Capitola outlines options for eroding Grand Avenue pathway on Depot Hill; council backs community steering group and staff cost estimates

City public-works staff told the Capitola City Council on April 10 that bluff erosion has progressively reduced the right of way for the Grand Avenue Pathway on Depot Hill and that several repair and mitigation options carry very different cost and longevity profiles.

Staff presentation and findings: Public Works staff reported that erosion between Saxon and Oakland avenues has consumed up to about 20 feet of bluff since 1999 at the most constrained spots and that the remaining right-of-way in places is as little as about 3 to 8 feet. Staff said the bluff has a softer marine terrace deposit above a bedrock layer; waves and stormwater undermining the bedrock can produce episodic failures. The city said the most recent winter storms undermined the pathway near an existing fence and that the path has been closed to pedestrians since February 2025.

Staff described four broad options and rough cost ranges: (1) remove private encroachments and relocate a path inland on an engineered but hand-built alignment (estimated preliminary cost for basic reestablishment: roughly $200,000–$300,000 but with a limited expected lifespan); (2) construct a stabilized path with micro-piles and engineered slope stabilization (multimillion-dollar range, perhaps lasting up to ~20 years); (3) permanently close the path and provide coastal-access mitigation (estimated in the low-hundreds-of-thousands range, depending on mitigation requirements and Coastal Development Permit conditions); and (4) full bluff stabilization similar to larger projects such as Cliff Drive (many millions of dollars). Staff cautioned that options involving construction within 15 feet of the bluff face would require specialized, largely hand-built work and potential coastal permits.

Public comment and community reaction: Dozens of Depot Hill residents, longtime Capitola residents and clean‑beach volunteers urged the council to preserve the path where feasible, emphasized the need for improved drainage, and asked the city to act on outstanding easement and encroachment removals. Some homeowners said they have invested in private drainage measures and believe those measures can extend the path’s life for years. Others warned that prior promises to remove encroachments had not been implemented and that repeated temporary fixes have reduced the bluff in places by several feet.

Council direction: After discussion the council asked staff to pursue a three-part approach: (1) return with more detailed cost estimates and funding options (including grant opportunities such as Coastal Conservancy grants and state/federal programs) for the main feasible options; (2) maintain the current closure and secure the site for public safety while staff completes studies; and (3) support formation of a community-led, volunteer steering committee (not a Brown Act committee) to review historical reports, engage neighbors and report back. Councilors agreed staff should not prioritize full bluff stabilization (the highest-cost, multi‑million‑dollar alternative) for city-led action at this time; they left open community-led exploration of that option.

Next steps: Staff indicated they would return with refined cost estimates, grant feasibility and implementation steps and that a volunteer steering group—Chair Paul Estes of the Planning Commission offered to help convene—could present a community report in about six months. The city also agreed to research encroachment-takeback processes and to supply available reports and maps to the volunteer group.

What the council did not do: Council did not authorize construction, accept a budget appropriation, or approve a final design. No formal motion to re-open the path or to fund a specific option was adopted on April 10.