Agenda packet — Capitola City Council, August 27, 2026 (part 3 of 3)

The Stockton Avenue Bridge is a cast-in-place concrete continuous 3-span parabolically arched box girder structure with mild reinforcement. The span configuration is an 85-foot center span with two 25-foot cantilevered end spans and two 15-foot-long bin abutments. The two end spans are cantilevered from the concrete piers in Soquel Creek for superstructure span configuration) and are separated structurally from a bin abutment at each end. The piers are supported on reinforced concrete pile caps and timber piles. Timber piles at the piers are a combination of vertical piles and longitudinally battered piles. The existing traveled way between curbs is 30 feet.

Upstream Elevation from As-builts
The storms of January 2023 caused a portion of the slope protection and sidewalk at the abutments to crack. The plans developed later that year indicate a repair of the abutment walkway cracking and patching of concrete spalls on the pier walls. Some of those spalls were noted in previous bridge inspection reports. CSWST2 was contracted by the City to provide alternatives for installation measures to prevent storm debris accumulation at the Stockton Avenue Bridge. CSWST2 developed five alternatives for consideration in June 2024. The first four alternatives provided economically varying hydraulic solutions by retrofitting the existing structure through different configurations and methods. BCA provided a structural summary for each alternative in that initial memorandum. The last alternative, Alternative 5, proposed to replace the bridge entirely. Given the hydraulic vulnerabilities, the age of the structure, the proximity to the ocean, as well as a review of several existing bridge inspection reports that discussed transverse deck cracking, we determined that further condition investigation of the underside of the bridge deck was warranted prior to recommending full replacement.

Existing Conditions
BCA performed site visits on July 16, 2025, and March 12, 2026, to observe the existing superstructure condition. During the initial July 2025 site visit, the existing manholes in the sidewalk and at the center of the roadway were opened for observation of the underside of the existing deck. Corroding reinforcement and spalling was observed in several locations under the 547
Item 7 C.

Stockton Avenue Bridge
Structural Condition Evaluation

Page 3 of 10 ends

sidewalk. The underside of the bridge deck at the roadway manholes was not visible due to the presence of original deck soffit formwork. We also performed chain-drag testing of the deck and found several areas that indicated delaminations of the concrete slab.

Based on the sidewalk reinforcement corrosion observed during the July 2025 site visit and a further review of existing bridge inspection reports, we recommended additional deck openings be provided for observations of the underside of the roadway deck after existing soffit form removal. In March 2026, six additional deck openings for bridge cell access were provided near the centerline of the existing piers. Existing deck slab formwork was removed within the cells so that the concrete soffit surface would be visible. The March 2026 site observation of the bridge deck soffit indicated a significant amount of concrete spalling and corrosion and/or loss of transverse deck reinforcement (see photos).

The existing roadway surface shows cracking consistent with that reported by the 2022 Caltrans Bridge Inspection Report, “The bare concrete deck surface is weathered and abraded with random cracking throughout. The randomly oriented deck cracks are up to 0.125 inches in width at an average of 2 feet on center.” That report was based on observations of the top surface of the bridge deck. Our structural assessment examined the condition of the underside of the sidewalk deck slab as observed from manholes in the sidewalk. In many areas, the bottom transverse deck reinforcement was exposed at spalls and corroded, resulting in complete loss of the bars. The underside of the roadway deck slab was accessed by temporary access openings.

This allowed the inspection of approximately 20% of the bottom surface of the roadway deck slab. Each of these areas showed numerous spalls accompanied by severe corrosion of transverse deck reinforcement. The type and frequency of this damage was not isolated but consistently found at each location with access.

Permitting Impacts for Replacement
It should be noted that all the alternatives considered in the hydraulic studies would include the installation of piles in Soquel Creek which will require construction operations over the water.

These studies are all also required for the Bridge Replacement option. Some issues that will need to be addressed are:
• Biological and Archeological Studies
• Agency permits based on findings
o Army Corps of Engineers
o Regional Water Quality Control Board
o California Department of Fish and Wildlife
o US Fish and Wildlife
o Possibly Caltrans depending on funding sources
• Construction work windows and staging areas in the channel (potential multi-year) • Historical structure impacts of proposed construction 548
Item 7 C.

Stockton Avenue Bridge
Structural Condition Evaluation

Page 4 of 10 ends

Alternative 5: Bridge Replacement
The bridge replacement option is a viable option for debris mitigation as the proposed bridge structure will essentially clear span the creek, eliminating the two piers in the main creek channel and creating a more favorable hydraulic pathway. It should be noted that the Stockton Bridge is a critical link for emergency services and response for the coastal community. The closest alternative crossing of Soquel Creek is Highway 1.

The bridge sufficiency rating from the most recent Caltrans Inspection Report is 60.6. That rating would very likely be lower, based on the results of the additional structural condition observations we performed through deck openings to review the underside of the deck. The deck rating of “poor” prior to the recent additional observations was due to excessive transverse cracking, but the overall superstructure was rated as fair. We believe that the additional observation of the interior of the box girder deck corrosion and concrete degradation will further lower the sufficiency rating. Additionally, the existing bridge is 93 years old, beyond its anticipated service life, and highly likely to be seismically deficient.

The most recent Bridge Inspection Report lists the Stockton Avenue Bridge in Historic Bridge Inventory Historic Status Category 2; eligible for the office list of National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). This means that the bridge has been determined eligible as a result of the historic bridge inventory and subsequent updates. Caltrans will need to be contacted to obtain additional information about the Historic Bridge Rating Sheet from the Office of Historic Preservation or sometimes on request from the Cultural Studies Office. There is a multi-step process through Caltrans to determine how the historic nature of the structure affects replacement and what features may be necessary for the new design.

A new replacement structure could be configured so that the new clear span structure would mimic the existing historic character of the bridge, incorporating such features as:
• Arched bridge soffit
• Historic railing features
• Art Deco lighting and support pedestals
• Art Deco approach pedestals at abutments
There are several design hurdles to overcome for the replacement option such as:
• Environmental and permitting studies
• Multi-season construction period
• Demolition and construction activities in the creek channel • Caltrans review and coordination
• Historical structure issues
• Community involvement
• Traffic handling and stage construction
• Utilities in the existing bridge
• Abutment replacements
549
Item 7 C.

Stockton Avenue Bridge
Structural Condition Evaluation

Page 5 of 10 ends

• Bridge hydrology report
• Geotechnical borings and reports
Caltrans Funding Eligibility
The Caltrans Highway Bridge Program (HBP) is a program that provides federal aid to local agencies to rehabilitate and replace structurally deficient, locally owned public bridges or to complete preventive maintenance on bridges that are not deficient. To be eligible for HBP funds, a bridge must be owned and maintained by a local agency, be open to the public, be in poor condition, be seismically vulnerable, or be scour critical.

Based on reviewing the 2022 Caltrans bridge inspection report, the bridge deck is in poor condition (see snapshot below). Currently this bridge is eligible for Bridge Preventive Maintenance Program (BPMP) funding to install a polyester concrete overlay on the bridge deck.

See the work recommendations in the 2022 Caltrans bridge inspection report.

Caltrans was not previously able to observe the inside of the bridge cells. We recommend that the photos from the March 2026 site visit be forwarded to Caltrans for further assessment of the deck and superstructure. The photos and observations from the March 2026 site investigations may result in a lower rating of the deck and superstructure which could lead to additional HBP funding eligibility. If the superstructure rating is reduced to a 4, this bridge will be eligible initially for HBP funding for rehabilitation and potentially for replacement based on the results of a feasibility study.

Conclusion
At a minimum, the widespread loss of a significant percentage of transverse deck reinforcement from corrosion requires a full deck slab replacement. Since the lost reinforcing bars are the bottom transverse bars, their repair cannot be addressed with a deck overlay or methacrylate treatment. The recent records for the bridge indicate substantially increased frequency and cost for structural repairs to address corrosion and corrosion related spalls. Given the advanced age of the bridge (93 years), hydraulic and seismic deficiencies, and the substantial cost to restore the deck slab, a full bridge replacement is recommended. In the interim, a load rating reduction is not regarded as necessary since the lost reinforcement alone will not lead to a collapse risk.

The deck will continue to deteriorate showing more numerous and wider surface cracks.

Cracking should be monitored and recorded. The deck should be re-assessed if cracking is found to be significantly increased.
550
Item 7 C.

Stockton Avenue Bridge
Structural Condition Evaluation

Page 6 of 10 ends

Based on the 2022 Caltrans bridge inspection report, this bridge is currently eligible for Bridge Preventive Maintenance Program (BPMP) funding to repair the bridge deck. With the benefit of the photos from our March 2026 observations, Caltrans may reassess the deck and superstructure resulting in HBP funding for rehabilitation and potentially for replacement based on the results of a feasibility study.

Superstructure Condition

Roadway Deck Soffit Spalls and Corrosion Roadway Deck Soffit Spalls and Corrosion 551
Item 7 C.

Stockton Avenue Bridge
Structural Condition Evaluation

Page 7 of 10 ends

Roadway Deck Soffit Spalls and Reinforcing Corrosion
Roadway Deck Soffit Spalls and Reinforcing Corrosion
552
Item 7 C.

Stockton Avenue Bridge
Structural Condition Evaluation

Page 8 of 10 ends

Roadway Deck Soffit Spalls and Reinforcing Corrosion Deck Soffit Spalls and Reinforcing Corrosion Roadway Deck Soffit Spalls and Reinforcing Corrosion
553
Item 7 C.

Stockton Avenue Bridge
Structural Condition Evaluation

Page 9 of 10 ends

Sidewalk Slab Soffit Spalls and Reinforcing Corrosion
Sidewalk Slab Soffit Spalls and Reinforcing Corrosion
554
Item 7 C.

Stockton Avenue Bridge
Structural Condition Evaluation

Page 10 of 10 ends

Sidewalk Slab Soffit Spalls and Reinforcing Corrosion
555
Item 7 C.

ALTERNATIVES

EVALUATION
Develop and
compare rehab,
retrofit, deck
replacement,
replacement, and
no improvement
alternatives

CITY COUNCIL

REVIEWS

ALTERNATIVES
Review alternatives
and:
• Select an
alternative
•Authorize the next
phase of project
•Stop work

ENVIRONMENTAL

REVIEW &

PRELIMINARY
DESIGN
Complete
environmental
review and obtain
required approvals

DESIGN &

PERMITTING
Prepare final design,
right-of-way (if
needed), and
permits

CONSTRUCTION
Construct the
selected
improvement,
subject to future
funding and City
Council
authorization

POTENTIAL FUTURE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
After the current assessment, the project could move through the following future phases, subject to City Council approval and available funding:
• Alternatives Evaluation
• Environmental Review
• Preliminary Engineering
• Final Design
• Right-of-Way, if needed
• Construction
• Debris Mitigation Feasibility
Study
• Existing Conditions
Assessment
• Structural Evaluation
• Hydraulic & Scour Analysis
• Utility Investigation
• Preliminary Traffic Evaluation

POTENTIAL FUTURE PHASES
(SUBJECT TO FUTURE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZATION & FUNDING) Stockton Avenue Bridge
— PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS —

PROPOSED AGREEMENT

EXISTING CONDITIONS

ASSESSMENT
• Structural
Evaluation
• Planning-Level
Seismic
Evaluation
• Hydraulic &
Scour Analysis
• Utility
Assessment
• Traffic Analysis
• Environmental
Constraints
• Historic
Resource
Evaluation
• Project Purpose
& Need
• Stakeholder
Outreach

STUDIES
(COMPLETED)

PREVIOUS STUDIES
(COMPLETED)
Existing studies identified
deterioration, constraints, and
key issues requiring additional
evaluation

EXISTING CONDITIONS

ASSESSMENT
Engineering investigations to develop
comprehensive understanding of
condition, constraints, opportunities,
and long-term needs
WE ARE HERE!
556
Item 7 C.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Kathleen Byrne <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2026 10:30 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Stockton Bridge
I feel the Stockton Bridge should definitely be repaired as it is part of the beauƟful ambience of Capitola and it is historic and we are losing too much of the history of Capitola instead of keeping it alive.

I would be very sad if they changed it and did not repair it Kathleen Byrne
Sent from my iPhone
557
Item 7 C.
2 Gautho, Julia
From: Rosemary Bulaich <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2026 8:44 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Stockton St Bridge
I have been a homeowner in Capitola for 45 years. During that Ɵme, the bridge has become as much a part of the view of The Village as the historic VeneƟan coƩages. PLEASE restore and repair this icon rather than modernizing and replacing it.

Rosemary Bulaich
Sent from my iPhone
558
Item 7 C.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: mark Ban <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2026 8:13 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Stockton Bridge
Dear capitola city council
I would like to suggest that all work on the Stockton Bridge be delayed until the rail trail is completed across the trestle. This would give cyclist and pedestrians a safe alternative to getting across the river. It’s obvious that traffic will be a nightmare during construction. Taking cyclist and pedestrians out of the construction equation would be both a convenience and a major safety improvement for those not driving.

Thank you
Mark Ban
321 McCormick Avenue
831-588-8447
Sent from my iPad
559
Item 7 C.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Kahn, Jessica
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 10:25 AM
To: City Council
Subject: FW: Stockton Bridge
From: Kahn, Jessica
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 8:32 AM
To: 'mark Ban' <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Stockton Bridge
Good morning,
Thank you for sharing your suggestion. Potential projects for the Stockton Avenue Bridge and the Capitola Trestle project are multiyear efforts and are still in the early planning stages. Construction timing and safe routes for pedestrians and bicyclists will be considered as the projects move forward.

Jessica Kahn, P.E.

Public Works Director
City of Capitola
(831) 475-7300 x 217
Please note my updated email address: [email protected] From: mark Ban <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2026 8:13 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Stockton Bridge
Dear capitola city council
I would like to suggest that all work on the Stockton Bridge be delayed until the rail trail is completed across the trestle. This would give cyclist and pedestrians a safe alternative to getting across the river. It’s obvious that traffic will be a nightmare during construction. Taking cyclist and pedestrians out of the construction equation would be both a convenience and a major safety improvement for those not driving.

Thank you
Mark Ban
321 McCormick Avenue
831-588-8447
Sent from my iPad
560
Item 7 C.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Bob Hickman <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2026 1:22 PM
To: City Clerk
Cc: Goldstein, Jamie; City Council; Kahn, Jessica
Subject: Stockton Avenue Bridge — clarification before August 27 Council agenda Mayor and Council Members, City Clerk Gautho, City Manager Goldstein and Director Kahn, I understand that several Stockton Avenue Bridge maƩers may be coming to Council on August 27, and I wanted to ask for clarificaƟon before the agenda is published rather than rely on secondhand informaƟon.

The City's current Stockton Avenue Bridge webpage states that the project remains in the early planning and technicalevaluaƟon phase, that no preferred project alternaƟve has been selected, and that future direcƟon will be considered through a public process with community input.

That also appears consistent with Council's April 9 direcƟon. Council specifically directed staff to return with a proposed scope evaluaƟng mulƟple bridge replacement alternaƟves as well as retrofit and deck-replacement alternaƟves, with comparable informaƟon regarding costs, service life, grants, construcƟon Ɵmelines, environmental and permiƫng constraints, historic consideraƟons and traffic impacts. Council's moƟon contemplated selecƟng a preferred opƟon only aŌer those alternaƟves were presented.

Could you please confirm whether the August 27 agenda will ask Council to select or approve a preferred bridge replacement alternaƟve, or whether the upcoming items are instead intended to authorize the addiƟonal studies and alternaƟves analysis previously directed by Council?
If selecƟon of a preferred alternaƟve is proposed, I respecƞully ask that the complete alternaƟves analysis, historicresource evaluaƟon, traffic analysis, cost esƟmates, funding assumpƟons and other informaƟon called for in Council's April 9 moƟon be published with the agenda and that the maƩer be scheduled as a full discussion item with meaningful opportunity for public review and comment.

I think the community broadly understands that the bridge requires serious long-term planning. The important issue is making sure such a consequenƟal decision follows the transparent, comparaƟve process Council already directed.

Thank you.

Bob Hickman Capitola City Resident
561
Item 7 C.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Kahn, Jessica
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 8:49 AM
To: City Council
Subject: FW: Stockton Avenue Bridge — clarification before August 27 Council agenda -----Original Message-----
From: Kahn, Jessica
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 8:34 AM
To: 'Bob Hickman' <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Stockton Avenue Bridge — clarificaƟon before August 27 Council agenda Good morning,
Thank you for reaching out. The August 27 agenda item will not ask the City Council to select a preferred bridge alternaƟve. The item is intended to authorize the addiƟonal technical studies and alternaƟves analysis previously directed by the Council.

The project remains in the early planning phase. The alternaƟves and supporƟng informaƟon will be presented through a future public process before the Council is asked to select a preferred alternaƟve.

Jessica Kahn, P.E.

Public Works Director
City of Capitola
(831) 475-7300 x 217
Please note my updated email address: [email protected] -----Original Message-----
From: Bob Hickman <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2026 1:22 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Goldstein, Jamie <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>; Kahn, Jessica <[email protected]>
Subject: Stockton Avenue Bridge — clarificaƟon before August 27 Council agenda Mayor and Council Members, City Clerk Gautho, City Manager Goldstein and Director Kahn, I understand that several Stockton Avenue Bridge maƩers may be coming to Council on August 27, and I wanted to ask for clarificaƟon before the agenda is published rather than rely on secondhand informaƟon.

That also appears consistent with Council's April 9 direcƟon. Council specifically directed staff to return with a proposed scope evaluaƟng mulƟple bridge replacement alternaƟves as well as retrofit and deck-replacement alternaƟves, with 562
Item 7 C.
2 comparable informaƟon regarding costs, service life, grants, construcƟon Ɵmelines, environmental and permiƫng constraints, historic consideraƟons and traffic impacts. Council's moƟon contemplated selecƟng a preferred opƟon only aŌer those alternaƟves were presented.

Thank you.

Bob Hickman Capitola City Resident
563
Item 7 C.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Cheryl Ban <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 12:04 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Stockton Street Bridge
Capitola City Council,
Building the trail on the Captiola Trestle would be paramount before any disruptive work being done on the Stockton Street Bridge or Cliff Drive Project.

CALTRANS and the city hired engineer report indicates the option to repair the bridge rather than complete replacement of the Stockton bridge.

I am not in favor of adding to the Stockton bridge or the Cliff Drive project in any way that would facilitate detouring the bike / pedestrian trail through the Village.

It must stay in the rail corridor.

Measure L, CMC 8.72 has already been discussed at length at past city council meetings and has been settled.

At this time the best way to proceed is to repair the bridge.

And since winter is fast approaching it may be prudent to asses the Stockton Bridge after the winter storms.

If the bridge could get more years before replacement, per the reports, it would be a relief to our whole county to repair the bridge, since we are all construction traumatized.

Have we not learned anything from the Murray St. bridge years long closure.

The impact to the entire county. The business pleading for help.

Remember what the lockdowns during covid have done to business, disseminated 50% of small business.

Some struggling and still closing from this lockdown.

Now considering the unreasonable decision the city of Santa Cruz made to NOT make use of the useable and available trail on trestle to at least attempt to help the businesses.

I can just imagine Capitola Village business despair to have the Stockton bridge impaired or closed for any length of time.

How about the Council addressing the Capitola business district directly, proclaiming unanimous Agreement on the support of our small businesses.

It would be appreciated to have weekly updates posted on the Capitola city website with helpful information and details about the projects.

Especially what impacts the projects are anticipating.

For instance, current information about 41 St. Ave., Bay Avenue closure and the Park Ave. freeway on ramp closure.

The city website would provide valuable information for the citizens to navigate projects.

Capitola Resident,
Cheryl Ban
564
Item 7 C.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Gayle Ortiz <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2026 11:40 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Stockton Avenue Bridge
Dear Council,
I understand you will be addressing the future of the Stockton Bridge at the August 27 meeƟng.

I support keeping the exisƟng bridge and doing the repairs outlined by the engineer that give us plus or minus 30 more years.

I don’t believe this is the Ɵme to pursue a tear down. There’s enough going on, staff Ɵme and community resources are stretched to their max as is!
Please consider repairs only.

Gayle OrƟz
565
Item 7 C.

Stockton Avenue Bridge Existing Conditions
Assessment and Project Development Services
City Council
August 27, 2026
566
Item 7 C.
• Structural condition evaluation
• Hydraulic and scour analyses
• Utility investigations
• Initial traffic and circulation review
• Debris-mitigation feasibility study
Completed Investigations
• Current inspections support continued use
• Portions of the deck are deteriorated
• Reinforcing steel corrosion is present
• Hydraulic, scour and utility concerns require further evaluation • Long-term seismic performance and remaining service life are not yet defined
Bridge Status
What We Know Today
Stockton Bridge Project Development
567
Item 7 C.
• Estimated remaining service life: 5–10 years, though uncertain due to hidden deterioration
• Replacement planning should begin immediately
Major Findings
“While short-term maintenance can keep the bridge operational, the combination of advanced age, structural deterioration, hydraulic/scour risks, and seismic deficiencies make full bridge replacement the most practical and cost effective long-term solution. Planning should begin now to avoid higher risks, costs, and potential service disruptions in the near future. “ Study Conclusion
Existing Condition Study
Stockton Bridge Project Development
568
Item 7 C.
• Rehabilitation and retrofit
• Deck replacement
• Bridge replacement options
• Historic preservation considerations
• Traffic and construction impacts
• Funding and implementation strategies
• Potential use of the Capitola Trestle during
construction
Evaluate
April 9, 2026 Council Direction
Stockton Bridge Project Development
569
Item 7 C.
• Existing-condition documentation
• Structural, seismic and hydraulic analysis
• Traffic and utility evaluation
• Environmental and historic constraints review
• Stakeholder outreach
• Basis for developing alternatives
Proposed Contract
• Develop and compare alternatives
• Alternative-specific cost estimates
• Service-life and construction comparisons
• Permitting considerations
• Council decision on whether and how to proceed
Future Phase 2
What Phase 1 Provides
Stockton Bridge Project Development
Available funding is sufficient to complete Phase 1. Phase 2 would require additional funding and separate Council authorization 570 Item 7 C.
• Define project needs and requirements
• Confirm potential funding pathway with Caltrans
Project Definition and Funding Strategy — $35,680
• Survey and geotechnical testing
• Traffic data and utility review
• Bridge-condition documentation
Existing Conditions — $184,905
• Structural, seismic, hydraulic and traffic analyses
• Environmental and historic evaluation
• Stakeholder outreach and Council presentation
Technical Evaluation and Outreach — $206,827
• Field testing, traffic control, permits, research, and other project costs Direct Expenses — $47,500
Total: $474,912
Phase 1 Scope and Budget
Stockton Bridge Project Development
571
Item 7 C.
• Documents bridge’s historic significance
• Identifies requirements for future alternatives
• Does not determine whether bridge will be rehabilitated or replaced
Historic Resource Evaluation
• Identify community priorities and local concerns
• Document input for consideration during future
alternatives development
Public and Stakeholder Outreach
Historic Evaluation and Outreach
Stockton Bridge Project Development
Neither activity selects or
recommends a bridge alternative 572
Item 7 C.
• Existing conditions
• Technical investigations
• Constraints and opportunities
• Public and stakeholder input
Phase 1 — Proposed Contract
• Develop alternatives
• Compare costs, service life and construction
impacts
• Evaluate permitting and implementation
• Return to Council for direction
Future Phase 2
• Environmental review
• Preliminary and final design
• Construction
Later Phases
Project Development Process
Stockton Bridge Project Development
Each future phase
requires separate
funding and
Council
authorization
573
Item 7 C.
574
Item 7 C.
• Dept of Water Resources flood mitigation grant: $500,000 • Previously appropriated City funding: $350,000
• Total project budget: $850,000
Available Project Funding
• $351,000 expended on prior investigations; approximately $499,000 remains
• Proposed Phase 1 agreement: $474,912
• Next anticipated step: Task 4 – Alternatives Analysis ($174,908)
• No additional appropriation proposed at this time
Funding Status
Fiscal Impact
Stockton Bridge Project Development
575
Item 7 C.
• They do not provide engineering needed to
compare long-term rehabilitation, retrofit or
replacement options
Routine bridge inspections
determine if bridge can remain
safely in service
• Structural and seismic deficiencies
• Hydraulic and scour constraints
City has already conducted far
more detailed inspections, and
found issues
What About Caltrans Inspections?
Stockton Bridge Project Development
576
Item 7 C.
• Would be working outside Caltrans bridge
funding process – unlikely to be competitive
for non-City funding
• Prior studies suggest, but do not confirm,
other structural and scour issues
• No studies yet completed on seismic safety
of the 1928 sub-structure
Because…
Why Not Just Start Design on a Project Now
Stockton Bridge Project Development
577
Item 7 C.

Recommended
Action
Authorize City Manager to execute a
Professional Services Agreement
with CSW/ST2 for Stockton Avenue
Bridge existing-conditions
assessment and projectdevelopment services in an amount not to exceed $474,912.

Approval authorizes Phase 1 only and
does not commit the City to a
particular alternative or future
project.
578
Item 7 C.

Capitola City Council
Agenda Report
Meeting: August 27, 2026
From: Public Works Department
Subject: Underground Utility District No. 6 and Rule 20A Program Update Recommended Action: Receive information regarding Underground Utility District No. 6 and the Rule 20A utility undergrounding program, including district history, implementation considerations, and utility coordination issues, and provide direction as desired. (Continued from May 28, 2026, City Council Meeting)
Background: This item was continued from the May 28, 2026, City Council meeting.

Rule 20A is a California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) program that allows participating utilities to underground overhead electrical distribution facilities using utility work credits allocated to local jurisdictions. Rule 20A funding is generally limited to arterial streets, scenic corridors, downtown areas, and locations meeting criteria established by the CPUC and utility tariffs. The Rule 20A program is now largely limited to previously established underground utility districts and remaining legacy allocations previously accumulated by local jurisdictions. Per CPUC Decision 23-06-008, remaining Rule 20A work credits expire at the end of 2033.

Capitola Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 establishes procedures for the creation and administration of underground utility districts.

Capitola Underground Utilities District No. 6 was originally established by City Council Resolution No. 3098 in 2000. District No. 6 originally included portions of Bay Avenue, Capitola Avenue, and Monterey Avenue and contemplated a broader corridor undergrounding effort than the area currently under consideration.

The Rule 20A program requires entire sub-districts to be underground as a single project. Over time, implementation planning focused on smaller segments of the district based on estimated project costs, available Rule 20A allocations, and utility coordination considerations. In 2019, the City amended the district map to subdivide District 6 into smaller implementation areas identified as Districts 6A-1, 6A-2, and 6B while maintaining the original overall district boundaries (Attachment 3). According to the 2019 staff report, the subdivision was intended to allow the City and PG&E to focus on a portion of the district believed to be achievable within available Rule 20A funding allocations, specifically the area near the Bay Avenue and Capitola Avenue intersection identified as District 6A-1.

Following subdivision of District 6, the City and utility providers advanced preliminary utility coordination and joint trench planning efforts for District 6A-1. Existing planning documents include joint trench composite plans and preliminary utility cost-sharing documentation prepared in coordination with PG&E and telecommunications providers.

The City currently maintains approximately $3 million in Rule 20A work credits associated with District No. 6. These credits are held and administered by PG&E for eligible undergrounding work and do not cover all project-related costs.

At the May 14, 2026, City Council meeting, Council voted not to move forward with roundabouts along the Bay Avenue corridor and directed staff to return with additional information regarding Rule 20A undergrounding considerations and potential future corridor safety improvements. Staff returned on May 28, 2026, to present additional information about the undergrounding.

Following the presentation Council discussed the item and the advantages and disadvantages of advancing underground work in Districts 6B or District 6A-1. Following discussions, the Mayor continued the item to a future meeting to allow staff to clarify items discussed. 579
Item 7 D.

Discussion: Rule 20A projects require extensive coordination between the City, PG&E, telecommunications providers, affected property owners, and other utility companies. Undergrounding projects typically involve utility design, trenching, easement acquisition, service conversions, street restoration, and coordination of above-ground utility equipment such as transformers and service cabinets. In addition to utility construction costs, cities are typically responsible for costs not covered under Rule 20A work credits, which may include street lighting, restoration, traffic control, right-of-way acquisition, and certain utility betterments.

As part of the Rule 20A process, affected property owners are generally responsible for modifications necessary to receive underground utility service on private property. Final trench configuration, utility participation, and easement requirements would require additional coordination with affected utility providers and property owners.

Previous undergrounding planning efforts within District 6A-1 were closely coordinated with the previously contemplated roadway reconstruction and roundabout project. Combining roadway reconstruction and utility undergrounding was anticipated to improve project coordination efficiencies and reduce the need for multiple phases of roadway restoration.

Because Council has since directed staff not to proceed with roundabouts along the corridor, the coordinated construction assumptions underlying the prior implementation strategy may no longer apply.

If undergrounding were to proceed independently from a larger roadway reconstruction effort, additional standalone restoration work may be required, and current construction costs, utility coordination requirements, and restoration obligations would require updated evaluation prior to project advancement.

Without coordinated roadway reconstruction, the primary benefits of undergrounding would relate to aesthetics, utility reliability, and long-term infrastructure modernization.

Options: Per CPUC Decision 23-06-008, Rule 20A work credits associated with this program expire at the end of 2033 and may not be redeemed for undergrounding work after that time. Rule 20A projects are multi-year efforts that typically involve utility coordination, engineering, easement acquisition, environmental review, and construction scheduling through PG&E and participating utility providers.

Based on discussions with PG&E, forming a new underground utility district at this time would not likely result in a completed project prior to expiration of the program in 2033. However, the City may continue advancing projects within the existing District No. 6 implementation areas, including Districts 6A-1, 6A-2, and 6B.

Based on field review and preliminary discussions with PG&E, District 6A-2 would likely require substantially more work credits than are currently available due to topography, utility complexity, and the number of affected services within the area. As a result, the City’s currently technically feasible implementation areas are limited to Districts 6A-1 and 6B.

District 6A-1: District 6A-1, the Bay Avenue and Capitola Avenue intersection, is currently the most advanced implementation area. Engineering work has already been completed, including joint trench planning and preliminary utility coordination. Remaining steps would include confirmation of utility participation, acquisition of required easements, final utility coordination, and scheduling through PG&E for construction. Easements would be required on private property to accommodate underground utility infrastructure and related equipment.

Under the Rule 20A process, work credits are utilized for eligible PG&E undergrounding work, including project development and construction activities. Telecommunications providers are generally responsible for their own undergrounding work, while the City would remain responsible for costs including easement acquisition, roadway restoration, street lighting, traffic control, and any PG&E undergrounding costs exceeding available work credits.

Some City restoration costs associated with District 6A-1 were previously anticipated to overlap with the contemplated roadway reconstruction project. Because that roadway project is no longer being pursued, the extent of standalone City restoration costs and potential PG&E cost overruns remains uncertain and would require monitoring.
580
Item 7 D.

The City may continue advancing District 6A-1 through final utility coordination, easement acquisition, and project bidding. If updated cost estimates ultimately determine the City’s share of project costs is not financially feasible, the City would retain the ability not to proceed with construction; however, costs associated with easement acquisition would already have been incurred.

District 6B: The City could also consider shifting implementation focus toward District 6B. However, this would require substantial additional utility coordination, engineering, joint trench planning, and project development work, effectively restarting much of the implementation process within a different portion of the district. While preliminary discussions with PG&E indicate that completion prior to 2033 may still be possible, significant uncertainty exists regarding project cost, utility coordination requirements, and available remaining work credits after accounting for prior District 6A-1 project development work.

Development of District 6B would also likely require private easements and future City funding for restoration and other project-related costs. Based on preliminary discussions with PG&E, a substantial portion of remaining work credits could be consumed through project development and engineering activities prior to construction. While the City could consider development of a future capital project to support this effort, many funding sources recently utilized for major capital projects may not be readily applicable to this portion of Capitola Avenue.

Implementation Costs: The level of planning and cost information available for District 6B is substantially less developed than for District 6A-1. For District 6A-1, preliminary utility planning, joint-trench design, cost-sharing documentation, and construction cost estimates have previously been prepared.

Comparable planning documents have not been developed for District 6B. As a result, the available cost information for District 6B is limited to a conceptual, planning-level estimate provided by PG&E at the time District 6 was subdivided in 2019.

PG&E estimated the cost of utility undergrounding at approximately $3.3 million for District 6B prior to the District subdivision in 2019. For comparison, PG&E has previously estimated utility undergrounding costs for District 6A-1 at approximately $4.5 million as part of the development of an undergrounding project. Because these estimates were prepared at different times and neither estimate has been updated to reflect current construction costs, they should not be considered current project budgets. In particular, the District 6B estimate may materially understate the cost of implementing the project under current market conditions.

The estimates are intended solely to provide a general, planning-level comparison of the potential utility undergrounding costs for the two districts. Actual costs could vary significantly depending on final project design, utility participation and requirements, easement needs, restoration obligations, construction conditions, market conditions, and future coordination with PG&E and other utilities.

The estimates represent utility undergrounding costs only. They do not include costs associated with roadway reconstruction, intersection improvements, sidewalks, bicycle or pedestrian facilities, drainage, streetscape enhancements, transportation improvements, or other corridor improvements that the City may elect to undertake in conjunction with or independently of the undergrounding projects. Additional City costs may also be required for easement acquisition, traffic control, project administration, environmental review, utility coordination, and other project-related activities that are not eligible for Rule 20A work credits.

Given the limited planning completed for District 6B and the age of the available cost estimate, additional engineering and utility coordination would be necessary to develop a reliable project cost before the City could determine the feasibility and overall financial implications of advancing the district.

Alternatively, the City could discontinue advancement of any District 6 projects. This would require notifying PG&E that the City no longer intends to pursue the undergrounding work associated with the districts and would result in the forfeiture of the remaining Rule 20A work credits.

Fiscal Impact: This item is informational and does not authorize construction or appropriation of additional funds.
581
Item 7 D.

Rule 20A work credits may only be used for eligible undergrounding activities and do not cover all projectrelated costs. Additional City funding would likely be required for items including roadway restoration, street lighting, traffic control, easement acquisition, and other project-related expenses if undergrounding work were advanced.

Attachments:

1. Resolution No. 3098 – Underground Utilities District No. 6 (2000)

2. 2019 Underground District Map Amendment and Staff Report

3. Existing District No. 6 and District 6A-1 Map
Alignment with 2025-2029 Strategic Plan Priority: Accountable Government; Sustainable Infrastructure Report Prepared By: Jessica Kahn, P.E., Public Works Director Reviewed By: Julia Gautho, City Clerk; Marc Tran, City Attorney Approved By: Jessica Kahn, Acting City Manager
582
Item 7 D.
5517
RESOLUTION NO. 3098

RESOLUTION OFTHE CITY COUNCIL OFTHE CITY OF CAPITOLA
DECLARING AREAS TO BEUNDERGROUND UTILITIES DISTRICT NO 6 PURSUANTTO ORDINANCE NO. 384 OFTHE CITY OF CAPITOLA
WHEREAS, on September 14, 2000, the City Council of the City of Capitola ordered that a public hearing be held to give notice of intention to declare property in approximately the same area as the property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference made apart hereof; and
WHEREAS, all affected property owners and utility companies within the area described in Exhibit "A" were by mail given notice of the time and place of the public hearing at least ten (10) days prior to the date ofthe hearing, and notice ofthe hearing has been duly published as directed in said resolution; and
WHEREAS, the public hearing has been held as stated in said resolution and notices, and all persons interested have been given an opportunity tobeheard.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED that this Council finds, determines and declares that the public necessity, health, safety and general welfare require that the area described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof be declared to be an Underground Utilities District and said area is hereby declared to be an Underground utilities District pursuant to City Ordinance No. 384.

BE n FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that all utilities to be installed in the area described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto shall be installed underground, including up to one hundred feet (100) of customer service lateral, except as specified in Sections 70.5 and 70.6 of Capitola City Ordinance No. 384.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that this Council finds, determines and declares that the public interest, health, safety and general welfare require that whenever aboveground utilities which are in operation in the area described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto on the date this resolution is adopted, are to be reinstalled in a different location within said area, such utilities shall be reinstalledunderground.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED, that within ten (10) days after the passage ofthis resolution, the City Clerk shall notify all affected utility companies and all affected property owners by mailing them a copy of this resolution and a copy of Capitola City Ordinance No. 384.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that this Council finds, determines, and declares that the removal of existing poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures and the underground installation of wires and facilities for supplying electric, communication orsimilar associated service within the area specified herein is in the general public interest for the following reasons:
583
Item 7 D.
5518
RESOLUTION NO. 3098

1. Such undergrounding will avoid or eliminate an unusually heavy concentration of overhead electric facilities;

2. Said street orroad orright-of-way is extensively used by the general public and carries a heavy volume ofpedestrian orvehicular traffic; and

3. Said street orroad orright-of-way adjoins or passes through a civic area or public recreation area or an area of unusual scenic interest to the general public.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all poles, overhead wires and associated structures shall be removed and underground installation made in said Underground District No. 6 within the following times:

A. Underground installation by utility companies and property owners and reconnections not later than September 15, 2004, for Area 6A as designated in Exhibit A; and September 15, 2005, for Area 6B as designated inExhibit A.

B. Removal of all overhead Pacific Bell communications facilities no later than 90 days after removal ofPG&E overhead electrical facilities.

C. Removal ofpoles, overhead wires and other associated overhead structures not later than December 15, 2004 for Area 6A as designated inExhibit A; and December 15, 2005, for Area 6B as designated in Exhibit A.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Capitola at its regular meeting held on the 21st day of November, 2000, by the following vote:

AYES: Council Members Ortiz, Gualtieri, Norton and Mayor Arthur NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Harlan
ABSTAIN: None
Bruce Arthur, Mayor
ATTEST:
)ajAj/jaj j^u^t^
Patricia Evans, Deputy City Clerk
584
Item 7 D.
ctf
o
PQ
MD
-P
U KD
L
+* • W 2
R
no
V
i— h_l
<L n h-
<c o
i—i
PQ
i—i ho
X
Ld
<r L)U
<JD
Ld
-p O
585
Item 7 D.

CAPITOLA CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA REPORT
MEETING OF AUGUST 22, 2019
FROM: Public Works Department
SUBJECT: Consider a Resolution To Subdivide City of Capitola Undergrounding Utilities District No. 6
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve a resolution amending Resolution No. 3098 and subdividing a district within the boundary map for Undergrounding Utilities District No. 6.

BACKGROUND: On November 21, 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 3098 that established Capitola Underground Utilities District No. 6 (District 6). The establishment of an underground district is governed by state law and Capitola City Municipal Code Section 13.08.

Capitola Underground District 6 includes Capitola Avenue from Fanmar Way to approximately Plum Street, Bay Avenue from Oak to Monterey Avenue and Monterey Avenue from Bay Avenue to Cherry Avenue.

Undergrounding districts use funds set aside by PG&E to design and build the project. These funds, known as Rule 20A funds, are a tariff paid by PG&E customers and annually apportioned to jurisdictions on a formula basis. The funds are held by PG&E and used by PG&E for undergrounding projects selected by the City. Rule 20A funds must be spent on major arterial streets, public areas of scenic value, and downtown or civic core areas. They may not be used for undergrounding projects in residential areas; therefore the undergrounding project at the library is not eligible to use Rule 20A funds.

Until recently PG&E had tabled working on District 6 until there were sufficient Rule 20A funds in the Capitola set-aside account to proceed with the project. Staff has been working with PG&E to move the project forward to allow for reconstruction of the intersection at Bay Avenue and Capitola Avenue.

DISCUSSION: PG&E has agreed to proceed with an undergrounding project in the immediate area of the Bay/Capitola Ave. intersection. As part of the project, staff has been coordinating with PG&E, AT&T, and the other overhead utility providers. Through this effort staff has identified the need to update the map associated with Resolution No. 3098. The proposed update maintains the original limits of the overall District 6, but divides the District into smaller sections. Specifically District 6A is divided into District 6A-1, 6A-2. District 6B is not changed.

The proposed underground project will focus on completion of District 6A-1. The undergrounding of utilities at the intersection of Capitola Avenue and Bay Avenue is a necessary first step toward consideration of a future roundabout project at the intersection.

9.E
Packet Pg. 169
586
Item 7 D.

Undergrounding Resolution
August 22, 2019
Attachment 1 is Exhibit AA to the resolution, a map showing the proposed amendment.

Attachment 2 is a copy of Resolution No. 3098 including the original District 6 map.

FISCAL IMPACT: As of March 31, 2018, the City’s Rule 20A Allocation Account Balance is $2,050,842. The annual allocation has been approximately $45,000 each year. PG&E staff have begun estimating the scope and costs associated with completing section 6A-1 of District 6 and are confident that there are sufficient funds available to complete PG&E’s portion of the project.

There will be some costs that the City will be required to cover such as street light installation and right-of-way acquisition costs. These costs are unknown at this time but are estimated at $300,000. These funds will be budgeted in the Capital Improvement Fund when the schedule is further developed. Staff anticipates these funds will be needed in either Fiscal Year 2020/21 or 2021/22.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Exhibit AA, Amended Undergrounding Utilities District No. 6 Map (PDF)

2. Resolution 3098 (PDF)
Report Prepared By: Kailash Mozumder
Project Manager
Reviewed and Forwarded by:

9.E
Packet Pg. 170
587
Item 7 D.

Undergrounding Resolution
August 22, 2019
RESOLUTION NO. _________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPITOLA SUBDIVIDING AREAS WITHIN CAPITOLA UNDERGROUND UTILITIES DISTRICT NO. 6 PURSUANT TO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 13.08 OF THE CITY OF CAPITOLA
WHEREAS, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has authorized electric and telecommunication utilities to convert overhead utility lines and facilities to underground pursuant to Electric Rule 20 and Telecommunication Rule 32; and WHEREAS, pursuant to certain criteria, CPUC rules allow participating cities and counties to establish legislation authorizing the creation of underground utility districts within which existing overhead electric distribution and telecommunication distribution and service facilities will be converted to underground; and
WHEREAS, Capitola Municipal Code Section 13.08 authorizes the City Council to designate areas within which all existing overhead poles, overhead wires and overhead equipment associated with the distribution of electric power, telecommunication services and cable television should be removed and replaced with underground wires and facilities; and WHEREAS, each year the City of Capitola is notified by PG&E regarding the allocation of work credits for conversion of overhead electric distribution lines and facilities to underground, known as Rule 20A allocations; and
WHEREAS, on November 21, 2000, the City Council of the City of Capitola adopted Resolution No. 3098 which defined the terms and geographical limits of Capitola Underground Utility District No. 6; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works for the City of Capitola has consulted with the affected public utilities and such utilities have requested amending Resolution No. 3098 to provide an updated map; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works for City of Capitola has consulted with PG&E and determined that the City has accumulated sufficient Rule 20A work credits to complete the overhead to underground conversion project within District 6A-1 as shown on Exhibit AA attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works for the City of Capitola has consulted with the affected public utilities and such utilities have agreed that the designated Capitola Underground Utility District No. 6, and more particularly described in Exhibit AA attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, meets the criteria established by the rules of the CPUC; to wit,

1. That such undergrounding will avoid or eliminate an unusually heavy concentration of overhead electric facilities; and

2. That the street or road or right-of-way is considered an arterial street or major collector as defined in Capitola’s General Plan.

WHEREAS, to the extent required, the City of Capitola has agreed to provide easements or

9.E
Packet Pg. 171
588
Item 7 D.

Undergrounding Resolution
August 22, 2019
rights-of-way on private property as may be necessary for installation of utility facilities in a form satisfactory to the affected utilities.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Capitola does hereby amend Resolution No. 3098 as follows:

1. Undergrounding Utilities District No. 6 is hereby amended by subdividing the two original sections, District 6A and 6B, into District 6A-1, 6A-2, and 6B but maintaining the original limits of the overall District 6 as shown on Exhibit AA.

The foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Capitola on the 22nd day of August, 2019, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
_____________________________
Jacques Bertrand, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________
Linda Fridy, City Clerk

9.E
Packet Pg. 172
589
Item 7 D.
0 435
501
370
420
706
601
719
0 414
700
1680
523
528
603
704
229
500
305
300
504
506
600
302
712
301
250
455
506
725
475
409
305
720
302
310
406
530
722
733
702
512
724 715
340
620
519
522
401
620
621
617
617
309
306
712
404
609
614
716
300
216 202
104
618
607
708
516
625
219
415
306
308
360
410
323
380
531
705
721
728
718
100
309
727
215
703
402
710
427
726
226
307
403
426
415
612
709
403
402
320
224
617
506
714
408
322
408
420
511
732
316
303
414
124
311
502
300
409
310
511
504
524
510
207
526
528
503
519
515
425
405
310
501
524
116
516
107
519
403
520
527
521
523
522
603
501 509
207
515
610
526
437
522
403
606
602
716
324
530
720
525
521
508
318
615
508
414
605
217
411
216
319
105
301
214 211
302
106
105
215
219
612
610
616
608
602
529
309
405
627
412
623
207
512
208
511
701
327
607
618
324
114 119
515
209
328
515
527
518
517
525
306
111
511
509
207
516
204
523
620
701
520
522
208
521
524
510
210
202
315
326
526
126
502
505
514
210
206
123
313
507
310
517
703
325
435
209
410
121
614
503
518
605
307
624
212
717
305
211
303
601
711
330
443
300
204
206
705
715
301
202
709
441
516
122
510
106
306
204
305
302
610
212
308
609
212
606
117
210 622
207
708
404
329
211
706
710
750
502
711
604
108
709
303
498
209
321
506
511
707
501
701
439
627
505
703
604
625
703
602
509
511
603
496 515
606
415
608
610
614
621
607
704
523
705
509
601
622
715
518
612
702
521
615
507
108
620
618
624
520
525
616
605
522
3 216
31 431
623
110
512
705
225
611
617
707
519
324
621
206
517
321
514
516
300
306
619
212
606 608
301
506
303
612
201
224
BAY AV
OAK ST

CAPITOLA AV

GILROY DR
FAN
MAR
WY

ROSEDALE AV
P
L
U
M
S
T

CENTRAL AV
CHERRY
AV
B
EVE
RLY
AV

RIVERVIEW AV

BURLINGAME AV

MONTEREY AV
PARK
AV

DEL MONTE AV
ALLEY

PILGRIM DR

BEULAH DR
CARL
LN

ESCALONA
AV
PLUM
ST

MONTEREY AV
Legend
District 6A-1District 6A-2District 6B

EXHIBIT 'AA'
Ü

CITY OF CAPITOLA

AMENDING
UNDERGROUND DISTRICT 6
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.025
Miles
District 6A-1
District 6B
District 6A-2

9.E.1
Packet Pg. 173
Attachment: Exhibit AA, Amended Undergrounding Utilities District No. 6 Map (Undergrounding 590
Item 7 D.
5517
RESOLUTION NO. 3098

9.E.2
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Resolution 3098 (Undergrounding Resolution) 591
Item 7 D.
5518
RESOLUTION NO. 3098

1. Such undergrounding will avoid or eliminate an unusually heavy concentration of overhead electric facilities;

2. Said street orroad orright-of-way is extensively used by the general public and carries a heavy volume ofpedestrian orvehicular traffic; and

3. Said street orroad orright-of-way adjoins or passes through a civic area or public recreation area or an area of unusual scenic interest to the general public.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all poles, overhead wires and associated structures shall be removed and underground installation made in said Underground District No. 6 within the following times:

B. Removal of all overhead Pacific Bell communications facilities no later than 90 days after removal ofPG&E overhead electrical facilities.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Capitola at its regular meeting held on the 21st day of November, 2000, by the following vote:

AYES: Council Members Ortiz, Gualtieri, Norton and Mayor Arthur NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Harlan
ABSTAIN: None
Bruce Arthur, Mayor
ATTEST:
)ajAj/jaj j^u^t^
Patricia Evans, Deputy City Clerk

9.E.2
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Resolution 3098 (Undergrounding Resolution) 592
Item 7 D.
ctf
o
PQ
MD
-P
U KD
L
+* • W 2
R
no
V
i— h_l
<L n h-
<c o
i—i
PQ
i—i ho
X
Ld
<r L)U
<JD
Ld
-p O

9.E.2
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Resolution 3098 (Undergrounding Resolution) 593
Item 7 D.
0 435
501
370
420
706
601
719
0 414
700
1680
523
528
603
704
229
500
305
300
504
506
600
302
712
301
250
455
506
725
475
409
305
720
302
310
406
530
722
733
702
512
724 715
340
620
519
522
401
620
621
617
617
309
306
712
404
609
614
716
300
216 202
104
618
607
708
516
625
219
415
306
308
360
410
323
380
531
705
721
728
718
100
309
727
215
703
402
710
427
726
226
307
403
426
415
612
709
403
402
320
224
617
506
714
408
322
408
420
511
732
316
303
414
124
311
502
300
409
310
511
504
524
510
207
526
528
503
519
515
425
405
310
501
524
116
516
107
519
403
520
527
521
523
522
603
501 509
207
515
610
526
437
522
403
606
602
716
324
530
720
525
521
508
318
615
508
414
605
217
411
216
319
105
301
214 211
302
106
105
215
219
612
610
616
608
602
529
309
405
627
412
623
207
512
208
511
701
327
607
618
324
114 119
515
209
328
515
527
518
517
525
306
111
511
509
207
516
204
523
620
701
520
522
208
521
524
510
210
202
315
326
526
126
502
505
514
210
206
123
313
507
310
517
703
325
435
209
410
121
614
503
518
605
307
624
212
717
305
211
303
601
711
330
443
300
204
206
705
715
301
202
709
441
516
122
510
106
306
204
305
302
610
212
308
609
212
606
117
210 622
207
708
404
329
211
706
710
750
502
711
604
108
709
303
498
209
321
506
511
707
501
701
439
627
505
703
604
625
703
602
509
511
603
496 515
606
415
608
610
614
621
607
704
523
705
509
601
622
715
518
612
702
521
615
507
108
620
618
624
520
525
616
605
522
3 216
31 431
623
110
512
705
225
611
617
707
519
324
621
206
517
321
514
516
300
306
619
212
606 608
301
506
303
612
201
224
BAY AV
OAK ST

CAPITOLA AV

GILROY DR
FAN
MAR
WY

ROSEDALE AV
P
L
U
M
S
T

CENTRAL AV
CHERRY
AV
B
EVE
RLY
AV

RIVERVIEW AV

BURLINGAME AV

MONTEREY AV
PARK
AV

DEL MONTE AV
ALLEY

PILGRIM DR

BEULAH DR
CARL
LN

ESCALONA
AV
PLUM
ST

MONTEREY AV
Legend
District 6A-1District 6A-2District 6B

EXHIBIT 'AA'
Ü

CITY OF CAPITOLA

AMENDING
UNDERGROUND DISTRICT 6
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.025
Miles
District 6A-1
District 6B
District 6A-2

9.E.1
Packet Pg. 173
Attachment: Exhibit AA, Amended Undergrounding Utilities District No. 6 Map (Undergrounding 594
Item 7 D.

Undergroun
d Utility
District
No. 6 and
Rule 20A
Program
Update
City Council
August 27, 2026
595
Item 7 D.
• Underground overhead utilities using utilityfunded credits • Administered through PG&E
• Program expires in 2033
CPUC Underground Utility Program
• Limited to previously established underground
utility districts
• Rule 20A projects must be 600’ or one block
• New districts are unlikely to be completed
before program expiration
Projects Must Be Within Established
Districts
• Remaining opportunity is limited to existing
District No. 6 implementation areas
Capitola Context
What is Rule 20A?
Utility District No. 6 and
Rule 20A
596
Item 7 D.
• No. 1 (1975) — Village Core (South of Capitola
Ave)
• No. 2 (1980) — Wharf Rd/ Cliff Dr
Intersection
• No. 3 (1981) — West Grace St
• No. 4 (1984) — Village Expansion (Capitola
Ave)
• No. 5 (1991/1993) — Capitola Rd (45th to Wharf
Rd)
• No. 6 (2000/2019) — Bay Ave / Capitola Ave
Corridor
Established by Ordinance No. 384
(CMC 13.08)
• Underground utility installation
• Relocated utilities to remain underground
• Removal of poles and overhead facilities
Existing District Resolutions
Generally Require
Existing Underground Utility
Districts
Utility District No. 6 and
Rule 20A
597
Item 7 D.
• Improved aesthetics
• Improved utility reliability
• Long-term infrastructure modernization
• Potential coordination with other
improvements
Potential Benefits
• City costs not covered by Rule 20A
credits
• Easement acquisition and utility
coordination
• Limited time remaining before 2033
• Uncertain final costs and construction
schedules
Key Constraints
Undergrounding Benefits and
Constraints
Utility District No. 6 and
Rule 20A
598
Item 7 D.
• Approximately $3.08 million available
• Approximately $45,000 spent on 6A-1
development (not yet deducted)
• Additional planning and coordination costs
continue to accrue
Current PG&E Rule 20A Credit Balance
• Eligible PG&E engineering and coordination
• Eligible PG&E underground construction
Rule 20A Credits Generally Cover
• Easement acquisition
• Roadway and sidewalk restoration
• Replacement street lighting
• Costs exceeding available work credits
Potential City Costs
Rule 20A Credit Status
Utility District No. 6 and
Rule 20A
599
Item 7 D.
• 2000 by Resolution 3098
• 2019 District subdivided
into:
•6A-1
•6A-2
•6B
Established
• Available Rule 20A
credits
• Project feasibility
Phased
Implementation
• 6A-1 advanced furthest
in planning and
coordination
• Located near Bay Ave /
Capitola Ave
intersection
Most Advanced Phase
District No. 6 Background
Utility District No. 6 and
Rule 20A
600
Item 7 D.
• Coordinate undergrounding with the
proposed Bay Avenue/Capitola Avenue
roadway project
• Combine utility and roadway work where
practical
Original Approach
• Reduced duplicate restoration
• Improved construction coordination, share
costs with grant-funded projects
• Shared traffic-control and restoration
work
• Reduced disruption to the corridor
Benefits of Combined
Construction
6A-1 Status: Original Approach
Utility District No. 6 and
Rule 20A
601
Item 7 D.
• Preliminary engineering
• Joint-trench planning
• Initial utility coordination
Planning Completed
• Confirm utility participation
• Acquire required easements
• Complete final utility coordination
• Update costs and schedule construction through
PG&E
Remaining Steps
• Without the roadway project, standalone
restoration costs and potential PG&E cost
overruns remain uncertain
Key Implication
6A-1 Status: Work Completed
Utility District No. 6 and
Rule 20A
602
Item 7 D.
• Challenging topography
• Historic resources
• Numerous utility services
• Likely requires substantially more credits
than are available
6A-2 — Most Constrained District
• Would require new engineering, joint-trench
planning and utility coordination
• Prior District 6A-1 costs reduce remaining
credits
• Easements, funding and utility requirements
remain unresolved
• Completion before 2033 may be possible but is
not assured
6B — Potential Alternative
Alternative District 6 Projects
Utility District No. 6 and
Rule 20A
603
Item 7 D.
• Previous PG&E estimate: approximately $4.5
million
• Preliminary engineering and coordination
completed
6A-1
• 2019 PG&E estimate: approximately $3.3 million
• Comparable planning and design has not been
completed
6B
• Neither estimate is a current project budget
• Estimates were prepared at different levels of
development
• 6B estimate likely materially understates
current costs
• Estimates cover utility undergrounding only
• Additional City funding would be required
Important Limitations
Planning-Level Cost Comparison
Utility District No. 6 and
Rule 20A
604
Item 7 D.
• Builds on completed planning and coordination
• Requires utility confirmation, easements and updated
costs
• Standalone restoration costs remain uncertain
• May discontinue in future if costs or feasibility
become unfavorable
Option 1 — Continue Advancing 6A-1
• Requires substantial new engineering and utility
coordination
• Cost and schedule remain highly uncertain
• Could consume significant credits before
construction
• Completion before 2033 is not assured
Option 2 — Initiate Project for
Different District
• Notify PG&E City will not proceed
• Remaining Rule 20A credits forfeited
Option 3 — Discontinue all Rule 20A
Projects
Potential Paths Forward
Utility District No. 6 and
Rule 20A
605
Item 7 D.

Recommended Action
Utility District No. 6 and
Rule 20A Receive information
and provide
direction regarding
• Continued
advancement of
District 6A-1
• Direct staff to
initiate
undergrounding
project with PG&E
for another
District
• Discontinuation of
District No. 6
undergrounding
efforts 606
Item 7 D.

Capitola City Council
Agenda Report
Meeting: August 27, 2026
From: Public Works Department
Subject: Bay Avenue Corridor Safety Improvements
Recommended Action: Direct staff to proceed with the proposed safety improvements at Bay Avenue/Hill Street and Bay Avenue/Center Street.

Background: Bay Avenue is one of Capitola's primary transportation corridors, providing regional access between State Route 1, Capitola Village, adjacent commercial areas, and surrounding residential neighborhoods. The corridor accommodates high volumes of vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic and has been the focus of several recent transportation planning efforts. It has been identified as a priority corridor in the City's Local Roadway Safety Plan.

On May 14, 2026, following additional community outreach and public input, the City Council directed staff not to proceed with the previously proposed roundabouts at the Bay Avenue/Hill Street and Bay Avenue/Capitola Avenue intersections. Instead, Council directed staff to return with a package of alternative safety improvements, including enhanced lighting, improved pedestrian visibility, upgraded pavement markings, and evaluation of a new pedestrian crossing near Center Street.

On July 23, 2026, Council reviewed conceptual improvements for the Bay Avenue corridor. Council directed staff to implement lighting at Bay Avenue and Hill Street, provide information or examples of existing solar-lighting installations, and return in August with additional traffic information concerning the proposed Bay Avenue and Center Street crossing. Council also expressed its intent to complete a raised crossing at Center Street with safety lighting, subject to review of the traffic information.

Discussion: The City Council will be considering Rule 20A undergrounding as a separate item on the August 27th meeting agenda. This report is limited to the Bay Avenue safety improvements directed by Council at its July 23rd meeting.

Bay Avenue & Hill Street: The Bay Avenue and Hill Street intersection remains a high-priority location because of its proximity to Highway 1, Nob Hill Foods, the Rispin Bridge, the Bay Avenue Senior Apartments, and Capitola Village. Existing safety features include reflective pavement markings, flashing stop signs, delineation improvements, and pedestrian crossing flag stations.

Consistent with Council direction, staff recommends proceeding with the following permanent improvements:
 Replacement of the existing temporary flashing stop signs with permanent flashing stop-sign assemblies; and
 Installation of two solar-powered overhead lights within the existing pedestrian refuge medians.

The permanent assemblies would improve long-term reliability and reduce maintenance, while the proposed lighting would improve nighttime pedestrian visibility without requiring new PG&E service, trenching, or underground electrical conduit. The planning-level cost remains approximately $15,000 to $20,000 for permanent flashing stop signs and $30,000 to $40,000 for two solar lights, for a total of $45,000 to $60,000.

To date, no solar light manufacturer has provided a free sample light to the City. The closest installed example of the light that staff is proposing to utilize is located in Monterey County. Attached to the staff report are example photos of the proposed light.
607
Item 7 E.

Bay Avenue & Center Street Pedestrian Crossing: Center Street forms a T-intersection with Bay Avenue.

Vehicles exiting Center Street may turn left or right onto Bay Avenue. Northbound Bay Avenue vehicles may turn left into Center Street, while southbound vehicles may turn right. The proposed project would provide a new marked crossing of Bay Avenue and a raised crossing across the Center Street approach.

The proposed improvements include:
 A high-visibility raised pedestrian crossing across Bay Avenue;  A high-visibility marked crossing across the Center Street approach;  ADA-compliant curb ramps and curb extensions;
 A hardscape pedestrian refuge median;
 Rectangular rapid flashing beacons;
 Solar overhead lighting;
 Enhanced warning signs and pavement markings;
 Removal of the existing channelized right-turn lane; and  Associated drainage and roadway improvements.

Figure 1. Conceptual Bay Avenue & Center Street Pedestrian Crossing Traffic Volume and Stop-Control Review: Bay Avenue carries approximately 10,216 vehicles over an entire day between Hill Street and Capitola Avenue. Its highest recorded hourly volume was approximately 855 vehicles. Center Street carries approximately 900 vehicles over an entire day, with an average of 38 vehicles per hour. The highest reported average hourly volume for any day and time period was 57 vehicles per hour.
608
Item 7 E.

Roadway Daily
Volume
Average
Hourly
Highest
Hour/Period
CA MUTCD Criterion
Bay Avenue, Hill Street to
Capitola Avenue 10,216 426* 855 300/hour major street
Center Street 900 38 57 200/hour minor street**
* Daily volume divided by 24 hours; shown only for context. ** Minor-street threshold includes vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles and must be met during the same time period as the majorstreet threshold is met.

The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices' volume-based criteria for multiway stop control generally require at least 300 vehicles per hour on the major street and at least 200 vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles per hour on the minor-street approaches during the same time period. Although Bay Avenue exceeds the major-street threshold during portions of the day, Center Street does not approach the corresponding minor-street threshold. Its highest reported volume is 57 vehicles per hour (less than 30 percent of the 200-per-hour criteria), and that figure includes vehicles traveling both toward and away from Bay Avenue.

Because only a portion of those 57 vehicles would be approaching the intersection, the actual minorstreet approach volume is lower still. Based on the available traffic data, the intersection does not satisfy the volume-based criteria for installing stop signs on Bay Avenue.

Turning Movements and Median Clearance: During the July 23rd discussion, Council raised concerns regarding whether the proposed Bay Avenue crossing and pedestrian refuge could make the left turn from Center Street more difficult or create an additional safety concern. The available Center Street data combines traffic traveling in both directions and does not separately identify vehicles entering Center Street, turning right onto Bay Avenue, or turning left onto Bay Avenue.

Assuming traffic entering and exiting Center Street is approximately balanced, about half of the reported Center Street traffic would be outbound. This represents approximately 19 outbound vehicles during an average hour and approximately 29 outbound vehicles per hour during the busiest reported time period.

Left turns would represent only a portion of those outbound movements. Accordingly, the number of vehicles making the left turn affected by the proposed Bay Avenue crossing is expected to be relatively low.

As a conservative design check, the project engineer prepared a swept-path analysis using a fire truck, which is substantially larger than the passenger vehicles that would typically make this movement.

Although fire apparatus would not ordinarily be expected to use this particular turn, the analysis demonstrates that a large vehicle can turn left from Center Street onto Bay Avenue and maneuver around the proposed hard median refuge without mounting it. Final design will confirm the precise median geometry, visibility, equipment placement, and turning clearances. 609
Item 7 E.

Figure 2. Fire-truck swept-path analysis for a left turn from Center Street onto Bay Avenue.

Crossing Location Alternatives: Staff evaluated whether the Bay Avenue crossing should instead be located on the south side of the Center Street intersection. Although this alternative has not been advanced as an engineered concept, staff considered its potential effects on parking, vehicle operations, pedestrian travel, and adjacent properties.

The south-side alternative would remove approximately two additional on-street parking spaces and eliminate the existing northbound Bay Avenue left-turn storage area. A vehicle waiting for a gap to turn left into Center Street would therefore remain in the northbound through lane and would stop traffic on Bay Avenue until the vehicle was able to complete the left turn. This location would also require pedestrians traveling between the Bay Avenue Senior Apartments and commercial destinations at the shopping center to cross both Bay Avenue and Center Street. In addition, more crossing infrastructure would be placed adjacent to residential rather than commercial frontage.

At the proposed location, drivers turning left from Center Street would be required to yield to pedestrians within the Bay Avenue crossing. The raised crossing, high-visibility markings, pedestrian refuge, lighting, and RRFBs would improve pedestrian visibility. Available traffic data indicates that left-turn volumes are expected to be low, and the swept-path analysis demonstrates that an oversized vehicle can complete the turn around the proposed refuge.

The proposed design would also remove the channelized right-turn lane from Center Street. Vehicles would instead approach Bay Avenue from a defined stop-controlled position. The tighter geometry would reduce turning speeds, shorten the pedestrian crossing distance, and improve visibility between drivers and pedestrians. The downstream merge area would be shortened, potentially helping to reduce overall vehicle speeds at the crossing.

The proposed crossing location preserves two additional parking spaces, avoids interference with the northbound left-turn pocket, accommodates the pedestrian refuge, and provides a more direct connection 610
Item 7 E.
between the senior apartments, transit, and commercial destinations. Staff therefore recommends retaining the location shown in Figure 1.
611
Item 7 E.

Staff has reached out to Redtree and Crossroads commercial centers, and they did not express concerns with the proposed project.

Fiscal Impact: The planning-level cost estimate is approximately $45,000 to $60,000 for the Bay Avenue and Hill Street improvements and $300,000 to $350,000 for the Bay Avenue and Center Street crossing, for a combined estimated cost of $345,000 to $410,000.

On August 7, 2026, City staff met with Congressman Jimmy Panetta to discuss the proposed Bay Avenue and Center Street pedestrian crossing and the intended use of the $250,000 Community Project Funding award.

The City has been awarded $250,000 in Community Project Funding, secured through Congressman Panetta’s office, to support construction of Bay Avenue improvements. Staff is currently awaiting completion of the federal grant administration process before those funds can be obligated. The award requires an approximately $65,000 non-federal match.

The City also has approximately $350,000 in Regional Transportation Improvement Program funding programmed for Bay Avenue improvements. Staff anticipates using a portion of these funds to satisfy the Community Project Funding match, with the remaining balance available for the recommended Bay Avenue improvements or as local match for other grant funding.

In addition, the City submitted an application under the FY 2026 Safe Streets and Roads for All Implementation Grant Program seeking funding for safety improvements at Bay Avenue and Hill Street, Bay Avenue and Capitola Avenue, Bay Avenue and Center Street, and other corridor improvements.

Award announcements are anticipated in fall 2026.

The recommended improvements may be implemented in phases based on final design, grant requirements, and funding availability. Subject to Council direction and completion of the Community Project Funding documentation, staff anticipates completing final design and procurement during fall and winter 2026 and constructing the Bay Avenue and Hill Street and Bay Avenue and Center Street improvements in spring 2027.

Depending on grant outcomes, remaining RTIP funds may be used for Bay Avenue construction, required local matching funds, or other eligible transportation projects as authorized by the City Council. Individual construction contracts and any necessary budget amendments will return to the City Council for consideration as the projects advance.

Attachments:

1. Lighting Examples

2. Public Comment Received Before Agenda Packet Printed 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
612
Item 7 E.

EverGen 3
RAL 9005
25°
400 Wp
Lithium-ion (LiFePO4)
2048 Wh
-4°F to +140°F
ATBMicro P106
7026
44 W
Type IV
1 4000 K
10 years
159.15275 lbs.

11.9 sq.ft.

3.5 in. OD x 6 in. long
Order key - System
E3SLX1-9005C3H-25US-400-L2048LV-SXXXXXX
SL2025_111_SCL North_Capitola Crosswalk
Lighting
© Sol by Sunna Design – 2025
10 years
Manufacturer's warranty
Manufacturer's warranty
Solution Overview

SYSTEM CONFIGURATION
MODEL

SYSTEM COLOR

TILT ANGLE

SOLAR PANEL WATTAGE

REMOTE MONITORING
Battery Details

BATTERY TYPE

BATTERY CAPACITY

OPERATING TEMPERATURE RANGE

LED FIXTURE
LUMENS PER FIXTURE (APPROX.)

INDIVIDUAL FIXTURE WATTAGE

LIGHT COLOR TEMPERATURE

OPTICAL DISTRIBUTION TYPE

FIXTURE(S) PER SYSTEM

SOLAR ENGINE AND ELECTRONICS

BATTERY

FIXTURE

POLE (IF PROVIDED)

WEIGHT (ENGINE AND FIXTURE)

EPA (ENGINE AND FIXTURE)

TENON REQUIREMENT
Order key - Fixture
ATBMic P106 Solar R4 BK NR
Fixture Details
Warranty Details
Additional Details
Operating Profile
613
Item 7 E.

Compatible with a variety of cobra head and
decorative fixtures from Acuity Brands, topquality optics provide directional, uniform light without glare.

Best-in-class
lighting fixtures
Sized for year-round
performance
Customizing the solar panel(s) and batteries
to the project location and operational
requirements ensures reliable, uninterrupted
light 365 days a year.

Solar/AC hybrid
power option
Switch seamlessly between solar and grid
power to reduce peak loads , prevent
blackouts, minimize system cost, and build
resiliency.

Remote monitoring
& asset management
Access your systems remotely from any
connected device. Locate systems on a map,
view product types and warranties, download
data, and receive alerts of system issues.

Single & grouped
motion detection
Systems can be equipped with sensors to
brighten only when pedestrian activity is
detected. Group detection can be configured
to allow multiple lights to communicate with
one another (e.g. when one illuminates, it
triggers others nearby).

Meets IES roadway
lighting standards
Achieve and maintain IES-recommended light
levels for a variety of applications, including
roadways, while avoiding negative health and
environmental benefits.

Solution Overview
BENEFITS OF THE EVERGEN 3

DESIGNED TO POWER

Success Stories

Consisting of a highly efficient photovoltaic panel, a smart storage system and the latest LED lighting, the Smartlight is the most powerful solar streetlight available on the market. The Power 365 solar technology developed by Fonroche Lighting guarantees a level of reliability and competitiveness that is unrivalled on the market thanks to our high-performance components and a project approach specific to each environment and approved by major transportation departments. 4 Photovoltaic Module
• Excellent efficiency in all
climates
• Self-cleaning hydrophobic
coating
• Lifespan of 30 years
Smart Storage and
Management System
• Long lifespan (12 years, or 4000 cycles)
• Easy to recycle
• Durability in extreme temperatures
(From -40°F to +158 °F)
• Programmable lighting profiles:

Lighting power

DAY DAY
NIGHT
Time
LED Light
• Lighting performance
exceeding 190 Lm/W
• From 40 to 80
nominal Watts
• Lifespan of 20 years
Pole and
Mounting Arm
• Sized to official
AASHTO Standards
or as specified
SOLAR LIGHTING technology
8-years parts & labour

SOLAR TECHNOLOGY
616
Item 7 E.
neutral
adaptive
minimalist
A Streamlined
and Timeless Aesthetic
14 617
Item 7 E.

With its timeless design, the ESSENTIAL luminaire can be adapted to suit any project and any setting. This highly functional luminaire with its sleek, slender lines is designed to blend in with any environment.

Applications:
roads, parking lots, housing developments, etc.

SPECIFICATIONS
Materials Galvanized steel - aluminium casting
LED modules Interchangable Modules - IP67 and IK09
Type of mounting arm Galvanized steel slip fit mounting arm - Available in a single or twin version and with backlights
Lighting efficiency > 190 lm/W
Color temperature 2000K - 2200K - 2700K - 3000K - 4000K Uplight 0%
Customization Colors
Optics Type II - Type III - Type IV - Type CW
15 MULTI-FUNCTIONAL
618
Item 7 E.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: mark Ban <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2026 8:10 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Bay Avenue roundabouts
Dear Capitola city Council
I would like to again express my concerns about roundabouts on Bay Avenue. As an avid cyclist, I have experience firsthand with roundabouts in both Monterey and Santa Cruz County. I strongly oppose them for safety reasons. Cyclist and pedestrians are at the mercy of drivers focusing on merging and negotiating their exit. They do not see bicyclist and pedestrians because they do not stop. Trying to change drivers mindsets will be at the peril of cyclist and pedestrians. Please be considerate of bicyclist and pedestrians when making any decisions on Bay Avenue.

Mark Ban
321 McCormick Avenue
831-588-8447
Sent from my iPad
619
Item 7 E.
1 Gautho, Julia
From: Kahn, Jessica
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 8:49 AM
To: City Council
Subject: FW: Bay Avenue roundabouts
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
From: Kahn, Jessica
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 8:30 AM
To: 'mark Ban' <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Bay Avenue roundabouts
Good morning,
Thank you for sharing your concerns.

For clarification, the City Council decided in May not to advance the previously considered roundabout concepts.

The City is currently evaluating other safety improvements along Bay Avenue, which will be considered by the Council at its August 27 meeting.

Jessica Kahn, P.E.

Public Works Director
City of Capitola
(831) 475-7300 x 217
Please note my updated email address: [email protected] From: mark Ban <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2026 8:10 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Bay Avenue roundabouts
Dear Capitola city Council
I would like to again express my concerns about roundabouts on Bay Avenue. As an avid cyclist, I have experience firsthand with roundabouts in both Monterey and Santa Cruz County. I strongly oppose them for safety reasons. Cyclist and pedestrians are at the mercy of drivers focusing on merging and negotiating their exit. They do not see bicyclist and pedestrians because they do not stop. Trying to change drivers mindsets will be at the peril of cyclist and pedestrians. Please be considerate of bicyclist and pedestrians when making any decisions on Bay Avenue.

Mark Ban
321 McCormick Avenue
831-588-8447
Sent from my iPad
620
Item 7 E.

Bay Avenue Corridor
Safety Improvements
City Council –
August 27, 2026
621
Item 7 E.
• Do not advance the previously proposed roundabouts
• Develop alternative corridor safety improvements
May 14, 2026 Council Direction
• Proceed with permanent flashing stop signs and solar lighting at Hill Street
• Return with additional traffic information for proposed Center Street crossing
• Intent to complete Center Street crossing, subject to review July 23, 2026 Council Direction
Bay Avenue Safety Improvements
Background
622
Item 7 E.

Why Solar
Lighting?
• Improves nighttime pedestrian visibility
• Avoids new PG&E service
• Avoids trenching and underground
conduit
• Reduces installation time and cost
623
Item 7 E.
624
Item 7 E.

Bay Avenue Safety Improvements
Center Street Crossing
• Raised crossing across Bay Avenue
• Marked crossing across Center Street
• ADA ramps and curb extensions
• Pedestrian refuge median
• Flashing pedestrian beacons
• Solar lighting
• Enhanced signs and markings
• Removal of channelized right-turn lane
• Drainage and roadway improvements
Planning-Level Cost:
$300,000–$350,000
625
Item 7 E.
626
Item 7 E.

Bay Avenue Safety Improvements
Center Street Crossing
627
Item 7 E.
• 10,216 vehicles per day
• Peak hour: 855 vehicles
Bay Avenue
• 900 vehicles per day
• Peak hour: 57 vehicles
Center Street
• Major street: 300 per hour
• Minor street: 200 per hour during
the same eight hours
California MUTCD Criteria
Bay Avenue Safety Improvements
Traffic Volumes and Stop-Control Review
Center Street is
well below
threshold;
multiway stop
criteria are not
met.
628
Item 7 E.

Bay Avenue Safety Improvements
Center Street Crossing
629
Item 7 E.

Bay Avenue Safety Improvements
Center Street Crossing
630
Item 7 E.

Compared with a crossing on the south side of
Center Street, the proposed location:
• Preserves approximately two additional parking
spaces
• Avoids eliminating northbound left-turn storage
area
• Minimizes total street crossing distance between
the senior apartments, transit and commercial
destinations
• Places more crossing infrastructure adjacent to
commercial frontage
Bay Avenue Safety Improvements
Center Street Crossing – Recommended Location
631
Item 7 E.
• Estimated outbound traffic: 19 vehicles/hour average; 29 at peak • Left turns are only a portion of these trips
• Fire truck turning analysis confirms adequate median clearance Bay Avenue Safety Improvements
Turning Movements and Median Clearance
632
Item 7 E.
• $250,000 Community Project Funding award; obligation pending • Approximately $350,000 in programmed RTIP funding
• Approximately $65,000 non-federal match required for federal award
Awarded and Programmed Funding
• FY 26 Safe Streets and Roads for All Implementation Grant • Award announcements anticipated in Fall 2026
Funding Pending
• Hill Street: $45,000–$60,000
• Center Street: $300,000–$350,000
• Total: $345,000–$410,000
Estimated Combined Cost
Bay Avenue Safety Improvements
Fiscal Impact
633
Item 7 E.

Direct staff to
proceed with the
proposed safety
improvements at
Bay Avenue/Hill
Street and Bay
Avenue/Center
Street
Bay Avenue Safety Improvements
Recommended Action
634
Item 7 E.

Capitola City Council
Agenda Report
Meeting: August 27, 2026
From: City Attorney’s Office
Subject: Discussion Regarding Residency Requirements for Elective Office Recommended Action: Discuss residency requirements for elective office and provide direction to staff.

Background: The City has received various comments and inquiries regarding residency requirements for elective office. Under California law, the qualifications for municipal office are limited. Candidates must be registered voters and residents of the jurisdiction at the relevant time, such as when nomination papers are issued (Gov. Code, § 36502, subd. (a); Elec. Code, § 3231, subd. (a)). These requirements reflect a state-established baseline, and general law cities are not permitted to expand these qualifications in a manner that conflicts with or adds to the state statutory scheme.

Currently, candidates for elected office are required to certify under penalty of perjury that they reside within City limits on nomination papers and the County Registrar of Voters confirms the candidate is registered to vote at the listed address (See, e.g., Elec. Code, §§ 8040, 8041). Once elected, officeholders file an annual Form 700 that lists and reaffirms their residence.

Residency must be maintained throughout the officeholder’s term: “[i]f, during his or her term of office, he or she moves his or her place of residence outside of city limits or ceases to be an elector of the city, his or her office shall immediately become vacant” (Gov. Code, § 36502, subd. (a)). In other words, “[a] person may not be a council member of a general law city unless the person resides within city boundaries when nomination papers are issued, at the time of assuming office, and throughout the term of office. For this purpose, ‘residence’ means ‘legal residence’ or ‘domicile.’” (Cal. Atty. Gen. Opn. 15- 1101, p. 4.)
A person’s legal residence is defined as a place of “physical presence plus an intention to make [the] place a permanent home” (Fenton v. Board of Directors (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1107, 1116; see Elec.

Code, §§ 349, subd. (b), 2021, subd. (b); Gov. Code, § 244, subd. (a)). In short, there is a two-prong inquiry that looks at where the person physically resides and what the person intends to serve as a permanent residence. There is an objective component and a subjective component.

Notably, the definition of residency under state law does not impose a minimum duration for occupancy (See, e.g., Thompson v. Mellon (1973) 9 Cal.3d 96, 97 [invalidating a two-year durational residency requirement as unconstitutional]).

Discussion: The City Council may consider whether and how to address residency concerns. However, it is preempted from redefining residency or unduly burdening the right to run for or hold elective office.

The most legally defensible residency “verification” programs allow candidates and officeholders to voluntarily submit proof of residency at regular intervals. Such a program would require flexibility in implementation. That means the City should not require only one specific type of document as proof, and it should not automatically disqualify someone just because they do not meet a strict paperwork checklist.

Under this program, candidates would confirm they live in the City by signing a sworn statement when they file to run for office. Officeholders would sign the same statement again from time to time (for example, once a year or if district lines change). They can provide documents if they want, and if any questions come up, they get a chance to correct or clarify the information. 635
Item 7 F.
4904-2459-0469 v1
Signed statements made under oath can be accepted as proof on their own or along with other documents, which supports a flexible verification process that does not require only one specific type of proof.

Key elements of this type of policy would include a standard affidavit form, a list of example documents someone may provide (not required), a full, common-sense review of all available information if someone raises a concern or something looks suspicious, and an explicit statement that failure to provide specific documents is not automatic grounds for exclusion.

For implementation, the City should clearly assign responsibilities and adopt a policy that includes forms and deadlines that fit the election calendar. All verification steps should be timed to match nomination and ballot deadlines, with clear response and cure periods that do not interfere with required election milestones. The policy should make it clear that investigation/enforcement of residency requirements requires direction by the City Council.

The process should include notice and a chance to fix or clarify information. The City should also protect privacy by collecting only what is necessary, relying mainly on sworn affidavits and narrowly focused document requests, redacting sensitive information, and limiting access to those who need it. Records should be kept and destroyed according to the City’s records retention schedule relating to elections.

Fiscal Impact: Unclear; if the City Council elects to create a residency verification program, there may be some implementation costs related to staff time to review, redact, and process materials submitted.

Report Prepared By: Marc Barraza Tran, City Attorney
Reviewed By: Julia Gautho, City Clerk
Approved By: Jamie Goldstein, City Manager
636
Item 7 F.

Capitola City CouncilAugust 27, 2026

Capitola City Council
August 27, 2026