potentially
incorporate concrete work
in this project
Current Project
Coordination with Corridor Study
41st Pavement and Multimodal
462
Item 9 D.
• Original budget: $1.70M
• RMRA + Measure D: $239,500
• Gas Tax: $60,000
Available Funding
• Full project (Base + Add Alt) can be delivered
• Tentative schedule May-June
With Added Funds
• Improved pavement condition
• Enhanced multimodal safety
• Corridor continuity
Benefits
Fiscal Impact
41st Pavement and Multimodal
463
Item 9 D.
Recommended Action
41st Pavement and Multimodal
Award a construction contract to Granite Rock
Company for 41st Avenue Pavement
Rehabilitation and Multimodal Improvements
Project in amount of $2,037,868; and 2) adopt a
resolution amending the FY 2025-26 Budget in the
amount of $239,500 from RMRA and Measure D
Funds and $60,000 from the Gas Tax Fund
identified in the FY 2025-26 Mid-Year Budget
Report.
464
Item 9 D.
Capitola City Council
Agenda Report
Meeting: March 26, 2026
From: Administrative Services Department
Subject: FY 2026-27 Budget Principals and Goals
Recommended Action: 1) Review progress and status of adopted 2025-27 Strategic Plan Priorities; and 2) Identify goals and related key projects for Fiscal Year 2026-27.
Background: Each year, the City prepares and adopts an annual budget. The annual budget drives the City’s operations and serves as City Council direction to the City Manager regarding day-to-day functions.
The budget not only outlines the City’s financial plan but also establishes the framework in which the City provides services to the community. Principles and goals identified in the budget establish metrics against which actual performance can be measured.
Strategic Plan Priorities and Objectives: In March 2025, the City Council adopted the 2025-2027 Strategic Plan with the following priorities for the City:
1. Accountable Government
2. Attainable Housing
3. Community Safety
4. Economic Opportunity
5. Healthy Families, Community, and Environment
6. Sustainable Infrastructure
Each priority includes four to five objectives and several performance measures, designed to track the City’s progress towards achieving the strategic priority over five years. A link to the Strategic Plan 2025- 2027 is provided on the list of attachments at the end of this report.
Discussion: Due to the economic climate, it is unlikely the City budget will include large amounts of unallocated General Fund money. Staff recommends the City prioritize addressing the City’s cash position and allocating any additional funding towards projects already in the design phase that could also leverage grant opportunities. To assist with this, high-level summaries of CIP, planning/programs, and staff identified goals are included in the remainder of this report.
Previously Identified Capital Improvement Projects: The Council has identified and funded, or partially funded, multiple capital improvement projects, and some are currently in progress. The table below provides a status update on each of the identified capital improvement projects.
Project Current Phase Status / Key Milestone
Stockton Bridge Rehabilitation Assessment / Design Structural evaluation underway; results expected Spring 2026.
Community Center Complex Construction Construction underway; opening scheduled for Summer 2026.
Cliff Drive Planning / Engineering Technical studies underway; advancing toward environmental
clearance and funding for
construction phases.
Park at Rispin Mansion:
Landscaping and Additional
Elements
Implementation Park open; funding needed for
additional landscaping; community
fundraiser identified for additional
465
Item 9 E.
elements (MOU in April). Measure Q
grant for restoration and interpretive
signs submitted.
41st Avenue Pavement
Rehabilitation and Multimodal
Improvements
Construction Bids
Received
Council contract consideration
March 26.
Pavement Management Ongoing Program Annual street resurfacing and pavement preservation program (FY
2025-26: 41st Avenue Rehab &
Multimodal; FY 2026-27: residential
street project)
Esplanade Park Design Concept Planning /
Design
$275,000 Coastal Conservancy
grant award. RFP for design team
issued.
Grand Avenue Pathway (Depot
Hill)
Feasibility / Alignment
Study
Council allocated $13,000 funding
for study; preliminary alignment
review anticipated in Spring 2026.
Bay Avenue Corridor
Improvements
Design Development Corridor study and design underway
with RTC funding. Council review of
draft design scheduled in April.
Previously Identified Planning/Program Projects: The Council has identified additional City projects, some of which are in the early stages of design planning and/or have received grant funding toward their eventual development. The table below provides a status update planning and design projects.
Project Current Phase Status/ Key Milestone
Five-Year Capital Improvement
Program
Program Development Draft FY 2026-31 CIP anticipated
for Council review in Spring 2026.
Capitola Wharf Master Plan Project Planning Design presentation scheduled for Council review in April.
Climate Action Plan Update Project Planning Update underway; completion anticipated within ~6 months.
Active Transportation Plan (ATP) Project Planning Planning and community outreach to begin May 2026.
Staff Proposed Projects/Goals for FY 2026-2027: In addition to the projects outlined in the tables above, all of which align with the adopted Strategic Plan, staff have identified the following goals for FY 2026- 2027. This is not an exhaustive list of day-to-day work for all City departments, but a high-level preview of specific priorities identified for the coming fiscal year.
Department Draft Goals
City Manager Election: three Council seats
City Manager Employee contract negotiations
City Manager Beach Lifeguard Service Organizational Study Police Anti Human Trafficking Ordinance
466
Item 9 E.
Police Countywide records management system rollout
Police Continued funding for: Drone Program, RING,
Body Worn Cameras
Community & Economic Development Continue working with Mall, Village hotel owners and other economic development opportunities.
Community & Economic Development Ordinance updates: Community Benefits, ADUs, Bicycle Parking, Hotel Incentives
Community & Economic Development Review Outdoor Dinning Program Community & Economic Development Development impact fees - 41st Avenue Community & Economic Development Housing Element Implementation: Down payment assistance program, update nexus study for rental
housing.
Community Services & Recreation Update Community Center rental package Community Services & Recreation Explore and develop new opportunities related to renovated facilities
Administrative Services Improve fiscal transparency
Administrative Services Transition to paperless HR Division Administrative Services Return TOT administration to internal staff The estimated June 30, 2026, General Fund balance is currently $200,000 which is below our historical target of $500,000. Additionally, as we continue to wait for FEMA & Cal OES reimbursements for 2023 storm damages, the City’s Contingency Reserve is approximately $441,000 below its target balance and the Emergency Reserve is approximately $326,000 below its target balance.
During the March 26 Meeting, Council will have the opportunity to review and provide direction regarding the various projects summarized in this report. Staff recommends City Council establish a budget goal for Fiscal Year 2026-27 to split unallocated general fund, with 50% reestablishing the City reserve funds and 50% increasing the City’s cash fund balance.
Fiscal Impact: The annual review and revision of budget principals and key projects is the first step in the budget process. Staff will incorporate the City Council budget goals into the first draft of the proposed FY 2026-27 Budget, at which time the City Council can prioritize the goals based on available resources.
Attachments:
1. Strategic Plan
Alignment with 2025-2029 Strategic Plan Priority: Accountable Government Report Prepared By: Jim Malberg, Finance Director
Reviewed By: Julia Gautho, City Clerk; Chloé Woodmansee, Assistant to the City Manager Approved By: Jamie Goldstein, City Manager
467
Item 9 E.
FY 2026-27
Budget Goals
& Priorities
MARCH 26, 2026
468
Item 9 E.
Strategic Plan &
Priorities
Departments
considered Priorities
when preparing FY
2026-27 Budget and
Goals
469
Item 9 E.
PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED CIP
• Stockton Bridge Rehabilitation
• Community Center Complex projects
• Cliff Drive Resiliency
• Park at Rispin Mansion: landscaping &
additional elements
• 41st Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation &
Multimodal Improvements
• Pavement Management
• Esplanade Park Design
• Grand Avenue Pathway design
• Bay Avenue Corridor Improvements
PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED
PLANNING/PROGRAMS
• Five-Year CIP
• Capitola Wharf Master Plan
• Climate Action Plan Update
• Active Transportation Plan
• 41st/Clares Corridor Plan
470
Item 9 E.
City Manager
FY 2026-27 Goals
Accountable Government
• City Council election: three seats
• Employee contract negotiations
Healthy Families, Communities, and Environment
• Beach Lifeguard Services Organizational Study
471
Item 9 E.
Administrative Services
FY 2026-27 Goals
Accountable Government
• Improve fiscal transparency
• Transition to paperless HR Division
Economic Opportunity
• Return TOT administration to internal staff
472
Item 9 E.
Police Department
FY 2026-27 Goals
Community Safety
• Anti Human Trafficking Ordinance
• Countywide records management system rollout
• Continued funding for: Drone Program, RING, Body
Worn cameras
473
Item 9 E.
Community & Economic Development
FY 2026-27 Goals
Attainable Housing
• Housing Element Implementation: Down payment
assistance program, update nexus study for rental housing Economic Opportunity
• Development impact fees - 41st Avenue
• Review Outdoor Dining program
• Continue working with Mall, Village hotel owners and
other economic development opportunities
• Ordinance updates: Community Benefits, ADUs, Bicycle
Parking, Hotel Incentives
474
Item 9 E.
Community Services & Recreation
FY 2026-27 Goals
Accountable Government
• Update Community Center rental package
Healthy Families, Community, & Environment
• Explore and develop new opportunities related to
renovated facilities
475
Item 9 E.
Department Goals/Projects with New Fiscal
Needs
General Fund
• Development impact fees
• Police technology
• Beach Lifeguard Services
Organizational Study
• Elections
• Employee negotiations
• Fiscal transparency
• HR software
Special Revenue Fund
• Rental housing nexus study
• Police technology
476
Item 9 E.
Department Goals/Projects with New Fiscal
Needs
General Fund
• Development impact fees
• Police technology
• Beach Lifeguard Services
Organizational Study
• Election
• Employee negotiations
• Fiscal transparency
• HR software
Special Revenue Fund
• Rental housing nexus study
• Police technology
477
Item 9 E.
Budget Considerations
• Structurally balanced with mid-year budget amendment
Current Fiscal Year General Fund
• $300,000 below budget target of $500,000
Estimated June 30, 2026, General Fund Balance
• Contingency: $2.5 million
• $441,000 below target
• Emergency: $1.6 million
• $326,000 below target
Reserve Fund Balances
478
Item 9 E.
Budget Considerations
• Storm damages still under FEMA/Cal OES review
• Storm damage insurance claims
• Surplus land sale
• Building permit fees
• Repayment of delinquent TOT
Potential One Time Revenue Increases – Not Budgeted
Consider at midyear review if revenue is realized
479
Item 9 E.
Recommended Council Action
• Identify goals and related key projects for Fiscal Year 2026-27 • Proposed fiscal goal for FY 2026-27, splitting unallocated GF:
• 50% to City’s cash fund balance
• 50% to projects
480
Item 9 E.
Budget Review Process
Draft Budget Published • Friday, April 17
Initial FAC Budget Review • Tuesday, May 5
• Wednesday, May 6: Overview & questions
• Thursday, May 21: CIP, follow-up from May 7
• June 3 & 18: If needed
City Council Budget Hearings
(special City Council meetings)
• Thursday, June 25 City Council Budget Adoption
(latest)
481
Item 9 E.