The Santa Cruz City Planning Commission on Oct. 16 voted unanimously to forward to the City Council staff’s recommendation to add a Beaches and Bluffs hazard adaptation chapter to the city’s Local Coastal Program (LCP).

What the commission approved: Planning staff presented the chapter as an early, high‑priority phase of a broader LCP update. Matthew Benoit, principal planner for advanced planning, described the proposal and the rationale for separating the beaches and bluffs chapter from a larger LCP update. Tiffany Weisbeth, the city’s sustainability and resiliency officer, explained how the chapter links to ongoing resilience work including shoreline adaptation and management plans (SAMPs) and coastal monitoring.

Key policies and tools: Staff said the chapter contains 18 policies and introduces a shoreline hazard evaluation area—largely a 100‑foot zone inland from the bluff edge—within which new development would trigger additional geotechnical and shoreline hazard evaluation requirements. The chapter emphasizes annual monitoring (drone flights, a tide gauge at the wharf, camera analytics with private providers), a preference for nature‑based solutions where feasible, and interim guidance for West Cliff projects prior to completion of a West Cliff SAMP.

Triggers, thresholds and SAMPs: Tiffany Weisbeth said the chapter adopts a working adaptation pathways approach: instead of fixing a single response now, the city will define “triggers and thresholds” that, when observed, will move the community to the next management action. Ocean Protection Council funding is already supporting SAMP projects for three subareas—West Cliff, Manaka (transcribed as “Mankau”) Beach and Seabright Eastcliff—which staff said will develop finer‑grained policy options and codified triggers and thresholds. The SAMP projects will produce recommended LCP policy refinements and project lists covering a 20‑ to 30‑year horizon and will include evaluation to satisfy state sea‑level‑rise planning law requirements.

Public and commissioner concerns: Commissioners and members of the public asked detailed questions about how the 100‑foot line was developed and what it means in practice. Staff said the shoreline hazard evaluation line was created as the union of three coastal erosion projection models, with a 100‑foot buffer added “to make a conservative estimate” and that in places the final mapped line may be further inland depending on available science. Staff clarified the zone triggers evaluation requirements only when development falls within the mapped area; if a development’s footprint is entirely outside the line, it would not trigger the additional requirements. Commissioners pressed staff on who reviews geotechnical reports (staff said the building department and Coastal Commission would be involved) and whether peer review or third‑party review is expected; staff said specifics on review procedures and code implementation will be developed later in the LCP implementation/zoning code amendments.

Regulatory and funding context: Staff said the beaches and bluffs chapter was funded in part by two California Coastal Commission grants and that SAMP work is supported by the Ocean Protection Council. Staff also said the chapter is designed to help the city demonstrate compliance with state planning requirements (transcribed as SB 272) by assembling necessary documentation on sea level rise and coastal hazard planning over multiple time horizons, including a qualitative look toward 2150 as required by state guidance.

Vote and next steps: Vice Chair Dan moved the staff recommendation; Commissioner Kelly seconded. The commission voted yes in a unanimous roll call. Staff will pursue any necessary LCP code amendments and the SAMP work; staff said triggers, thresholds and implementation details will be refined through the SAMP projects and subsequently be codified into the LCP via future amendments. City departments will also need to develop implementing language and procedures for geotechnical submittals, reviews and monitoring.

Ending: Commissioners repeatedly thanked staff for several years of work and emphasized the need to continue community engagement as SAMPs define neighborhood‑scale responses to shoreline change.