Agenda packet — Capitola City Council, May 14, 2026 (part 1 of 3)

REVISED 5/14/2026 AT 3:50 PM
City of Capitola
City Council Meeting Agenda
Thursday, May 14, 2026 – 6:00 PM
City Council Chambers
420 Capitola Avenue, Capitola, CA 95010
Mayor: Margaux Morgan
Vice Mayor: Gerry Jensen
Council Members: Joe Clarke, Melinda Orbach, Susan Westman Closed Session – 5:30 PM
Closed Sessions are not open to the public and held only on specific topics allowed by State Law (noticed below). An announcement regarding the items to be discussed in Closed Session will be made in the City Hall Council Chambers prior to the Closed Session. Members of the public may, at this time, address the City Council on closed session items only. There will be a report of any final decisions in City Council Chambers during the Open Session Meeting.
i. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Gov’t. Code §54956.9(d)(2), (e)(3) One Case
Regular Meeting of the Capitola City Council – 6 PM

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

2. Additions and Deletions to the Agenda

3. Presentations
Presentations are limited to eight minutes.

A. Proclamation Declaring May 18 - May 25, 2026, as National Beach Safety Week B. Presentation of the 2025 Herb Ross Officer of the Year Award to Sergeant Kraig Evans C. Presentation of Certificates of Recognition to the Inaugural Members of the Police Chief Advisory Committee

4. Report on Closed Session

5. Additional Materials
Additional information related to an agenda item on this agenda and submitted to the City after distribution of the agenda packet pursuant to Government Code §54957.5. All correspondence received prior to 5:00 p.m. on the Wednesday preceding a Council Meeting will be distributed to Councilmembers to review prior to the meeting. Information submitted after 5 p.m. on that Wednesday may not have time to reach Councilmembers, nor be read by them prior to consideration of an item.

A. Item 9A - Correspondence Received
1 City Council Meeting Agenda – May 14, 2026
City of Capitola Page 2
B. Item 9B - Correspondence Received

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

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

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

A. City Council Meeting Minutes
Recommended Action: Approve minutes from the special meeting on April 21, 2026, the regular meeting on April 23, 2026, the special meeting on April 30, 2026, and the special meeting on May 6, 2026.

B. Liability Claim
Recommended Action: Deny liability claim from Julissa Guzman.

C. Fiscal Year 2026-27 Appropriation Limit
Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution setting the Fiscal Year 2026-27 appropriation limit.

D. Appointment to City Advisory Body
Recommended Action: By motion and vote, appoint Raymond Gaeta to the Capitola Historical Museum Board to a term expiring June 30, 2028.

E. Proposed Expansion of Marine Protected Areas
Recommended Action: Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter opposing the petition under consideration by the California Fish and Game Commission, which requests to expand the boundaries of Natural Bridges State Marine Reserve (SMR) and designate a new state marine conservation area (SMCA) off Pleasure Point.

F. Support for State Budget Request for Public Beach Restoration Program Funding Recommended Action: Authorize the Mayor to execute a letter supporting the allocation of $200 million in Proposition 4 Climate Bond funding for the Department of Boating and Waterways Public Beach Restoration Program.

G. Escalona Avenue Right-of-Way Vacation, Parcel Creation, and Reservation of Easements Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution: 1) vacating a portion of the Escalona Avenue rightof-way, approving creation of a parcel, and reserving a public open space easement and a public access easement over the parcel; and 2) authorizing the City Manager to execute and record all documents necessary to effectuate these actions, subject to minor modifications approved by the City Manager, City Engineer, and City Attorney.
2 City Council Meeting Agenda – May 14, 2026
City of Capitola Page 3
H. Local Roadway Safety Plan and Long-Term Roadway Safety Goal Recommended Action: 1) Adopt the City of Capitola Local Roadway Safety Plan; and 2) adopt a resolution establishing a long-term goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and serious injuries on Capitola roadways by 2045, consistent with Safe System and Vision Zero principles.

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

A. Bay Avenue Corridor Project Update & Rule 20A Coordination Recommended Action: Receive an update regarding the Bay Avenue Corridor Project, including completed outreach, available funding opportunities, and Rule 20A utility undergrounding coordination; confirm whether to continue coordinating corridor improvements with underground utility work; and provide direction on which project components to advance.

B. Transition to By-District Elections
Recommended Action: Receive a presentation on the transition to by-district elections, receive community input, and provide direction to staff and the demographer regarding the composition of voting districts and number of districts.

C. Amendment to FY 2025-26 City Fee Schedule
Recommended Action: Conduct the duly noticed public hearing on the proposed amendments to the City Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2025–26 and adopt a resolution amending the current fee schedule, effective May 14, 2026.

D. FY 2026-27 City Fee Schedule
Recommended Action: Conduct the duly noticed public hearing on the proposed changes to the City’s Fee Schedule and adopt a resolution approving the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Fee Schedule.

10. Adjournment
The next regularly scheduled City Council meeting is on May 28, 2026, at 6:00 PM. _____________________________________________________
How to View the Meeting
Meetings are open to the public for in-person attendance at the Capitola City Council Chambers located at 420 Capitola Avenue, Capitola, California, 95010.

Other ways to Watch:

Spectrum Cable Television channel 8
City of Capitola, California YouTube Channel
How to Provide Comments to the City Council
Members of the public may provide public comments to the City Council in-person during the meeting.

If you are unable to attend in-person, please email your comments to [email protected] and they will be included as a part of the record for the meeting.

Notice regarding City Council: The City Council meets on the 2nd and 4th Thursday of each month at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 420 Capitola Avenue, Capitola. 3 City Council Meeting Agenda – May 14, 2026
City of Capitola Page 4
Agenda and Agenda Packet Materials: The City Council Agenda and the complete Agenda Packet are available for review on the City’s website and at Capitola City Hall prior to the meeting. Need more information? Contact the City Clerk’s office at 831-475-7300.

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

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

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

Televised Meetings: City Council meetings are cablecast “Live” on Charter Communications Cable TV Channel 8 and are recorded to be rebroadcasted at 8:00 a.m. on the Wednesday following the meetings and at 1:00 p.m. on Saturday following the first rebroadcast on Community Television of Santa Cruz County (Charter Channel 71 and Comcast Channel 25). Meetings are streamed “Live” on the City’s website by clicking on the Home Page link “Meeting Agendas/Videos.” Archived meetings can be viewed from the website at any time. 4 5
Item i.
6 Item i.
7 Item i.
8 Item i.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Vicki Guinn <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 8, 2026 5:17 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Meeting 5/14/26 Agenda Item 9 Bay Avenue Corridor Dear City Council, I am unable to attend the 5/14 meeting but wanted to voice my concern for roundabouts in the Bay Avenue Corridor. My own observations with the City of Santa Cruz roundabouts by the Wharf is that there a great deal of tourist and unfamiliar driver confusion in them. Granted, those two locations seem more feasible but, I can count on two hands how many times I've been cut off or almost side-swiped in those two roundabouts by unfamiliar drivers desperately trying to figure out where to go. No one could be thinking about pedestrians, Ebikes and Bicycles when frantically trying to navigate through unfamiliar lanes.

The Diagram for the Bay Avenue Corridor roundabouts with residential driveways, additional street turns, business entrances etc give a chaotic impression once you visualze adding cars, delivery trucks, tour buses, RV's, EBikes, Bicycles and Pedestrians. Chaotic traffic confusion is never going to be cost wise.

Points of Concern:

While roundabouts can drastically reduce fatal head-on collisions, not our issue, they tend to increase minor side-swipe "fender benders", especially among those unsure of right-of-way rules.

Tourist towns often have high EBike, bicycle and foot traffic. Concern that roundabouts prioritize vehicles over pedestrian safety and convenience, often forcing walkers to take indirect paths to find a crossing.

Roundabouts do impact and can be counter-intuitive for neurodivergent drivers or those accustomed to the structured Lanes of traffic lights. In tourist hubs, this confusion is magnified as visitors may stop in the middle to check directions, defeating the purpose of constant flow.

Our tourist area rely on buses and tour coaches that can struggle to navigate tight circles, often requiring them to mount center aprons or straddle multiple lanes.

In historic or scenic towns, the large land mass required for a roundabout can be seen as destructive to green spaces or out of character with a "small town" feel, or basically unnecessary. 9 Item 5 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: michael routh <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 8, 2026 5:25 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Item 9A,
Moving on from Bay Avenue BOONDOGGLE #1 To bigger and more expensive irreversible BOONDOGGLE #2.

Mayor and Council Members,
Spending rapidly depleƟng revenue on another Bay Avenue boondoggle at either of the two intersecƟons is just making one bad decision aŌer another. The proposals are almost schizophrenic- the first aimed to gum up traffic to make pedestrians crossings "safer", the roundabout proposal claims to "improve" the flow of traffic. Pedestrians be damned! The Bay Avenue intersecƟon configuraƟons can be found in every city and town in the country and they work. No intersecƟon is ever perfect and accident free, but Bay/Hill and Bay/Cap Ave are probably the most efficient and safest configuraƟon for both motorists and pedestrians without puƫng in a stoplight. Instead of embarking on another foolhardy plan, set aside funds unƟl enough for signalizaƟon is accumulated. New AI technology being uƟlized in traffic lights could be a problem solver.

Mick Routh
Sent from my iPad
10 Item 5 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Tracy Armanino <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2026 12:38 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Roundabouts
Ugh! What a terrible idea. Both my husband, Andy Armanino, and myself are hugely opposed to these changes. They are difficult for the older populaƟon in Capitola.

This is a small and wonderful city, please do not make it more complicated! Keep it simple, the red flags seem to be doing a good job.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it…someone wise once said.

Tracy ARMANINO
Ps. If you have money for roundabouts, how about filling in all the potholes in the city and repaint the very hard to see white lines between traffic lanes, now THERE are accidents waiƟng to happen! Sent from my iPhone
11 Item 5 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Kevin Maguire <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 7:48 AM
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: [PDF] 5/14/26 Agenda Item 9 A. Bay Avenue Corridor Project Update & Rule 20A Coordination
Attachments: Bay Corridor review.pdf
Subject: Opposition to Bay Avenue Roundabout Proposals — Agenda Item 9A, May 14, 2026 Dear Mayor Morgan and Members of the Capitola City Council, I am writing in opposition to the proposed roundabouts at Bay Avenue & Hill Street and Bay Avenue & Capitola Avenue (Agenda Item 9A, May 14, 2026). I have reviewed the Kimley-Horn Bay Avenue Corridor Study, the City's Local Roadway Safety Plan, and the full agenda packet in detail. I respectfully ask the Council to consider the following five points before taking action:

1. YOUR OWN DATA PROVES SIGNALS ARE SAFER THAN ROUNDABOUTS The City's Local Roadway Safety Plan (Table 4) shows that signalized intersections in Capitola have a fatal and severe injury rate of just 5.1%. Unsignalized intersections — the category a roundabout falls into — run at 17.5%, more than three times higher. The City is proposing to convert a stop-controlled intersection into an unsignalized one in a city already ranked #1 in California for seniors 65 and older killed or injured in crashes (OTS Table 2, 2023). The Kimley-Horn study and the LRSP together make the case against a roundabout. The City's own data should not be used to justify a design that moves this intersection into the more dangerous category.

ADA violation: A roundabout cannot accommodate blind and visually impaired pedestrians — federal PROWAG standards require Accessible Pedestrian Signals with audible and tactile crossing cues, and without a signal phase to attach them to, a blind resident at Bay & Hill would have no way to safely determine when it is safe to cross. This would put visually impaired residents of Hill Street, Capitola Hill Apartment at grave risk, and force them to detour to center street, some 300 feet away, Liability: By approving a roundabout over overwhelming community opposition, documented evidence that signals are safer, and the City's own data showing the corridor is already improving, the Council is hereby on notice — if pedestrian injuries or fatalities increase after this project is built, the City will bear full moral and legal responsibility for ignoring the public record placed before it tonight.

2. THE COMMUNITY ALREADY SAID NO — AND NOTHING HAS CHANGED In September 2025, the Council directed removal of the quick-build lane reduction at Bay & Hill following significant community opposition. The roundabout proposal requires that same road diet — now made permanent at a cost of $2 to $3.5 million. The residents who opposed it in 2025 are the same residents opposing it tonight. The only thing that has changed is the price tag.

3. POLICE DATA SHOWS THE CORRIDOR IS GETTING SAFER WITHOUT A ROUNDABOUT Capitola PD moving citations peaked at 1,438 in 2023 and have dropped to 791 in 2025 — a 45% decline 12 Item 5 A.
2 — following the restoration of the intersection to its original two-lane all-way stop configuration. The 2026 pace projects to approximately 667 citations annually, the lowest in eight years. Per the LRSP (page 172), these are officer-initiated enforcement records reflecting actual corridor conditions. The current configuration is working. Driver behavior is improving. This is not a corridor in crisis — it is a corridor that is stabilizing, and it is doing so without a roundabout.

4. A SIGNAL WILL BE LEGALLY REQUIRED HERE BY 2045 — SO BUILD IT ONCE Table 7 of the KimleyHorn study confirms that Bay & Hill will meet California's mandatory MUTCD Signal Warrant 3 threshold by the 2045 PM peak, driven by development the City has already approved: the Capitola Mall redevelopment, the Farmers Market site, and the Dignity Healthcare campus expansion. By 2045, the study projects total intersection volume at Bay & Hill reaching 2,094 vehicles per hour during the PM peak — with southbound traffic alone hitting 897 vehicles per hour, one vehicle every 4 seconds. At that volume, a senior or mobility-impaired resident attempting to cross in a roundabout would need to find a 30 to 40 second gap in a stream of traffic averaging a 4-second headway. That crossing will be not just difficult — it will be functionally impossible.

The proposed solution to this pedestrian problem is a Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon crosswalk on Center Street, approximately 300 feet from the roundabout. At 897 southbound vehicles per hour, a single senior crossing activation stops 6 to 8 vehicles for 35 seconds, generating a queue of 150 to 200 feet that extends directly back into the roundabout's yield exit zone. A roundabout has no signal phase to hold exiting vehicles — they enter Bay Avenue southbound and immediately collide with that stopped queue, blocking the roundabout exit and locking up the entire intersection. The City's proposed pedestrian fix creates a bottleneck that defeats the roundabout's only operational advantage. A traffic signal at Bay & Hill eliminates the need for the Center Street beacon entirely, provides a protected crossing phase at the intersection itself, and costs half as much to build. Approving a $2 to $3.5 million roundabout today means the City will face pressure to retrofit or replace it with a signal within approximately 20 years — at additional cost and disruption. The study the City commissioned tells you what the correct answer is — on page 28.

5. THE CONSULTANT MADE VERIFIABLE FACTUAL ERRORS IN THEIR OWN REPORT The Social Pinpoints community engagement survey on page 130 of the Kimley-Horn study lists the top contributor ZIP code as 95039 — which is Moss Landing, Monterey County, not Capitola. Capitola's ZIP code is 95010. Other data points in the same report correctly use 95010, confirming this is a transcription error by the consultant. If Kimley-Horn cannot accurately record the ZIP code of the city they were hired to study, the Council should ask: what other errors exist in this report? A document with verifiable factual mistakes in its community engagement data — used to justify a permanent $2 to $3.5 million infrastructure decision — does not meet the standard this Council should require. I would also note that the study's crash table (Table 5) claims to cover data through December 2024, yet the last entry is October 2023, leaving a 14-month gap in the crash record.

I respectfully ask the Council to: deny approval of both roundabout proposals; direct staff to analyze a traffic signal at Bay & Hill as the primary alternative consistent with the 2045 warrant already confirmed in the City's own study; and require a corrected crash analysis and updated safety data for Bay & Capitola before any vote is taken on that intersection.

Thank you for your service to our community and for your consideration of these concerns. For more indepth analysis, view the attached PDF 13 Item 5 A.
3 Respectfully,
Keivn Maguire
838 Monterey Ave. Capitola 95010
[email protected]
14 Item 5 A.
5/9/26, 5:19 PM Bay Ave Roundabout — Multi-Role Safety Analysis May 14, 2026

BAY AVENUE ROUNDABOUT - MULTI-ROLE SAFETY ANALYSIS
Agenda Item 9A • Bay Avenue Corridor Project Update & Rule 20A Coordination City Council Meeting • Thursday, May 14, 2026 • 6:00 PM • 420 Capitola Avenue NEW since the February 2025 Kimley-Horn study: The May 2026 agenda packet contains updated 2045 cumulative traffic counts that are substantially higher than the 2024 baseline -and documents a new severeinjury pedestrian crash at Bay/Capitola in 2025 lot included in the original study. These updates strengthen the case against a roundabout. A UPDATED TRAFFIC DATA - 2045 CUMULATIVE COUNTS (FROM AGENDA PACKET )

BAY/HILL SB THROUGH -PM
PEAK (20-45 )

BAY/HILL TOTAL SB -PM PEAK
( 2045)

BAY/HILL TOTAL INTERSECTION
- PM PEAK ( 2045 )
717 829 1,951
t
from 505 in 2024 baseline (+42%)
t
from 1,322 in 2024 (+48%) — all
movements
SBL 146 + SBT 717 + SBR 34 + others»
829/hr

TRAFFIC ENGINEER ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT
Vehicle LOS is a statistical tie at Bay/Hill. Tables 8 & 9 show both roundabout (Alt 2) and signal (Alt 3) achieve LOS A/B at this intersection under 2024 conditions. The roundabout shows 7.8s delay AM, signal file:///C:/Users/kmaguire/Downloads/bay_hill_council_analysis.html 1/7 HWY 1 SB RAMP TOTAL - PM
PEAK (2045)
24)82
SBL 370 + SBT 351+ EB 417+208+640
combined
ANSWER TO QUESTION - IS THE 700/HR ONE DIRECTION OR BOTH? The 700 vehicles/hour figure is southbound only -one direction — at Hill Street during the PM peak (2024 baseline). It consists of: SBL (left turns)146 + SBT (through) 505 + SBR (right turns) 49 = 700 SB vehicles/hour. The northbound flow at the same time is 46 + 307 + 21 = 374 vehicles/hour. Combined two-directional Bay Ave flow at Hill St = 1,074 vehicles/hour in 2024. Under the 2045 cumulative projections in the new agenda packet, the SB flow alone reaches approximately 829/hr and the combined total reaches 1,951/hr — nearly double. Every pedestrian crossing argument becomes significantly stronger with the updated numbers.
15 Item 5 A.
16 Item 5 A.
17 Item 5 A.
18 Item 5 A.
19 Item 5 A.
20 Item 5 A.
21 Item 5 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Nels Westman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 1:09 PM
To: City Council
Subject: 5/14/26 CC Agenda Item 9A

Dear Mayor and Council Members,

I am very much opposed to the City wasting good money to return Bay Ave to its spectacularly unsuccessful single-lane configuration and to construct expensive roundabouts at the Hill St. and Capitola Ave. intersections. Kimley-Horn’s theory that both congestion and safety will be improved by Roundabouts is laughable.

IMPROVING PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLIST SAFETY WAS THE STATED REASON WHY A PRIOR COUNCIL EMBARKED ON THIS EXPENSIVE PROJECT.

The current proposal accomplishes neither and will dramatically increase traffic congestion over the current configuration. Worst of all it will be permanent with generations of future Capitolans being cursed with Bay Ave. congestion and less pedestrian and bicyclist safety.

This is a very compact ( 80’ diameter at Hill St) single lane roundabout with four busy entry/exit points and significant pedestrian and cyclist traffic. Divers must be focused on the left careful to not hit another car while merging into the roundabout or cars slowing or stopping in front of them while understandably having less time to carefully look to the right for pedestrians and cyclists.

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY

Pedestrians, particularly mobility impaired or visually impaired, can reasonably be expected to take 30 to 40 seconds to cross Bay which will result in entering/exiting cars having to stop and wait for them. The result? Gridlock in the roundabout and backed up cars in the single lanes. . Nothing smooth and continually in motion. As regards mobility and visually impaired pedestrians, these roundabouts show none of the yield markings (sharks teeth) or any of the federal or state requirements for positive stops and audible signals to aid pedestrians.

22 Item 5 A.
2 BICYCLE/E-BIKE SAFETY

Alarmingly bicycle lanes weave around quite a bit in the approaches to the roundabout, but they disappear in the roundabout, apparently after directing bikes onto the sidewalks and into the pedestrian crosswalks. This is very dangerous for both pedestrians and bicyclists It is naïve to think that youthful E-bikers will do this. Rather, they will take their chances merging with cars to get through faster, possibly even short cutting across the center of the roundabout. In my opinion navigating these roundabouts will result in significantly more car vs bike and bike vs pedestrian accidents.

BOTTOM LINE

1. DON’T pursue this expensive roundabout gamble based on Kimley-Horn’s flawed assumptions.

2. Do proceed with a Bay Ave table design crosswalk at Center St with button actuated flashing warning lights.

3. Do proceed with improved lighting at Bay/Hill and Bay/Cap Ave intersections and up Hill Street.

4. If you do decide to roll the dice on roundabouts DO NOT proceed until after the Cliff Resiliency and the Stockton Ave Bridge repair or replacement projects are completed. Have mercy on us.

Thank you for your consideration.

Nels Westman

23 Item 5 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: capcouncil (null) <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 2:03 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda 5/14/26 Item 9A
I just finished reading Nels Westman’s email about the roundabouts. Hope you take the Ɵme to read it also. I could take up a lot of your Ɵme reading my thoughts, but Nels has pointed out everything that needs to be said.

Bruce Arthur
Sent from my iPhone
24 Item 5 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Tory Delfavero <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 2:25 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Item 9A: Roundabouts on Bay Avenue
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
Please do not move forward with the proposed roundabouts on Bay Avenue.

While I fully support efforts to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety along the corridor, roundabouts do not appear to be the right solution here.

The staff report acknowledges that peak-period congestion is expected to persist under any intersection configuration, and then states that proposed improvements such as reduced conflict points and traffic calming MAY improve corridor function.

This project represents a significant investment of public funds. "May improve" is simply not a sufficient standard to justify it.

If congestion will remain regardless and the functional benefits are uncertain, I respectfully ask that the Council not move forward with this project.

Kindly,
Tory Del Favero
Capitola Resident
25 Item 5 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Judith Feinman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 2:50 PM
To: City Council
Subject: CC Agenda 5/14/26 Item 9A

Dear Mayor and Council Members,

I am very much opposed to the City spending money to return Bay Ave to its spectacularly unsuccessful single-lane
configuration and to construct expensive roundabouts at the Hill St. and Capitola Ave. intersections.the theory that both congestion and safety will be improved by Roundabouts is laughable.

IMPROVING PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLIST SAFETY WAS THE

STATED REASON WHY A PRIOR COUNCIL EMBARKED ON
THIS EXPENSIVE PROJECT.

It is important to wrap our minds around the fact that during the peak AM and PM periods over 1,000 cars pass through the Bay/Hill intersection (both directions) per hour. This does not include Hill Street and Nob Hill traffic. Kimley-Horn contends there will be little or no congestion in the single traffic lanes approaching the roundabouts because cars will move smoothly and non-stop through the roundabout. That is not a realistic assumption. This is a very compact ( 80’ diameter at Hill St) single lane
roundabout with four busy entry/exit points and significant pedestrian and cyclist traffic. Divers must be focused on the left careful to not hit another car while merging into the roundabout or cars slowing or stopping in front of them while 26 Item 5 A.
2 understandably having less time to carefully look to the right for pedestrians and cyclists.

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY

BICYCLE/E-BIKE SAFETY

Alarmingly bicycle lanes weave around quite a bit in the approaches to the roundabout, but they disappear in the roundabout, apparently after directing bikes onto the sidewalks and into the pedestrian crosswalks. This is very dangerous for both pedestrians and bicyclists It is naïve to think that youthful Ebikers will do this. Rather, they will take their chances merging with cars to get through faster, possibly even short cutting across the center of the roundabout. In my opinion navigating these roundabouts will result in significantly more car vs bike and bike vs pedestrian accidents.

PLEASE;

1. DON’T pursue this expensive roundabout gamble based on flawed assumptions.

2. Do proceed with a Bay Ave table design crosswalk at Center St with button actuated flashing warning lights.

3. Do proceed with improved lighting at Bay/Hill and Bay/Cap Ave intersections and up Hill Street.

4. If you do decide to roll the dice on roundabouts DO NOT proceed until after the Cliff Resiliency and the Stockton Ave Bridge repair or replacement projects are completed. Have mercy on us.

Thank you, Judith Feinman…...

27 Item 5 A.
3 28
Item 5 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Doug Thom <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 3:10 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Bay Avenue Corridors
Dear City Council,
We wanted to express our support of the Bay Avenue Corridor improvements, in parƟcular the two traffic circles proposed at Hill and Capitola Streets and any other supporƟve acƟviƟes pertaining to this long-term plan.

Thanks,
Doug & Susan Thom, 117 Central Ave., Capitola, CA
29 Item 5 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Mikaela Martorella <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 3:20 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Bay Ave May 14th Meeting
Hello City Council,
I’m writing to oppose the possible roundabouts at Bay Avenue. We all saw how bad it was when it was one lane, I have personally almost been hit many times coming off the freeway onto Bay Avenue as people were not aware the right lane was turn only into Nob Hill. The traffic is bad enough and that intersection backs up so far, people are annoyed and driving reckless causing accidents. We all know more accidents will happen if the roundabouts move forward. I want to see the intersection remain how it is until it breaks and a new solution is needed.

Mikaela Martorella
30 Item 5 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: The Martorella's <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 3:22 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Bay Avenue (May 14th Meeting)
Dear Members of the City Council,
I write to you as a concerned resident regarding the proposed roundabout installations along Bay Avenue, and I ask that you consider this letter a firm and reasoned objection to that plan.

Those of us who live adjacent to Bay Avenue and depend on it throughout the day have not forgotten the singlelane configuration. It was, by nearly every measure, a failure. Traffic worsened, pedestrian safety deteriorated, and the quality of life for residents along that corridor suffered considerably. The restoration of the two-lane configuration was not merely welcomed; it was a relief. The proposal to revert to restricted flow and compound it with two roundabouts is, frankly, difficult to comprehend.

Our town is small and our traffic is not. During summer months, Bay Avenue the primary thoroughfare into town, is already under significant strain. Introducing roundabouts to that corridor would not ease congestion; it would manufacture it. The logistics alone are troubling: e-bikes navigating tight turn radii, large delivery vehicles attempting to enter and exit near Nob Hill, and seasonal visitor traffic all converging in a newly constrained roadway. This proposal appears to have been developed without the lived experience of those who use this road daily.

Equally concerning is the fiscal reality. Bay Avenue was recently returned to its current configuration at considerable expense. The cost of yet another study for not one, but TWO roundabouts is a burden this town simply cannot justify, particularly when a far more sensible solution exists.

Two well-placed pedestrian crosswalks would address the core safety concern at a fraction of the cost and with minimal disruption:
• One crosswalk at Center Street, across from the senior housing development. This location offers strong sightlines and natural pedestrian flow, well removed from the congestion at the Nob Hill stop sign. A raised crosswalk with solar-activated warning lights consistent with what we already have in the village would serve this location well.
• A second crosswalk past Gayle's, near Rosedale. Again, situated away from a formal intersection, this crossing would serve a logical and well-traveled pedestrian route without disrupting traffic patterns.

Depending on the treatment selected, painted, lighted, or raised, both installations can be completed at a cost that is genuinely comparable, and responsible. They do not require a feasibility study. They do not require years of planning. They solve the problem.

I urge the Council to keep Bay Avenue in its current two-lane configuration and to pursue the crosswalk solution outlined above. The residents who live on and use this corridor every day will notice the difference. So will the visitors who come here to enjoy what makes our town worth visiting. 31 Item 5 A.
2 Marie Martorella
32 Item 5 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: E Rock <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 4:35 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Council Agenda, Thursday, May 14, 2026 - 6:00pm—Bay Avenue Roundabout Please do not approve the Bay Street roundabout proposals! I have been driving Bay Avenue at different Ɵmes of the day for over 40 years. I have also driven roundabouts in other ciƟes, including those in England.

The roundabout for Bay/Hill St and Bay/Capitola Ave is not a good idea. Bay Avenue at Hill Street needs to stay two lanes in each direcƟon, plus leŌ turn lanes. The four way stop intersecƟons are working fine. It does get a liƩle crowded at beginning and end of a school day, but otherwise there are no backups. And pedestrians crossing the street is not a problem either, in spite of what iniƟated this whole process.

I would appreciate not approving the roundabouts. Please do not spend the money on changes that will not make anything beƩer, just worse.

Emma Rock
707 Gilroy Dr.

Capitola CA
33 Item 5 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Teresa Maguire <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 7:03 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: May 14th Item 9. A. Children's Safety at Risk — Bay Avenue Roundabout Demands a Full End-to-End Traffic Study
Dear Mayor Morgan and Members of the Capitola City Council, My name is Teresa Maguire. I own and operate a licensed home childcare at 838 Monterey Ave. in Capitola's Cliffwood Heights neighborhood, at Monterey Avenue and Kennedy Drive. Every day I am responsible for the safety of young children being dropped off and picked up from my home. Every day I watch speeding cars, impatient drivers, and cut-through traffic race past a licensed childcare facility on a narrow residential street — and I am writing to tell you that the proposed roundabouts on Bay Avenue will make that worse.

We are one block from New Brighton Middle School. Dozens of children — many on e-bikes — travel through our neighborhood streets every morning and afternoon. They ride on Monterey Avenue, Kennedy Drive, Sir Francis Avenue, Loma Avenue, and the surrounding Cliffwood Heights streets. These are not arterial roads built for high-speed through traffic. They are residential streets with no bike lanes, no traffic calming, and no safe crossing infrastructure. And they are already being used as a bypass route every time Highway 1 or Bay Avenue backs up.

This Council already tried a single-lane configuration on Bay Avenue and removed it in September 2025 after the community rejected it. The roundabout proposal requires that same road diet — now made permanent. We said no once. We are saying no again.

A ROUNDABOUT MOVES THE BACKUP — IT DOESN'T FIX IT
The Kimley-Horn study projects vehicle volume at Monterey Avenue and Park Avenue reaching 1,508 vehicles per hour by 2045 — a 37% increase over today's already-strained 1,096 vehicles per hour. A roundabout at Bay & Hill may improve flow at that single intersection, but it pushes the backup downstream into Cliffwood Heights, directly past my childcare, directly past New Brighton Middle School, and directly into the streets where children on e-bikes are riding every single day. The City's own study documents residents reporting vehicles traveling 35 to 40 miles per hour on Monterey Avenue, a blind spot at the McCormick-Loma intersection, and children with no safe bike route to school. A severeinjury bicycle crash has already been recorded at Kennedy Drive and Sir Francis Avenue — the intersection I look out at from my childcare window.

THE STUDY DOESN'T LOOK AT OUR STREETS
The Kimley-Horn study was scoped from Highway 1 to Park Avenue. It ends exactly where Cliffwood Heights begins. There is no analysis of what happens to Monterey Avenue, Kennedy Drive, Loma Avenue, McCormick Avenue, or Washburn Avenue when Bay Avenue traffic is redistributed. Monterey Avenue has a right-of-way of just 38 feet — a narrow residential street already carrying nearly 900 vehicles per hour at peak — and the City's own study confirms Monterey and Park Avenue already meet California's signal warrant threshold today, yet nothing has been done. The City is being asked to approve a permanent $2 to $3.5 million infrastructure decision without ever modeling its impact on the neighborhood that 34 Item 5 A.
2 absorbs its consequences.

MY REQUEST
I ask this Council for three things:

1. Oppose the roundabout. It is not a safety improvement for the children, families, and elderly residents of Cliffwood Heights.

2. Require a full end-to-end traffic study — from Highway 1 through Cliffwood Heights — before any Bay Avenue alternative is approved. The study must include Monterey Avenue, Park Avenue, Kennedy Drive, Sir Francis Avenue, Loma Avenue, McCormick Avenue, and Washburn Avenue, and must model the cutthrough diversion impact of each alternative on our residential streets.

3. Address the documented safety failures on Monterey Avenue and the surrounding streets now — independent of whatever happens on Bay Avenue — because children are using those streets today.

I will not be at the May 14 meeting. The children in my care, and the children riding their e-bikes to New Brighton Middle School every morning, deserve a Council that looks at the full picture before it acts.

Respectfully,
Teresa Maguire
Capitola CA 95010
35 Item 5 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Sara Wainer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 10:52 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Support for Bay / Hill Roundabout
Hi there,
I'm a resident of Depot Hill in Capitola and I just saw a flyer from a fellow resident encouraging people to push back on the Bay / Hill roundabout at the May 14 City Council meeting. I likely won't be able to attend, but I want to say that, unlike my neighbor, I FULLY SUPPORT THE ROUNDABOUT. Please install it.

My daughter is starting TK at Main Street Elementary in August and I want to be able to get her to school safely, whether by bike or by car. The current 10 way stop intersection is a confusing nightmare. No one can keep track of whose turn it is to go, and then you throw a pedestrian in the mix and everyone's brains shut down. It doesn't work and people are dying.

There is plenty of data to show that roundabouts are safer for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists. They move traffic more quickly and are better for the environment. It's a win win win win win.

Please build it, and build one by Gayle's while you're at it because that intersection is insane as well.

Thank you,
Sara Wainer
36 Item 5 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Brian Hawes <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 11:15 AM
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: Agenda item 9 A. Opposition to Bay Avenue Roundabout — Cliffwood Heights Resident Subject: Opposition to Bay Avenue Roundabout — Cliffwood Heights Resident Dear Mayor Morgan and Members of the Capitola City Council, My name is Brian Hawes. I am a homeowner at 813 Orchid Ave in Capitola's Cliffwood Heights neighborhood, and I am writing to oppose the proposed roundabouts at Bay Avenue & Hill Street and Bay Avenue & Capitola Avenue.

Every day when Highway 1 ups, impatient drivers cut through our neighborhood streets at dangerous speeds — through Monterey Avenue, Park Avenue, Kennedy Drive, Wesley, Cabrillo, Orchid, Elinor, Cortez, Sir Francis Avenue, Loma Avenue, McCormick Avenue, and Washburn Avenue. We deal with congestion, gridlock, and drivers doing 35 to 40 miles per hour past homes where children play, ride bikes, and walk to school. This is a residential neighborhood, not a bypass road.

A roundabout at Bay & Hill will not fix this. It will push the backup further downstream — directly into Cliffwood Heights at even higher volumes. The City's own Kimley-Horn study projects traffic at Monterey and Park Avenue growing 37% by 2045 (And requireing a Stop Sign by then), yet the study's scope ends at Park Avenue. There is no analysis of what any Bay Avenue alternative does to our streets.

This Council listened to us in September 2025 and removed the single-lane road diet on Bay Avenue because our community opposed it — approving a roundabout now quietly puts that same lane reduction back, this time in concrete.

Before this Council approves any permanent changes to Bay Avenue, I ask that you require a full traffic impact study on the downstream neighborhood streets of Cliffwood Heights. We should not bear the consequences of a $2 to $3.5 million infrastructure decision that was made without ever looking at our neighborhood.

Respectfully,
Brian Hawes
813 Orchid Ave, Capitola CA 95010
831-970-8191
37 Item 5 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Ariel Braswell Gray <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 7:08 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Yes to Roundabouts!
Dear Capitola City Council,
I am writing in support of roundabouts as part of our Bay Ave Corridor Project.

Roundabouts are efficient, safe, and would be an excellent addition to our Capitola roadways. I am strongly in favor of a roundabout at the intersection near Gayle's (Bay and Capitola) - I think it's the best solution for that intersection. I am also in favor of roundabouts at Bay /Park and Bay / Hill. I think the one at Bay and Capitola is most needed and should happen first.

My reasons to support roundabouts are:
- efficiency: currently there is wasted time trying to see if the other car is going, or if you should go. Roundabouts solve that. Traffic moves with limited wasted time. - safety: especially at Bay and Capitola where the intersection is an odd shape, it is easy for cars to not see a pedestrian, cyclist, or car. Roundabouts improve safety significantly.
- elegance: they are just a really cool traffic solution, and more Californians should know how to navigate them.

It's a shame roundabouts seem to be less common in California. Let's change that.

Thanks for considering,
Ariel Gray
38 Item 5 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: landis Landis <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 9:03 PM
To: City Council
Subject: PLEASE NO ROUNDABOUT ON BAY AVE
Dear Capitola Council Members,
I am a Capitola resident and strongly believe that the proposed roundabout on Bay Ave. will cause way more problems that it could solve. It wilI likely be worse that the disastrous "traffic diet" lane was. I get around on foot and my tricycle, as well as drive a car. I have experience with roundabouts in California and in other countries and have noticed that:
 Roundabouts are totally unsafe for pedestrians
 The one lane roundabout will be disastrous for bicycles, especially students bicycling to/from New Brighton Middle School.
 People get confused in roundabouts and make circle 2-3 times before getting the right exit, especially tourists
 It will be costly AND the construction will create an absolute nightmare I'm begging you to take this option off the table. Roundabouts only make sense in very specific situations and they need a larger space to make sense.

Sincerely,
Jill Landis, Capitola
39 Item 5 A.
40 Item 5 A.
41 Item 5 A.
42 Item 5 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Bob Hickman <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2026 11:35 AM
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: Item 9a on May 14 agenda
Please include the following into the packet thank you
Subject: OpposiƟon to Bay Avenue Roundabout — Cliffwood Heights Resident Dear Mayor Morgan and Members of the Capitola City Council, My name is Bob Hickman I am a home owner on Washburn Ave in Capitola's Cliffwood Heights neighborhood, and I am wriƟng to oppose the proposed roundabouts at Bay Avenue & Hill Street and Bay Avenue & Capitola Avenue.

Every day when Highway 1 ups, impaƟent drivers cut through our neighborhood streets at dangerous speeds — through Monterey Avenue, Park Avenue, Kennedy Drive, Wesley, Cabrillo, Orchid, Elinor, Cortez, Sir Francis Avenue, Loma Avenue, McCormick Avenue, and Washburn Avenue. We deal with congesƟon, gridlock, and drivers doing 35 to 40 miles per hour past homes where children play, ride bikes, and walk to school. This is a residenƟal neighborhood, not a bypass road.

My final thoughts on the roundabout. I personally think this is worse for pedestrians!!! In a roundabout you are always looking leŌ for your opening to get in, so you work your way in and want to go right oh wait there is a cross walk with someone in it you did not see because you were always looking leŌ!! With a stop sign you are looking LeŌ right leŌ then go….Roundabouts and pedestrians do not mix!
Bob Hickman 20+ year Capitola Resident.
43 Item 5 A.
44 Item 5 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Leslie Nielsen <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2026 3:05 PM
To: City Council
Subject: SAFE Solutions for Bay Avenue
Mayor and Council,
Thank you for reviewing the roundabout plans tomorrow night.

The Kimley Horn Study offers the following:

Conclusion and Recommendations: The roundabout configuration (Alternative 2) offers the most optimal solution for minimizing vehicle delays, enhancing traffic safety, and improving multimodal access.

This option, however, requires significant infrastructure investment and potential right-of-way acquisition.

I suspect "traffic safety" could mean ALL traffic .. cars and multi-modal, but please be sure that MULTIMODAL SAFETY is your # 1 priority. Peds and Bikes don't stand a chance against a vehicle.

Our largest demographic slice in the City is seniors. We walk slower and would like to limit the frustration to bikes and vehicles that might be experienced in this design.

The priority should not be improving multimodal access, but multimodal SAFETY.

Please consider the possibility of studying traffic patterns with E-bikes specifically whose ridership is also still emerging as a class of drivers learning new rules. Where has something like this worked in other cities? We could benefit from not trying to be an early adopter of this recommendation.

Maybe it's possible to understand when signals will be required in our future and see if we can manage improvements without something as permanent and expensive as this today.

Thank you again for carefully reviewing the options with Safety as your #1 priority.

Best regards,
Leslie Nielsen
45 Item 5 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Rich Didday <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2026 3:27 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Roundabouts
Dear Council
I strongly oppose the roundabout at the Bay and Hill intersection. It seem inconceivable to me that massive 18 wheel trucks, cars, vans, bicyclists, pedestrians and could coexist there reasonably. What a mess the recent experiment of making Bay Avenue one lane at the intersection proved to be! I witnessed multiple fender bender accidents, plus cars backing up the southbound offramp from Hwy 1.

Thank you
Rich Didday
46 Item 5 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Bev Viguerie <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2026 4:24 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: URGENT!
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Please do not approve any roundabouts for Bay Avenue at Nob Hill or Gayles Bakery! I am a 30 year tax paying resident of Capitola. I live at 209 Washburn Avenue. Vote NO! Let's fix our pot holes and roads first. It's our money! Sincerely,
Bev Viguerie
Sent from my iPhone
47 Item 5 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: LIsa Garrigues <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2026 4:35 PM
To: City Council
Subject: opposition to proposed roundabouts
Dear Council,
As residents of Depot Hill, we are daily impacted by the intersecƟons along Bay Avenue, both at Capitola Road and especially at Nob Hill.

The recent aƩempt to redraw the intersecƟon at Nob Hill, reducing the car lanes from two to one, was a total nightmare, causing backups and near accidents twice daily. We rouƟnely had to add ten minutes to get to Route 1, and many days we had to resort to detours and alternate routes to avoid the intersecƟon altogether.

The proposed roundabouts along Bay Avenue would only cause more confusion and congesƟon. Roundabouts are not common in the United States, rare in the state of California. Residents are not familiar or versed with the rules of the roundabout.

We are adamantly opposed to the proposiƟon.

Sincerely,
Lisa and Mark Garrigues
110 Hollister Avenue
48 Item 5 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Gabe Harris <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2026 4:43 PM
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: Agenda 9A Bay Avenue Corridor Project Update & Rule 20 A Dear Capitola City Council,
I am writing regarding Agenda Item 9A, May 14, 2026. Before this Council approves a $2 to $3.5 million permanent roundabout at Bay Avenue and Hill Street, I ask you to look at one number that the KimleyHorn study contains but does not highlight.

Bay and Hill Street processes approximately 4.9 million vehicle entries per year. Over the 10.8-year study period, the intersection produced 9 documented crashes — a rate of 0.83 crashes per year and 0.17 crashes per million entering vehicles. There were zero fatalities at this intersection. One serious injury occurred approximately every two to three years.

For context:
— The national average crash rate for unsignalized intersections is 0.50 to 1.50 crashes per million entering vehicles. Bay and Hill is at 0.17 — three times lower. — The national average for signalized intersections is 0.30 to 0.80. Bay and Hill is lower than that too. — California's High Injury Network criteria, used to prioritize where safety dollars are spent, requires a rate above 1.0 per million entering vehicles to qualify as a priority location. Bay and Hill is at one-sixth of that threshold.
— Bay and Hill is performing 2.1 times better than the California statewide average for comparable arterial intersections.

This is not a crisis intersection. By every standard traffic engineering benchmark, Bay and Hill is performing at or better than average for its volume class. The Capitola intersections with genuinely elevated crash rates are on 41st Avenue and at the Highway 1 ramps — not here.

The City's own OTS data ranks Capitola among the worst in the state for seniors 65 and older killed or injured, and for bicycle crashes. Those are real safety priorities. But they are driven by other locations in the city — not by an intersection that has produced zero fatalities and fewer than one crash per year over more than a decade of nearly five million annual vehicle entries.

Spending $2 to $3.5 million on the lowest-crash-rate intersection in this corridor, when the same money could address documented high-injury locations elsewhere in Capitola, is not responsible use of public safety funds. The data does not support this project at this location at this price.

I respectfully ask the Council to require staff to present the crash rate per million entering vehicles for 49 Item 5 A.
2 Bay and Hill alongside the state and national benchmarks before any vote is taken. The numbers are in the study. They tell a very different story than the one being presented tonight. --
Best,
Gabe
50 Item 5 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Scott <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2026 4:47 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Support for Roundabouts on Bay Avenue - Item 9A Dear City Council Members,
I am writing in support of pursuing roundabouts along the Bay Avenue corridor. Roundabouts offer numerous advantages to all road users. These benefits have been well documented. Even our notoriously slow and bureaucratic federal government has identified roundabouts as a Proven Safety Countermeasure. Here are some of the benefits to our City were roundabouts to be implemented:
1) Improvements to traffic flow: High traffic areas see benefits to transit time and reductions to idling while in line as the use of yields rather than full stops promotes continuous flow. This effect is even greater in areas that experience rush hour traffic congestion, as low cross traffic volumes allow for streamlined unidirectional travel.
2) Improvements to safety: The Federal Highway Administration reports that conversion to roundabouts lowers fatal and injury crashes by 78-82%. If you had the opportunity to reduce three-quarters of the fatal and injury-producing crashes on a road, you'd do that, wouldn't you? Well, roundabouts are a way to do that.

Roundabouts facilitate slower vehicle travel while maintaining higher traffic flows with the use of yields (discussed above). Slower vehicle rates as cars begin to yield allow for better reaction times to avoid an incident. Roundabouts lower user conflicts by limiting the directions from which oncoming traffic and pedestrians can approach. Roundabouts can also be constructed with separated islands that allow pedestrians a space of safety while crossing the crosswalk and lessen the distance car drivers need to scan in search of pedestrians. As you can see in the image below from the FHWA, roundabouts bring other users (oncoming traffic, pedestrians) closer to the field of view of a driver entering the roundabout.

This allows the driver to scan only a few places before entering the roundabout. No more worrying about a car in every lane and a pedestrian potentially in every crosswalk. This is a safer and easier intersection. 51 Item 5 A.
2 3) Improvements for the environment, your budget, and your health: Improved traffic flows reduce the need to wait in line, idling. Idling causes noise and emission pollution, with no benefit to moving you forward. This effect worsens anthropogenic climate change. This reduces your miles per gallon, and with the cost of fuel these days that hurts your bottom line a lot. It is also well established that the sedentary life of Americans, including sitting in traffic, is incredibly bad for your health. Improved traffic flow from roundabouts is better for the environment, it is better for your budget, and it is better for our health.

Please make decisions that are based on research, data, and intellectual rigour. Modern roundabouts are well studied and are objectively shown to increase traffic flows, reduce safety problems, pollute less, and be better for our health. Please continue to advance and implement roundabouts on the Bay Avenue corridor.

Below are some sources I reviewed for this public comment for your review as well.

Thank you,
Scott
Sources:

Roundabout with Pedestrians and Bicycles: A Safer Choice for Everyone, Federal Highway Administration, highways.dot.gov/media/11171. Accessed 13 May 2026. “What Is a Roundabout? A Roundabout Is a Circular Intersection Without.” A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE TO DRIVING A MULTI-LANE ROUNDABOUT, CA Department of Transportation, dot.ca.gov/- /media/dot-media/programs/safety-programs/documents/psc/202405-rab-brochure-roundaboutgen-en-a11y.pdf. Accessed 13 May 2026.

Roundabouts, US Federal Highway Administration,
highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/Roundabouts_508.pdf. Accessed 13 May 2026. 52 Item 5 A.
3 “The Cost of Traffic Congestion.” Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 22 Apr. 2026, mtc.ca.gov/news/cost-traffic-congestion.
“What traffic does to your health.” AltaMed, 2 Jan. 2020, www.altamed.org/articles/what-trafficdoes-your-health. “Stops Signs Suck and We Should Get Rid of Them.” YouTube, Not Just Bikes, www.youtube.com/watch?v=42oQN7fy_eM. Accessed 13 May 2026. 53 Item 5 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Kristen Presleigh <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2026 5:00 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Item 9A: I like Support for Roundabouts
Dear Capitola City Counsel,
I'm writing in for public comment in support for building a roundabout on Bay Avenue, and would like to continue to see their implementation. Roundabouts are designed to increase traffic flow, and if designed well, can safely be designed with pedestrians, cyclists, and cars in mind. Four way stop intersections are slow, and with increased distraction from car drivers are not efficient with drivers cutting each other off because they were not paying attention to who's turn it is, particularly with pedestrians trying to cross.

Roundabouts tend to have a number of naysayers until the roundabout is actually built, and then they will lemenant that yes, they are actually better functioning for traffic. Please continue to review and use roundabouts for better streets.

Thank you,
--
Kristen
[email protected]
54 Item 5 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Kevin Maguire <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2026 6:28 PM
To: City Clerk
Cc: City Council; Gerry Jensen; Melinda Orbach; Westman, Susan; Margaux Morgan; Clarke, Joe
Subject: 5/14/2026 Agenda 9A - Before You Vote: 4.9 Million Vehicles, Zero Fatalities — What the Study Actually Says About Bay & Hill
BAY AVE & HILL ST — COUNCIL DATA BRIEF
Independent data review · All figures from City-commissioned documents Agenda Item 9A · Thursday, May 14, 2026 · 6:00 PM · 420 Capitola Avenue Purpose: This report does not oppose investment in the Bay Avenue corridor. It provides data context the staff report does not include, so the Council can evaluate the proposal against the full record. Every figure is drawn from the Kimley-Horn Bay Avenue Corridor Study (February 2025), the City's Local Roadway Safety Plan (2026), or Capitola PD citation records.

POINT 1
The data shows this intersection is performing well — not in crisis Bay and Hill Street processes approximately 4.9 million vehicle entries per year. Over the 10.8-year study period it produced 9 documented crashes — zero fatalities at the intersection itself — and one serious injury approximately every two to three years.

0.17 Bay & Hill actual crash rate per million entering vehicles

1.0 CA High Injury Network minimum threshold to qualify as priority location

0.50–1.50
National average for unsignalized intersections
Bay & Hill actual rate0.17 per MEV

0.17 CA High Injury Network threshold (minimum to qualify)1.0 per MEV

1.0 National average — unsignalized intersectionsup to 1.5 per MEV

0.50 – 1.50 national average
Bay & Hill is performing at one-sixth of the state's intervention threshold — nearly three times better than the national average for this intersection type. Capitola PD moving citations also peaked at 1,438 in 2023 and have declined 45% to 791 in 2025, projected at approximately 667 for 2026 — the lowest in eight years — since the intersection was restored to its original configuration. The corridor is stabilizing, not deteriorating.

Note on OTS rankings: Capitola's statewide rankings for seniors 65+ and bicycle crashes reflect city-wide data. The KimleyHorn study's own crash record shows those incidents are concentrated on the 41st Avenue corridor and at the Highway 1 ramps — not at Bay & Hill. Applying city-wide rankings to justify action specifically at this intersection conflates two separate datasets.

Sources: Kimley-Horn Table 5; FHWA national crash rate benchmarks; CA HIN eligibility criteria; Capitola PD citation records 2019–2026 POINT 2
55 Item 5 A.
2 The study's own findings point toward a signal — two material facts were not included in the staff report
Finding A — A signal will be legally required here by 2045. Table 7 of the Kimley-Horn study confirms Bay & Hill will meet California's mandatory MUTCD Signal Warrant 3 threshold by the 2045 PM peak, driven by already-approved development:

Capitola Mall, the Farmers Market site, and Dignity Healthcare. A $2–3.5M roundabout built today will require a second construction cycle to replace it with a signal within approximately 20 years. A signal installed today costs $500K–$2M and permanently resolves the intersection. The staff report does not reference this finding.

Finding B — Vehicle performance is essentially a tie at this intersection. Tables 8 and 9 show a difference of just 5.6 seconds per vehicle in AM peak delay between a signal and a roundabout at Bay & Hill. Both achieve LOS C by 2045. That 5.6-second advantage is the entire operational case for a roundabout over a signal here — weighed against the following:

ROUNDABOUT ONLY
✗No pedestrian crossing phase — ever
✗Cannot serve blind residents — no APS
✗No emergency vehicle preemption
✗Signal retrofit still needed by 2045
✗$2–3.5M upfront cost

SIGNAL ONLY
✓30–40 sec protected crossing phase
✓APS-capable for blind residents
✓Emergency vehicle preemption
✓Meets 2045 warrant permanently
✓$500K–$2M — half the cost
At 700 southbound vehicles per hour today — rising to 897 by 2045 — seniors and mobility-impaired residents crossing from the Bay Avenue Senior Apartments face a vehicle every 4–5 seconds. They need 30–40 seconds to cross safely. A roundabout provides no guaranteed crossing time. A signal does.

Sources: Kimley-Horn Tables 7, 8, 9, 16; PROWAG accessible pedestrian signal requirements; Table 2 & 3 turning movement counts POINT 3
The Rule 20A funding and the intersection design are two independent decisions — and this intersection does not qualify for safety grant priority funding The staff report presents utility undergrounding and intersection control type as a single coupled decision, implying that a vote for the roundabout must happen tonight to preserve the $3M Rule 20A undergrounding opportunity. These are operationally independent decisions.

The Rule 20A credits apply to underground utility work. The City can advance undergrounding coordination, easement acquisition, and utility participation confirmation without committing to a roundabout design at this meeting. Not all utilities have confirmed participation — a fact the staff report itself acknowledges. The intersection design decision can follow once those open items are resolved.

Additionally, Bay & Hill does not meet California's High Injury Network criteria at a crash rate of 0.17 per MEV — one-sixth of the 1.0 threshold programs use to prioritize safety infrastructure funding. The staff report references grant competitiveness as a project benefit without disclosing that this intersection's crash rate places it outside the criteria those grant programs apply.

A question for staff: Can the Rule 20A undergrounding credits be preserved through a phased decision that advances utility coordination now, while the Council takes additional time to evaluate the signal alternative — including its long-term cost advantage given the 2045 warrant — with full information? Sources: Staff Report Item 9A — Rule 20A section; Kimley-Horn Table 7 — signal warrant 2045; CA High Injury Network eligibility criteria All data sourced from: Kimley-Horn Bay Avenue Corridor Study, February 2025 · City of Capitola Agenda Packet Item 9A, May 14, 2026 · City of Capitola Local Roadway Safety Plan, 2026 · Capitola Police Department citation records 2019–2026 · FHWA national intersection crash rate benchmarks · California High Injury Network criteria
56 Item 5 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Capitola Morrissey <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2026 7:26 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda Item 9A: Please listen to the citizens of Capitola! Dear Capitola City Council:

I’m pleased to see the citizens of Capitola show up and speak up about the importance of keeping the Bay Avenue intersections in their current state of operation and voicing their clear opinions for NOT installing roundabouts in those two heavily trafficked intersections.

The logic of keeping these intersections in their current state is sound from a safety, financial and logistical perspective. Traffic flow is finally working well again after reverting the last attempt to fix something that literally wasn’t broken to begin with.

Also, please think of the chaos that will result from 100’s of tourists trying to navigate two successive roundabouts with no experience and limited patience after a long trip from over the hill or other locations.

I trust in your individual and collective ability to use common sense and good foresight to do the right thing here. We have so little money and so many challenges as a community. Let’s focus our efforts, energy and financial resources on our most pressing problems. This agenda item 9A isn’t even in the top ten!
Thanks in advance,
Mike and Meghan Morrissey
Capitola residents
57 Item 5 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Lindsey Roscoe <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2026 8:55 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Item 9A Roundabouts
I am against this proposal. Please don’t move forward with this idea and waste precious resources.

Lindsey Roscoe
Capitola resident
Sent from my iPad
58 Item 5 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Pam Greeninger <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2026 10:59 PM
To: City Council
Subject: May 14, 2026 Agenda Item 9.A. Roundabout
Mayor and Members of the City Council,
PLEASE DO NOT approve a roundabout at the Bay Avenue/Hill Street intersection!!! The fiasco that occurred on Bay Avenue when the lanes were reduced to a single lane was a nightmare. If anything, it made things considerably worse, causing gridlock coming off the freeway onto Bay, vehicles cutting through the shopping center, as well as traffic congestion from Monterey Avenue all the way to the freeway at numerous intervals throughout the day, especially when New Brighton Middle School was getting out.

My husband and I and many of our neighbors were so thankful when the old configuration was put back in place! Why? It works! The traffic moves the way it should. And now you are considering yet another far more expensive and questionable plan: a roundabout at Bay and Hill. Didn’t we learn our lesson from the last experiment? My understanding regarding the use of roundabouts is to keep the traffic flowing. A roundabout in that location will not address the original goal to provide a safer intersection for pedestrians and bicyclists. I feel that it will be next to impossible to cross at that intersection safely with a roundabout.

There are so many other more important projects that the City needs to consider and budget for at this time. It just seems like a waste of our taxpayers dollars to approve this project with the unknown consequences it may cause.

JUST SAY “NO”! PLEASE!
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration in making your decision on this item.

Pam and Stewart Greeninger
59 Item 5 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Jason Martorella <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2026 9:30 AM
To: City Council
Subject: No Roundabout
Hi everyone,
Hard NO on the proposed roundabout(s) in Capitola, I mean really? I ask that you do something that is not so common anymore, and use common sense!
First off, this is a massive problem you are creating for virtually no reason. You guys have yet to read one intelligent reason why this will work. Roundabouts are something that seem to turn everyone’s brain off when driving through them, not only are you challenging California drivers even more than they already are, and you are making us, the people, pay for it with our tax dollars, no thanks! Enough preliminaries, here’s the facts, you’re going to attempt to put in a massive roundabout in a major intersection in our town where it is too small and dense, you will be causing much more road rage especially in rush hour with people scurrying to get home along with NBMS traffic.

You are slowing down emergency vehicles from responding to calls and when everyone stops to let them pass you are creating worse traffic than a controlled intersection. 18-wheelers can barely make a left turn out of Nob Hill as is right now, they will have to drive over your roundabout probably damaging the lovely foliage you want to plant! Think about what the majority of people have said, after all, YOU work for US, the people.

Thank you
Jason Martorella
60 Item 5 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Misha Burich <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2026 9:34 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Do not pursue roundabouts at Bay Avenue intersections with Capitola Avenue and Hill Street
Dear Council members,

My wife Lisa and I agree with all the previously submitted comments opposing the roundabouts at the intersection of Bay Avenue and Capitola Avenue, as well as at Bay Avenue and Hill Street.

Just like anybody else can do this, in order to articulate the reasons, I asked for the analysis by Copilot, a Microsoft AI tool. I am sure that other similar tools would give the same answer.

This is the summary of the recommendation, followed by a detailed explanation.

Sincerely,
Misha and Lisa Burich
101 Hollister Ave.

Capitola, CA 95010
Recommendation to Council
Do not pursue roundabouts at Bay Avenue & Capitola Avenue, and Bay Avenue & Hill Street. Instead, proceed with design and evaluation of a modernized signalized intersections incorporating adaptive timing and pedestrian-priority features.

MEMORANDUM
To: Capitola City Council
Subject: Evaluation of Proposed Roundabouts
Date: May 14, 2026
Purpose
This memo provides an evaluation of the feasibility and suitability of installing roundabouts at the intersections of Bay Avenue and Capitola Avenue and Bay Avenue and Hill Street. The analysis considers geometry, traffic operations, pedestrian activity, access, safety, and right-of-way constraints.

Summary Conclusion
Based on current conditions, roundabouts at these locations are not recommended. The intersections' limited right-of-way, high pedestrian activity, multiple driveways, and unbalanced traffic flows make roundabouts operationally inefficient and geometrically difficult without significant property 61 Item 5 A.
2 impacts. A modernized signal with adaptive timing and pedestrian-priority features at these intersections are the more effective and context-appropriate solution.

Key Findings

1. Right-of-Way and Geometric Constraints
 The intersections are tightly bounded by commercial buildings, driveways, and narrow sidewalks.
 Driveway access points on all corners further limit feasible roundabout geometry.

2. Traffic Operations
 Bay Avenue carries consistent commuter and school-hour traffic.

 These intersections at Capitola Avenue experience highly variable, peak-intensive demand, especially mornings, weekends, and summer months.

 Roundabouts perform poorly under unbalanced or surge-based flows, increasing the risk of minor-approach delay and queue lockout.

3. Pedestrian Activity and Safety
 These intersections support heavy pedestrian volumes, including bakery and shopping patrons at the Nob Hill Foods shopping mall, Village visitors, and school-hour crossings.

 Roundabouts require split-island crossings set back from the circle, which lengthen crossing paths and reduce pedestrian priority.

 Frequent informal crossings would create recurring interruptions to circulating flow, reducing efficiency and increasing driver hesitation.

4. Access and Business Impacts
62 Item 5 A.
3  Multiple driveways serving the businesses and adjacent parcels fall within the functional footprint of a roundabout.

 Maintaining safe access while preserving circulation geometry is not feasible without substantial redesign or property impacts.

Recommended Alternative
A signalized intersections upgrade is the preferred solution, including:

 Adaptive signal timing to manage bakery peaks, school surges, and seasonal traffic.

 Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI) to improve pedestrian safety.

 Protected left-turn phases where warranted.

 High-visibility crosswalks and potential raised approaches to calm speeds.

This approach improves safety and reduces delay while preserving walkability and business access.

Recommendation to Council
Do not pursue roundabouts at Bay Avenue & Capitola Avenue, and Bay Avenue & Hill Street. Proceed with design and evaluation of a modernized signalized intersections incorporating adaptive timing and pedestrian-priority features.

63 Item 5 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Mara Palandrani <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2026 11:44 AM
To: City Council
Cc: Joe Palandrani; Mara Palandrani
Subject: proposed roundabouts
Attachments: Outlook-Descriptio
Mara and I are against the proposed roundabouts because they will limit traffic flow and only make the traffic situation worse. The traffic flow at Bay/Hill was a nightmare when the city experimented with a poorly thought out single lane solution and now they want to force us to live through a much more expensive single lane experiment that involves mixing bicyclists and E-Bikes in with cars.

We have the real estate for two lanes each way on Bay Ave and it has proven effective and safe for years. We are against the proposed experimental roundabouts that will only reduce the badly needed traffic flow and will not provide safer access to pedestrians and bicyclists.

The city has limited funds and needs to address the poor condition of the streets that we have throughout the city and the Stockton Bridge repair or replacement. Capitola needs to have a detail budget that lists the spend that will be directed to repairing or replacing city streets instead of wasting money on experimental intersections that are functioning as they should. The city desperately needs a detailed budget with named streets and defined spend that can be tracked on a yearly basis and discussed quarterly. The city has collected funds that were to be directed to street repair and has chosen to redirect the spend to the detriment of our city streets and now they are proposing to waste funds to limit traffic flow.

Please let us know what needs to be done to direct the city to address our failing streets and stop wasting funds on experiment solutions that will reduce traffic flow, mix bicyclists and E-Bikes with cars and offer reduced pedestrian safety.

Mara and Joe Palandrani
105 Hollister Ave., Capitola
64 Item 5 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2026 12:29 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Roundabout
Hi - please do not pass an ordinance for a roundabout on Bay Ave. I drive through there nearly every day and there is liƩle if any substanƟal back-up. It’s been much beƩer since the other design was replaced with the one that’s there now.

The money for that project is much beƩer spent on other projects (like re-surfacing the road going down into the village).

Thanks for listening. Jeff
65 Item 5 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Tyler Shanahan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2026 7:10 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Concerns and Recommendations Regarding Bay Avenue Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Dear Mayor and City Council,
I wanted to share concerns as a resident regarding Bay Avenue and the ongoing discussion around pedestrian safety and traffic improvements.

We recently got a real-world test when the uphill secƟon of Bay was temporarily reduced to a single lane. What we saw was confusion and unintended consequences everywhere. Drivers were turning into the Nob Hill parking lot and going against traffic. Pedestrians were unsure when it was safe to cross. Drivers didn’t know where they were supposed to be.

It created uncertainty for everyone.

What stood out most, however, was the impact on residents living back near Riverview and Center Street. With traffic reduced to a single uphill lane, vehicles coming up Bay were traveling much faster. Under the previous two-lane merge configuraƟon approaching Center Street, drivers naturally slowed down and gaps were created, which allowed residents to safely turn onto Bay. For whatever reason, people accelerate up that hill far more than they should. Removing the merge effect made it noƟceably harder and less safe to exit from Center.

The temporary flag soluƟon felt more symbolic than pracƟcal. While the blinking crosswalk sign is certainly an improvement, asking pedestrians to wave flags in hopes that distracted or speeding drivers noƟce them does not feel like a serious long-term safety soluƟon.

In my opinion, the strongest opƟon is to install the embedded crosswalk lighƟng systems used in Capitola Village. Those systems work because they acƟvely demand aƩenƟon. They combine flashing signage with embedded roadway lights and create a very clear expectaƟon: a pedestrian pushes a buƩon, traffic stops, and the crossing sequence begins. Drivers understand it immediately. Pedestrians understand it immediately. Most importantly, people actually noƟce it.

A tradiƟonal traffic signal could potenƟally solve part of the issue, although I recognize that may create significant backup and challenges around the southbound off-ramp area.

I also want to strongly express concern regarding the idea of a roundabout. In theory they sound efficient; in pracƟce, people already struggle navigaƟng them. More importantly, I do not believe a roundabout solves the underlying issue of vehicle speed coming down Bay or the ability of residents to safely enter traffic from Center Street and Riverview. I worry it could actually create addiƟonal confusion and simply shiŌ the problem elsewhere.

If slowing traffic is the objecƟve, another alternaƟve worth considering would be a four-way stop where Center intersects Bay. At minimum, it would create more predictable vehicle behavior and naturally slow traffic entering the area.

One thing is clear: many vehicles coming over from San Jose toward the Village enter at speeds that feel disconnected from the environment they are driving into. We are no longer talking about a highway approach — this is a residenƟal and pedestrian-heavy area. The intersecƟon near Gayle’s and Grady's experiences many of the same concerns, although not quite to the same degree.
66 Item 5 A.
2 I appreciate the City's effort to improve safety and understand there are compeƟng prioriƟes and constraints. However, I hope the City prioriƟzes soluƟons that are intuiƟve, visible, and proven rather than temporary measures or concepts that may sound good in theory but create new problems in pracƟce.

Thank you for your Ɵme and consideraƟon.

Sincerely,
Capitola Resident
-Tyler Shanahan
67 Item 5 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Benjamin Weisz <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2026 11:42 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Proposed Roundabout
Hello,
I wasn’t able to aƩend the meeƟng today regarding a proposed roundabout in front of the Nob Hill Plaza, but sƟll wanted to provide input as I live nearby on Sunset and frequently use Center St to get both into and out of my block. I looked at the specificaƟons and it looks like the current right turn only lane heading onto Center St will be solely a bike lane.

Similar to the prior project we had last summer. I hope that’s not the case, as that created a massive overflow of cars.

Most concerning is the roundabout however, as it appears that the crosswalks are directly in front of the entering and exiƟng of the roundabout, which would make it nearly impossible for pedestrians to cross and for cars to stop as they try to exit the roundabout. I believe a walk light similar to what we have for the village would be safer for pedestrians as even with the current stop signs, people are eager to keep moving. It’s hard to solve for overall traffic since we for beƩer or worse are a very popular desƟnaƟon, but we need to think about the safety of our pedestrians first.

Thank you,
Ben Weisz
68 Item 5 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Y C <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2026 5:14 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Roundabout
Roundabout Concerns:

1. How to turn leŌ from Center to Bay Ave with constant flow of traffic without stop signs 2. How and where one would cross Bay Ave and street across from Raley’s heading toward USPS with heavy traffic in roundabout 3. Cross walking is already minimal. Plans for addiƟonal cross walks on Bay Ave ? Yvonne Collins
621 Sunset Drive, Capitola
69 Item 5 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Brenda Torres <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2026 9:17 AM
To: City Council
Subject: 5/14 Council meeting
I attended the 5/14 meeting and was very disappointed you voted against the roundabouts. I think a roundabout at Gayles would be enough. I was very disappointed that 1 fatality is not enough for you to seek grants to solve the problem. The presentation was excellent. I DO believe the initial impact would be high - people won't know how to handle the roundabouts - but people learn. The cars are not slowing, they are going faster. People are distracted by their phones and in a hurry. I would like to know how many people must be hurt or die before this problem is solved - and it is NOT with lights.

A homeowner that likes to walk, Brenda Torres (I live on Bay). 70 Item 5 A.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Linda Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 7:29 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda Item 9b, 5/14/2026 Council Meeting
Attachments: Linda Smith 4 District Map1.pdf
It seems the purpose of Agenda Item 9b on the 5/14 Council Agenda is to inform and educate, receive comments from the engaged community, and begin to consider the pivotal decision of how many Districts we define and how we choose our Mayor. My early comments are food for thought that I hope will be considered.

So. How do we think about this question?
I started with the General Plan discussion on Community Identity where we defined 7 neighborhoods: 41st Ave./ West Capitola, Jewel Box, Riverview Terrace, Upper Village, Village, Depot Hill, and Cliffwood Heights. I’ve often referred to Capitola’s ‘micro-climates’, and these are them. Although we are all ‘Capitolians’, the civic issues we deal with, and how we perceive them, are different depending on where we live. These ‘communities of interest’ have roots, and deserve to be recognized and kept whole in this process. But does that mean we need 7 Districts? 7 Councilmembers to lead us instead of 5? Maybe not.

Using the mapping tool provided by NDC, I started with the 41st/West Capitola neighborhood and started putting the neighborhoods together. The natural flow of consolidating the population numbers led me to 4 Districts of similar size. The result needs some adjustment to meet the max 248 difference between the largest (Cliffwood Heights @ 2644) and the smallest (Jewel Box @ 2383). We have a qualified demographer to sort out the details, and I am confident that they will take care in dividing neighborhoods and disenfranchising community members. (I hear that drawing lines down the middle of buildings can happen, and makes a confusing nightmare out of the voting process.)
To make the numbers work, The Depot Hill, Village, Upper Village, and Riverview Terrace neighborhoods were combined into a single district because, in my experience, these neighborhoods tend to share impacts of our civic issues in the same way; what happens in Capitola Village and in the Bay Avenue corridor have a bigger impact on their daily lives than on other areas of town.
41st Ave/West Capitola will be the district that changes the most with future development of the Mall property. With the density increases in residential use of this area, I would expect a realignment of District lines in the future. My question: Do we migrate to a 7-district structure when this happens? Does the question of Mayor-elect vs Council selected come back to the table at that time?
How do the demographics lay on this map? Age, ethnicity, socio-economic demographics matter when it comes to representation. I have submitted a question on the portal as to the availability of a 71 Item 5 B.
2 demographic baseline map taken from the 2020 Census AND subsequent American Community Survey. This information would greatly inform any drawing of districts, and therefore further inform the decision of how many districts we should have.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Linda Smith [email protected]
Life is short -- Break the rules!
Forgive quickly..

Kiss slowly..

Love truly..

Laugh uncontrollably..

And never regret anything that make you smile!
72 Item 5 B.
73 Item 5 B.

Capitola City Council
Agenda Report
Meeting: May 14, 2026
From: City Manager Department
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes
Recommended Action: Approve minutes from the special meeting on April 21, 2026, the regular meeting on April 23, 2026, the special meeting on April 30, 2026, and the special meeting on May 6, 2026.

Background: Attached for City Council review and approval are the draft minutes from the special meeting on April 21, 2026, the regular meeting on April 23, 2026, the special meeting on April 30, 2026, and the special meeting on May 6, 2026.

Alignment with 2025-2029 Strategic Plan Priority: Accountable Government Attachments:

1. Special Meeting 4/21/2026

2. Regular Meeting 4/23/2026

3. Special Meeting 4/30/2026

4. Special Meeting 5/6/2026
Report Prepared By: Julia Gautho, City Clerk
Approved By: Jamie Goldstein, City Manager
74 Item 8 A.

City of Capitola
Special Council Meeting / Project Celebration
Minutes
Tuesday, April 21, 2026 – 10:30 AM
City Council Chambers
420 Capitola Avenue, Capitola, CA 95010
Mayor: Margaux Morgan
Vice Mayor: Gerry Jensen
Council Members: Joe Clarke, Melinda Orbach, Susan Westman Special Meeting of the Capitola City Council – 10:30 AM

1. Roll Call
The meeting was called to order at 10:30 AM. In attendance: Council Members Clarke, Westman, Vice Mayor Jensen, and Mayor Morgan. Absent: Council Member Orbach.

2. General Government
A. Park at Rispin Mansion Project Celebration & Community Event Recommended Action: None. No Council Action will be taken.

Public Comment: None

3. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:55 AM. The next regularly scheduled City Council meeting is on April 23, 2026, at 6:00 PM.
________________________
Margaux Morgan, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________
Julia Gautho, City Clerk
75 Item 8 A.

City of Capitola
City Council Meeting Minutes
Thursday, April 23, 2026 – 6:00 PM
City Council Chambers
420 Capitola Avenue, Capitola, CA 95010
Mayor: Margaux Morgan
Vice Mayor: Gerry Jensen
Council Members: Joe Clarke, Melinda Orbach, Susan Westman Closed Session – 5:15 PM
i. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (Govt. Code § 54956.8) Property: Capitola Wharf Buildings, 1400 Wharf Road (APN: 034-072-01) City Negotiator: Jamie Goldstein, City Manager
Negotiating Parties: JFS Incorporated (dba Capitola Boat and Bait) Under Negotiation: Terms of lease
ii. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—LIABILITY CLAIMS (Gov. Code § 54956.95) Claim Against the City of Capitola
Claimant: Julissa Guzman
iii. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Gov’t. Code §54956.9(d)(2), (e)(3) One Case
Regular Meeting of the Capitola City Council – 6 PM

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

2. Additions and Deletions to the Agenda – None

3. Report on Closed Session – The City Council met and discussed three items on the Closed Session agenda. No reportable action was taken.

4. Additional Materials
A. Item 5 – One email received after publication of the agenda packet.

B. Item 7B - One email received after publication of the agenda packet.

C. Item 7C - Two emails received after publication of the agenda packet and two staff memorandums distributed after publication of the agenda packet.

D. Item 7D - One email received after publication of the agenda packet.

E. Item 8A - Two emails received after publication of the agenda packet.

F. Item 8B - One email received after publication of the agenda packet.

G. Item 8C - Two emails received after publication of the agenda packet.

5. Oral Communications by Members of the Public
 Goran Klepic
76 Item 8 A.

City Council Meeting Minutes – April 23, 2026
City of Capitola Page 2
 Bob Hickman
 Melinda Vinto
 Speaker

6. Staff / City Council Comments
 Public Works Department staff provided an update and photos from the rehabilitation of the Wharf kiosk signage.
 City Manager Goldstein provided a status update on the arbitration hearing between tenants and the Cabrillo Mobile Home Estates.
 Council Member Westman provided an update on her attendance at a recent Seniors Advisory Council meeting and requested that the City Council send a letter of opposition to the Department of Fish and Game on their newly proposed rules on off-shore fishing. Mayor Morgan seconded her request.
 Vice Mayor Jensen provided an update on his attendance at the opening of the Park at the Rispin Mansion event, held at the Capitola Library; asked staff to clarify how the proposed City budget will be made available to the public, when the Treasure Cove playground will open, and when the roundabout on Bay Ave will be on a Council agenda.  Council Member Clarke thanked staff for their efforts to install the stairs at Hooper’s Beach.  Council Member Orbach provided comments on her previous comments from the April 9, 2026, City Council meeting.
 Mayor Morgan provided comments on her attendance at the opening of the Park at the Rispin Mansion event, held at the Capitola Library; and reminded the Council to maintain decorum at the dais.

7. Consent Items
A. City Council Meeting Minutes
Recommended Action: Approve minutes from the special meeting on April 7, 2026, and the regular meeting on April 9, 2026.

B. Esplanade Park Coastal Access Enhancement and Adaptation Plan Recommended Action: 1) Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a grant agreement with the State Coastal Conservancy for the Esplanade Park Coastal Access Enhancement and Adaptation Plan; and 2) Authorize the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Integral Consulting Inc. in the amount of $275,000, in a form substantially similar to the attached agreement, subject to approval by the City Attorney. (Pulled for discussion by Vice Mayor Jensen) (Resolution No. 4480) C. Homeland Security Grant Program
Recommended Action: 1) Accept a Homeland Security Grant as a subrecipient through the County of Santa Cruz in an amount up to $50,000; and 2) adopt a resolution amending the FY 2025–26 General Fund operating budget to increase revenues and expenditures by up to $50,000. (Resolution No. 4481)
D. Park at Rispin Mansion Fundraising Partnership
Recommended Action: 1) Authorize the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding with Capitola Cares for a fundraising campaign for additional elements at the Park at Rispin Mansion; and 2) approve an administrative policy regarding Donor Recognition at the Park at Rispin Mansion. (Administrative Police No. V-22) Council Member Jensen requested to pull Item 7B for discussion.

Motion to approve Consent Items 7A and 7C: Council Member Westman Second: Council Member Orbach
Voting Yea: Council Members Clarke, Orbach, Westman, Vice Mayor Jensen, and Mayor Morgan
77 Item 8 A.

City Council Meeting Minutes – April 23, 2026
City of Capitola Page 3
Council Member Westman recused from Item 7D due to a conflict of interest arising from her husband’s position on the Capitola Cares Board.

Motion to approve Consent Item 7D: Council Member Clarke Second: Vice Mayor Jensen
Voting Yea: Council Members Clarke, Orbach, Vice Mayor Jensen, and Mayor Morgan Abstaining: Council Member Westman
Vice Mayor Jensen thanked staff for their efforts to secure grant funding for Item 7B. He inquired about the intent of the grant funding and project, and how this project interacts with overall efforts to combat coastal erosion.

Motion to approve Consent Item 7B: Vice Mayor Jensen
Second: Council Member Orbach
Voting Yea: Council Members Clarke, Orbach, Westman, Vice Mayor Jensen, and Mayor Morgan

8. General Government / Public Hearings
A. Wharf Master Plan
Recommended Action: Receive a presentation on the conceptual design for a Wharf Master Plan; adopt a resolution adopting the Wharf Master Plan; and direct staff to release a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a qualified private entity to construct and operate the marketplace through a lease agreement with the City.

Community and Economic Development Director Herlihy presented the staff report with the project consultant, Fuse Architects.

Public Comment:
 Cami Corvin
 Scott Harway
 Speaker
The City Council requested that staff rewrite the request for proposals (RFP) to allow for further flexibility from respondents and incorporate the public outreach conducted for public review. Council discussed the importance of incorporating public safety elements into the Wharf Master Plan. Council clarified that the RFP does not need to return at a future Council meeting but requested that staff return with a policy for the leasing of Cityowned property. The City Council opted not to adopt a resolution approving the Master Plan, as they felt it wasn’t necessary.

The Council discussed the possibility of inviting Central Fire to a Council meeting to present on the partnership between the City and CFD.

Motion to direct staff to revise the RFP before releasing to allow for greater flexibility:

Council Member Westman
Second: Council Member Orbach
Voting Yea: Council Members Clarke, Orbach, Westman, Vice Mayor Jensen, and Mayor Morgan
The City Council took a recess at 7:35 PM and reconvened at 7:38 PM.

B. 41st Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation and Multimodal Improvements Project - Entryway Enhancement
78 Item 8 A.

City Council Meeting Minutes – April 23, 2026
City of Capitola Page 4
Recommended Action: Authorize staff to modify the project scope of the 41st Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation and Multimodal Improvements Project to include curb, sidewalk, and hardscape improvements at the corner of 41st Avenue and Gross Road Extension to accommodate a future gateway monument.

Community and Economic Development Director Herlihy presented the staff report.

Public Comment: None
Council Discussion
Motion to authorize staff to amend the scope of the 41st Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation and Multimodal Improvements Project: Council Member Orbach Second: Council Member Clarke
Voting Yea: Council Members Clarke, Orbach, Westman, Vice Mayor Jensen, and Mayor Morgan
C. California Voting Rights Act Challenge and Demand for City to Transition to District-Based Elections
Recommended Action: Consider a letter received on March 19, 2026, challenging the City’s atlarge election system and demanding the City transition to district-based elections; and provide direction to staff regarding next steps.

City Attorney Tran presented the staff report.

Public Comment:
 Cami Corvin
 Speaker
 Speaker
 Meghan Morrissey
Council formed an ad-hoc subcommittee, composed of Mayor Morgan and Vice Mayor Jensen, to work with staff to review proposals for a demographer/mapping consultant and interview prospective consultants. The Council discussed the importance of taking time to allow for maximum public input during the process and the potential of reviewing the feasibility of the composition of the districts (four districts and an elected Mayor vs. five districts).

Motion to form an ad-hoc subcommittee (composed of Mayor Morgan and Vice Mayor Jensen) to work with staff to select a demographer and hold a special meeting on April 30th at 6:00 PM to present a resolution of intent to transition to districts and an agreement with the selected consultant: Council Member Westman
Second: Vice Mayor Jensen
Voting Yea: Council Members Clarke, Orbach, Westman, Vice Mayor Jensen, and Mayor Morgan
D. Citywide Website Update Project
Recommended Action: Receive a presentation of the City’s new website.

Assistant to the City Manager Woodmansee presented the staff report.

Public Comment: None

9. Adjournment
79 Item 8 A.

City Council Meeting Minutes – April 23, 2026
City of Capitola Page 5
The meeting adjourned at 8:31 PM. The next regularly scheduled City Council meeting is on May 14, 2026, at 6:00 PM.
________________________
Margaux Morgan, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________
Julia Gautho, City Clerk
80 Item 8 A.

City of Capitola
Special City Council Meeting Minutes
Thursday, April 30, 2026 – 6:00 PM
City Council Chambers
420 Capitola Avenue, Capitola, CA 95010
Mayor: Margaux Morgan
Vice Mayor: Gerry Jensen
Council Members: Joe Clarke, Melinda Orbach, Susan Westman Closed Session – 5:30 PM
i. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Gov’t. Code §54956.9(d)(2), (e)(1).

One Case
ii. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Gov’t. Code §54956.9(d)(2), (e)(3) One Case
Special Meeting of the Capitola City Council – 6 PM

1. Roll Call and Pledge of Allegiance - The meeting was called to order at 6:03 PM. In attendance: Council Members Clarke, Orbach, Westman, Vice Mayor Jensen, and Mayor Morgan.

2. Additional Materials
A. Item 4A - Seven emails received after publication of the agenda packet.

B. Item 4B – One staff memorandum with Updated Report, Recommendation, and Attachments & Correspondence Received and one email received after publication of the agenda packet.

3. Report on Closed Session - The City Council met and discussed two items on the Closed Session agenda. No reportable action was taken.

4. General Government / Public Hearings
A. Resolution Declaring the City of Capitola’s Intent to Initiate Procedures to Transition From AtLarge Elections to District-Based Elections Pursuant to Elections Code Section 10010; Approving the Tentative Timeline and Other Related Actions.

Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution declaring the City’s intent to initiate procedures to transition from at-large elections to district-based elections pursuant to California Elections Code Section 10010, and approving the tentative timeline and other related actions.

City Attorney Marc Tran presented the Staff Report.

Public Comment:
 Mick Routh
 Speaker
 Theresa Green
 Jaques Bertrand
 Kevin Maguire
81 Item 8 A.

Special City Council Meeting Minutes – April 30, 2026
City of Capitola Page 2
 Linda Smith
Council discussed the timeline to transition from at-large elections to district-based elections and the possibility of adding a community meeting to the schedule.

Motion to approve Resolution No. 4482 with amendments to the meeting schedule:

Council Member Orbach
Second: Council Member Westman
Voting Yea: Council Members Clarke, Orbach, Westman, Vice Mayor Jensen, and Mayor Morgan
B. Agreement for Demographer Consultant
Recommended Action: 1) Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with a consultant to be recommended by the Council ad-hoc subcommittee for demographer and mapping consultant services to transition the City to by-district elections, in an amount to be recommended by the Council ad-hoc subcommittee; and 2) adopt a resolution amending the FY 2025-26 budget for expenditures related to the transition to by-district elections.

City Manager Goldstein presented the Staff Report.

Public Comment:
 Enrique Dolmo
 Speaker
Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with National Demographic Services for demographer and mapping consultant services to transition the City to by-district elections and approve Resolution No. 4483 amending the budget:

Council Member Orbach
Second: Vice Mayor Jensen
Voting Yea: Council Members Clarke, Orbach, Westman, Vice Mayor Jensen, and Mayor Morgan

5. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:06 PM. The next regularly scheduled City Council meeting is on May 14, 2026, at 6:00 PM.
_______________________
Margaux Morgan, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________
Rosie Wyatt, Deputy City Clerk
82 Item 8 A.

City of Capitola
Special City Council Meeting - Budget
Minutes
Wednesday, May 06, 2026 – 6:00 PM
City Council Chambers
420 Capitola Avenue, Capitola, CA 95010
Mayor: Margaux Morgan
Vice Mayor: Gerry Jensen
Council Members: Joe Clarke, Melinda Orbach, Susan Westman Special Meeting of the Capitola City Council – 6 PM

1. Roll Call and Pledge of Allegiance – The meeting was called to order at 6:02 PM. In attendance: Council Members Clarke, Orbach, Westman, Vice Mayor Jensen, and Mayor Morgan.

2. Additions and Deletions to the Agenda – None

3. Additional Materials
A. Item 5A - Staff Memorandum with Updated Attachment

4. Oral Communications by Members of the Public – None

5. General Government / Public Hearings
A. Presentation of the Proposed Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget Recommended Action: Receive the proposed budget, provide staff direction, and continue budget deliberations to the next budget hearing scheduled for May 21, 2026.

City staff presented the proposed budget.

Public Comment:
 Leslie Nielsen
Council requested that staff address the following points at the next budget meeting or as a part of the FY 2026-27 Budget Goals:
 An evaluation of parking rates Citywide and reviewing the feasibility of the addition of paid parking in short-term rental areas in the Village;  A brief review of transient occupancy tax rates and how Capitola compares to other jurisdictions;
 Verification of the costs for a negotiator for employee bargaining unit agreements;  Seeking funding opportunities for RING radio system infrastructure;  Reviewing staff’s recommendation to freeze a vacant MSO position;  A review of PEMHCA funding and its uses;
 Review the Zoning Code requirements that apply to the Capitola Village for new businesses with the goal of expanding business opportunities to address vacancies;  Include costs for a fiscal transparency software in the budget;  Reallocate $9,000 of the Council Training & Travel Budget; 83 Item 8 A.

Special City Council Meeting - Budget Minutes – May 06, 2026 City of Capitola Page 2
 Review costs for the replacement of the emergency generator at the Public Works Corp. Yard;
 Addition of the economic development consultant contract in the proposed budget.

The Council stressed the importance of seeking new revenue sources to ensure a balanced budget in years to come.

6. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:47 PM. The next regularly scheduled City Council meeting is on May 14, 2026, at 6:00 PM.
________________________
Margaux Morgan, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________
Julia Gautho, City Clerk
84 Item 8 A.

Capitola City Council
Agenda Report
Meeting: May 14, 2026
From: Administrative Services Department
Subject: Fiscal Year 2026-27 Appropriation Limit
Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution setting the Fiscal Year 2026-27 appropriation limit.

Background: On November 6, 1979, California voters approved Proposition 4, commonly known as the Gann Initiative, establishing Article XIIIB of the State Constitution. This proposition, which has been amended twice, places annual limits on the appropriation of tax proceeds that can be made, based on the 1978-79 base year and adjusted each year for population growth and cost-of-living factors. It precludes state and local government from retaining “excess” revenues above the appropriation limit and requires the state to reimburse local government for the cost of certain mandates. The appropriations limit on the amount of revenue that can be spent applies only to tax proceeds. Charges for services, fees, grants, loans, donations, and other non-tax-based proceeds are excluded. The State Constitution requires that prior to June 30 of each year, the Council ratify the calculation factors and set the City’s appropriations limit for the following fiscal year.

Discussion: The Appropriations Limit for a given fiscal year is established in the months preceding the beginning of that fiscal year. California Revenue and Taxation Code, Section 2227, mandates that the State Department of Finance transmit an estimate of the percentage change in population to local governments. Capitola uses this percentage change in population factor for January 1, 2026, in conjunction with the County-issued “Change in California Per Capita Income” to calculate the Appropriation Factor used to determine the limit.

The 2026-27 calculation is:

Annual %
change in City
Population
minus
Exclusions x
Change in
California per
capita Income=
Appropriation
Factor x
FY 2025-26
Appropriation
Limit =
FY 2026-27
Appropriation
Limit

0.9971 1.0495 1.0465 $ 38,359,050 $ 40,141,579
85 Item 8 C.

The 2026-27 Proposed Budget tax revenues are:

The 2026-27 percent of appropriations limit used is:

As shown in the tables above, Capitola tax revenues have historically been well below the Appropriations Limit and the FY 2026-27 Proposed Budget continues this trend.

Fiscal Impact: The appropriations limit increased $1,782,529 (or 4.6%) to $40 million from Fiscal Year 2025-26 to Fiscal Year 2026-27.

Alignment with 2025-2029 Strategic Plan Priority: Accountable Government Attachments:

1. Resolution
Report Prepared By: Luis Ruiz, Accountant II
Reviewed By: Jim Malberg, Administrative Services Director; Julia Gautho, City Clerk; Marc Tran, City Attorney
Approved By: Jamie Goldstein, City Manager
Source of Tax Revenue
2026-27
Proposed
Budget
Sales Tax (1%) $ 6,576,445
District Taxes (Measures O & F / Y) 3,433,750
Property Tax and In-Lieu 3,613,050
Transient Occupancy Tax 2,300,000
Document Transfer Tax 100,000
Franchise Taxes 797,900
Business License Tax 330,300
Cannabis Retail Tax 291,000
Interest Income from tax revenue 20,000
Total Tax Revenue $ 17,462,445
Fiscal Year ended: 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27
Appropriations Limit $ 36,164,767 $ 38,359,050 $ 40,141,579 Tax revenue $ 15,445,020 $ 16,912,877 $ 17,462,445
Remaining to limit $ 20,719,747 $ 21,446,173 $ 22,679,134 % of limit used 42.71% 44.09% 43.50%
Limit vs. prior year $ 2,085,481 $ 2,194,283 $ 1,782,529 Incr./(Decr.) vs. pr. yr. 6.1% 6.1% 4.6%
86 Item 8 C.

RESOLUTION NO. _____

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPITOLA
SETTING THE 2026-27 FISCAL YEAR APPROPRIATION LIMIT PURSUANT

TO ARTICLE XIIIB OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
WHEREAS, before June 30 of each year, the City Council must select the factors to calculate the appropriation limit for the ensuing fiscal year and set the appropriation limit accordingly.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Capitola that the 2026-27 Fiscal Year Appropriation Limit shall be $40,141,579 calculated as follows:

Population change withing the city: 0.9971
Change in California per capita income: 1.0495
2025-26 Appropriation Limit: $ 38,359,050
Adjustment Factor: x 1.0465
2026-27 Appropriation Limit: $ 40,141,579

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Capitola on the 14
th day of May 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_____________________
Margaux Morgan, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________
Julia Gautho, City Clerk
87 Item 8 C.

Capitola City Council
Agenda Report
Meeting: May 14, 2026
From: City Manager Department
Subject: Appointment to City Advisory Body
Recommended Action: By motion and vote, appoint Raymond Gaeta to the Capitola Historical Museum Board to a term expiring June 30, 2028.

Background/Discussion: Members of the public are appointed to serve in a voluntary capacity on the City’s advisory bodies for terms. The Historical Museum Board was founded in 1967 through the adoption of Ordinance No. 301. The Board promotes a program that will bring about better understanding and appreciation by the Capitola community of its history, architecture, culture, technology, and its creative and natural environments.

Board Bylaws (Resolution No. 4099) state the Board is composed of seven members. The Bylaws state the Commission must review applications and provide a recommendation to City Council for appointment.

Since the last appointments made by City Council in July 2025, a Board Member resigned, causing an unexpected vacancy on the Board. On May 7, 2026, the Historical Museum Board formally recommended Raymond Gaeta to the board for appointment.

Staff recommends the Council appoint (by motion and vote) Raymond Gaeta to the Historical Museum Board to fill the vacant term, expiring on June 30, 2028. Mr. Gaeta’s application is Attachment 1.

Attachments:

1. Application
Report Prepared By: Julia Gautho, City Clerk
Reviewed By: Marc Tran, City Attorney
Approved By: Jamie Goldstein, City Manager
88 Item 8 D.

Boards and Commissions Application
Thank you for your interest in serving on a City of Capitola Advisory Group. Please fill out the following form with your information. Appointments are made at a public City Council meeting.

Application For:

First Name *
Last Name *
Email*
Current Address *
Telephone (Home)
Telephone (Mobile)*
Application For:

Art and Cultural Commission - Artist
Art and Cultural Commission - Arts Professional
Art and Cultural Commission - At Large
Capitola Village and Wharf Business Improvement Area Advisory Committee Commission on the Environment
Finance Advisory Committee - At Large
Finance Advisory Committee - Business Representative
Historical Museum Board
Planning Commission
Other:

Applicant Information
Raymond
Gaeta
City
Capitola
State / Province / Region
CA
Postal / Zip Code
95010
Country
United States
Street Address
Address Line 2
89 Item 8 D.

Are you a Capitola resident? *
Residential Neighborhood:

Are you applying as a Youth Member to an Advisory Group?* Qualifications
Additional Attachments
Acknowledgement Required *
Signature *
Yes
Village
No
Youth Members are encouraged to participate with City Boards, Committees, and Commissions.

Occupation:

Please describe your qualifications and interest in serving on this Board/Commission/Committee:* Physician
I have a keen interest in history and have spent time researching the history of Capitola especially Village where I am the owner of one the Six Sisters since 1996. The area and history of our town is quite remarkable and has been presented quite well by our museum. I am certain that there are more stories to tell through expressive displays from the archives and oral histories.

Please note that appointment to this position may require you to file a conflict of interest disclosure statement or complete additional trainings with the City Clerk. This information is a public record and these statements are available to the public on request.

Acknowledged
All information contained in this page is public data and will be made available for public review upon request. Qualifications and interests of applicants will be provided to the City Council in a public forum and will be reviewed before appointments are made. Questions regarding this application and appointment process should be directed to the Capitola City Clerk. 90 Item 8 D.

Capitola City Council
Agenda Report
Meeting: May 14, 2026
From: Public Works Department
Subject: Proposed Expansion of Marine Protected Areas
Recommended Action: Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter opposing the petition under consideration by the California Fish and Game Commission, which requests to expand the boundaries of Natural Bridges State Marine Reserve (SMR) and designate a new state marine conservation area (SMCA) off Pleasure Point.

Background: At the March 28, 2024, City Council Meeting, the Council authorized Mayor Brown to sign a letter to the California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) opposing Marine Protected Area Petition 2023-33MPA (petition) submitted by Environment California and Azul. The petition initially sought to modify the California Marine Protected Areas Network by expanding the Natural Bridges SMR and establishing a new SMR at or near Pleasure Point. In the letter, the Council expressed opposition to the petition unless it was amended to propose a SMCA, rather than a SMR, near Pleasure Point to allow for recreational hook-and-line fishing and spearfishing, thus striking a balance between kelp forest protection and low-impact subsistence fishing.

At the April 21, 2026, California Fish and Game Commission hearing, Environment California and Azul representatives presented recent amendments to the petition, including modifying the proposal to designate a Pleasure Point SMCA instead of a SMR. Under this amendment, recreational “take” from shore by hook-and-line and spearfishing only would be permitted within the Pleasure Point SMCA, rather than designating the area as a “no-take” zone for both commercial and recreational activities, as is generally required for a SMR.

During the City Council meeting held on April 23, 2026, Council Member Westman referenced a letter submitted to the Commission by the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors opposing the proposed modifications to the California Marine Protected Areas Network and requested that staff draft a similar letter opposing the petition for the City Council’s consideration (Attachment 2).

Discussion: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (Department) recommendation to the Commission is to deny the petition actions. The Department stated that, specifically, the proposed Pleasure Point SMCA is unlikely to meaningfully advance ecological or network design objectives due to its small size and relatively low level of protection from the allowed shore and spear fishing take, and it is not expected to fulfill the stated objectives of supporting kelp resilience outlined in the petition.

Additionally, the Department stated that the proposed SMCA’s proximity to Santa Cruz Harbor is expected to result in significant socioeconomic impacts, while the proposed boundaries do not align with Department feasibility guidelines, potentially complicating enforcement.

While the petition has been amended to propose a SMCA rather than a SMR at Pleasure Point, this change does not address the City’s concerns regarding scientific support, stakeholder engagement, or potential impacts. The Commission is currently considering the amended petition, and regional agencies, including Santa Cruz County, have reaffirmed opposition. For these reasons, staff recommends reaffirming the City’s opposition and supporting the Department’s recommendation to deny Petition 2023- 33MPA.

Fiscal Impact: None.

Attachments:

1. Draft Mayor’s Letter (May 14, 2026)
91 Item 8 E.

2. Letter from the Santa Cruz Board of Supervisor (April 2026) Report Prepared By: Erika Senyk, Environmental Projects Manager Reviewed By: Julia Gautho, City Clerk, Jessica Kahn, Public Works Director Approved By: Jamie Goldstein, City Manager
92 Item 8 E.
420 Capitola Avenue
Capitola, California 95010
Telephone: (831) 475-7300
FAX: (831) 479-8879
Website: http://www.cityofcapitola.org
May 14, 2026
California Fish and Game Commission
1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1320
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Reaffirmation of Opposition to Marine Protected Area Petition 2023-33MPA Dear President Sklar, Vice President Anderson, and Honorable Commissioners, I write to respectfully follow up on the City of Capitola’s prior correspondence from Mayor Brown regarding the proposed modifications to the California Marine Protected Area Network. We wish to reaffirm our position and reiterate the concerns and sentiments expressed in the attached letter, dated March 28, 2024.

The City remains opposed to the petition as currently proposed and amended by Environment California and Azul to expand the Natural Bridges State Marine Reserve and designate a new 3.2 square mile state marine conservation area off Pleasure Point, in Santa Cruz County.

We continue to recognize and support the importance of protecting nearshore kelp forest ecosystems and the role of adaptive management under the Marine Life Protection Act. However, we firmly believe the current petition falls short of sound environmental policy, as it does not meaningfully engage stakeholders or the broader community. Furthermore, the proposed regulatory approach lacks robust scientific support and limits equitable public access to local marine ecosystems without clear evidence that such measures are warranted. While the amendment to a state marine conservation area allows limited recreational take, it does not address these broader concerns.

Additionally, our concerns regarding potential economic impacts remain unchanged. The coastal areas of Santa Cruz County support a vibrant tourism economy driven by ocean-based activities, including fishing. Limiting access to these activities risks unintended consequences for local businesses and the broader community that depends on this economic activity.

For these reasons, we respectfully urge the Commission to support the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Evaluation of the 2023 Decadal Management Review Marine Protected Area Petition’s recommendation to deny Marine Protected Area Petition 2023-33MPA.

The City of Capitola remains committed to working collaboratively with the Commission and other stakeholders to identify solutions that protect kelp forests and other vital marine resources while preserving responsible public access and supporting regional economic vitality.

Thank you again for your consideration and continued engagement on this important matter.

Sincerely,
Margaux Morgan
Mayor, City of Capitola
93 Item 8 E.

County of Santa Cruz

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
701 OCEAN STREET, SUITE 500, SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060-4069
(831) 454-2200 FAX: (831) 454-3262 TDD/TTY - Call 711

MANU KOENIG KIMBERLY DE SERPA JUSTIN CUMMINGS FELIPE HERNANDEZ MONICA MARTINEZ

FIRST DISTRICT SECOND DISTRICT THIRD DISTRICT FOURTH DISTRICT FIFTH DISTRICT April 20, 2026
California Fish and Game Commission
1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1320
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Reaffirmation of Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors’ Opposition to Marine Protected Area Petition 2023-33MPA
Dear President Sklar, Vice President Anderson, and Members of the California Fish and Game Commission,
On behalf of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors, I write in strong support of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Evaluation of the 2023 Decadal Management Review Marine Protected Area Petition’s recommendation to deny Marine Protected Area Petition 2023-33MPA, which proposes to expand the State Marine Reserve (SMR) at Natural Bridges by 14.5 square miles and establish a new State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA) of approximately 3.2 square miles at Pleasure Point.

The California Fish and Game Commission (CFGC) is scheduled to consider this petition on April 21, 2026, and we urge the Commission to reject it in its current form.

The Board first acted on this matter on March 12, 2024, voting unanimously to oppose the petition absent significant revisions. At that time, the Board identified four specific conditions that would need to be satisfied before further consideration was warranted:

1. Conduct studies to evaluate the specific factors influencing kelp forest expansion and contraction on the Central California Coast, including the role, if any, of recreational fishing activities.

2. Hold community outreach forums to inform the public about the purpose and scientific rationale for the proposed MPA changes.

3. Convene a regional stakeholder group, including scientists, environmentalists, fishers, indigenous tribes, and elected officials, to help determine appropriate designations and regulatory frameworks.
94 Item 8 E.

Page 2 ends

RE: OPPOSITION TO MPA PETITION 2023-33MPA
April 20, 2026

4. Identify specific areas where current management is failing to sustain kelp forests and prioritize MPA protections accordingly.

Unfortunately, the amended petition does not address the scientific and procedural deficiencies the Board identified. Since our 2024 action, the petitioners have met with the Third District office only once and to our knowledge have engaged minimal outreach with the broader community of stakeholders, including local fishers, Santa Cruz and Capitola City Councils, indigenous tribes, scientists, and residents directly affected by the proposed restrictions. This is not an acceptable foundation for regulations of this magnitude. For these reasons, on March 24, 2026, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to reaffirm their opposition to the creation of these two MPA’s.

Our concerns fall into five principal areas:

1. Insufficient Scientific Evidence
The petition’s central premise — that restricting recreational fishing will advance kelp forest health and expansion — is not supported by the available science. A December 2021 technical report on Monitoring and Evaluation of Kelp Forest Ecosystems in the MLPA Marine Protected Area Network found no substantial negative effect from current uses on average kelp canopy area in existing MPAs. Critically, the report found no effect of MPA status on kelp forest resilience during the 2014–2016 Marine Heat Wave, and found that existing Central Coast MPAs were evenly split between higher and lower resilience than nearby non-MPA reference sites. These findings do not support the conclusion that expanding MPAs in the proposed areas will reliably produce the outcomes the petitioners seek.

2. Proposed Areas Already Support Healthy Kelp Forests
The areas targeted by this petition contain persistent, stable kelp beds that recovered effectively from the 2014–2016 Marine Heat Wave. By focusing on sites where kelp is already thriving under current management, including existing recreational fishing activity, the petition undermines its own rationale. There is no data indicating that recreational fishing intensity in these areas is inhibiting kelp forest growth. Regulatory restrictions should be directed where management is demonstrably failing.

3. Significant Impacts on Recreational and Subsistence Fishing A State Marine Reserve designation prohibits any taking or possession of living, geological, or cultural marine resources except under specific permits. Expansion of the 95 Item 8 E.

Page 3 ends

RE: OPPOSITION TO MPA PETITION 2023-33MPA
April 20, 2026
Natural Bridges SMR would curtail recreational and subsistence fishing opportunities for residents who depend on coastal access for recreation, cultural practice, and livelihood.

While the amended petition proposes to create a State Marine Conservation Area that allows for shore-based recreational hook-and-line fishing and spearfishing (as opposed to the previously proposed SMR) we remain concerned that the designation will limit recreational and subsistence fishing opportunities in this area, where small vessels, kayaks, and paddle boards are also utilized for these purposes, and will provide no benefits that will improve kelp forest health through the new regulation.

The Santa Cruz region already carries significant protective designations through the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary and multiple existing MPAs. Further restrictions, absent compelling and site-specific scientific justification, would impose disproportionate burdens on our community by further reducing access to marine ecosystems.

4. Inadequate Stakeholder Engagement and Public Outreach Many residents first became aware of these proposals only when the item appeared on the Fish and Game Commission’s agenda. A significant portion of the affected community remains uninformed of the proposed changes to this day. Sound environmental policy requires meaningful community engagement from the outset. That has not occurred here.

Santa Cruz County has a proud tradition of environmental stewardship grounded in balanced, evidence-based decision-making. We remain deeply committed to the health and resilience of our marine ecosystems. It is precisely because of that commitment that we cannot support a regulatory approach that lacks rigorous scientific justification, bypasses meaningful community participation, and imposes burdens on residents without a demonstrated need to do so.

5. Concurrence with Recommendations Proposed by Fish and Wildlife Staff After reading the recommendations that were provided by Fish and Wildlife staff, we agree with their recommendations that overall the expansion of the Natural Bridges MPA would be unnecessary to achieve the goals of protecting kelp, which occurs mostly near shore, and the original intent of this particular MPA, which was designed to protect intertidal and nearshore habitats while minimizing socio-economic impacts. We also agree that the creation of the Pleasure Point MPA would be too small in nature to provide meaningful ecological impacts and instead impose socioeconomic impacts on residents and visitors to the region.
96 Item 8 E.

Page 4 ends

RE: OPPOSITION TO MPA PETITION 2023-33MPA
April 20, 2026
We respectfully urge the California Fish and Game Commission to deny Petition 2023- 33MPA. If there are future efforts to expand MPA’s in the Santa Cruz region, we hope to be notified of such changes and would encourage that any changes be driven by the scientific community, and include extensive community outreach and regional stakeholder engagement that the seriousness of these kinds of proposals demand. As a community that is a leader in environmental protection, we are committed to protecting our environment while balancing that with public access and we are always open and available to work with all parties to strike a healthy balance for both activities.

Thank you for your consideration of the Board’s position.

Sincerely,
MONICA MARTINEZ, Chair
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
Cc: Senator Laird
Assemblymember Pellerin
Assemblymember Addis
Speaker Rivas
Mayor and City Council, City of Capitola
Mayor and City Council, City of Santa Cruz
97 Item 8 E.

Capitola City Council
Agenda Report
Meeting: May 14, 2026
From: Public Works Department
Subject: Support for State Budget Request for Public Beach Restoration Program Funding
Recommended Action: Authorize the Mayor to execute a letter supporting the allocation of $200 million in Proposition 4 Climate Bond funding for the Department of Boating and Waterways Public Beach Restoration Program.

Background: The Department of Boating and Waterways (DBW) Public Beach Restoration Program provides funding assistance to local jurisdictions for projects addressing coastal erosion, shoreline retreat, protection of public access, beach nourishment, sand retention, and resilience to sea level rise and storm impacts.

Senator Catherine Blakespear submitted a request to the California Senate Budget Committee seeking an allocation of $200 million in Proposition 4 Climate Bond funding for the DBW Public Beach Restoration Program. The request is intended to support coastal resilience and beach restoration projects statewide.

Currently, no funding has been proposed for the Public Beach Restoration Program in the State budget.

The current request seeks to establish funding within the Proposition 4 Climate Bond allocation process for future coastal resilience and beach restoration projects statewide.

Discussion: A broader statewide effort is now underway seeking support from coastal jurisdictions for the funding request.

The City of Capitola has ongoing coastal resilience and shoreline protection needs associated with beach erosion, sea level rise, and storm impacts along the Capitola shoreline. Staff previously pursued funding through the DBW Public Beach Restoration Program for the Cliff Drive Resiliency Project and related coastal adaptation efforts.

Participating agencies have been invited to either sign onto a coalition support letter or submit individual support letters supporting the funding request. Staff recommends submitting a City letter in support of the funding request.

Fiscal Impact: No direct fiscal impact is associated with this action. Future funding through the Public Beach Restoration Program could support coastal resilience and shoreline protection projects within the City.

Attachments:

1. Senator Blakespear Letter Requesting Proposition 4 Funding for the DBW Public Beach Restoration Program
Alignment with 2025-2029 Strategic Plan Priority: Healthy Families, Community, and Environment; Sustainable Infrastructure
Report Prepared By: Jessica Kahn, P.E., Public Works Director Reviewed By: Julia Gautho, City Clerk
Approved By: Jamie Goldstein, City Manager
98 Item 8 F.

Attachment 1
March 6, 2026
The Honorable John Laird
Chair, Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee
California State Senate
1020 N. Street, Room 502
Sacramento, CA 95814
The Honorable Roger Niello
Vice Chair, Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee
California State Senate
1020 N. Street, Room 502
Sacramento, CA 95814
The Honorable Eloise Gomez Reyes
Chair, Senate Budget Subcommittee 2
1020 N. Street, Room 502
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Request for $200 Million in Climate Bond Funding for the Department of Boating and Waterways Public Beach Restoration Program
Dear Chair Laird, Vice Chair Niello, and Subcommittee No. 2 Chair Reyes:

I respectfully request that Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 2 allocate $200 million in Climate Bond funding from the coastal resilience categories to the Department of Boating and Waterways (DBW) Public Beach Restoration Program.

California’s coastline is one of the State’s most valuable natural, economic, and cultural assets, yet it is increasingly threatened by sea level rise, coastal erosion, and the accelerating impacts of climate change.

The Public Beach Program is one of the State’s most effective tools for delivering long-term, naturebased coastal resilience solutions, including beach nourishment, sand retention, and shoreline protection projects that preserve public access while safeguarding coastal infrastructure and ecosystems.

As voters and the Legislature look toward implementation of recently authorized Climate Bond funding, it is critical that these dollars be rolled out promptly and strategically to projects that are ready to deliver measurable resilience benefits. Public beach restoration projects are inherently long-term in nature, requiring planning, engineering, and permitting well in advance of construction. Dedicated bond funding 99 Item 8 F.

Attachment 1
will allow DBW to support projects that not only respond to immediate erosion threats but also build adaptive capacity to combat sea level rise over decades.

Each year, cities and counties up and down the California coast submit applications for Public Beach Program funding to address severe erosion, loss of recreational beaches, and threats to public safety and coastal access. However, despite consistent demand and demonstrated need, the program has not received sufficient funding in recent years to advance these critical projects. As a result, many shovelready efforts that would protect communities and public assets remain unfunded.

An investment of $200 million in Climate Bond funding would enable DBW to meaningfully address this backlog, support regional equity along the coast, and advance projects that align squarely with the State’s climate resilience, public access, and coastal protection goals. These investments will help ensure that California’s beaches remain resilient, accessible, and economically viable in the face of rising seas.

This investment is particularly important to the communities I represent along the San Diego County coastline, where beaches are already experiencing chronic erosion, narrowing shorelines, and increased storm impacts. Cities in my district rely on healthy, resilient beaches to protect coastal infrastructure, maintain public access, and support local economies driven by tourism and recreation. Without sustained state investment, these communities face escalating risks from sea level rise that threaten public safety, transportation corridors, and essential coastal assets. Funding the Public Beach Program will directly support long-term resilience solutions for these communities while advancing statewide climate adaptation goals.

For example, in my district, the City of Oceanside’s RE:BEACH coastal resilience initiative would benefit from prioritization of Proposition 4 Climate Bond funding through the Public Beach Restoration Program.

RE:BEACH is an innovative pilot project designed to address chronic shoreline erosion through sand retention strategies, including artificial headlands and an offshore reef intended to slow nearshore currents and help retain sand along the coastline. By stabilizing beaches, protecting coastal infrastructure, and preserving public access along the San Diego County shoreline, projects like RE:BEACH support the state’s goals of strengthening coastal resilience while sustaining the recreational and economic value of California’s coast. Furthermore, as Southern California prepares host the Olympics, surfing location Trestles State Beach and San Onofre State Beach would benefit from funding to ensure erosion control and sand projects can confidently compete for funding.

Thank you for your consideration of this request and for your continued leadership on climate resilience and natural resource protection. I look forward to working with you and the Subcommittee to ensure climate bond investments are deployed effectively to protect California’s coastline for future generations.

Sincerely,
Catherine Blakespear
California State Senate
District 38
100
Item 8 F.

Capitola City Council
Agenda Report
Meeting: May 14, 2026
From: Public Works Department
Subject: Escalona Avenue Right-of-Way Vacation, Parcel Creation, and Reservation of Easements
Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution: 1) vacating a portion of the Escalona Avenue right-of-way, approving creation of a parcel, and reserving a public open space easement and a public access easement over the parcel; and 2) authorizing the City Manager to execute and record all documents necessary to effectuate these actions, subject to minor modifications approved by the City Manager, City Engineer, and City Attorney.

Background: The subject area is an unimproved portion of right-of-way located at the end of Escalona Drive on Depot Hill. The area is situated between private parcels, including the Monarch Cove property and an adjacent private residence. The right-of-way has remained undeveloped and is not used for vehicular access. At the terminus of the right-of-way, an informal pathway provides pedestrian access to an ocean overlook. This pathway has functioned as a public access point and is a valued feature of the site.

The property is not needed for current or future street purposes. The site’s physical characteristics, constraints, and potential for limited future use have been evaluated, and an opportunity has been identified to formalize the property configuration and consider future disposition while maintaining key public benefits.

To achieve this, staff proposes to vacate the public right-of-way, establish a legal parcel, and reserve easements to preserve these public benefits. A public access easement would formalize and protect continued pedestrian access along the existing pathway to the ocean overlook, and an open space easement would limit future development and maintain the natural character of the site.

Discussion: Staff recommends vacating the unused right-of-way and creating a legal parcel. As part of that action, the City would reserve permanent easements over the parcel to retain ongoing public benefit.

The easements would include:
 Public Access Easement: to preserve pedestrian access along the existing pathway to the ocean overlook and allow related pathway, safety, and maintenance improvements.  Open Space Easement: to preserve the majority of the parcel in a natural and open condition, limit development potential, and protect scenic and environmental values while allowing lowimpact amenities and maintenance activities.

These easements are intended to run with the land and be recorded concurrently with the parcel creation documents.

Following Council action, the parcel map and associated legal documents will be finalized and recorded.

Minor refinements to legal descriptions, exhibits, and mapping may occur prior to recordation, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and City Attorney.

Once the parcel is created, staff anticipates returning to the City Council with a separate action to declare the property surplus and initiate the disposition process in accordance with the Surplus Land Act.

Reservation of the easements ensures permanent public benefit regardless of future ownership.

Fiscal Impact: There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with the proposed action. Future disposition of the parcel may result in revenue to the City, subject to compliance with applicable laws and Council direction.
101
Item 8 G.

Attachments:

1. Resolution Vacating Right-of-Way and Reserving Easements

2. Right-of-Way/Parcel Exhibit

3. Public Access Easement Deed

4. Open Space Easement Deed
Alignment with 2025-2029 Strategic Plan Priority: Accountable Government; Economic Opportunity; 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
102
Item 8 G.

RESOLUTION NO. ______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPITOLA VACATING A

PORTION OF ESCALONA DRIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY, APPROVING PARCEL CREATION, AND

RESERVING OPEN SPACE AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of Capitola holds an interest in a portion of Escalona Drive right-of-way located at the end of Escalona Drive on Depot Hill; and WHEREAS, the subject right-of-way is unimproved and not required for present or prospective public street purposes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to vacate the public right-of-way and facilitate creation of a parcel for potential future disposition; and
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to retain ongoing public benefit through the reservation of easements over the property, including preservation of open space and continued public pedestrian access to the ocean overlook; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Capitola as follows:

Section 1. The City Council hereby vacates the public right-of-way over the area shown on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

Section 2. The City Council approves the creation of a parcel from the vacated right-of-way area as shown on Exhibit A, subject to final map and legal description approval by the City Engineer.

Section 3. The City Council hereby reserves the following easements over the parcel:
(a) A public open space easement over the area shown on Exhibit B; and (b) A public access easement over the area shown on Exhibit C.

Said easements shall be in substantially the form presented to the City Council and may be finalized as separate deeds or recordable instruments, subject to minor modifications approved by the City Manager, City Engineer, and City Attorney.

Section 4. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute and record all documents necessary to effectuate this resolution, including but not limited to the right-of-way vacation, parcel map, easement deeds, legal descriptions, and related instruments, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney.

Section 5. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. 103
Item 8 G.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Capitola at its regular meeting held on the 14th day of May 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
__________________________
Margaux Morgan, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Julia Gautho, City Clerk
104
Item 8 G.

PRELIMINARY
105
Item 8 G.

PRELIMINARY
03/03/2026 PRELIMINARY
106
Item 8 G.

PRELIMINARY
107
Item 8 G.

RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:

City Clerk
City of Capitola
420 Capitola Avenue
Capitola, CA 95010
This document is exempt from recording fees pursuant
to California Government Code § 27383

PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT DEED
THIS EASEMENT is granted this ____________ day of _____________, 2026, by the City of Capitola, a California municipal corporation, hereinafter called “GRANTOR,” for the benefit of the public.

RECITALS
WHEREAS, is the owner in fee simple of that certain real property located in the City of Capitola, County of Santa Cruz, State of California, described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, GRANTOR desires to provide and preserve public pedestrian access over a portion of the Property described in Exhibit “B” (the “Public Access Easement Area”); and WHEREAS, the Public Access Easement Area provides access to an ocean overlook and has open space, scenic, public interest, passive recreational, and aesthetic values (collectively, “Public Access Values”); and WHEREAS, GRANTOR intends that the Public Access Easement Area be preserved for public access and enjoyment in perpetuity;
NOW, THEREFORE, GRANTOR hereby grants and conveys for the benefit of the public a nonexclusive public access easement over the Public Access Easement Area of the Property, on the terms and conditions set forth below.

1. PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT
a. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Public Access Easement to ensure that the Public Access Easement Area will be retained in a manner that allows and protects public pedestrian access and passive recreational use, and to prevent any use that would interfere with the public’s access and enjoyment. b. Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted within the Public Access Easement Area:
i. Public non-motorized access at all reasonable times; ii. Passive recreational uses, including walking and nature observation; iii. Maintenance, repair, and improvement of the pathway and related facilities; iv. Installation of minor improvements such as pathways, bike parking, steps, railings, 108
Item 8 G.
benches, signage, landscaping not otherwise prohibited by Section (d), and safety features. c. Prohibited Uses. The following uses are prohibited within the Public Access Easement Area:
i. Any obstruction, barrier, gate, fencing, or other improvement, except as reasonably necessary for temporary maintenance, repair, emergency response, or public safety purposes;
ii. Construction or placement of buildings, structures, or improvements inconsistent with the public access purposes of this Easement;
iii. Storage, dumping, camping, open fires, or the accumulation of refuse, debris, hazardous materials, or other materials.
d. Trail Character and Access Integrity. The Public Access Easement Area shall be maintained in a manner that preserves safe and functional pedestrian access. No landscaping, or other features shall be installed within the Public Access Easement Area that:
i. Materially narrow the pathway;
ii. Create enclosed, confined, or visually obstructed conditions; or iii. Otherwise impair visibility, safety, or the public’s use and enjoyment of the Easement Area.
e. Owner Use. The owner of the Property may use the Public Access Easement Area in any manner that does not interfere with public access or the purposes of this easement. f. Maintenance and Access Rights of City. GRANTOR shall have the right, but not the obligation, to enter the Public Access Easement Area at reasonable times for purposes of inspection, maintenance, repair, and improvement.
g. Enforcement. GRANTOR shall have the right to enforce the terms of this easement by any lawful means, including injunctive relief.
h. Indemnification. The owner of the Property shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, damages, liabilities, losses, costs, and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, arising out of or related to:
i. The condition of the Property; or
ii. The acts or omissions of the owner, its agents, contractors, tenants, or invitees; i. Runs with the Land. This easement shall run with the land and be binding upon all successors and assigns.
j. Severability. If any provision of this easement is found invalid, the remainder shall remain in full force and effect.
k. Amendment. This easement may be amended only by a written instrument executed by the City and recorded in the Official Records of Santa Cruz County.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, GRANTOR has executed this Public Access Easement Deed as of the date first written above.

Executed on _____________, 2026.
109
Item 8 G.

GRANTOR
City of Capitola
By: ________________________________
Its: _______________________________
110
Item 8 G.

EXHIBIT “A”
111
Item 8 G.
112
Item 8 G.

EXHIBIT “B”
113
Item 8 G.
114
Item 8 G.

RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:

City Clerk
City of Capitola
420 Capitola Avenue
Capitola, CA 95010
This document is exempt from recording fees pursuant
to California Government Code § 27383

OPEN SPACE EASEMENT DEED
THIS EASEMENT is granted this ____________ day of _____________, 2026, by the City of Capitola, a California municipal corporation, hereinafter called “GRANTOR,” for the benefit of the public.

RECITALS
WHEREAS, is the owner in fee simple of that certain real property located in the City of Capitola, County of Santa Cruz, State of California, described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, GRANTOR desires to preserve the Property in a natural, open condition, protect scenic and environmental values, and limit development; and WHEREAS, GRANTOR further desires to allow for limited, low-impact improvements and passive recreational uses consistent with preservation of the Property; WHEREAS, GRANTOR intends that the Easement Area be preserved in perpetuity for open space purposes;
NOW, THEREFORE, GRANTOR hereby grants and conveys for the benefit of the public a non-exclusive open space easement over the real property described in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated herein (the “Easement Area”), on the terms and conditions set forth below.

1. OPEN SPACE EASEMENT
a. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Open Space Easement to ensure that the Easement Area will be retained in a natural, open condition; to protect scenic and environmental values; to 115
Item 8 G.
limit development; and to allow passive recreational uses and limited improvements consistent with these purposes.
b. Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted within the Easement Area:
i. Passive recreational uses, including walking and nature observation; ii. Minor improvements such as benches, overlooks, trails, pathways, signage, and similar low-impact amenities;
iii. Improvements and activities necessary to support public access; iv. Maintenance, restoration, and fire safety activities; v. Removal or management of vegetation, including non-native or invasive species, in accordance with applicable City permitting requirements. c. Prohibited Uses. The following uses are prohibited within the Easement Area:
i. Construction or placement of buildings or structures, except as expressly permitted in Section 1(b);
ii. Commercial or industrial uses;
iii. Agricultural use or keeping of livestock;
iv. Dumping, storage, or disposal of materials;
v. Grading, paving, or alteration of the natural terrain except as necessary for permitted uses.
d. Vegetation. Removal or disturbance of vegetation shall be prohibited except for maintenance, restoration, fire safety purposes, removal of non-native or invasive species, or as otherwise approved by the City through its standard permitting processes. e. Fencing. New fencing shall be limited to 36” in height and designed to maintain visual openness and shall not include solid walls or barriers. f. Subdivision. Subdivision of the Property is prohibited, except for lot line adjustments that do not create additional development potential and remain consistent with the purposes of this easement.
g. Owner Use. The owner of the Property may use the Easement Area in any manner that does not unreasonably interfere with the purposes of this easement. h. General Restriction. Any use of the Easement Area inconsistent with the purposes of this easement is prohibited.
i. Enforcement. GRANTOR shall have the right to enforce the terms of this easement by any lawful means, including injunctive relief.
j. Indemnification. The owner of the Property shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, damages, liabilities, losses, costs, and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, arising out of or related to:
i. the condition of the Property; or
116
Item 8 G.
ii. the acts or omissions of the owner, its agents, contractors, tenants, or invitees;
k. Runs with the Land. This easement shall run with the land and be binding upon all successors and assigns.
l. Severability. If any provision of this easement is found invalid, the remainder shall remain in full force and effect.
m. Amendment. This easement may be amended only by a written instrument executed by the City and recorded in the Official Records of Santa Cruz County.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, GRANTOR has executed this Public Access Easement Deed as of the date first written above.

Executed on _____________, 2026.

GRANTOR
City of Capitola
By: ________________________________
Its: _______________________________
117
Item 8 G.

EXHIBIT “A”
118
Item 8 G.
119
Item 8 G.

EXHIBIT “B”
120
Item 8 G.
121
Item 8 G.

Capitola City Council
Agenda Report
Meeting: May 14, 2026
From: Public Works Department
Subject: Local Roadway Safety Plan and Long-Term Roadway Safety Goal Recommended Action: 1) Adopt the City of Capitola Local Roadway Safety Plan; and 2) adopt a resolution establishing a long-term goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and serious injuries on Capitola roadways by 2045, consistent with Safe System and Vision Zero principles.

Background: The City initiated preparation of a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) to provide a datadriven framework for evaluating traffic safety conditions, identifying crash trends, and developing strategies to reduce fatal and serious injury collisions. LRSPs are encouraged by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Caltrans and are commonly used by local agencies to strengthen eligibility for transportation safety funding programs, including the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation.

On March 26, 2026, the City Council received an informational presentation on the draft LRSP and provided feedback for refinement before final adoption. Staff incorporated Council comments and finalized the plan for consideration.

Discussion: The LRSP evaluates five years of collision data, roadway characteristics, and community input to better understand safety conditions throughout Capitola. The plan identifies trends involving vulnerable roadway users, driver behavior, intersection conflicts, and corridor conditions, and recommends both location-specific and systemwide strategies intended to reduce collision severity and frequency.

The LRSP is a planning document and does not approve or commit the City to the construction of any specific capital improvement projects. Rather, it provides a framework to help guide future decisionmaking, prioritize investments, and support competitive grant applications. Many of the strategies identified may also be incorporated incrementally through routine maintenance, resurfacing, striping, operational changes, and future capital projects as opportunities arise.

Following Council direction at the March meeting, the final LRSP has been refined to include:
• Additional context regarding traffic enforcement and citation trends through a supplemental Police Department memorandum (Attachment 2), noting year-to-year variation rather than a consistent long-term trend;
• Clarification that the case study locations are illustrative examples intended to demonstrate how countermeasures may be applied and do not represent funded, prioritized, or programmed projects;
• Additional high-level references to signal-related improvements that may better accommodate bicyclists, including bicycle detection, signal timing, and signal operations considerations; • Clarification that aggressive driving behavior may be influenced by congestion, roadway conditions, construction activity, detours, or temporary disruptions, consistent with community input and observed roadway conditions, without identifying a singular causal relationship; • Clarification that many low-cost and systemwide countermeasures may be implemented incrementally through routine maintenance activities, resurfacing projects, striping improvements, operational changes, and future capital projects; and
• Additional language supporting consideration of a long-term City policy goal to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries consistent with Vision Zero principles. 122
Item 8 H.

In addition to the adoption of the LRSP, staff recommends the adoption of a resolution (Attachment 3) establishing a long-term roadway safety goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and serious injuries by 2045.

The 2045 timeframe aligns with common long-term planning horizons used in roadway safety, Vision Zero, and broader statewide policy efforts, and provides a realistic timeframe to implement systemic safety improvements. Adoption of a formal safety policy is consistent with national Safe System and Vision Zero practices and is expected to strengthen the City’s competitiveness for future SS4A and other grant funding opportunities.

The proposed resolution does not create new regulatory requirements or commit the City to any specific expenditure. It establishes a policy direction that future transportation planning, capital improvements, education, enforcement, and grant pursuits should support safer travel for all roadway users, with nearterm progress guided by the LRSP and future implementation efforts.

Adoption of the LRSP makes certain projects potentially eligible for grant funding. The identified corridors and intersections were identified based on documented collision history, severe injury and pedestrianrelated crashes, multimodal conflict areas, and recurring safety concerns identified through the LRSP process. Potential project locations include:
 Bay Avenue corridor and intersection safety improvements between Highway 1 and Capitola Avenue;
 41st Avenue corridor safety improvements between Gross Road and Clares Street;  Monterey Avenue and surrounding neighborhood streets serving access to New Brighton Middle School;
 Citywide systemic intersection safety improvements focused on pedestrian visibility, crossing safety, lighting, signage and striping upgrades, traffic control improvements, and related low-cost systemic safety enhancements at priority locations identified through the LRSP process.

On May 21, the Council will be discussing the 5-Year Capital Improvement Program. Priorities for future roadway safety improvement grants can be identified at that time.

Fiscal Impact: Preparation of the LRSP was funded through the adopted Public Works budget. Adoption of the LRSP and resolution does not commit the City to specific construction expenditures. The actions are expected to improve eligibility and competitiveness for external grant funding for future safety improvements.

Attachments:

1. Final Local Roadway Safety Plan

2. Police Department Enforcement and Citation Trends Memorandum

3. Resolution Establishing a Long-Term Roadway Safety Goal 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
123
Item 8 H.

2 FINAL 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.

May 2026
125
Item 8 H.

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
Matt Miller (Director – Mobility Transportation
(Ecology Action)
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
Robert Paderna, PE, 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. 126
Item 8 H.

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 ....................................................................................... 55 127
Item 8 H.

5 9.2. Non-Infrastructure Countermeasures .......................................................................... 59

10. EVALUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................... 61

10.1. Evaluation ................................................................................................................ 61

10.2. Implementation ........................................................................................................ 61

10.2.1. Near- and Mid-Term Focus Areas .................................................................... 61

10.3. Funding .................................................................................................................... 62

10.3.1. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) .................................................. 62

10.3.2. Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) .............................................................. 62

10.3.3. Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP) .................................................. 62

10.3.4. State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) ........................................... 63

10.3.5. California SB 1 ................................................................................................ 63

10.3.6. California OTS Grants ..................................................................................... 63

10.3.7. ABAG Regional Funding Programs ................................................................... 64

11. NEXT STEPS ................................................................................................................. 65 128
Item 8 H.

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 Appendix E Police Department Enforcement and Citation Trends Memorandum

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 ....................................................................................... 42 129
Item 8 H.

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 ................................................. 58 Table 8 — Capitola Non-Infrastructure Countermeasures Toolbox............................................... 60 130
Item 8 H.

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
131
Item 8 H.

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
132
Item 8 H.
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. 133
Item 8 H.
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
134
Item 8 H.
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. The City of Capitola plans to adopt a policy resolution for the LRSP, setting a long-term goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and serious injuries.

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. 135
Item 8 H.
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.
136
Item 8 H.
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 137
Item 8 H.
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.
138
Item 8 H.
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. 139
Item 8 H.
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.
140
Item 8 H.
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 141
Item 8 H.
19 Figure 2 — Intersection and Segment Crash Map (2019 – 2023) 142
Item 8 H.

20 Figure 3 — Flyer for City of Capitola LRSP
143
Item 8 H.

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 5Error! Reference source not found..

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. 144
Item 8 H.

22 Figure 6 — Interactive Engagement Poster – Summary of Input Received Pictures from the in-person community event are shown below:

145
Item 8 H.

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 146
Item 8 H.

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
147
Item 8 H.

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.
148
Item 8 H.

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] 149
Item 8 H.

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 a vision for the future and establishes a framework for maintaining Capitola’s unique identity
o Establishes goals, policies, and actions to guide growth, conversation, and enhancement
o Outlines City’s future including areas of improvement o It aims to provide adequate pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, transit, and emergency access for existing and proposed land uses.
 Bicycle Transportation Plan (2011)
o Prioritizes bicycle improvement projects with the goal of increasing bicycle commuting, recreation, tourism, and safety.
o Defines a network of bikeways, with an emphasis on commuter routes and compliments other routes in Santa Cruz County.
 Municipal Code (relevant sections)
o Establishes rules for ensuring community safety and maintaining quality of life.  Traffic Impact Fee Program
o Complies with California’s Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600) Programs and Initiatives
 Street Smarts Education Campaign
o Santa Cruz County collaborates with Capitola to circulate traffic safety messages through radio, print ads, videos, and more.
 Community Traffic Safety Coalition
o The City participates with the Coalition to advance the County’s vision zero goal. o Countywide crash data analysis prepared by the Coalition has included the City of Capitola.

Recent Projects and Studies
 Engineering and Traffic Study (2020)
o Evaluates existing speed limits across the City
o Establishes appropriate speed limits that encourage compliance, enhances pedestrian/bicycle safety, and allows for enforcement.
 Park Avenue and Clares Street Traffic Calming
o Evaluates and identifies potential traffic calming improvements on Park Avenue from Monterey Avenue to Coronado Street to reduce vehicle speeds and improve accessibility for bicyclists and pedestrians along the corridor. 150
Item 8 H.

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.
151
Item 8 H.

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.
152
Item 8 H.

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)
153
Item 8 H.

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.
154
Item 8 H.

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 155
Item 8 H.

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) It should be noted that the observed speed trends with the City overtime also provide additional context and may serve as a valuable supplement to crash data analysis used in this LRSP. This supplemental data is attached in Appendix E.
156
Item 8 H.

34 Figure 12 — Citywide Crashes (2019-2023)
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System(TIMS) (2019-2023) 157
Item 8 H.

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)
158
Item 8 H.

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) 159
Item 8 H.

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. Aggressive driving behavior may be influenced by roadway conditions, congestion, or temporary disruptions such as construction activity or detours; however, it should be noted that this should be viewed as a potential correlation rather than a direct cause-and-effect relationship. 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 160
Item 8 H.

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 161
Item 8 H.

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 162
Item 8 H.

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 163
Item 8 H.

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.

164
Item 8 H.

42 Figure 21 — Non-Motorized Crash Map
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) ( 2019-2023) 165
Item 8 H.

43 Figure 22 — Intersection and Roadway Segment Injury Crashes Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) (2019-2023) 166
Item 8 H.
44 8. DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIOECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
Road user data was obtained from ReplicaHQ4 for the City of Capitola. Replica is a nationally calibrated agent-based travel model that provides simulated transportation analytics for baseline existing conditions. Replica uses large public and private datasets including mobile location data, census and other government datasets, and observed traffic datasets to generate the conditions of an average day during select periods of the year. Replica’s agent-based model simulates highly detailed travel behavior, modeled at the individual traveler level throughout the full course of the day, providing insights into travel purpose, modal distribution, travel time, and routing patterns. The 2025 Spring dataset was selected to capture the most recently available travel data. The Replica data indicates that 11.5% of residents travelling along 41st Ave have a household income of $25K or less, while 21% have an household income of $50K or less (Figure 23).

Figure 23 — Household Income of road users along 41st Ave Along Stockton Ave in the Main Village, 10.5% of resident trips have a household income less than $25K, while an additional 10% have a household income of 50K or less (Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference.). The safety improvements identified for these corridors and proposed in the safety countermeasure toolbox will benefit these low income households. 4 ReplicaHQ, Accessed January 2026. https://www.replicahq.com/ 167
Item 8 H.
45 Figure 24 — Household income for road users along Stockton Ave 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. 168
Item 8 H.
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. 169
Item 8 H.
47 Figure 25 — Low Income Network Link Volumes Originating in Capitola 170
Item 8 H.
48 Figure 26 — Low Income Pedestrian and Cyclist Network Link Volumes Originating in Capitola 171
Item 8 H.
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 172
Item 8 H.
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.

Some of the low-cost countermeasures identified in Table 5 are part of the routine improvements regularly implemented by the City through ongoing maintenance and capital projects. 173
Item 8 H.

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% $$
174
Item 8 H.

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 $$$
175
Item 8 H.

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% $$$
Install pedestrian median fencing X X 0.65 35% X 90% $$ 176
Item 8 H.

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 177
Item 8 H.
55 9.1.3. Case-Study Locations
The case-study locations in this section illustrate potential countermeasures, their crash modification factors, and implementation costs. These locations are not prioritized, funded, or programmed projects for the City.

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
178
Item 8 H.
56 Case Study Location Crashes EPDO Notes
Esplanade and San Jose Avenue 3 29
 1 Broadside crash
 1 Rear-End crash
 1 Pedestrian crash
 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. Additionally, signal-related improvements, such as enhanced 5 AB-413 Vehicles: stopping, standing, and parking. October 10, 2023. Available at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB413 179
Item 8 H.
57 bicycle detection and optimized signal timing and operations, can help better accommodate bicyclists at signalized intersections and improve overall safety and efficiency. 180
Item 8 H.
58 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 - -
181
Item 8 H.
59 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. 182
Item 8 H.
60 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
183
Item 8 H.
61 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. 184
Item 8 H.
62 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:
185
Item 8 H.
63  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
186
Item 8 H.
64  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 187
Item 8 H.
65 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. 188
Item 8 H.
66 APPENDIX A

INTERSECTION NETWORK SCREENING RESULTS
189
Item 8 H.

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
190
Item 8 H.
67 APPENDIX B

SEGMENT NETWORK SCREENING RESULTS
191
Item 8 H.

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
192
Item 8 H.
68 APPENDIX C

PUBLIC COMMENTS
193
Item 8 H.
194
Item 8 H.

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 18 195
Item 8 H.

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 18 196
Item 8 H.

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 18 197
Item 8 H.

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 18 198
Item 8 H.

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 18 199
Item 8 H.

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 18 200
Item 8 H.

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 18 201
Item 8 H.

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 202
Item 8 H.

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. Itâ€™s extremely dangerous. Iâ€™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
203
Item 8 H.

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 Gayleâ€™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 204
Item 8 H.

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 205
Item 8 H.

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 206
Item 8 H.

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 Thereâ€™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 Carpoâ€™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 Gayleâ€™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
207
Item 8 H.

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 Gayleâ€™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
208
Item 8 H.

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 Gayleâ€™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
209
Item 8 H.
210
Item 8 H.

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 2 211
Item 8 H.

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 2 212
Item 8 H.
213
Item 8 H.

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 214
Item 8 H.

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 215
Item 8 H.

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 216
Item 8 H.

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
217
Item 8 H.
218
Item 8 H.
219
Item 8 H.
220
Item 8 H.

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.
221
Item 8 H.

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 10 222
Item 8 H.

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 10 223
Item 8 H.

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 10 224
Item 8 H.

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 10 225
Item 8 H.

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 10 226
Item 8 H.

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 10 227
Item 8 H.

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 10 228
Item 8 H.
69 APPENDIX D

SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND PRACTICES FOR THE

CITY OF CAPITOLA
229
Item 8 H.

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. 230
Item 8 H.

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 231
Item 8 H.

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
232
Item 8 H.

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
233
Item 8 H.
70 APPENDIX E

POLICE DEPARTMENT ENFORCEMENT AND CITATION TRENDS MEMORANDUM 234
Item 8 H.

Memo
To: City Council
From: Sarah Ryan, Chief of Police
Date: May 1, 2026
Re: Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP)
Summary of Key Trends (2019–2026 YTD)
A review of citywide data from 2019 through 2026 (year-to-date) shows year-to-year variation rather than a consistent long-term trend, specifically moving citations increased significantly between 2021 and 2023, then declined in 2024–2025. Overall, the data reflect year-to-year variation and are influenced by enforcement levels and other factors, rather than indicating a clear long-term trend.

Data Sources
Traffic-related data were obtained from Capitola Police Department records, including citations, reported violations, and collision reports occurring within city limits. These data reflect officerinitiated enforcement activity and documented incidents.

Year Moving Citations Issued
2019 796
2020 779
2021 684
2022 1,036
2023 1,438
2024 1,335
2025 791
2026* 222
*Data entry as of 4/30/26.

POLICE DEPARTMENT
235
Item 8 H.

This dataset does not include enforcement or incident data from the California Highway Patrol (CHP) or the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office (SCSO), even on roadways that extend beyond or connect to the city. As a result, findings are limited to activity captured by Capitola Police.

Contextual Factors to Consider
The following external and operational factors should be considered:
 Staffing Levels and Deployment
Variations in officer availability and assignment patterns over time. Lower counts may indicate reduced enforcement presence, rather than improved driver behavior.  Targeted Enforcement Campaigns
Higher citation counts may reflect increased enforcement effort, not necessarily increased non-compliance.
 Community Complaints and Engagement
Locations with higher public concern may receive increased enforcement attention. 236
Item 8 H.

Year Moving Citations Issued
2019 796
2020 779
2021 684
2022 1,036
2023 1,438
2024 1,335
2025 791
2026* 222
*Data entry as of 4/30/26.

POLICE DEPARTMENT
237
Item 8 H.

RESOLUTION NO. ______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPITOLA ADOPTING A LONG-TERM

ROADWAY SAFETY POLICY AND ESTABLISHING A GOAL OF ELIMINATING TRAFFIC FATALITIES AND SERIOUS INJURIES BY 2045
WHEREAS, the City of Capitola is committed to protecting the health, safety, and welfare of residents, visitors, businesses, employees, and all users of the public right-of-way; and WHEREAS, traffic fatalities and serious injuries are preventable and impose significant human and economic costs on communities; and
WHEREAS, the City has completed a Local Roadway Safety Plan that analyzes collision trends, community concerns, and opportunities to improve roadway safety for people walking, bicycling, driving, using mobility devices, riding transit, and traveling by all modes; and WHEREAS, national, state, and regional transportation agencies increasingly utilize Safe System principles recognizing that people make mistakes, human bodies are vulnerable, and transportation systems should be designed to reduce the likelihood and severity of crashes; and WHEREAS, the United States Department of Transportation Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program encourages local governments to adopt comprehensive safety action plans and policy commitments intended to eliminate roadway fatalities and serious injuries; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to establish a long-term safety goal and policy direction to guide future planning, project development, operations, education, enforcement, and funding pursuits.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Capitola as follows:

Section 1. The City of Capitola hereby adopts a long-term goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and serious injuries on Capitola roadways by the year 2045.

Section 2. The City shall strive to incorporate Safe System principles, where feasible and appropriate, into transportation planning, capital improvements, maintenance activities, traffic operations, education efforts, and related decision-making processes.

Section 3. The adopted Local Roadway Safety Plan shall serve as a planning resource to help identify priorities, evaluate strategies, support grant funding applications, and guide future implementation efforts.

Section 4. The City Manager, or designee, is authorized to coordinate with local, regional, state, federal, school, transit, and community partners to advance roadway safety initiatives consistent with this Resolution.

Section 5. The City recognizes roadway safety is an ongoing effort. Progress toward this goal may be advanced through future plans, capital projects, operational changes, data review, community engagement, and periodic updates to safety priorities as resources allow.

Section 6. Nothing in this Resolution shall be interpreted to require unbudgeted expenditures or create entitlement to any specific project or improvement. Implementation shall remain subject to future 239
Item 8 H.

Council actions, funding availability, environmental review, and applicable law.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
__________________________
Margaux Morgan, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Julia Gautho, City Clerk
240
Item 8 H.

Capitola City Council
Agenda Report
Meeting: May 14, 2026
From: Public Works Department
Subject: Bay Avenue Corridor Project Update & Rule 20A Coordination Recommended Action: Receive an update regarding the Bay Avenue Corridor Project, including completed outreach, available funding opportunities, and Rule 20A utility undergrounding coordination; confirm whether to continue coordinating corridor improvements with underground utility work; and provide direction on which project components to advance.

Background: Bay Avenue is one of the City’s most important transportation corridors, providing access between Highway 1, residential neighborhoods, schools, commercial centers, senior housing, and Capitola Village. The corridor serves both local and regional traffic and has longstanding challenges related to congestion, pedestrian crossings, bicycle comfort, turning conflicts, and aging overhead utility infrastructure.

Over the last several years, the City has evaluated multiple approaches to improve safety and operations along Bay Avenue, including temporary quick-build measures at Bay Avenue and Hill Street, corridor traffic analysis, and conceptual long-term intersection improvements.

On February 27, 2025, the City Council reviewed the Bay Avenue Corridor Study prepared by KimleyHorn and identified the roundabout-based concept as the preferred long-term strategy for key intersections along the corridor. At that meeting Council authorized additional outreach, concept refinement, and preliminary right-of-way review to better position the project for future implementation and grant opportunities. This direction reflects a series of Council discussions over multiple meetings, informed by technical analysis and community input.

This report provides an update on work completed since that direction and seeks Council input regarding implementation strategy, project sequencing, and coordination with underground utility improvements.

Work Completed Since February 27, 2025: Following Council authorization, staff and the City’s consultant team completed stakeholder outreach meetings, public engagement efforts, corridor review, and concept refinement. Outreach included more than 10 meetings with corridor businesses and property owners, Bay Avenue senior housing residents, public meetings, and online comment opportunities.

Public feedback reflected a range of viewpoints. Common themes included support for safer crossings, improved pedestrian access, reduced vehicle speeds, and long-term investment in the Bay Avenue corridor. Concerns included congestion, construction impacts, business access, and comparisons to the prior temporary quick-build lane reduction at Bay Avenue and Hill Street.

In September 2025, Council directed staff to remove the quick-build project at Bay Avenue and Hill Street following significant community feedback. The quick-build was a temporary, striping-based pilot. The proposed improvements are fully engineered, based on detailed traffic analysis, and include permanent geometric changes such as intersection reconstruction and defined pedestrian crossings.

Corridor Operations and Congestion: Bay Avenue functions as a major connection to State Route 1 and serves regional traffic in addition to local circulation. As a result, peak-period congestion is largely influenced by regional traffic patterns associated with access to Highway 1 and is expected to persist under any feasible local intersection configuration. The purpose of the Bay Avenue Corridor Project is not to eliminate congestion, but to improve safety, predictability, and multimodal access along the corridor.

Improvements such as reduced conflict points, clearer pedestrian crossings, and traffic calming may improve corridor function, even where congestion remains during peak periods. The corridor study also 241
Item 9 A.
evaluated signalized intersection alternatives; however, based on the analysis, roundabouts were identified as the preferred long-term option due to improved traffic operations, reduced delay, and safety benefits.

The original corridor concept assumed coordinated improvements at multiple intersections. While phased implementation remains possible, advancing individual components independently may limit the overall effectiveness of the corridor improvements.

PG&E Rule 20A Utility Undergrounding Coordination: The Bay Avenue corridor also presents an opportunity to coordinate transportation improvements with underground utility work. Rule 20A work credits allow California local governments to fund overhead-to-underground power line conversions. New allocations under this program stopped after 2022. As of December 31, 2025, the City’s reported Rule 20A work credit balance was approximately $3 million, which may be applied toward eligible underground utility work subject to utility program rules, participation, and final cost accounting.

The prior sequencing concept anticipated delaying final roadway restoration so restoration could occur as part of the ultimate corridor improvement project. If corridor improvements do not proceed in the near term, separate final restoration work may be required, easement acquisition may need to proceed independently, and available credits may not fully offset future undergrounding and restoration costs.

Not all utilities have confirmed participation, which may affect final coordination and cost responsibilities.

Utility easements needed for undergrounding may overlap with or relate to easements that would be beneficial for corridor transportation improvements. Coordinated acquisition may improve efficiency.

The Rule 20A undergrounding program is being phased out, and available Bay Avenue credits represent the City’s only opportunity to utilize this funding source for utility undergrounding. If the City does not move forward with undergrounding on Bay Avenue this funding source will not remain available in the future.

Funding and Implementation Considerations: The City has obtained funding resources available to support project advancement, including $500,000 in Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) funding and $250,000 in Federal Highway Infrastructure Project funding. These funds may support design, right-of-way activities, matching requirements, or phased construction.

Advancing the project improves the City’s ability to position these funds effectively and remain competitive for future state and federal grant opportunities. Should the project scope be revised, staff can research the feasibility of reallocating project funding to other roadway-related Council priorities.

Project Components and Implementation Approach: To support Council direction, the Bay Avenue Corridor Project can be understood as a set of coordinated components. The proposed improvements include defined pedestrian crossings and reduced vehicle speeds, which are key factors in improving pedestrian safety. These components were previously considered as part of a single, integrated corridor project, but may be advanced individually or in combination based on Council direction.  Roundabout at Bay Avenue and Hill Street: Reconstruct the skewed intersection into a singlelane roundabout to improve safety and operations. This location has a history of non-fatal pedestrian collisions and complex vehicle movements.
 Roundabout at Bay Avenue and Capitola Road: Reconstruct the intersection into a single-lane roundabout to reduce conflicts and improve traffic flow. This location has a history of non-fatal pedestrian collisions, and the corridor has documented bicycle collisions at and near intersections.
 Utility Undergrounding (Rule 20A): Underground overhead utilities near the Capitola Road intersection to support roadway improvements, improve aesthetics, and minimize future roadway disruption associated with utility work.
 Corridor Lighting, Striping, and Signing Improvements: Upgrade lighting and pavement markings to improve visibility, wayfinding, and overall corridor safety.  Mid-Block Pedestrian Crossing (Center Street): Install a pedestrian crossing to improve safe access across Bay Avenue where crossing demand exists.
242
Item 9 A.

Advancing these components together provides the greatest benefit in terms of safety, cost efficiency, and overall corridor function. However, individual components may be advanced based on Council priorities, funding strategy, or implementation timing.

Fiscal Impact: No immediate construction appropriation is requested with this item. Existing external funds may support future phases of the project, subject to Council direction and future budget actions.

The project currently includes $250,000 in Federal Highway Infrastructure Project funding, which must be used on Bay Avenue construction and requires a non-federal match of approximately $65,000.

The City also has $500,000 in Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) funding, which may be used in whole or in part for Bay Avenue construction, used as matching funds for grant applications, or reallocated to other eligible transportation projects.

Additional local funding may be required depending on the final scope, phasing, and implementation of selected project components.

Attachments:

1. Bay Avenue Corridor Study (February 2025)

2. Current Corridor Concept Layout

3. Correspondence Received Since March 2026
Alignment with 2025-2029 Strategic Plan Priority: Accountable Government; Community Safety; Economic Opportunity; 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
243
Item 9 A.
1 Bay Avenue Corridor Study
Transportation Analysis
February 2025
Prepared for
Prepared by
10 South Almaden Boulevard, Suite 1250
San Jose, CA 95113
244
Item 9 A.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Appendix ................................................................................................................................................. 47 245
Item 9 A.

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

FIGURES
Figure 1: Project Site Map............................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 2: Corridor Alternatives Summary ................................................................................................... 11 Figure 3: Illustrative VISSIM Model for Project Study Area ........................................................................ 16 Figure 4: Existing Section – Highway 1 to Center St (80-ft ROW)............................................................... 20 Figure 5: Existing Section – Center St to Capitola Ave (65-ft ROW)............................................................ 20 Figure 6: Existing Section – Capitola Ave to Burlingame Ave (56-ft ROW).................................................21 Figure 7: Existing Section – Burlingame Ave to Monterey Ave (56-ft ROW) ..............................................21 Figure 8: Existing Section – Monterey Ave to Park Ave (38-ft ROW).......................................................... 21 Figure 9: Bay Avenue Collision Heat Map (2013 to 2024) .......................................................................... 24 Figure 10: Bay Avenue Collision Types (2013 to 2024)............................................................................... 25 Figure 11: CA MUTCD Signal Warrant 3...................................................................................................... 27 Figure 12: Year 2024 Existing Corridor Average Travel Times.................................................................... 36 Figure 13: Year 2045 Cumulative Corridor Average Travel Times.............................................................. 38 246
Item 9 A.

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

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

Study Scope and Methodology:

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

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

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

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

Multimodal Access and Safety Improvements
The proposed improvements for each alternative configuration would aim to enhance safety for pedestrians and cyclists through various measures:
• General Multimodal Enhancements:
o Traffic Calming Features: All alternatives incorporate traffic calming features like narrower lanes and improved intersection design, which inherently enhance safety for all road users.
o Visibility Improvements: Enhanced lighting, signage, and marked crosswalks improve visibility for pedestrians and cyclists, especially at night or during adverse weather conditions.
247
Item 9 A.

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

Conclusion and Recommendations:

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

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

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

Based on the analysis results, the study recommends pursuing the roundabout configuration at key intersections for long-term benefits in traffic operations, safety, economic development, and multimodal accessibility. Compared to the no-build alternative, the stop control and signal control alternatives could also be considered feasible based on budgetary constraints and immediate needs. 248
Item 9 A.

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

Shorter and
protected crossings
Moderate
Buffered bike lanes
and markings.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
7 Criteria
Alternative 0 –
No Build
Alternative 1 –
Stop & Road Diet
Alternative 2 –
Roundabout
Alternative 3 -
Signal
No change to existing
conditions
Updates to existing
infrastructure
Property impacts to
accommodate design
New infrastructure
and signal equipment
Operation &
Maintenance
Costs
Low
No Build scenario
would not improve
conditions
Low
Landscaping
Moderate
Landscaping
High
Signal equipment,
electricity
Greenhouse
Gas
Emissions
Moderate
Vehicle idling with
stop traffic control
Moderate
Vehicle idling with
stop traffic control
Low
Less vehicle idling
with yield traffic
control
Moderate
Higher speeds &
vehicle idling with
signal traffic control
Aesthetics &
Community
Character
Improvement
Poor
No Build scenario
would not improve
conditions
Moderate
Opportunities for art
and landscaping with
traffic calming
Good
Opportunities for art
and landscaping at
intersection
Moderate
Requires signal poles
and cabinets
Grant
Funding
Opportunity
Poor
No Build scenario
would not improve
conditions
Moderate
Multimodal safety
improvement
Good
Multimodal safety
improvement, traffic
congestion
reduction,
environmental
impact
Moderate
Traffic congestion
reduction
General
Benefits
• Lower initial
capital cost and
ongoing
maintenance
• Improved driver
certainty
• Lower initial
capital cost
• Improved bike &
ped safety
• Reduction
collision severity
• Improved bike &
ped safety
• Improved
operations
• Reduced GHG
emissions
• Improved
operations &
capacity
• Provides
designated
crossing times
and driver
certainty
General
Challenges
• Decreased
operations
• Increased queues
• Decreased
operations
• Increased queues
• High initial capital
cost and potential
ROW impact
• Driver adaptation
to new traffic
operations
• High capital and
maintenance
costs
• Increased queues
and collision
severity potential
250
Item 9 A.

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

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

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

Figure 1: Project Site Map

1.1 Corridor Study Scenarios
Traffic conditions for Bay Avenue was analyzed during the 7:00 – 9:00 AM and 4:00 – 6:00 PM peak hours of traffic which represent the most heavily congested traffic on a typical weekday. The study area was assessed under the following study scenarios.
• Existing Scenario: Existing AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes from Year 2024 traffic count data and utilizing roadway geometry and intersection traffic control from proposed corridor alternatives aimed to enhance multimodal operations. Hill St Study Intersection
Study Roadway
Crossroads
251
Item 9 A.

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

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

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

Alternative 1 – Stop Control and Road Diet
• Roadway between Crossroads Loop and Center Street
o Convert Bay Avenue from a 4-lane roadway into a 2-lane roadway with road diet transition
• Bay Avenue / Crossroads Loop Intersection
o Adjust Bay Avenue Major Approach (Southbound direction) for 2-lane road diet • Bay Avenue / Hill Street Intersection
o Install curb bulb-outs and enhanced pedestrian crossings with 2-lane road diet • Assumes improvements can fit within existing City intersection footprint and right-of-way. • All other study intersections are analyzed with its existing traffic control and lane geometry Alternative 2 – Roundabout
For the purposes of this study, a qualitative right-of-way evaluation for the Existing and Cumulative condition was conducted to determine if a roundabout is feasible for any of the existing Bay Avenue stopcontrolled study intersections. • Roadway between Crossroads Loop and Center Street
o Convert Bay Avenue from a 4-lane roadway into a 2-lane roadway with road diet transition
• Bay Avenue / Crossroads Loop Intersection
o Adjust Bay Avenue Major Approach (Southbound direction) for 2-lane road diet • Bay Avenue / Hill Street Intersection
o Convert intersection into single lane roundabout layout with yield control with 2-lane road diet
• Bay Avenue / Capitola Avenue Intersection
o Convert intersection into single lane roundabout layout with yield control • Bay Avenue / Monterey Avenue Intersection
o Convert intersection into single lane roundabout layout with yield control 252
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
10 o It should be noted that for existing and cumulative conditions, the intersection has rightof-way constraints that impact the economic and construction feasibility for a roundabout; however for consistency and ICE comparison purposes, this intersection was analyzed as a roundabout for the Alternative 2 layout. • Monterey Avenue / Park Avenue Intersection
o Convert intersection into single lane roundabout layout with yield control o It should be noted that for existing and cumulative conditions, the intersection has rightof-way constraints that impact the economic and construction feasibility for a roundabout; however for consistency and ICE comparison purposes, this intersection was analyzed as a roundabout for the Alternative 2 layout. • Assumes roundabout improvements would have minor impacts outside of City right-of-way. • All other study intersections are analyzed with its existing traffic control and lane geometry Alternative 3 – Signal
For the purposes of this study and based on the collected traffic volumes, MUTCD peak hour signal warrant #3 was evaluated for the Existing and Cumulative condition to determine if a signal is warranted for any of the existing Bay Avenue stop-controlled study intersections. See Section 3 for analysis. • Roadway between Crossroads Loop and Center Street
o Convert Bay Avenue from a 4-lane roadway into a 2-lane roadway with road diet transition
• Bay Avenue / Crossroads Loop Intersection
o Adjust Bay Avenue Major Approach (Southbound direction) for 2-lane road diet • Bay Avenue / Hill Street Intersection
o Convert intersection into signal control with 2-lane road diet • Bay Avenue / Capitola Avenue Intersection
o Convert intersection into signal control
o It should be noted that for existing and cumulative conditions, the Bay/Capitola intersection does not meet the Warrant 3 volume criteria for a signal; however for consistency and ICE comparison purposes, this intersection was analyzed as signal for the Alternative 3 layout.
• Bay Avenue / Monterey Avenue Intersection
o Convert intersection into signal control
• Monterey Avenue / Park Avenue Intersection
o Convert intersection into signal control
• Assumes signal equipment can fit within existing City intersection footprint and right-of-way, no physical improvements needed.
• All other study intersections are analyzed with its existing traffic control and lane geometry It should be noted that a combination of the intersection control alternatives, such as an all-way stop at one location and a roundabout/signal at another location, may be considered along the Bay Avenue corridor pending City direction and public outreach. A detailed analysis of all the possible intersection control combinations is outside the scope of this planning study; however, , While I don’t think we need to run a detailed analysis on this, having a general answer prepared would be helpful. 253
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
11 Figure 2: Corridor Alternatives Summary
Intersection
# Intersection
Name
Alternative 0 - No Build Alternative 1 - Stop & Road Diet Alternative 2 - Roundabout Alternative 3 - Signal Traffic
Control
Intersection Geometry
and Operations
Traffic
Control
Intersection Geometry and
Operations
Traffic
Control Intersection Geometry and Operations Traffic Control Intersection Geometry and Operations 1 Bay Avenue /
Highway 1 NB
Ramps
Signal
No changes to current
condition (Intersection in
Caltrans right-of-way)
3 NB, 2 SB, 2 WB Lanes
Signal Same as Alt 0 - No Build Signal Same as Alt 0 - No Build Signal Same as Alt 0 - No Build 2 Bay Avenue /
Highway 1 SB
Ramps
Signal
No changes to current
conditions (Intersection
in Caltrans right-of-way)
2 NB, 3 SB, 3 EB Lanes
Signal Same as Alt 0 - No Build Signal Same as Alt 0 - No Build Signal Same as Alt 0 - No Build 3 Bay Avenue /
Crossroads Loop TWSC
No changes to current
condition (Minor street
access to private
driveways)
2 NB, 3 SB, 2 EB, 1 WB
Lanes
TWSC
Adjust Bay Avenue Major
Approach (Southbound
direction) for 2-lane road diet
-1 left lane, 1 through lane, 1
right lane
-Buffered Class II bike lanes
TWSC
Adjust Bay Avenue Major Approach (Southbound direction) for 2-lane road diet
-1 left lane, 1 through lane, 1 right lane
-Buffered Class II bike lanes
-It should be noted that for existing and cumulative conditions, the Bay/Crossroads intersection has right-of-way constraints that impact the economic and construction feasibility for a roundabout
TWSC
Adjust Bay Avenue Major Approach (Southbound direction) for 2- lane road diet
-1 left lane, 1 through lane, 1 right lane
-Buffered Class II bike lanes
-It should be noted that for existing and cumulative conditions, the Bay/Crossroads intersection does not meet the MUTCD Warrant 3 volume criteria for a signal
4 Bay Avenue / Hill
Street AWSC
No changes to current
condition
3 NB, 3 SB, 2 EB, 1 WB
Lanes
AWSC
Install curb bulb-outs and
enhanced pedestrian crossings
with 2-lane road diet
-Buffered Class II bike lanes
-Bay Avenue Major Approach
(Northbound and Southbound
directions)
--1 left lane, 1 shared throughright lane
-Hill Street Minor Approach
(Westbound direction)
--1 shared left-through-right lane
-Nob Hill Driveway Minor
Approach (Eastbound direction)
--1 shared left-through lane, 1
right lane
RDBT
Convert intersection into single lane roundabout layout with yield control with 2-lane road diet
-Bay Avenue Major Approach (Northbound and Southbound directions) --1 shared left-through-right lane
--Lane drop transition prior to roundabout intersection --Bike lane transitions and curb ramps onto Class I shared bike/ped pathway prior to roundabout intersection
--Santa Cruz Metro bus stop and commercial driveway access is maintained along Bay Avenue corridor
-Hill Street Minor Approach (Westbound direction)
--1 shared left-through-right lane
--Pedestrian crossing relocated before roundabout intersection -Nob Hill Driveway Minor Approach (Eastbound direction) --1 shared left-through-right lane
--Pedestrian crossing and pathway relocated inside plaza parking lot before roundabout intersection
Signal
Convert intersection into signal control with 2-lane road diet -Bay Avenue Major Approach (Northbound and Southbound
directions)
--1 left lane, 1 shared through-right lane
--Protected left turn operations for Northbound and Southbound approaches
-Nob Hill Driveway and Hill Street Minor Approach (Eastbound and Westbound directions)
--Lane geometry same as existing condition
--Permissive yield left turn operations for Eastbound and Westbound approaches
5 Bay Avenue /
Capitola Avenue AWSC
No changes to current
condition
2 NB, 2 SB, 2 EB, 1 WB
Lanes
AWSC Same as Alt 0 - No Build RDBT
Convert intersection into single lane roundabout layout with yield control -Bay Avenue Major Approach (Northbound and Southbound directions) --1 shared left-through-right lane
--Bike lane transitions and curb ramps onto Class I shared bike/ped pathway prior to roundabout intersection
-Capitola Avenue Minor Approach (Westbound and Eastbound directions) --1 shared left-through-right lane
--Pedestrian crossing relocated before roundabout intersection Signal
Convert intersection into signal control
-It should be noted that for existing and cumulative conditions, the Bay/Capitola intersection does not meet the MUTCD Warrant 3 volume criteria for a signal; however for consistency and ICE comparison purposes, this intersection was analyzed as signal for the Alternative 3 layout.
-Lane geometry same as existing condition for all intersection leg approaches
--Permissive yield left turn operations for all approaches 254
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
12 Intersection
# Intersection
Name
Alternative 0 - No Build Alternative 1 - Stop & Road Diet Alternative 2 - Roundabout Alternative 3 - Signal Traffic
Control
Intersection Geometry
and Operations
Traffic
Control
Intersection Geometry and
Operations
Traffic
Control Intersection Geometry and Operations Traffic Control Intersection Geometry and Operations 6 Bay Avenue /
Monterey
Avenue
AWSC
No changes to current
condition
1 NB, 1 SB, 1 WB Lanes
AWSC Same as Alt 0 - No Build RDBT
Convert intersection into single lane roundabout layout with yield control -It should be noted that for existing and cumulative conditions, the Bay/Monterey intersection has right-of-way constraints that impact the economic and construction feasibility for a roundabout; however for consistency and ICE comparison purposes, this intersection was analyzed as a roundabout for the Alternative 2 layout.
-All roadway approaches
--1 shared left-through-right lane
--Bike lane transitions and curb ramps onto Class I shared bike/ped pathway prior to roundabout intersection
Signal
Convert intersection into signal control
-Lane geometry same as existing condition for all intersection leg approaches
--Permissive yield left turn operations for all approaches 7 Monterey
Avenue / Park
Avenue
AWSC
No changes to current
condition
2 NB, 2 SB, 1 EB, 1 WB
Lanes
AWSC Same as Alt 0 - No Build RDBT
Convert intersection into single lane roundabout layout with yield control -It should be noted that for existing and cumulative conditions, the Monterey/Park intersection has right-of-way constraints that impact the economic and construction feasibility for a roundabout; however for consistency and ICE comparison purposes, this intersection was analyzed as a roundabout for the Alternative 2 layout.
-All roadway approaches
--1 shared left-through-right lane
--Bike lane transitions and curb ramps onto Class I shared bike/ped pathway prior to roundabout intersection
Signal
Convert intersection into signal control
-Lane geometry same as existing condition for all intersection leg approaches
--Permissive yield left turn operations for all approaches Roadway
# Roadway Segment
(Bay Avenue)
Alternative 0 - No Build Alternative 1 - Stop & Road Diet Alternative 2 - Roundabout Alternative 3 - Signal #
Travel
Lanes
Roadway Geometry and
Operations
# Travel
Lanes Roadway Geometry and Operations # Travel Lanes Roadway Geometry and Operations # Travel Lanes Roadway Geometry and Operations A Highway 1 to Crossroads
Loop 4 2 NB, 2 SB, Center left turn lane, Class II Bike 4 Same as Alt 0 - No Build 4 Same as Alt 0 - No Build 4 Same as Alt 0 - No Build B Crossroads Loop to Hill
Street 4 2 NB, 2 SB, Center left turn lane, Class II Bike 2 Convert from a 4-lane roadway into a 2-lane roadway with road diet transition 2 Convert from a 4-lane roadway into a 2-lane roadway with road diet transition 2 Convert from a 4-lane roadway into a 2-lane roadway with road diet transition C Hill Street to Center Street 4 2 NB, 2 SB, Center left turn lane, Class II Bike 2 Convert from a 4-lane roadway into a 2-lane roadway with road diet transition 2 Convert from a 4-lane roadway into a 2-lane roadway with road diet transition 2 Convert from a 4-lane roadway into a 2-lane roadway with road diet transition D Center Street to Capitola
Avenue 2 1 NB, 1 SB, Class II Bike, On-Street Parking 2 Same as Alt 0 - No Build 2 Same as Alt 0 - No Build 2 Same as Alt 0 - No Build E Capitola Avenue to
Monterey Avenue 2 1 NB, 1 SB, Class II Bike, On-Street Parking 2 Same as Alt 0 - No Build 2 Same as Alt 0 - No Build 2 Same as Alt 0 - No Build F Monterey Avenue to Park
Avenue 2 1 NB, 1 SB, Class II Bike 2 Same as Alt 0 - No Build 2 Same as Alt 0 - No Build 2 Same as Alt 0 - No Build 255
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
13 1.3 Capitola General Plan Consistency
The objectives of the Bay Avenue Corridor Study were prepared to be consistent with the following land use, mobility, and economic goals identified in the City’s latest General Plan. • Goal LU-10 Maintain and enhance Bay Avenue commercial district as a thriving destination with businesses that serve Capitola residents and visitors.
o Policy LU-10.2 Bay Avenue Streetscape. Enhance the Bay Avenue streetscape in a way that improves the appearance of Bay Avenue, increases safety for bicyclists and pedestrians, and stimulates private investment within the area. o Policy LU-10.3 Tree-Lined Boulevard. Encourage a tree-lined boulevard streetscape character along Bay Avenue north of the Capitola Produce property. Encourage installation of drought tolerant and non-invasive street trees and landscaping along the Bay Avenue property frontage in conjunction with capital improvement or redevelopment projects.
o Action LU-10.1 Medians. Explore opportunities to install medians on Bay Avenue in locations where left turn movements for vehicles would not be restricted. o Action LU-10.2 Roundabout. Conduct a public process to study the feasibility of installing a roundabout at the Bay Avenue/Capitola Avenue intersection. The study shall consider impacts on traffic speeds, delays, and air quality. o Action LU-10.3 Streetscape Master Plan. Prepare a streetscape master plan for Bay Avenue that presents a unified design theme for the corridors and identifies specific improvements needed to implement this vision.
• Goal MO-4 Provide a roadway system that enhances community aesthetics and promotes a high quality of life
o Action MO-4.1 Bay Avenue Roundabout. Prepare a study and conduct outreach with business stakeholders and the public to evaluate the feasibility of constructing a roundabout at the intersection of Bay Avenue and Capitola Avenue. • Goal ED-2 Provide businesses and jobs that create a healthy and stable local economy. o Policy ED-2.8 Major Bay Avenue Development Projects. Ensure that major development projects contribute to the vitality and enhance the function of Bay Avenue as a thriving commercial district.
256
Item 9 A.

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

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

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

Table 1 relates the operational characteristics associated with each LOS category for signalized and unsignalized intersections.
257
Item 9 A.

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

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

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) LOS Threshold An LOS-based analysis of Caltrans facilities is provided using the previously applied LOS standard combined with the County v/c standard for significance criteria purposes. Deficiencies at Caltrans study intersections occur when:
• Cause operations to deteriorate from an acceptable level (LOS C or better) to an unacceptable level (LOS D or worse); or
• Causes the existing measure of effectiveness (average delay) to deteriorate at a State-operated intersection operating at LOS D or worse.
258
Item 9 A.

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

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

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

Figure 3: Illustrative VISSIM Model for Project Study Area 259
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
17 260
Item 9 A.

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

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

1. Bay Avenue / Highway 1 NB Ramps

2. Bay Avenue / Highway 1 SB Ramps

3. Bay Avenue / Crossroads Loop

4. Bay Avenue / Hill Street

5. Bay Avenue / Capitola Avenue

6. Bay Avenue / Monterey Avenue

7. Monterey Avenue / Park Avenue

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

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

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

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

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

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

The posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour. Per the General Plan, the road is classified as a minor arterial south of Bay Street and a collector street north of Bay Street. 261
Item 9 A.

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.4 Transit Facilities
Transit services in the study area include a bus route provided by the Santa Cruz Metro Transit District (SCMTD). Per the updated latest service schedule, the project study area is served by the following major transit route.
• Mid-County Bus Route 55
o Capitola Mall Transit Center – Seascape Blvd/Via Pacifica o Mid-county service approximately every 60-100 minutes on weekdays and approximately every 4 to 5 hours on weekends
o This bus route travels through the following study intersections:
 Bay Avenue / Highway 1 NB Ramps
 Bay Avenue / Highway 1 SB Ramps
 Bay Avenue / Crossroads Loop
 Bay Avenue / Hill Street
262
Item 9 A.

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

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

Figure 4: Existing Section – Highway 1 to Center St (80-ft ROW) Figure 5: Existing Section – Center St to Capitola Ave (65-ft ROW) 263
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
21 Figure 6: Existing Section – Capitola Ave to Burlingame Ave (56-ft ROW) Figure 7: Existing Section – Burlingame Ave to Monterey Ave (56-ft ROW) Figure 8: Existing Section – Monterey Ave to Park Ave (38-ft ROW) 264
Item 9 A.

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

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

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

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

NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR
1 Bay Ave Hwy 1 NB Ramps 7 AM 369 516 0 0 431 478 0 0 0 59 12 107 2 Bay Ave Hwy 1 SB Ramps 7 AM 0 572 111 176 314 0 313 0 296 0 0 0 3 Bay Ave Crossroads Loop 7 AM 1 616 9 39 462 109 53 0 21 0 1 14 4 Bay Ave Hill St 7 AM 57 441 10 75 377 31 43 19 39 9 28 142 5 Bay Ave Capitola Ave 7 AM 27 312 55 74 183 128 70 67 6 83 94 42 6 Bay Ave Monterey Ave 7 AM 0 162 61 219 84 0 0 0 0 87 0 282 7 Monterey Ave Park Ave 7 AM 1 123 225 41 126 4 0 9 1 418 3 100 1 Bay Ave Hwy 1 NB Ramps 5 PM 290 401 0 0 642 316 0 0 0 107 1 195 2 Bay Ave Hwy 1 SB Ramps 5 PM 0 457 91 276 473 0 234 208 347 0 0 0 3 Bay Ave Crossroads Loop 5 PM 4 462 9 50 658 112 49 2 38 4 1 37 4 Bay Ave Hill St 5 PM 46 307 21 146 505 49 92 45 84 18 33 76 5 Bay Ave Capitola Ave 5 PM 29 200 23 56 337 124 72 84 8 61 72 31 6 Bay Ave Monterey Ave 5 PM 0 124 85 304 141 0 0 0 0 35 0 104 7 Monterey Ave Park Ave 5 PM 1 165 498 92 83 1 5 3 3 203 3 39 265
Item 9 A.

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

Table 3: Year 2045 Cumulative Intersection Volumes

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

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

ID NB/SB Street WB/EB Street Peak
Hour

NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR
1 Bay Ave Hwy 1 NB Ramps 7 AM 321 392 0 0 436 536 0 0 0 161 12 379 2 Bay Ave Hwy 1 SB Ramps 7 AM 0 465 61 251 346 0 248 0 586 0 0 0 3 Bay Ave Crossroads Loop 7 AM 1 394 9 69 754 109 53 0 21 0 1 79 4 Bay Ave Hill St 7 AM 57 293 4 75 669 31 43 19 39 13 28 68 5 Bay Ave Capitola Ave 7 AM 27 312 55 74 183 128 78 67 6 83 94 42 6 Bay Ave Monterey Ave 7 AM 0 162 61 219 239 0 0 0 0 87 0 282 7 Monterey Ave Park Ave 7 AM 1 123 238 201 121 4 0 9 1 418 3 100 1 Bay Ave Hwy 1 NB Ramps 5 PM 683 726 0 0 644 149 0 0 0 77 1 406 2 Bay Ave Hwy 1 SB Ramps 5 PM 0 992 104 370 351 0 417 208 640 0 0 0 3 Bay Ave Crossroads Loop 5 PM 4 988 9 92 787 112 49 2 38 4 1 59 4 Bay Ave Hill St 5 PM 46 717 34 146 634 49 92 45 84 22 33 192 5 Bay Ave Capitola Ave 5 PM 29 200 23 61 337 171 190 63 8 17 65 73 6 Bay Ave Monterey Ave 5 PM 0 305 85 304 251 0 0 0 0 35 0 104 7 Monterey Ave Park Ave 5 PM 1 148 619 202 83 1 5 3 3 203 3 237 266
Item 9 A.

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

Figure 9: Bay Avenue Collision Heat Map (2013 to 2024)
Roadway Collisions
(10 years):
1 Collision
2-4 Collision
5-10 Collisions
Bay Avenue Study Area
267
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
25 Figure 10: Bay Avenue Collision Types (2013 to 2024) Between January 2013 and December 2024, there were 36 total reported collisions along the Bay Avenue study corridor which include ten (10) bicycle and eight (8) pedestrian recorded collisions. One (1) of the collisions was a fatal accident with a pedestrian and the remaining collisions resulted in injuries. Approximately ten (10) of the bike and pedestrian collisions along the Bay Avenue corridor occurred within an intersection. The most common primary crash factors (PCF) that caused the reported bike and pedestrian collisions include unsafe speed, improper turning, and right-of-way violation. 268
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
26 Table 5: Bay Avenue Collision Data (2013 to 2024)
Note: Bicycle Collision = Green, Pedestrian Collision = Yellow # Case ID Date Primary Road Secondary Rd
Distance &
Direction from
Intersection
Bike
Collision
Pedestrian
Collision Killed Injured
1 5737844 5/25/2012 Bay Ave Hill St 90ft South No No 0 1 2 5769463 7/30/2012 Capitola Ave Bay Ave 80ft West No No 0 1 3 5926906 2/2/2013 Highway 1 Bay Ave 200ft North No No 0 1 4 6483008 4/24/2014 Bay Ave Capitola Ave At Intersection No Yes 0 1 5 6494114 4/30/2014 Bay Ave Capitola Ave At Intersection No No 0 1 6 6487930 5/6/2014 Oak Dr Bay Ave 37ft South Yes No 0 1 7 6487941 5/9/2014 Bay Ave Hill St At Intersection No No 0 1 8 6511924 6/3/2014 Bay Ave Hill St At Intersection No Yes 0 1 9 6724062 11/17/2014 Bay Ave Monterey Ave 26ft South No No 0 1 10 6748318 12/3/2014 Monterey Ave Park Ave 18ft South No Yes 0 1 11 6864222 3/19/2015 Bay Ave Capitola Ave 83ft East No Yes 0 1 12 6870050 3/19/2015 Monterey Ave Park Ave At Intersection No No 0 1 13 6889427 4/4/2015 Bay Ave Bay Ave At Intersection Yes No 0 1 14 6940786 6/7/2015 Monterey Ave Bay Ave At Intersection No No 0 1 15 7063888 7/20/2015 Monterey Ave Park Ave At Intersection Yes No 0 1 16 7075959 9/9/2015 Monterey Ave Park Ave At Intersection No No 0 1 17 8152095 10/7/2016 Bay Ave Hill St At Intersection No Yes 0 1 18 8339317 3/26/2017 Bay Ave Burlingame Ave 90ft North Yes No 0 1 19 8373999 4/29/2017 Bay Ave Hill St At Intersection No No 0 1 20 8506493 11/25/2017 Bay Ave Hill St 40ft North No No 0 1 21 8593314 2/13/2018 Bay Ave Hill St 203ft North No No 0 1 22 90781844 7/21/2018 Bay Ave Monterey Ave 100ft North Yes No 0 1 23 8701088 8/13/2018 Bay Ave Hill St 213ft North Yes No 0 1 24 8648318 10/6/2018 Bay Ave Highway 1 218ft South No Yes 1 0 25 9007558 11/22/2019 Monterey Ave Park Ave At Intersection Yes No 0 1 26 9174869 10/8/2020 Bay Ave Hill St At Intersection No No 0 1 27 9355886 9/24/2021 Bay Ave Rosedale Ave 44ft North No No 0 1 28 9472209 5/5/2022 Bay Ave Oak Dr At Intersection Yes No 0 1 29 9472208 5/7/2022 Bay Ave Hill St At Intersection No No 0 1 30 9495729 8/1/2022 Monterey Ave Park Ave At Intersection No No 0 1 31 9495924 9/4/2022 Capitola Ave Bay Ave 58ft South Yes No 0 1 32 9534052 12/9/2022 Bay Ave Hill St At Intersection No Yes 0 1 33 9549472 2/1/2023 Bay Ave Burlingame Ave At Intersection Yes No 0 1 34 9625429 8/11/2023 Monterey Ave Park Ave 35ft South No No 0 1 35 9625425 8/24/2023 Bay Ave Hill St At Intersection No Yes 0 1 36 9646836 10/12/2023 Bay Ave Burlingame Ave 47ft North No No 0 1 Total 10 8 1 35
269
Item 9 A.

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

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

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

Figure 11: CA MUTCD Signal Warrant 3
270
Item 9 A.

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

These intersections were analyzed as a signal for the Alternative 3 layout. It should be noted that for existing and cumulative conditions, the Bay/Capitola intersection does not meet the Warrant 3 volume criteria for a signal; however for consistency and ICE comparison purposes, this intersection was analyzed as signal for the Alternative 3 layout.
271
Item 9 A.

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

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

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

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

Deficient Operations
• Bay Avenue / Crossroads Loop (Intersection #3)
o TWSC operates at LOS E during the PM peak.
o Alt 0 No Build, Alt 1 Stop, Alt 2 Roundabout, Alt 3 Signal  Vehicle queues spillback into the Crossroads Loop intersection and cause delay for the minor leg approach
• Bay Avenue / Hill Street (Intersection #4)
o AWSC operates at LOS E during the PM peak.
o Alt 1 Stop
 Vehicle queues and delay on southbound approach spillback into the Crossroads Loop intersection and cause delay for the intersection
272
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
30 Table 8: Year 2024 Existing Intersection LOS – AM Peak Note: TWSC delay is worst movement approach, AWSC, RAB, and Signal delay is overall average Table 9: Year 2024 Existing Intersection LOS – PM Peak
Note: TWSC delay is worst movement approach, AWSC, RAB, and Signal delay is overall average Control
Type
Worst
Mvmt or
RDBT v/c
Delay
(sec)
LOS
Control
Type
Worst
Mvmt or
RDBT v/c
Delay
(sec)
LOS
Control
Type
Worst
Mvmt or
RDBT v/c
Delay
(sec)
LOS
Control
Type
Worst
Mvmt or
RDBT v/c
Delay
(sec)
LOS
1 Bay Ave & Hwy 1 NB Ramps Signal - 25.2 C Signal - 26.8 C Signal - 26.8 C Signal - 21.0 C 2 Bay Ave & Hwy 1 SB Ramps Signal - 17.0 B Signal - 17.1 B Signal - 17.1 B Signal - 30.7 C 3 Bay Ave & Crossroads Loop TWSC EB 26.9 D TWSC EB 24.0 C TWSC EB 24.0 C TWSC EB 23.3 C 4 Bay Ave & Hill St AWSC - 18.2 C AWSC - 28.5 D RAB 0.482 7.8 A Signal - 13.4 B 5 Bay Ave & Capitola Ave AWSC - 27.7 D AWSC - 27.7 D RAB 0.407 7.4 A Signal - 7.6 A 6 Bay Ave & Monterey Ave AWSC - 19.7 C AWSC - 19.6 C RAB 0.36 6.1 A Signal - 17.4 B 7 Monterey Ave & Park Ave AWSC - 25.1 D AWSC - 24.9 D RAB 0.488 7.2 A Signal - 10.1 B No. Intersection
Alternative 0
No Build
Alternative 1
Stop & Road Diet
Alternative 2
Roundabout
Alternative 3
Signal
Control
Type
Worst
Mvmt or
RDBT v/c
Delay
(sec)
LOS
Control
Type
Worst
Mvmt or
RDBT v/c
Delay
(sec)
LOS
Control
Type
Worst
Mvmt or
RDBT v/c
Delay
(sec)
LOS
Control
Type
Worst
Mvmt or
RDBT v/c
Delay
(sec)
LOS
1 Bay Ave & Hwy 1 NB Ramps Signal - 28.7 C Signal - 23.1 C Signal - 28.7 C Signal - 28.7 C 2 Bay Ave & Hwy 1 SB Ramps Signal - 20.4 C Signal - 22.7 C Signal - 20.4 C Signal - 20.4 C 3 Bay Ave & Crossroads Loop TWSC EB 39.7 E TWSC EB 35.3 E TWSC EB 35.3 E TWSC EB 33.0 D 4 Bay Ave & Hill St AWSC - 22.5 C AWSC - 44.2 E RAB 0.634 10.1 B Signal - 14.1 B 5 Bay Ave & Capitola Ave AWSC - 20.5 C AWSC - 20.5 C RAB 0.505 7.5 A Signal - 6.7 A 6 Bay Ave & Monterey Ave AWSC - 12.1 B AWSC - 11.9 B RAB 0.376 5.9 A Signal - 6.4 A 7 Monterey Ave & Park Ave AWSC - 15.4 C AWSC - 15.4 C RAB 0.604 8.5 A Signal - 7.7 A Alternative 3
Signal
No. Intersection
Alternative 0
No Build
Alternative 1
Stop & Road Diet
Alternative 2
Roundabout
273
Item 9 A.

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

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

Deficient Operations
• Bay Avenue / Highway 1 NB Ramps (Intersection #1)
o Signal operates at LOS E during the AM and PM peak.
o Alt 0 No Build, Alt 1 Stop, Alt 2 Roundabout, Alt 3 Signal  High traffic volumes from the Bay Avenue southbound approach creates delay and long queues with the signal control.
 Delay and long queues for southbound vehicles wanting to access the Caltrans freeway on-ramp.
• Bay Avenue / Crossroads Loop (Intersection #3)
o TWSC operates at LOS E during the AM and PM peak.
o Alt 0 No Build, Alt 1 Stop, Alt 2 Roundabout, Alt 3 Signal  Vehicle queues spillback into the Crossroads Loop intersection and cause delay for the minor leg approach
274
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
32 • Bay Avenue / Hill Street (Intersection #4)
o AWSC operates at LOS F during the AM and PM peak.
o Alt 0 No Build, Alt 1 Stop
 Vehicle queues and delay on southbound approach spillback into the Crossroads Loop intersection and cause delay for the intersection
• Montrey Avenue / Park Avenue (Intersection #7)
o AWSC operates at LOS F during the PM peak.
o Alt 0 No Build, Alt 1 Stop
 For the AM peak, high traffic volumes from the Park Avenue westbound approach creates delay and long vehicle queues with the stop control.  For the PM peak, high right-turn traffic volumes from the Monterey Avenue NB approach creates delay and long vehicle queues with the stop control. 275
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
33 Table 10: Year 2045 Cumulative Intersection LOS – AM Peak Note: TWSC delay is worst movement approach, AWSC, RAB, and Signal delay is overall average Table 11: Year 2045 Cumulative Intersection LOS – PM Peak Note: TWSC delay is worst movement approach, AWSC, RAB, and Signal delay is overall average Control
Type
Worst
Mvmt or
RDBT v/c
Delay
(sec)
LOS
Control
Type
Worst
Mvmt or
RDBT v/c
Delay
(sec)
LOS
Control
Type
Worst
Mvmt or
RDBT v/c
Delay
(sec)
LOS
Control
Type
Worst
Mvmt or
RDBT v/c
Delay
(sec)
LOS
1 Bay Ave & Hwy 1 NB Ramps Signal - 71.2 E Signal - 71.2 E Signal - 71.2 E Signal - 71.2 E 2 Bay Ave & Hwy 1 SB Ramps Signal - 32.8 C Signal - 32.8 C Signal - 32.8 C Signal - 32.8 C 3 Bay Ave & Crossroads Loop TWSC EB 48.0 E TWSC EB 44.2 E TWSC EB 44.2 E TWSC EB 39.1 E 4 Bay Ave & Hill St AWSC - 22.2 C AWSC - 73.2 F RAB 0.703 10.5 B Signal - 12.8 B 5 Bay Ave & Capitola Ave AWSC - 18.4 C AWSC - 18.4 C RAB 0.41 7.4 A Signal - 6.9 A 6 Bay Ave & Monterey Ave AWSC - 18.2 C AWSC - 18.2 C RAB 0.41 6.7 A Signal - 10.7 B 7 Monterey Ave & Park Ave AWSC - 33.0 D AWSC - 33.0 D RAB 0.488 8.4 A Signal - 12.9 B Alternative 2
Roundabout
Alternative 3
Signal
Alternative 0
No Build
No. Intersection
Alternative 1
Stop & Road Diet
Control
Type
Worst
Mvmt or
RDBT v/c
Delay
(sec)
LOS
Control
Type
Worst
Mvmt or
RDBT v/c
Delay
(sec)
LOS
Control
Type
Worst
Mvmt or
RDBT v/c
Delay
(sec)
LOS
Control
Type
Worst
Mvmt or
RDBT v/c
Delay
(sec)
LOS
1 Bay Ave & Hwy 1 NB Ramps Signal - 71.1 E Signal - 64.7 E Signal - 76.0 E Signal - 71.1 E 2 Bay Ave & Hwy 1 SB Ramps Signal - 46.5 D Signal - 34.7 C Signal - 34.6 C Signal - 46.5 D 3 Bay Ave & Crossroads Loop TWSC EB 65.9 F TWSC EB 63.4 F TWSC EB 63.4 F TWSC EB 119.1 F 4 Bay Ave & Hill St AWSC - 98.7 F AWSC - 109.6 F RAB 0.893 21.0 C Signal - 26.5 C 5 Bay Ave & Capitola Ave AWSC - 21.7 C AWSC - 21.3 C RAB 0.524 8.1 A Signal - 7.3 A 6 Bay Ave & Monterey Ave AWSC - 20.3 C AWSC - 24.4 C RAB 0.469 7.8 A Signal - 7.1 A 7 Monterey Ave & Park Ave AWSC - 55.5 F AWSC - 60.8 F RAB 0.792 13.1 B Signal - 22.7 C No. Intersection
Alternative 1
Stop & Road Diet
Alternative 2
Roundabout
Alternative 3
Signal
Alternative 0
No Build
276
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
34 4.3 Intersection Queuing Analysis
A queuing analysis with the VISSIM and Synchro software was also performed along the Bay Avenue roadway corridor to determine the queuing effect for each of the alternative layouts. The microsimulation was conducted to obtain the average and maximum vehicle queue on each approach during the AM and PM peak hour period. The results of the vehicles queues observed in the analysis for the existing and cumulative conditions are summarized in Table 12, Table 13, and Attachment C and Attachment D.

Table 12: Year 2024 Existing Intersection Queue Summary ID Intersection
Intersection Approaches with Max Queue that Exceeds
Storage Capacity
Control
Type
AM Peak
Alternative 1
Stop
Alternative 2
Roundabout
Alternative 3
Signal
1 Bay Ave / SR1 NB Ramps Signal NB, SB NB, SB NB, SB
2 Bay Ave / SR1 SB Ramps Signal
3 Bay Ave / Crossroads TWSC
4 Bay Ave / Hill St Varies SB SB SB, EB
5 Bay Ave / Capitola Ave Varies WB
6 Bay Ave / Monterey Ave Varies
7 Monterey Ave / Park Ave Varies WB WB NB, SB, WB
ID Intersection
Intersection Approaches with Max Queue that Exceeds
Storage Capacity
Control
Type
PM Peak
Alternative 1
Stop
Alternative 2
Roundabout
Alternative 3
Signal
1 Bay Ave / SR1 NB Ramps Signal NB, SB NB, SB NB, SB
2 Bay Ave / SR1 SB Ramps Signal
3 Bay Ave / Crossroads TWSC
4 Bay Ave / Hill St Varies SB SB SB, EB
5 Bay Ave / Capitola Ave Varies WB
6 Bay Ave / Monterey Ave Varies
7 Monterey Ave / Park Ave Varies WB WB NB, SB, WB
Note: NB=northbound, SB=southbound, EB=eastbound, WB=westbound Under existing conditions, each corridor layout option would generate maximum vehicle queues that exceed the storage capacity at several intersection approaches which include the SR1 Caltrans ramps, Hill Street, and Park Avenue. The Alternative 1 AWSC and Alternative 2 roundabout would have similar vehicle queues; however, the Alternative 3 signal would have additional queue impacts due to the nature of signal operations that generate longer queues for vehicles during the red signal phase. 277
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
35 Table 13: Year 2045 Cumulative Intersection Queue Summary ID Intersection
Intersection Approaches with Max Queue that Exceeds
Storage Capacity
Control
Type
AM Peak
Alternative 1
Stop
Alternative 2
Roundabout
Alternative 3
Signal
1 Bay Ave / SR1 NB Ramps Signal NB, SB NB, SB NB, SB
2 Bay Ave / SR1 SB Ramps Signal SB, EB SB EB
3 Bay Ave / Crossroads TWSC SB SB
4 Bay Ave / Hill St Varies SB SB SB, EB
5 Bay Ave / Capitola Ave Varies
6 Bay Ave / Monterey Ave Varies SB SB
7 Monterey Ave / Park Ave Varies WB NB, SB, WB
ID Intersection
Intersection Approaches with Max Queue that Exceeds
Storage Capacity
Control
Type
PM Peak
Alternative 1
Stop
Alternative 2
Roundabout
Alternative 3
Signal
1 Bay Ave / SR1 NB Ramps Signal NB, SB NB, SB NB, SB
2 Bay Ave / SR1 SB Ramps Signal NB, SB, EB NB, SB, EB NB, SB, EB 3 Bay Ave / Crossroads TWSC SB, WB NB, SB NB, SB, EB, WB 4 Bay Ave / Hill St Varies NB, SB, EB SB, EB NB, SB, EB 5 Bay Ave / Capitola Ave Varies SB SB NB, SB, EB, WB
6 Bay Ave / Monterey Ave Varies SB SB, WB
7 Monterey Ave / Park Ave Varies NB, WB NB NB, SB, WB
Note: NB=northbound, SB=southbound, EB=eastbound, WB=westbound Under cumulative conditions, each corridor layout option would generate maximum vehicle queues that exceed the storage capacity for at least one intersection approach for all the study intersections. The Alternative 1 AWSC and Alternative 2 roundabout would have similar vehicle queues; however, the Alternative 3 signal would have additional queue impacts due to the nature of signal operations that generate longer queues for vehicles during the red signal phase.

Overall, for the Existing and Cumulative scenarios, the Alternative 2 roundabout option would provide the most optimal intersection configuration to accommodate and minimize the anticipated peak hour vehicle queues along the Bay Avenue corridor.
278
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
36 4.4 Corridor Travel Time Summary
The VISSIM model (Alternative 1 and Alternative 2) and Synchro model (Alternative 3) performed an average travel time comparison for vehicles traveling through Bay Avenue between the Highway 1 SB Ramp and Park Avenue intersections. A summary of the average travel time, average speed, and annual vehicle hours traveled (VHT) results between the Alternative 1 AWSC and Alternative 2 Roundabout layouts is shown in Figure 12, Figure 13, Table 14, and Table 15.

Vehicle hours traveled (VHT) is a key metric in transportation planning that calculates the total travel time for all vehicles. Since time is a non-renewable resource and is the largest economic cost of traveling and shipping, VHT is used to measure the quality of travel service on a roadway facility. When comparing VHT results, a lower VHT indicates vehicles are traveling through the roadway facility more efficiently and the facility is experiencing less traffic congestion.

Figure 12: Year 2024 Existing Corridor Average Travel Times Existing Conditions
Vehicles traveling northbound on the Alternative 1 Stop layout would have an average peak hour travel time of 2 minutes 9 seconds, and the estimated annual VHT from Park Avenue to SR1 is 62,501 vehiclehours. The Alternative 2 Roundabout layout would have an average peak hour travel time of 1 minute 54 seconds and would have an annual VHT of 55,492 vehicle-hours. The Alternative 3 Signal layout would have an average peak hour travel time of 2 minute 50 seconds and would have an annual VHT of 82,726 vehicle-hours.

Similarly, vehicles traveling southbound on the Alternative 1 Stop layout would have an average peak hour travel time of 3 minutes 59 seconds, and the estimated annual VHT from SR1 to Park Avenue is 98,494 vehicle-hours. The Alternative 2 Roundabout layout would have an average peak hour travel time of 2 minute 4 seconds and would have an annual VHT of 68,188 vehicle-hours. The Alternative 3 Signal layout would have an average peak hour travel time of 3 minute 7 seconds and would have an annual VHT of 102,557 vehicle-hours.Hill St
2min 8sec (Alt 1 - Stop)
1min 54sec (Alt 2 - RDBT)
2min 50sec (Alt 3 - Signal)
2min 59sec (Alt 1 - Stop)
2min 4sec (Alt 2 - RDBT)
3min 7sec (Alt 3 - Signal)
279
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
37 For both travel directions, the Alternative 2 Roundabout layout would generate fewer VHT and provide a faster average travel time compared to the Alternative 1 Stop and Alternative 3 signal layout. This is because roundabouts are yield controlled and allow for faster continuous movement of vehicles compared to an all-way stop and signal control where vehicles are required to stop completely at the intersection approach.

Table 14: Year 2024 Existing Corridor Travel Times
Scenario Analysis Criteria
Alternative 1
Stop & Road Diet
[VISSIM]
Alternative 2
Roundabout
[VISSIM]
Alternative 3
Signal
[Synchro]
NB - N. of Park Ave to S. of Highway 1 SB Ramps 0.62 Travel Distance (mi) Avg Travel Time (sec) 136.2 114.6 174.8
Avg Travel Time (min & sec) 2 min 16 sec 1 min 55 sec 2 min 55 sec Avg Travel Speed (mph) 16.3 19.5 12.3
Avg Travel Time (sec) 120.6 113.4 165.1
Avg Travel Time (min & sec) 2 min 1 sec 1 min 53 sec 2 min 45 sec Avg Travel Speed (mph) 18.4 19.7 13.4
Avg Peak Hour Travel Time (sec) 128.4 114.0 170.0
Avg Peak Hour Travel Time (min & sec) 2 min 8 sec 1 min 54 sec 2 min 50 sec Avg Daily Traffic (vehicles) 4801 4801 4801
Vehicle Hours Traveled (veh-hr/year) 62,501 55,492 82,726 Scenario Analysis Criteria
Alternative 1
Stop & Road Diet
[VISSIM]
Alternative 2
Roundabout
[VISSIM]
Alternative 3
Signal
[Synchro]
SB - S. of Highway 1 SB Ramps to N. of Park Ave 0.62 Travel Distance (mi) Average Travel Time (sec) 126.6 113.4 191.2
Average Travel Time (min & sec) 2 min 7 sec 1 min 53 sec 3 min 11 sec Average Travel Speed (mph) 17.7 20.0 10.9
Average Travel Time (sec) 232.2 135 182.4
Average Travel Time (min & sec) 3 min 52 sec 2 min 15 sec 3 min 2 sec Average Travel Speed (mph) 9.6 16.7 12.0
Avg Peak Hour Travel Time (sec) 179.4 124.2 186.8
Avg Peak Hour Travel Time (min & sec) 2 min 59 sec 2 min 4 sec 3 min 7 sec Avg Daily Traffic (vehicles) 5415 5415 5415
Vehicle Hours Traveled (veh-hr/year) 98,494 68,188 102,557 AM Peak
PM Peak
VHT Estimation
AM Peak
PM Peak
VHT Estimation
280
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
38 Figure 13: Year 2045 Cumulative Corridor Average Travel Times Cumulative Conditions
Vehicles traveling northbound on the Alternative 1 Stop layout would have an average peak hour travel time of 2 minutes 39 seconds, and the estimated annual VHT from Park Avenue to SR1 is 104,314 vehicle-hours. The Alternative 2 Roundabout layout would have an average peak hour travel time of 2 minute 35 seconds and would have an annual VHT of 101,948 vehicle-hours. The Alternative 3 Signal layout would have an average peak hour travel time of 3 minute 6 seconds and would have an annual VHT of 122,259 vehicle-hours.

For vehicles traveling southbound on the Alternative 1 Stop layout would have an average peak hour travel time of 5 minutes 35 seconds, and the estimated annual VHT from SR1 to Park Avenue is 271,317 vehicle-hours. The Alternative 2 Roundabout layout would have an average peak hour travel time of 3 minute 36 seconds and would have an annual VHT of 175,200 vehicle-hours. The Alternative 3 Signal layout would have an average peak hour travel time of 3 minute 4 seconds and would have an annual VHT of 149,285 vehicle-hours.

For vehicles traveling northbound on Bay Avenue, the Alternative 2 Roundabout layout would generate fewer VHT and provide a faster average travel time; however, for vehicles traveling southbound on Bay Avenue, the Alternative 3 Signal layout would generate fewer VHT and provide a faster average travel time.

Hill St
2min 39sec (Alt 1 - Stop)
2min 35sec (Alt 2 - RDBT)
3min 6sec (Alt 3 - Signal)
5min 35sec (Alt 1 - Stop)
3min 36sec (Alt 2 - RDBT)
3min 4sec (Alt 3 - Signal)
281
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
39 Table 15: Year 2045 Cumulative Corridor Travel Times Travel Time Impact to Driver Behavior, Transit Access, and Emergency Vehicle Response Optimizing the travel time along Bay Avenue provides several benefits to multimodal access and safety.

Long vehicle delays and queues at intersections typically increases driver frustration and increases risky driver behavior to rush towards their destination. This frustration and risky driver behavior can increase the likelihood and severity of a motor vehicle collision which can jeopardize the safety of vulnerable users such as bikes and pedestrians.

Roadway facilities with travel times optimized to the intended design speed also improves consistency and access of transit services and emergency vehicle response.

Scenario Analysis Criteria
Alternative 1
Stop & Road Diet
[VISSIM]
Alternative 2
Roundabout
[VISSIM]
Alternative 3
Signal
[Synchro]
NB - N. of Park Ave to S. of Highway 1 SB Ramps 0.62 Travel Distance (mi) Avg Travel Time (sec) 125.4 112.8 162.4
Avg Travel Time (min & sec) 2 min 5 sec 1 min 53 sec 2 min 42 sec Avg Travel Speed (mph) 17.6 19.8 15.6
Avg Travel Time (sec) 192 197.4 209.6
Avg Travel Time (min & sec) 3 min 12 sec 3 min 17 sec 3 min 30 sec Avg Travel Speed (mph) 11.5 11.3 11.7
Avg Peak Hour Travel Time (sec) 158.70 155.10 186.00
Avg Peak Hour Travel Time (min & sec) 2 min 39 sec 2 min 35 sec 3 min 6 sec Avg Daily Traffic (vehicles) 6483 6483 6483
Vehicle Hours Traveled (veh-hr/year) 104,314 101,948 122,259 Scenario Analysis Criteria
Alternative 1
Stop & Road Diet
[VISSIM]
Alternative 2
Roundabout
[VISSIM]
Alternative 3
Signal
[Synchro]
SB - S. of Highway 1 SB Ramps to N. of Park Ave 0.62 Travel Distance (mi) Avg Travel Time (sec) 315.6 132.6 182.8
Avg Travel Time (min & sec) 5 min 16 sec 2 min 13 sec 3 min 3 sec Avg Travel Speed (mph) 7.1 17.0 10.7
Avg Travel Time (sec) 353.4 299.4 185.3
Avg Travel Time (min & sec) 5 min 53 sec 4 min 59 sec 3 min 5 sec Avg Travel Speed (mph) 6.3 7.5 10.3
Avg Peak Hour Travel Time (sec) 334.50 216.00 184.05
Avg Peak Hour Travel Time (min & sec) 5 min 35 sec 3 min 36 sec 3 min 4 sec Avg Daily Traffic (vehicles) 8000 8000 8000
Vehicle Hours Traveled (veh-hr/year) 271,317 175,200 149,285 AM Peak
AM Peak
PM Peak
PM Peak
VHT Estimation
VHT Estimation
282
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
40 4.5 Driver Behavior & Drone Video Analysis at Bay/Capitola Intersection The current all-way stop intersection of Bay Avenue / Capitola Avenue was evaluated using aerial video collection by drone and processed using video analytics to observe driver behavior and determine vehicle stopping rate, measured speeds, deceleration, and near miss collisions between vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. The drone video collection was conducted by Kimley-Horn on Thursday May 16, 2024, when school was in session and during favorable weather conditions, and the data is representative of the AM peak, school mid-day peak, and PM peak commute times. The technical memo and results of the drone video analysis is provided in Attachment E.

The near-miss collision analysis was conducted by calculating the post encroachment time (PET) between vehicles which is the critical or minimum gap between the intersection point of two or more objects on their intended trajectory. For the study, a near-miss collision at the Bay/Capitola is recorded when the PET is equal or less than 1.5 seconds from where objects would collide. A total of 35 near miss-collisions were observed at the Bay/Capitola all-way stop controlled intersection with the most common near miss occurring on Bay Avenue between vehicles making a southbound left turn to access Capitola Avenue and the Gayles driveway and vehicles making a northbound through movement towards Highway 1.

Based on the observed driver behavior and near-miss collisions at the existing all-way stop controlled intersection at Bay/Capitola, the recommended measures to address these intersection challenges may include:
• Convert the intersection into a roundabout. Vehicles entering a roundabout all travel in one direction around a raised center island at a controlled lower speed which reduces the number of conflict points and the severity of potential collisions between vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists.
• Convert the intersection into a signal. Signal control provides clear right-of-way instructions to all users and improve driver certainty when traveling through the intersection.

4.6 Multimodal Safety and Access Improvements
This section provides an overview of the potential long-term roadway improvements that may be implemented along the Bay Avenue corridor to enhance multimodal safety and access. The intersection control investigated for each roadway alternative would introduce geometric changes that would benefit bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Alternative 1: Stop Control and Road Diet
• Road Diet Transition: Converting Bay Avenue from a four-lane to a two-lane roadway reduces vehicle speeds and minimizes the number of lanes pedestrians and cyclists must cross. • Enhanced Pedestrian Crossings: Installation of curb bulb-outs and enhanced pedestrian crossings shortens the crossing distance and increases visibility. • Buffered Class IV Bike Facilities: Adding buffered bike lanes separates cyclists from vehicular traffic, enhancing safety and comfort.
283
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
41 Example road diet and traffic calming features implemented at the existing all-way stop at Bay/Hill (Capitola) Alternative 2: Roundabout
• Reduced Conflict Points: Roundabouts reduce the number of conflict points compared to traditional intersections, lowering the likelihood of collisions. • Slower Vehicle Speeds: Vehicles travel at lower speeds through roundabouts, reducing the severity of any potential collisions.
• Bike and Pedestrian Pathways: The design includes bike lane transitions and curb ramps onto Class I shared bike/ped pathways, providing a safer and more direct route for cyclists and pedestrians.
• Shorter and Protected Crossings: Pedestrians benefit from shorter crossing distances and protected refuge areas within the roundabout design.

Example bike and pedestrian facilities at a roundabout approach (Lafayette) 284
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
42 Alternative 3: Signal
• Signal Control: Traffic signals provide clear right-of-way instructions, thereby improving driver predictability and reducing confusion at intersections. • Designated Crossing Times: Pedestrian signals provide designated crossing times, ensuring safe passage across intersections.
• Buffered Bike Lanes: Similar to Alternative 1, buffered bike lanes protect cyclists from the main traffic stream.
• Pedestrian Countdown Signals: These signals improve pedestrian safety by providing clear timing information for crossing.
• Protected Intersection Design: Installation of curb bulb-outs that separate travel areas and shorten the pedestrian and bicycle crossings improves multimodal safety and access.

Example protected intersection features for bikes and peds at a signalized intersection (Fremont) Other Roadway Considerations and Enhancements
• Class IV protected bikeways: Where possible, restripe the existing Class II bike lanes on Bay Avenue with buffered bike lanes via striping and/or raised bollards to increase the physical separation between the vehicle and bicycle travel lanes. The added comfort and visibility of the bikeway improves bicycle safety along the roadway.
• Mid-block crossings: Where feasible and warranted, install mid-block crossings to enhance pedestrian connectivity and safety. Crossing augmented with median refuge areas, flashing signs, and high contrast striping provides shorter crossing distance and improves visibility to pedestrians crossing the street.
• Landscaped medians: Where feasible, implement raised medians with opportunities for landscaping to enhance the Bay Avenue streetscape in a way that improves the appearance of Bay Avenue, increases safety for bicyclists and pedestrians, and stimulates private investment within the area per the Capitola General Plan.
285
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
43 Example of mid-block crosswalk and buffered bike lanes General Safety Enhancements:
• Traffic Calming Features: All alternatives incorporate traffic calming features like narrower lanes and improved intersection design, which inherently enhance safety for all road users. • Visibility Improvements: Enhanced lighting, signage, and marked crosswalks improve visibility for pedestrians and cyclists, especially at night or during adverse weather conditions. • Collision Mitigation: Historical collision data and near-miss analysis inform the design to specifically address risky driver behaviors and common collision types, further ensuring pedestrian and cyclist safety.

Summary of Safety Benefits:
• Reduced Vehicle Speeds: Slower travel speeds generally lead to decreased collision severity for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians.
• Clear Right-of-Way: Signal and roundabout controls provide structured and predictable movement patterns.
• Protected Space: Buffered and clearly marked spaces for pedestrians and cyclists reduce the risk of conflicts with vehicles.
• Improved Crossings: Shorter and more visible crossing areas make it safer and easier for pedestrians to navigate intersections.
• Enhanced Visibility and Lighting: Increased visibility through better lighting and clear signage reduces the risk of accidents.
286
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
44 5. Corridor Study Conclusions and Recommendations
Table 16 provides a qualitative comparison of the proposed corridor alternatives from an economic, operations, and safety assessment. Based on the analysis results, the study recommends pursuing the roundabout configuration at key intersections for long-term benefits in traffic operations, safety, economic development, and multi-modal accessibility.

Operations
From an intersection operations perspective, the Alternative 2 roundabout configuration would provide the lowest average vehicle LOS delay and shortest average travel time along the Bay Avenue corridor. As a result, improved intersection operations benefit transit and emergency vehicle access. The introduction of roundabouts as a new traffic control in the City would require a longer adjustment period for drivers to adapt to the new infrastructure compared to existing signals or stop control.

The Alternative 1 stop configuration with road diet would result in the worst LOS, longest travel times, and vehicle queues operating similar to the Alternative 0 no build scenario. Forecasted traffic growth from the county travel demand model would cause operation deficiencies with the stop control alternative. With keeping the existing road condition, there is little driver adaptation time.

The Alternative 3 signal configuration would provide acceptable operations for average vehicle delay, queues, and travel time but not to the same level as the roundabout option. It is worth noting that while the LOS would be improved with a signal-controlled intersection, the typical delay for a vehicle to traverse through the intersection would actually increase compared to a roundabout option.

Multimodal Safety
As discussed in Section 4, each potential corridor alternative would introduce geometric changes that would benefit bicycle and pedestrian facilities for safety improvement and access. The Alternative 2 roundabout configuration would have the fewest vehicle conflict points for bikes and pedestrians crossing the street as well as shorter and protected crossings with the roundabout layout introducing raised medians and separated pathways. These features plus slower overall vehicle speeds through the intersection generates the lowest collision severity potential compared to the other alternatives. Based on the observed driver behavior and near-miss collision analysis at the Bay/Capitola all-way stop controlled intersection, a roundabout layout would improve overall safety at the skewed roadway approaches.

The Alternative 1 stop configuration would introduce curb bulb-outs at the stop intersections and road diet traffic calming effects that reduce the crossing distances and enhance visibility of bikes and peds crossing the vehicle conflict areas. These features help reduce the number of vehicle conflict points and provide a moderate safety improvement compared to the roundabout and signal alternatives.

The Alternative 3 signal configuration helps facilitate designated crossing phases for all transportation modes and the infrastructure can be designed with a protected intersection layout to separate and shorten the bike and pedestrian crossings at the corners. These features improve bike and pedestrian access, but the number of vehicle conflict points remains similar with the existing stop layout. For a signal during a green light, vehicles will typically travel at higher speeds than the stop and roundabout alternatives which increases the collision severity potential with more vulnerable users. 287
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
45 Economic Development
For the Alternative 2 roundabout layout to be feasible, substantial infrastructure and construction improvements would be required to convert the existing stop control into a roundabout throughout the corridor. Compared to the other alternatives, the roundabout would have the highest upfront capital costs and potential right-of-way impacts to implement due to the larger geometric footprint needed for designing acceptable operations and the multimodal features. Typical rough order of magnitude (ROM) costs for a single lane roundabout range between $2 to $3.5 million per location. Once constructed however, the roundabout would have lower long-term maintenance costs and better environmental benefits than a signal option due to no electrical equipment, lower vehicle emissions, and opportunities for art and landscaping within the intersection. Grant funding opportunities with roundabouts are also advantageous since many state and federal grant programs are focused on active transportation and improving safety for cyclists and pedestrians which are elements that roundabouts provide.

The Alternative 1 stop layout would have the lowest capital costs, right-of-way impact, and ongoing maintenance compared to the roundabout and signal alternatives. Typical ROM costs for a road diet and traffic calming improvements range between $100,00 to $500,000 per location. Depending on the traffic calming design, aesthetics can also be improved along the streetscape corridor with landscaping and decorative art. Grant funding opportunities with Alternative 1 are also good with the safety benefits to pedestrians and cyclists from the potential road diet and traffic calming features.

The Alternative 3 signal layout would have high capital costs and high ongoing maintenance costs to support the electrical and signal infrastructure compared to the roundabout and stop alternatives.

Typical ROM costs for a signal varies based on the number of travel lanes and approaches and can range between $500,000 to $2 million per location.

Table 16: Qualitative Corridor Operations Summary Comparison Criteria
Alternative 0 –
No Build
Alternative 1 –
Stop & Road Diet
Alternative 2 –
Roundabout
Alternative 3 -
Signal
Operations
Vehicle Delay
High
Stop control creates
delay for intersection
approaches
High
Stop control creates
delay for intersection
approaches
Low
Yield control reduces
average delay
Moderate
Signal control
reduces average
delay
Vehicle
Travel Time
Long
Stop control creates
delay for intersection
approaches
Long
Stop control creates
delay for intersection
approaches
Short
Yield control reduces
average delay
Moderate
Signal control
reduces average
delay
Vehicle
Queue
Length
Long
Long queues and
spillback into
adjacent intersection
Long
Long queues and
spillback into
adjacent intersection
Moderate
Yield control
generates average
queues
Moderate
Signal control
generates average
queues
Transit and
Emergency
Vehicle
Access
Improvement
Poor
Slower average travel
times and higher VHT
Poor
Slower average travel
times and higher VHT
Moderate
Faster average travel
times and lower VHT
Moderate
Opportunity for
emergency vehicle
preemption
288
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
46 Criteria
Alternative 0 –
No Build
Alternative 1 –
Stop & Road Diet
Alternative 2 –
Roundabout
Alternative 3 -
Signal
Driver
Adaptation
Time
Low
Existing conditions
on corridor
Low
Existing conditions
on corridor
High
New traffic control in
City for users
Moderate
Existing conditions
on corridor
Safety
Collision
Severity
Potential
Moderate
Numerous conflict
points with stop
control at
intersection
Moderate
Numerous conflict
points with stop
control at
intersection
Low
Fewer conflict points
and controlled lower
speeds at
intersection
High
Higher vehicle
speeds and
numerous conflict
points at intersection
Bicycle
Access
Improvement
Poor
No Build scenario
would not improve
conditions
Moderate
Buffered bike lanes
and markings
Good
Buffered bike lanes
and markings.

Shorter and
protected crossings
Moderate
Buffered bike lanes
and markings.

Designated crossing
phases
Pedestrian
Access
Improvement
Poor
No Build scenario
would not improve
conditions
Moderate
Shorter crossings
with traffic calming
Good
Shorter and
protected crossings
Moderate
Designated crossing
phases
Economic
Capital
Construction
Cost
Low
No Build scenario
would not improve
conditions
Low
Updates to existing
infrastructure
High
New infrastructure
and utility
coordination
High
New infrastructure
and signal equipment
Right of Way
Impact
Low
No change to existing
conditions
Low
Updates to existing
infrastructure
High
Property impacts to
accommodate design
Moderate
New infrastructure
and signal equipment
Operation &
Maintenance
Costs
Low
No Build scenario
would not improve
conditions
Low
Landscaping
Moderate
Landscaping
High
Signal equipment,
electricity
Greenhouse
Gas
Emissions
Moderate
Vehicle idling with
stop traffic control
Moderate
Vehicle idling with
stop traffic control
Low
Less vehicle idling
with yield traffic
control
Moderate
Higher speeds &
vehicle idling with
signal traffic control
Aesthetics &
Community
Character
Improvement
Poor
No Build scenario
would not improve
conditions
Moderate
Opportunities for art
and landscaping with
traffic calming
Good
Opportunities for art
and landscaping at
intersection
Moderate
Requires signal poles
and cabinets
Grant
Funding
Opportunity
Poor
No Build scenario
would not improve
conditions
Moderate
Multimodal safety
improvement
Good
Multimodal safety
improvement, traffic
congestion
reduction,
environmental
impact
Moderate
Traffic congestion
reduction
289
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
47 Criteria
Alternative 0 –
No Build
Alternative 1 –
Stop & Road Diet
Alternative 2 –
Roundabout
Alternative 3 -
Signal
General
Benefits
• Lower initial
capital cost and
ongoing
maintenance
• Improved driver
certainty
• Lower initial
capital cost
• Improved bike &
ped safety
• Reduction
collision severity
• Improved bike &
ped safety
• Improved
operations
• Reduced GHG
emissions
• Improved
operations &
capacity
• Provides
designated
crossing times
and driver
certainty
General
Challenges
• Decreased
operations
• Increased queues
• Decreased
operations
• Increased queues
• High initial capital
cost and potential
ROW impact
• Driver adaptation
to new traffic
operations
• High capital and
maintenance
costs
• Increased queues
and collision
severity potential

6. Appendix
• Attachment A – Year 2024 Existing Traffic Count Data
• Attachment B – Bike and Pedestrian Collision Data
• Attachment C – VISSIM & SIDRA LOS Results (Stop and Roundabout Alternatives) • Attachment D – Synchro LOS Results (No Build, Stop, and Signal Alternatives) • Attachment E – Existing Intersection Observed Driver Behavior at Bay/Capitola Technical Memo 290
Item 9 A.

Bay Avenue Corridor Study
February 2025
Attachment A – Year 2024 Existing Traffic Count Data
291
Item 9 A.

HIGHWAY 1 NB RAMPS HIGHWAY 1 NB RAMPS BAY AVE BAY AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 1 BAY AVE & HIGHWAY 1 NB RAMPS AM
Date: Thursday, March 7, 2024
Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Motorized Vehicles Heavy Vehicles Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Peak Hour
Peak Hour: 08:00 AM - 09:00 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 08:15 AM - 08:30 AM
Traffic Counts - Heavy Vehicles, Bicycles on Road, and Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk 901 623
178
0 482 885
0 859

0.91 N
S
EW

0.81 0.82

0.84 0.00
(1,467) (1,050)
(358)
()
(1,476)
()
(789) (1,490) 4780
0 107
12 59
0 0
0 0
0 423
0369 5160 HIGHWAY 1 NB RAMPS HIGHWAY 1 NB RAMPS BAY AVE

BAY AVE
0 8
0 9 N
S
W E 4 4
0 0
0 0 8 1
200
0 0
0 0
0 0
2 0
0 0
00 0
2 N
S
W E
0 0 0
0000
Interval
Start Time Left Thru Right Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Hour 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 25 0 43 56 0 0 0 52 38 234 1,351 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 40 0 69 68 0 0 0 52 87 331 1,639 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 30 0 91 77 0 0 0 80 99 394 1,848 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 21 0 91 110 0 0 0 64 94 392 1,892 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 14 4 23 0 105 158 0 0 0 104 114 522 1,964 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 12 4 24 0 90 132 0 0 0 147 131 540
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 13 1 33 0 87 102 0 0 0 89 113 438
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 20 3 27 0 87 124 0 0 0 83 120 464
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 118 17 223 0 663 827 0 0 0 671 3,315 796 Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 59 12 107 0 369 516 0 0 0 423 1,964 478 HV% PHF

0.00 0.82

0.84 0.81

0.0%

0.2%

0.1% 0.91
EB
WB
NB
SB
All
Interval Heavy Vehicles
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 0 1 0 1 2
7:15 AM 0 1 1 0 2
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 1 0 1 2
8:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 1 1
Count Total 0 3 1 4 8
Peak Hour 0 0 0 2 2
Interval Bicycles on Roadway
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 2 2
8:00 AM 0 2 0 4 6
8:15 AM 0 2 0 8 10
8:30 AM 0 1 0 0 1
8:45 AM 0 1 0 0 1
Count Total 0 6 0 15 21
Peak Hour 0 6 0 12 18
Interval Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 2 0 1 0 3
7:15 AM 0 0 3 0 3
7:30 AM 3 0 0 0 3
7:45 AM 2 0 1 0 3
8:00 AM 4 0 1 0 5
8:15 AM 4 0 2 0 6
8:30 AM 1 0 4 0 5
8:45 AM 0 0 1 0 1
Count Total 16 0 13 0 29
Peak Hour 9 0 8 0 17
292
Item 9 A.

HIGHWAY 1 SB RAMPS HIGHWAY 1 SB RAMPS BAY AVE BAY AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 2 BAY AVE & HIGHWAY 1 SB RAMPS AM
Date: Thursday, March 7, 2024
Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Motorized Vehicles Heavy Vehicles Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Peak Hour
Peak Hour: 08:00 AM - 09:00 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 08:00 AM - 08:15 AM
Traffic Counts - Heavy Vehicles, Bicycles on Road, and Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk 481 885
0 287
601 683
609
0 0.92
N
S
EW

0.75 0.00

0.85 0.93
(787) (1,491)
()
(518)
()
(1,001)
(957) (1,178)
00 176
0 0
0 296
0 313
0 0 305
00572 111 HIGHWAY 1 SB RAMPS HIGHWAY 1 SB RAMPS BAY AVE

BAY AVE
0 7
0 7 N
S
W E 3 4
0 0
0 0 6 1
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
00 0
0 N
S
W E
0 0 0
0000
Interval
Start Time Left Thru Right Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Hour 7:00 AM 0 36 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 12 1 32 35 0 220 1,193 7:15 AM 0 50 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 18 0 34 35 0 278 1,455 7:30 AM 0 42 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 124 31 0 38 58 0 342 1,655 7:45 AM 0 71 0 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 125 28 0 38 35 0 353 1,713 8:00 AM 0 96 0 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 167 35 0 41 75 0 482 1,773 8:15 AM 0 81 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 141 21 0 56 104 0 478
8:30 AM 0 55 0 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 139 30 0 33 70 0 400
8:45 AM 0 81 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 125 25 0 46 56 0 413
Count Total 0 512 0 489 0 0 0 0 0 0 978 200 1 318 468 2,966 0 Peak Hour 0 313 0 296 0 0 0 0 0 0 572 111 0 176 305 1,773 0 HV% PHF

0.93 0.00

0.85 0.75

0.0%

0.0% 0.92
EB
WB
NB
SB
All
Interval Heavy Vehicles
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 1 0 0 0 1
7:15 AM 0 1 0 0 1
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 1 0 0 1
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 1 2 0 0 3
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0
Interval Bicycles on Roadway
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 2 2
8:00 AM 0 2 0 4 6
8:15 AM 0 2 0 8 10
8:30 AM 0 1 0 0 1
8:45 AM 0 1 0 0 1
Count Total 0 6 0 15 21
Peak Hour 0 6 0 12 18
Interval Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 2 0 1 0 3
7:15 AM 1 0 1 0 2
7:30 AM 2 0 0 0 2
7:45 AM 2 0 1 0 3
8:00 AM 3 0 2 0 5
8:15 AM 4 0 2 0 6
8:30 AM 0 0 3 0 3
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 14 0 10 0 24
Peak Hour 7 0 7 0 14
293
Item 9 A.

CROSSROADS LOOP CROSSROADS LOOP BAY AVE BAY AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 3 BAY AVE & CROSSROADS LOOP AM
Date: Thursday, March 7, 2024
Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

0.91 N
S
EW

0.82 0.61

0.86 0.85
(946) (1,098)
(25)
(74)
(185)
(132)
(747) (1,001) 109039
14 1
0 21
0 53
0 0 462
015759 CROSSROADS LOOP CROSSROADS LOOP BAY AVE

BAY AVE
0 6
0 5 N
S
W E 3 3
0 0
0 0 2 3
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
00 0
0 N
S
W E
0 0 0
0000
Interval
Start Time Left Thru Right Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Hour 7:00 AM 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 61 0 0 2 44 12 130 820
7:15 AM 0 8 0 6 0 1 0 3 0 0 90 1 0 10 60 18 197 1,033
7:30 AM 0 8 0 5 0 0 0 3 0 0 136 1 0 5 64 26 248 1,187
7:45 AM 0 15 0 8 0 0 0 3 0 1 122 1 0 6 75 14 245 1,248
8:00 AM 0 9 0 2 0 0 0 7 0 0 167 3 0 8 116 31 343 1,284
8:15 AM 0 13 0 10 0 0 0 2 0 0 137 2 0 6 155 26 351
8:30 AM 0 15 0 6 0 0 1 4 0 1 147 2 0 10 94 29 309
8:45 AM 0 16 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 124 2 0 15 97 23 281
Count Total 0 91 0 41 0 1 1 23 0 5 984 12 0 62 705 2,104 179 Peak Hour 0 53 0 21 0 0 1 14 0 1 575 9 0 39 462 1,284 109 HV% PHF

0.85 0.61

0.86 0.82

0.0%

0.0% 0.91
EB
WB
NB
SB
All
Interval Heavy Vehicles
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 1 0 0 1
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 1 0 0 1
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 2 0 0 2
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0
Interval Bicycles on Roadway
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 2 2
8:00 AM 0 2 0 4 6
8:15 AM 0 2 0 8 10
8:30 AM 0 1 0 0 1
8:45 AM 0 1 0 0 1
Count Total 0 6 0 15 21
Peak Hour 0 6 0 12 18
Interval Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 2 1 0 0 3
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 1 0 0 0 1
7:45 AM 2 0 1 0 3
8:00 AM 1 0 1 0 2
8:15 AM 1 0 2 0 3
8:30 AM 1 0 3 0 4
8:45 AM 2 0 0 0 2
Count Total 10 1 7 0 18
Peak Hour 5 0 6 0 11
294
Item 9 A.

HILL ST HILL ST BAY AVE BAY AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 4 BAY AVE & HILL ST AM
Date: Thursday, March 7, 2024
Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

0.89 N
S
EW

0.73 0.87

0.89 0.87
(745) (1,001)
(318)
(163)
(202)
(170)
(638) (771) 31174
142
28 9
39 19
43 0
0 375
057399 10 HILL ST HILL ST BAY AVE

BAY AVE
8 5
13 8 N
S
W E 3 2
7 6
4 4 6 2
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
00 0
0 N
S
W E
0 0 0
0000
Interval
Start Time Left Thru Right Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Hour 7:00 AM 0 10 3 1 0 0 6 18 0 5 37 0 0 10 31 6 127 777
7:15 AM 0 7 2 5 0 2 6 28 0 6 56 0 0 14 42 11 179 976
7:30 AM 0 11 4 5 0 3 5 30 0 11 95 1 0 9 53 3 230 1,141
7:45 AM 0 11 2 8 0 1 7 33 0 12 80 2 0 13 64 8 241 1,209 8:00 AM 0 12 4 10 0 0 11 42 0 13 116 2 0 16 96 4 326 1,227 8:15 AM 0 12 6 9 0 3 5 34 0 15 92 4 1 19 137 7 344
8:30 AM 0 10 2 7 0 1 8 40 0 17 106 3 0 14 81 9 298
8:45 AM 0 9 7 13 0 5 4 26 0 12 85 1 0 25 61 11 259
Count Total 0 82 30 58 0 15 52 251 0 91 667 13 1 120 565 2,004 59 Peak Hour 0 43 19 39 0 9 28 142 0 57 399 10 1 74 375 1,227 31 HV% PHF

0.87 0.87

0.89 0.73

0.0%

0.0% 0.89
EB
WB
NB
SB
All
Interval Heavy Vehicles
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 1 0 0 1
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 1 0 0 1
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 2 0 0 2
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0
Interval Bicycles on Roadway
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 1 0 0 1 2
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 2 2
8:00 AM 0 2 0 4 6
8:15 AM 1 1 0 8 10
8:30 AM 0 1 1 0 2
8:45 AM 0 0 1 0 1
Count Total 2 4 2 15 23
Peak Hour 1 4 2 12 19
Interval Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 3 2 1 1 7
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 1 0 0 1
7:45 AM 2 0 1 1 4
8:00 AM 3 2 0 2 7
8:15 AM 0 3 2 2 7
8:30 AM 1 4 1 3 9
8:45 AM 4 4 2 1 11
Count Total 13 16 7 10 46
Peak Hour 8 13 5 8 34
295
Item 9 A.

CAPITOLA AVE CAPITOLA AVE BAY AVE BAY AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 5 BAY AVE & CAPITOLA AVE AM
Date: Thursday, March 7, 2024
Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

0.83 N
S
EW

0.67 0.67

0.88 0.89
(581) (708)
(312)
(303)
(364)
(244)
(389) (627) 128074
42 94
83 6
67 70
0 0 183
027312 55 CAPITOLA AVE CAPITOLA AVE BAY AVE

BAY AVE
8 3
9 6 N
S
W E 0 3
6 3
1 7 3 3
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
00 0
0 N
S
W E
0 0 0
0000
Interval
Start Time Left Thru Right Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Hour 7:00 AM 0 12 8 1 0 2 4 5 0 0 18 4 0 10 7 11 82 623
7:15 AM 0 17 10 1 0 2 7 4 0 4 37 8 0 7 24 12 133 821
7:30 AM 0 18 11 0 0 7 13 9 0 0 78 2 0 8 33 15 194 1,032 7:45 AM 0 10 12 1 0 6 24 10 0 6 66 10 0 17 33 19 214 1,118 8:00 AM 0 21 12 4 0 18 21 15 0 3 82 15 0 18 47 24 280 1,141 8:15 AM 0 12 15 1 0 45 26 12 0 5 71 12 0 17 85 43 344
8:30 AM 0 18 20 0 0 15 26 6 0 7 91 14 0 15 36 32 280
8:45 AM 0 19 20 1 0 5 21 9 0 12 68 14 0 24 15 29 237
Count Total 0 127 108 9 0 100 142 70 0 37 511 79 0 116 280 1,764 185 Peak Hour 0 70 67 6 0 83 94 42 0 27 312 55 0 74 183 1,141 128 HV% PHF

0.89 0.67

0.88 0.67

0.0%

0.0% 0.83
EB
WB
NB
SB
All
Interval Heavy Vehicles
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0
Interval Bicycles on Roadway
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 0 1 0 0 1
7:15 AM 0 0 1 1 2
7:30 AM 0 0 1 2 3
7:45 AM 0 0 0 4 4
8:00 AM 2 0 1 4 7
8:15 AM 1 2 1 12 16
8:30 AM 0 0 1 2 3
8:45 AM 1 0 0 0 1
Count Total 4 3 5 25 37
Peak Hour 4 2 3 18 27
Interval Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 1 0 0 1 2
7:15 AM 2 2 1 3 8
7:30 AM 0 1 0 1 2
7:45 AM 0 3 0 0 3
8:00 AM 1 3 0 1 5
8:15 AM 0 1 1 2 4
8:30 AM 3 4 1 4 12
8:45 AM 2 1 1 1 5
Count Total 9 15 4 13 41
Peak Hour 6 9 3 8 26
296
Item 9 A.

MONTEREY AVE MONTEREY AVE MONTEREY AVE BAY AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 6 MONTEREY AVE & MONTEREY AVE AM
Date: Thursday, March 7, 2024
Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Motorized Vehicles Heavy Vehicles Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Peak Hour
Peak Hour: 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 08:15 AM - 08:30 AM
Traffic Counts - Heavy Vehicles, Bicycles on Road, and Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk 303 440
369
280
171 219
0 0

0.76 N
S
EW

0.64 0.70

0.73 0.00
(413) (658)
(520)
(374)
()
()
(248) (347)
00 219
282
0 87
0 0
0 0
0 84
00158 61 MONTEREY AVE MONTEREY AVE MONTEREY AVE

BAY AVE
14 12
0 23
N
S
W E 6 6
0 0
4 10 11 12
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
00 0
0 N
S
W E
0 0 0
0000
Interval
Start Time Left Thru Right Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Hour 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 8 0 0 16 5 0 5 5 0 45 412
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 28 0 0 22 4 0 18 5 0 85 560
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 43 0 0 26 7 0 34 10 0 137 768
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 45 0 0 38 6 0 23 17 0 145 891
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 65 0 0 38 9 0 45 24 0 193 868
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 74 0 0 45 31 0 97 21 0 293
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 98 0 0 37 15 0 54 22 0 260
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 33 0 0 42 6 0 15 18 0 122
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 126 0 394 0 0 264 83 0 291 122 1,280 0 Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 87 0 282 0 0 158 61 0 219 84 0 891
HV% PHF

0.00 0.70

0.73 0.64

0.0%

0.0% 0.76
EB
WB
NB
SB
All
Interval Heavy Vehicles
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0
Interval Bicycles on Roadway
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1
7:15 AM 0 1 2 0 3
7:30 AM 0 0 1 2 3
7:45 AM 0 2 1 5 8
8:00 AM 0 1 1 6 8
8:15 AM 0 3 3 15 21
8:30 AM 0 1 2 4 7
8:45 AM 0 0 1 1 2
Count Total 0 8 11 34 53
Peak Hour 0 7 7 30 44
Interval Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 3 0 1 1 5
7:15 AM 5 0 0 3 8
7:30 AM 2 0 2 0 4
7:45 AM 6 0 2 1 9
8:00 AM 6 0 2 5 13
8:15 AM 4 0 5 4 13
8:30 AM 7 0 3 4 14
8:45 AM 8 0 5 6 19
Count Total 41 0 20 24 85
Peak Hour 23 0 12 14 49
297
Item 9 A.

PARK AVE PARK AVE MONTEREY AVE MONTEREY AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 7 MONTEREY AVE & PARK AVE AM
Date: Thursday, March 7, 2024
Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

0.91 N
S
EW

0.75 0.94

0.81 0.63
(248) (347)
(816)
(416)
(12)
(14)
(846) (543)
4041
100
3 418
1 9
0 0
0 121
01123 225

PARK AVE PARK AVE MONTEREY AVE

MONTEREY AVE
3 18
4 29
N
S
W E 6 12
3 1
1 2 12 17
000
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
01 0
0 N
S
W E
0 0 0
0000
Interval
Start Time Left Thru Right Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Hour 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 8 0 0 13 10 0 0 10 0 76 575
7:15 AM 0 1 0 0 0 46 1 12 0 1 13 26 0 1 13 0 114 739
7:30 AM 0 0 1 1 0 71 1 14 0 0 19 34 0 2 24 0 167 912
7:45 AM 0 1 0 0 0 83 1 23 0 0 20 58 0 9 23 0 218 1,028
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 94 2 27 0 1 22 57 0 11 25 1 240 1,046 8:15 AM 0 0 4 0 0 101 0 28 0 0 46 63 0 13 32 0 287
8:30 AM 0 0 3 0 0 116 0 22 0 0 30 55 0 12 44 1 283
8:45 AM 0 0 2 1 0 107 1 23 0 0 25 50 0 5 20 2 236
Count Total 0 2 10 2 0 653 6 157 0 2 188 353 0 53 191 1,621 4 Peak Hour 0 0 9 1 0 418 3 100 0 1 123 225 0 41 121 1,046 4 HV% PHF

0.63 0.94

0.81 0.75

0.0%

0.2%

0.0%

0.1% 0.91
EB
WB
NB
SB
All
Interval Heavy Vehicles
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 1 0 1
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 1 0 1
Peak Hour 0 0 1 0 1
Interval Bicycles on Roadway
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 0 0 1 1 2
7:15 AM 0 0 2 1 3
7:30 AM 0 5 2 0 7
7:45 AM 0 2 2 1 5
8:00 AM 0 6 2 3 11
8:15 AM 0 4 6 1 11
8:30 AM 0 4 2 0 6
8:45 AM 0 0 0 1 1
Count Total 0 21 17 8 46
Peak Hour 0 14 10 5 29
Interval Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 5 1 1 0 7
7:15 AM 6 1 3 1 11
7:30 AM 3 1 4 2 10
7:45 AM 7 2 2 3 14
8:00 AM 7 2 2 0 11
8:15 AM 4 1 8 0 13
8:30 AM 8 0 4 2 14
8:45 AM 10 1 4 1 16
Count Total 50 9 28 9 96
Peak Hour 29 4 18 3 54
298
Item 9 A.

HILL ST HILL ST CAPITOLA AVE CAPITOLA AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 8 CAPITOLA AVE & HILL ST AM
Date: Thursday, March 7, 2024
Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

0.77 N
S
EW

0.71 0.78

0.88 0.66
(439) (288)
(164)
(57)
(325)
(137)
(279) (209) 102013
44 54
11 19
23 42
0 0 169
031985 HILL ST HILL ST CAPITOLA AVE

CAPITOLA AVE
2 6
3 4 N
S
W E 3 3
1 2
1 1 3 1
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
00 0
0 N
S
W E
0 0 0
0000
Interval
Start Time Left Thru Right Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Hour 7:00 AM 0 9 0 3 0 0 3 4 0 2 8 0 0 2 9 18 58 338
7:15 AM 0 10 3 1 0 0 11 3 0 6 14 1 0 2 13 19 83 428
7:30 AM 0 8 4 0 0 1 12 3 0 8 10 1 0 0 20 21 88 543
7:45 AM 0 12 2 1 0 1 13 4 0 6 19 0 0 1 31 19 109 605
8:00 AM 0 7 6 4 0 3 19 14 0 9 18 1 0 0 37 30 148 611
8:15 AM 0 13 12 7 0 5 9 13 0 11 27 0 0 10 75 16 198
8:30 AM 0 12 1 3 0 1 17 14 0 4 27 3 0 2 33 33 150
8:45 AM 0 10 4 5 0 2 9 3 0 7 26 1 0 1 24 23 115
Count Total 0 81 32 24 0 13 93 58 0 53 149 7 0 18 242 179 949 Peak Hour 0 42 23 19 0 11 54 44 0 31 98 5 0 13 169 102 611 HV% PHF

0.66 0.78

0.88 0.71

0.0%

0.0% 0.77
EB
WB
NB
SB
All
Interval Heavy Vehicles
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0
Interval Bicycles on Roadway
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 1 1
7:30 AM 0 0 0 1 1
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 1 1 1 2 5
8:15 AM 1 1 0 4 6
8:30 AM 0 0 1 2 3
8:45 AM 0 0 0 1 1
Count Total 2 2 2 11 17
Peak Hour 2 2 2 9 15
Interval Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
7:00 AM 1 0 3 2 6
7:15 AM 0 2 2 1 5
7:30 AM 0 0 3 0 3
7:45 AM 0 0 7 0 7
8:00 AM 3 1 1 1 6
8:15 AM 0 2 3 1 6
8:30 AM 1 0 0 0 1
8:45 AM 0 0 2 0 2
Count Total 5 5 21 5 36
Peak Hour 4 3 6 2 15
299
Item 9 A.

HIGHWAY 1 NB RAMPS HIGHWAY 1 NB RAMPS BAY AVE BAY AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 1 BAY AVE & HIGHWAY 1 NB RAMPS PM
Date: Thursday, March 7, 2024
Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Motorized Vehicles Heavy Vehicles Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Peak Hour
Peak Hour: 04:00 PM - 05:00 PM
Peak 15-Minutes: 04:00 PM - 04:15 PM
Traffic Counts - Heavy Vehicles, Bicycles on Road, and Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk 958 594
303
0 749 689
0 607

0.95 N
S
EW

0.97 0.92

0.84 0.00
(1,819) (1,195)
(602)
()
(1,153)
()
(1,394) (1,321) 3160
0 195
1 107
0 0
0 0
0 642
0290 3990 HIGHWAY 1 NB RAMPS HIGHWAY 1 NB RAMPS BAY AVE

BAY AVE
0 4
0 8 N
S
W E 1 3
0 0
0 0 5 3
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
10 0
0 N
S
W E
0 0 0
0010
Interval
Start Time Left Thru Right Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Hour 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 51 0 88 116 0 0 0 154 70 511 1,950 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 23 1 48 0 69 100 0 0 0 169 84 494 1,948 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 43 0 64 82 0 0 0 157 83 452 1,935 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 53 0 69 101 0 0 0 162 79 493 1,883 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 58 0 73 103 0 0 0 167 83 509 1,792 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 68 0 50 102 0 0 0 170 72 481
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 47 0 65 83 0 0 0 117 68 400
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 43 0 59 97 0 0 0 108 76 402
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 190 1 411 0 537 784 0 0 0 1,204 3,742 615 Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 107 1 195 0 290 399 0 0 0 642 1,950 316 HV% PHF

0.00 0.92

0.84 0.97

0.0%

0.1%

0.0%

0.1% 0.95
EB
WB
NB
SB
All
Interval Heavy Vehicles
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 0 1 0 0 1
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 1 1
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 1 0 1 2
Peak Hour 0 1 0 0 1
Interval Bicycles on Roadway
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 0 0 0 2 2
4:15 PM 0 1 0 2 3
4:30 PM 0 0 0 3 3
4:45 PM 0 3 0 1 4
5:00 PM 0 2 0 1 3
5:15 PM 0 0 0 2 2
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 4 4
Count Total 0 6 0 15 21
Peak Hour 0 4 0 8 12
Interval Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 1 0 3 0 4
4:15 PM 5 0 0 0 5
4:30 PM 1 0 1 0 2
4:45 PM 1 0 0 0 1
5:00 PM 1 0 2 0 3
5:15 PM 0 0 6 0 6
5:30 PM 1 0 0 0 1
5:45 PM 0 0 2 0 2
Count Total 10 0 14 0 24
Peak Hour 8 0 4 0 12
300
Item 9 A.

HIGHWAY 1 SB RAMPS HIGHWAY 1 SB RAMPS BAY AVE BAY AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 2 BAY AVE & HIGHWAY 1 SB RAMPS PM
Date: Thursday, March 7, 2024
Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

0.96 0.00

0.76 0.96
(1,394) (1,328)
()
(1,102)
()
(1,578)
(1,551) (1,009)
00 276
0 0
0 347
208
234
0 0 471
00457 91 HIGHWAY 1 SB RAMPS HIGHWAY 1 SB RAMPS BAY AVE

BAY AVE
0 4
0 6 N
S
W E 1 3
0 0
0 0 3 3
000
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 1
0 0
11 1
0 N
S
W E
0 0 0
0010
Interval
Start Time Left Thru Right Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Hour 4:00 PM 0 56 57 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 151 30 0 58 132 0 567 2,084 4:15 PM 0 52 52 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 119 19 0 71 120 0 519 2,048 4:30 PM 0 53 57 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 25 0 74 109 0 488 2,034 4:45 PM 0 73 42 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 17 0 73 110 0 510 1,998 5:00 PM 0 60 53 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 114 27 0 72 125 0 531 1,897 5:15 PM 0 67 53 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 20 0 83 100 0 505
5:30 PM 0 49 56 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 13 0 52 91 0 452
5:45 PM 0 75 40 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 15 0 43 81 0 409
Count Total 0 485 410 683 0 0 0 0 0 0 843 166 0 526 868 3,981 0 Peak Hour 0 234 208 347 0 0 0 0 0 0 457 91 0 276 471 2,084 0 HV% PHF

0.96 0.00

0.76 0.96

0.1%

0.0%

0.2%

0.0%

0.1% 0.92
EB
WB
NB
SB
All
Interval Heavy Vehicles
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 0 1 0 0 1
4:15 PM 1 0 0 0 1
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 1 1
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 1 1 0 1 3
Peak Hour 1 1 0 0 2
Interval Bicycles on Roadway
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 0 0 0 2 2
4:15 PM 0 1 0 2 3
4:30 PM 0 0 0 3 3
4:45 PM 0 3 0 1 4
5:00 PM 0 2 0 1 3
5:15 PM 0 0 0 2 2
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 4 4
Count Total 0 6 0 15 21
Peak Hour 0 4 0 8 12
Interval Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 0 0 2 0 2
4:15 PM 4 0 1 0 5
4:30 PM 1 0 1 0 2
4:45 PM 1 0 0 0 1
5:00 PM 1 0 2 0 3
5:15 PM 0 0 5 0 5
5:30 PM 1 0 0 0 1
5:45 PM 0 0 2 0 2
Count Total 8 0 13 0 21
Peak Hour 6 0 4 0 10
301
Item 9 A.

CROSSROADS LOOP CROSSROADS LOOP BAY AVE BAY AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 3 BAY AVE & CROSSROADS LOOP PM
Date: Thursday, March 7, 2024
Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

0.87 N
S
EW

0.96 0.62

0.77 0.82
(1,524) (932)
(73)
(103)
(199)
(155)
(1,329) (811) 112050
37 1
4 38
2 49
0 0 629
044129 CROSSROADS LOOP CROSSROADS LOOP BAY AVE

BAY AVE
0 3
0 3 N
S
W E 0 3
0 0
0 0 0 3
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 0
11 0
0 N
S
W E
0 0 1
0010
Interval
Start Time Left Thru Right Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Hour 4:00 PM 0 14 1 10 0 1 1 15 0 0 135 3 0 11 151 43 385 1,347 4:15 PM 0 15 1 11 0 2 0 8 0 1 91 0 0 13 165 25 332 1,306 4:30 PM 0 9 0 8 0 1 0 7 0 0 93 5 0 13 140 30 306 1,286
4:45 PM 0 11 0 9 0 0 0 7 0 3 93 1 0 13 173 14 324 1,287 5:00 PM 0 16 0 7 0 0 0 12 0 1 100 3 0 8 170 27 344 1,216 5:15 PM 0 11 0 8 0 3 0 3 0 1 87 2 0 10 175 12 312
5:30 PM 0 6 0 10 0 4 0 4 0 1 94 2 0 10 160 16 307
5:45 PM 0 7 0 1 0 1 1 3 0 2 91 2 0 5 119 21 253
Count Total 0 89 2 64 0 12 2 59 0 9 784 18 0 83 1,253 2,563 188 Peak Hour 0 49 2 38 0 4 1 37 0 4 412 9 0 50 629 1,347 112 HV% PHF

0.82 0.62

0.77 0.96

0.0%

0.2%

0.1%

0.1% 0.87
EB
WB
NB
SB
All
Interval Heavy Vehicles
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 0 1 0 0 1
4:15 PM 0 0 0 1 1
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 1 0 1 2
Peak Hour 0 1 0 1 2
Interval Bicycles on Roadway
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 0 0 1 2 3
4:15 PM 1 0 0 2 3
4:30 PM 0 0 0 3 3
4:45 PM 0 4 0 1 5
5:00 PM 0 2 0 1 3
5:15 PM 0 0 0 2 2
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 1 4 5
Count Total 1 6 2 15 24
Peak Hour 1 4 1 8 14
Interval Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 0 0 1 0 1
4:15 PM 0 0 1 0 1
4:30 PM 2 0 1 0 3
4:45 PM 1 0 0 0 1
5:00 PM 0 0 3 0 3
5:15 PM 0 0 5 0 5
5:30 PM 3 0 0 0 3
5:45 PM 0 0 2 0 2
Count Total 6 0 13 0 19
Peak Hour 3 0 3 0 6
302
Item 9 A.

HILL ST HILL ST BAY AVE BAY AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 4 BAY AVE & HILL ST PM
Date: Thursday, March 7, 2024
Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

0.89 N
S
EW

0.98 0.84

0.75 0.79
(1,329) (810)
(231)
(404)
(246)
(390)
(1,120) (630) 490 146
76 33
18 84
45 92
0 0 474
046256 21 HILL ST HILL ST BAY AVE

BAY AVE
5 1
12 3 N
S
W E 1 0
4 8
3 2 2 1
010
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 1
10 0
0 N
S
W E
0 0 0
0010
Interval
Start Time Left Thru Right Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Hour 4:00 PM 0 30 12 28 0 5 11 22 0 16 85 7 0 35 113 12 376 1,340 4:15 PM 0 19 12 19 0 4 11 17 0 6 57 6 0 37 129 14 331 1,293 4:30 PM 0 20 11 20 0 5 7 25 0 12 52 4 0 35 101 12 304 1,278 4:45 PM 0 23 10 17 0 4 4 12 0 12 62 4 0 39 131 11 329 1,289 5:00 PM 0 24 7 18 0 2 6 15 0 10 69 0 0 43 122 13 329 1,240 5:15 PM 0 18 5 23 0 3 6 14 0 13 53 1 1 44 128 7 316
5:30 PM 0 11 10 12 0 2 7 19 0 13 68 2 0 35 127 9 315
5:45 PM 0 15 11 15 0 4 11 15 0 12 64 2 0 32 88 11 280
Count Total 0 160 78 152 0 29 63 139 0 94 510 26 1 300 939 2,580 89 Peak Hour 0 92 45 84 0 18 33 76 0 46 256 21 0 146 474 1,340 49 HV% PHF

0.79 0.84

0.75 0.98

0.0%

0.3%

0.1%

0.1% 0.89
EB
WB
NB
SB
All
Interval Heavy Vehicles
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 0 1 0 0 1
4:15 PM 0 0 0 1 1
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 1 0 1 2
Peak Hour 0 1 0 1 2
Interval Bicycles on Roadway
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 0 0 0 2 2
4:15 PM 0 0 0 2 2
4:30 PM 1 0 0 3 4
4:45 PM 2 2 2 1 7
5:00 PM 0 3 0 1 4
5:15 PM 1 0 0 2 3
5:30 PM 3 0 1 0 4
5:45 PM 0 0 0 4 4
Count Total 7 5 3 15 30
Peak Hour 3 2 2 8 15
Interval Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 0 6 0 2 8
4:15 PM 1 1 0 1 3
4:30 PM 1 2 1 2 6
4:45 PM 1 3 0 0 4
5:00 PM 0 4 7 0 11
5:15 PM 1 7 2 2 12
5:30 PM 1 0 1 2 4
5:45 PM 0 4 1 0 5
Count Total 5 27 12 9 53
Peak Hour 3 12 1 5 21
303
Item 9 A.

CAPITOLA AVE CAPITOLA AVE BAY AVE BAY AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 5 BAY AVE & CAPITOLA AVE PM
Date: Thursday, March 7, 2024
Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

0.89 N
S
EW

0.94 0.91

0.82 0.90
(1,002) (584)
(311)
(335)
(447)
(337)
(775) (491) 124056
31 72
61 8
84 72
0 0 337
029200 23 CAPITOLA AVE CAPITOLA AVE BAY AVE

BAY AVE
9 2
13 5 N
S
W E 2 0
6 7
5 4 3 2
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
00 0
0 N
S
W E
0 0 0
0000
Interval
Start Time Left Thru Right Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Hour 4:00 PM 0 28 23 4 0 19 14 12 0 6 66 5 0 18 80 34 309 1,097 4:15 PM 0 16 19 1 0 16 21 4 0 9 40 11 0 13 91 29 270 1,064 4:30 PM 0 11 19 1 0 13 21 10 0 6 45 2 0 13 71 29 241 1,063 4:45 PM 0 17 23 2 0 13 16 5 0 8 49 5 0 12 95 32 277 1,090 5:00 PM 0 22 14 6 0 14 26 5 0 7 47 11 0 19 74 31 276 1,044 5:15 PM 0 14 24 5 0 13 19 7 0 8 42 5 0 22 83 27 269
5:30 PM 0 19 18 3 0 12 18 6 0 6 51 5 0 12 86 32 268
5:45 PM 0 24 22 2 0 4 16 7 0 9 37 11 0 9 67 23 231
Count Total 0 151 162 24 0 104 151 56 0 59 377 55 0 118 647 2,141 237 Peak Hour 0 72 84 8 0 61 72 31 0 29 200 23 0 56 337 1,097 124 HV% PHF

0.90 0.91

0.82 0.94

0.0%

0.0% 0.89
EB
WB
NB
SB
All
Interval Heavy Vehicles
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0
Interval Bicycles on Roadway
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 2 5 0 1 8
4:15 PM 0 3 2 1 6
4:30 PM 0 0 1 4 5
4:45 PM 0 2 1 2 5
5:00 PM 0 2 1 2 5
5:15 PM 0 0 0 2 2
5:30 PM 0 0 1 0 1
5:45 PM 0 0 1 5 6
Count Total 2 12 7 17 38
Peak Hour 2 10 4 8 24
Interval Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 0 3 2 4 9
4:15 PM 2 2 0 1 5
4:30 PM 2 7 0 2 11
4:45 PM 1 1 0 2 4
5:00 PM 4 4 2 2 12
5:15 PM 2 5 1 3 11
5:30 PM 2 2 2 2 8
5:45 PM 2 3 4 1 10
Count Total 15 27 11 17 70
Peak Hour 5 13 2 9 29
304
Item 9 A.

MONTEREY AVE MONTEREY AVE MONTEREY AVE BAY AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 6 MONTEREY AVE & MONTEREY AVE PM
Date: Thursday, March 7, 2024
Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Motorized Vehicles Heavy Vehicles Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Peak Hour
Peak Hour: 04:45 PM - 05:45 PM
Peak 15-Minutes: 05:00 PM - 05:15 PM
Traffic Counts - Heavy Vehicles, Bicycles on Road, and Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk 439 228
139
389
170 209
0 0

0.98 N
S
EW

0.96 0.71

0.93 0.00
(829) (444)
(274)
(723)
()
()
(331) (395)
00 304
104
0 35
0 0
0 0
0 135
00124 85 MONTEREY AVE MONTEREY AVE MONTEREY AVE

BAY AVE
21 19
0 24
N
S
W E 11 8
0 0
16 5 17 7
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
00 0
0 N
S
W E
0 0 0
0000
Interval
Start Time Left Thru Right Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Hour 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 40 0 0 26 17 0 63 39 0 201 753
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 26 0 0 32 15 0 78 43 0 200 753
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 18 0 0 24 21 0 63 27 0 158 748
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 17 0 0 33 23 0 78 36 0 194 787
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 36 0 0 28 17 0 81 26 0 201 745
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 22 0 0 31 24 0 70 42 0 195
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 29 0 0 32 21 0 75 31 0 197
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 20 0 0 30 21 0 56 21 0 152
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 66 0 208 0 0 236 159 0 564 265 1,498 0 Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 104 0 0 124 85 0 304 135 0 787 HV% PHF

0.00 0.71

0.93 0.96

0.0%

0.0% 0.98
EB
WB
NB
SB
All
Interval Heavy Vehicles
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0
Interval Bicycles on Roadway
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 0 0 7 2 9
4:15 PM 0 0 6 1 7
4:30 PM 0 1 0 4 5
4:45 PM 0 1 3 2 6
5:00 PM 0 1 1 1 3
5:15 PM 0 1 2 2 5
5:30 PM 0 0 3 1 4
5:45 PM 0 1 0 2 3
Count Total 0 5 22 15 42
Peak Hour 0 3 9 6 18
Interval Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 7 0 3 5 15
4:15 PM 3 0 6 2 11
4:30 PM 6 0 0 2 8
4:45 PM 3 0 5 3 11
5:00 PM 7 0 5 3 15
5:15 PM 10 0 8 11 29
5:30 PM 4 0 1 4 9
5:45 PM 7 1 1 4 13
Count Total 47 1 29 34 111
Peak Hour 24 0 19 21 64
305
Item 9 A.

PARK AVE PARK AVE MONTEREY AVE MONTEREY AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 7 MONTEREY AVE & PARK AVE PM
Date: Thursday, March 7, 2024
Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Motorized Vehicles Heavy Vehicles Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Peak Hour
Peak Hour: 04:00 PM - 05:00 PM
Peak 15-Minutes: 04:15 PM - 04:30 PM
Traffic Counts - Heavy Vehicles, Bicycles on Road, and Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk 176 192
245
593
289 647
11 5

0.96 N
S
EW

0.81 0.94

0.97 0.44
(331) (396)
(466)
(1,142)
(6)
(43)
(541) (1,245)
1092
39 3
203
3 3
5 0
0 83
01148 498

PARK AVE PARK AVE MONTEREY AVE

MONTEREY AVE
19 29
7 34
N
S
W E 14 15
5 2
13 6 19 15
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
00 0
0 N
S
W E
0 0 0
0000
Interval
Start Time Left Thru Right Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Hour 4:00 PM 0 4 1 0 0 51 0 6 0 0 34 128 0 22 31 1 278 1,079 4:15 PM 0 0 0 3 0 57 0 10 0 0 37 122 0 27 24 0 280 1,063 4:30 PM 0 0 2 0 0 47 3 7 0 0 37 130 0 20 11 0 257 1,040 4:45 PM 0 1 0 0 0 48 0 16 0 1 40 118 0 23 17 0 264 1,036 5:00 PM 0 7 9 2 0 53 0 10 0 0 27 116 0 19 19 0 262 1,006 5:15 PM 0 2 5 1 0 41 0 12 0 0 42 108 0 27 19 0 257
5:30 PM 0 0 5 0 0 40 0 10 0 0 42 114 0 21 20 1 253
5:45 PM 0 0 1 0 0 42 0 13 0 0 39 110 0 14 15 0 234
Count Total 0 14 23 6 0 379 3 84 0 1 298 946 0 173 156 2,085 2 Peak Hour 0 5 3 3 0 203 3 39 0 1 148 498 0 92 83 1,079 1 HV% PHF

0.44 0.94

0.97 0.81

0.0%

0.0% 0.96
EB
WB
NB
SB
All
Interval Heavy Vehicles
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0
Interval Bicycles on Roadway
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 0 2 2 2 6
4:15 PM 0 1 1 2 4
4:30 PM 0 1 2 3 6
4:45 PM 0 6 0 3 9
5:00 PM 0 3 2 1 6
5:15 PM 0 2 5 1 8
5:30 PM 0 4 1 2 7
5:45 PM 1 1 1 0 3
Count Total 1 20 14 14 49
Peak Hour 0 10 5 10 25
Interval Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 7 1 4 2 14
4:15 PM 5 0 10 3 18
4:30 PM 12 6 7 7 32
4:45 PM 10 0 8 7 25
5:00 PM 6 2 16 2 26
5:15 PM 5 3 9 0 17
5:30 PM 11 1 0 7 19
5:45 PM 10 0 3 5 18
Count Total 66 13 57 33 169
Peak Hour 34 7 29 19 89
306
Item 9 A.

HILL ST HILL ST CAPITOLA AVE CAPITOLA AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 8 CAPITOLA AVE & HILL ST PM
Date: Thursday, March 7, 2024
Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

0.94 N
S
EW

0.86 0.74

0.95 0.90
(360) (472)
(97)
(149)
(201)
(386)
(277) (256) 68020
19 25
11 31
42 125
0 0 98
0159411 HILL ST HILL ST CAPITOLA AVE

CAPITOLA AVE
1 5
4 2 N
S
W E 4 1
0 4
1 0 1 1
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
00 0
0 N
S
W E
0 0 0
0000
Interval
Start Time Left Thru Right Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Hour 4:00 PM 0 38 8 6 0 3 3 3 0 8 26 1 0 5 25 19 145 559
4:15 PM 0 29 11 11 0 0 9 6 0 1 24 4 0 4 29 21 149 551
4:30 PM 0 30 10 6 0 3 7 2 0 2 18 1 0 2 28 16 125 547
4:45 PM 0 28 13 8 0 5 6 8 0 4 26 5 0 9 16 12 140 559
5:00 PM 0 22 15 13 0 1 5 4 0 7 25 2 1 4 28 10 137 540
5:15 PM 0 35 17 4 0 2 6 2 0 4 28 2 0 5 29 11 145
5:30 PM 0 28 11 2 0 1 5 4 0 3 32 2 0 3 28 18 137
5:45 PM 0 23 12 6 0 3 7 2 0 1 28 2 0 1 20 16 121
Count Total 0 233 97 56 0 18 48 31 0 30 207 19 1 33 203 1,099 123 Peak Hour 0 125 42 31 0 11 25 19 0 15 94 11 0 20 98 68 559 HV% PHF

0.90 0.74

0.95 0.86

0.0%

0.0% 0.94
EB
WB
NB
SB
All
Interval Heavy Vehicles
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0
Interval Bicycles on Roadway
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 0 0 0 1 1
4:15 PM 0 2 0 3 5
4:30 PM 0 1 0 1 2
4:45 PM 0 0 2 1 3
5:00 PM 0 2 0 2 4
5:15 PM 1 0 0 0 1
5:30 PM 3 0 0 2 5
5:45 PM 0 2 0 1 3
Count Total 4 7 2 11 24
Peak Hour 0 3 2 6 11
Interval Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk
Start Time EB NB WB SB Total
4:00 PM 0 2 1 0 3
4:15 PM 0 0 2 0 2
4:30 PM 1 1 1 0 3
4:45 PM 1 1 1 1 4
5:00 PM 0 3 2 1 6
5:15 PM 0 4 4 2 10
5:30 PM 0 2 0 0 2
5:45 PM 0 2 3 0 5
Count Total 2 15 14 4 35
Peak Hour 2 4 5 1 12
307
Item 9 A.

Site Description: Bay Ave S.O Center St
Site Number: 14
Start Date:

End Date:
1 NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB NB SB NB SB 12:00 AM - - - - - - - - - 9 6 15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1:00 AM - - - - - - - - - 1 4 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2:00 AM - - - - - - - - - 2 8 10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3:00 AM - - - - - - - - - 5 8 13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4:00 AM - - - - - - - - - 6 7 13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5:00 AM - - - - - - - - - 44 35 79 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6:00 AM - - - - - - - - - 123 60 183 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7:00 AM - - - - - - - - - 286 207 493 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8:00 AM - - - - - - - - - 440 414 854 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9:00 AM - - - - - - - - - 352 325 677 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10:00 AM - - - - - - - - - 343 368 711 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11:00 AM - - - - - - - - - 383 400 783 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12:00 PM - - - - - - - - - 399 406 805 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1:00 PM - - - - - - - - - 358 409 767 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2:00 PM - - - - - - - - - 340 457 797 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3:00 PM - - - - - - - - - 448 435 883 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4:00 PM - - - - - - - - - 307 548 855 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5:00 PM - - - - - - - - - 279 498 777 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6:00 PM - - - - - - - - - 275 344 619 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7:00 PM - - - - - - - - - 169 190 359 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8:00 PM - - - - - - - - - 121 143 264 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9:00 PM - - - - - - - - - 66 90 156 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10:00 PM - - - - - - - - - 32 30 62 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11:00 PM - - - - - - - - - 13 23 36 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6:00 AM - 9:00 AM - - - - - - - - - 849 681 1530 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3:00 PM - 6:00 PM - - - - - - - - - 1034 1481 2515 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6:00 AM - 7:00 PM - - - - - - - - - 4333 4871 9204 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12:00 AM - 12:00 AM - - - - - - - - - 4801 5415 10216 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - 47.0% 53.0% 100.0% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - AM Peak - - - - - - 8:00 AM 9:00 AM - - - - - -
PM Peak - - - - - - 3:00 PM 4:00 PM - - - - - -
7 Day Avg
Vehicle Volume Report - Hourly
03/07/2024
03/07/2024
Time
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 3 Day Avg 5 Day Avg 3/10/24 Tue-Thu Mon-Fri Mon-Sun 3/11/24 3/12/24 3/13/24 3/7/24 3/8/24 3/9/24 0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500 Northbound / Eastbound Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
Southbound / Westbound Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

Page 1 ends

Capitola City CouncilMay 14, 2026

Capitola City Council
May 14, 2026