CAPITOLA, Calif. — The Capitola City Council voted unanimously April 17 to direct city staff to enforce Chapter 8.72 of the municipal code (known as Measure L) and to notify county and regional partners that a proposed Park Avenue realignment for the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail is inconsistent with that code and cannot proceed.

The action followed a staff presentation led by City Attorney Sam/ Samantha Zellers and City Manager Goldstein, lengthy public comment from residents and trail advocates, and council deliberations. At the council meeting Zellers emphasized the limited scope of a prior court review, saying, “The court did not rule on the merits of Measure L.” Goldstein told the council, “I do believe that the council should enforce Measure L.”

Why it matters: Measure L is codified as Chapter 8.72 in Capitola’s municipal code and directs that the Monterey Bay Scenic Trail be kept within the Santa Cruz Branch rail corridor “while protecting the Capitola trestle.” The council’s decision removes the Park Avenue diversion — an alignment pushed by county staff and the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) as a way to complete trail segments while the trestle and corridor remain in flux — from further city-level approvals. The decision affects a state Active Transportation Program (ATP) grant timetable and the county’s design approach for segments 10–11 of the trail.

Key facts and actions

- City staff presented four possible legal interpretations of Measure L, ranging from a very broad restriction that would bar any use of city property for a detour to a narrower interpretation that would allow separated multiuse paths that are distinct from city streets or sidewalks. The council debated those options before voting.

- Motion and vote: Councilmember Jerry Jensen moved to direct staff to follow municipal code Chapter 8.72 “to the fullest extent possible.” The motion was seconded and amended on the floor to clarify that the city may construct and maintain its own streets, sidewalks and bike facilities as the council sees fit. The amendment removed ambiguous language about whether the city “affirmatively promotes” a detour. The motion passed 5–0 (Johnson, Orbach, Morgan, Peterson and Mayor Clark voting aye).

- Park Avenue direction: Following the Measure L motion, staff summarized a separate, unanimous direction that city staff should inform the RTC and county that the Park Avenue alignment is inconsistent with Measure L and that the city cannot proceed with approving that alignment. Council confirmed the instruction by consensus.

What staff and speakers said

- City Attorney Sam Zellers framed the issue as an interpretation question: the court that reviewed a pre‑election challenge in 2018 declined to rule on the measure’s merits and instructed that any legal resolution be deferred to post‑election briefing. She said that leaves interpretation of the ordinance to the sitting council and that prior councils’ positions do not bind the current council.

- City Manager Goldstein and staff presented four implementation options, from a broad prohibition on any use of city right‑of‑way for a detour to a narrow reading that would allow separated multiuse improvements that are not “streets” or “sidewalks.” The staff presentation also reviewed the ATP grant funding and schedule and noted a deadline to request state funding from the California Transportation Commission in April 2027.

- During public comment hundreds of residents and county users addressed the council. Supporters of enforcing Measure L said the ordinance and its intent are clear. Elizabeth Bertrand, a Capitola resident, told the council: “8.72 is a law and it is a law.” Chris Amsden, another resident, said, “Measure L was passed by Capitola total voters in 2018, and its language and its intent are crystal clear.”

- Trail advocates and some county speakers urged flexibility and noted funding and scheduling pressures. Brian Peoples of TrailNow argued that an interim trail within the corridor is already included in the project environmental review and grant application, saying the interim option “is already included in the EIR. It's already included in the grant application.” Several speakers said a Park Avenue diversion could be built sooner and at lower immediate cost than a solution that relies on rail‑banking or a new bridge for the trestle.

Votes and formal directions

- Motion: "Direct staff to follow Capitola Municipal Code Chapter 8.72 (Measure L) to the fullest extent possible; interpretation per staff option 2 as amended (city may construct and maintain its streets, sidewalks and bike lanes as the city council sees fit)." Mover: Councilmember Jerry Jensen. Second: Councilmember Johnson. Vote: yes 5, no 0. Outcome: approved.

- Direction (consensus): Staff to communicate to the RTC and Santa Cruz County that the Park Avenue alignment is inconsistent with Capitola Municipal Code Chapter 8.72 and that the city cannot approve or proceed with that alignment. Outcome: consensus/approved.

Context and next steps

- Funding and schedule: Staff summarized that the county and the RTC are working with a combination of ATP (Active Transportation Program) and other state and federal grants for segments 10–11. Staff cited an estimated total funding package (as of 2023 figures presented at the meeting) of roughly $93.4 million and said a funding gap remained. The county has a deadline to request certain state funds from the CTC in April 2027; staff noted that design, permitting and right‑of‑way work must be completed before that request.

- Technical paths the council discussed but did not adopt: rail‑banking or adverse abandonment of the rail line and STB (Surface Transportation Board) applications were discussed by the city attorney as legally complex, multi‑year processes that would require specialized rail counsel and environmental review.

- Local consequences: The council’s decision prevents Capitola from approving the Park Avenue detour as proposed and signals the city will enforce the codified initiative unless the council later votes otherwise or the law is changed by voters. Staff said they will notify county and RTC partners and continue coordination; the RTC and county will need to respond in their grant and design planning.

What the council did not decide

- The council did not repeal Chapter 8.72, nor did it adopt a final, legally binding interpretive ordinance that resolves every ambiguity in the measure. The council instructed staff to enforce the code as written and adopted a practical clarification about the city’s authority to maintain its streets and sidewalks.

Ending

Council members said they wanted to continue working with the county and RTC on trail design for other segments and on needed safety and traffic calming projects on city streets. Public commenters on both sides urged the city and county to pursue the trail while protecting safety and the city’s legal obligations. Staff will notify RTC and county partners of the council’s direction and return with any follow‑up as needed.