Senior planner Christopher Wright presented a draft geologic hazards report and associated web portal that the city prepared as a technical resource for engineers and applicants, not as a regulations package. Wright said the document identifies geomorphic zones and provides baseline erosion information to guide site-specific geologic studies required by existing policy.

Wright told the commission the city submitted the report to the California Coastal Commission for review through January and expects to revise the draft based on feedback. "It's not meant to replace the site-specific analysis that has to be done," Wright said, describing the portal as a tool to help engineers locate zone information and prepare better studies.

Mark Maguire, a land-use lawyer who appeared as a public commenter, urged caution. He told the commission the city should not adopt the geologic hazards report before coupling it with the Local Coastal Program implementation plan, and he questioned a methodology he read in the draft that would project "natural geometry" beneath modified terrain to determine bluff or canyon edges. "That can be a very complicated exercise" in mass-graded areas, Maguire said.

Commissioners and staff discussed whether the city intends to insert a new level of geologic review during early, concept-level planning or to keep the existing sequence that defers detailed geotechnical review to later stages and to Coastal Commission review when required. Jonathan (city staff) clarified the intent: "The intent of this item is is not to change our process currently. It is to inform the IP," and staff said they do not anticipate inserting additional review steps before the implementation plan is adopted.

Wright said the city will continue to seek specialist feedback and use consultants to peer-review technical geotechnical reports. He recommended that commissioners and members of the public submit comments during the extended public review period so staff can incorporate them into a revised draft and eventual resolution to recommend IP changes to the City Council and Coastal Commission.

The commission did not take regulatory action; staff requested feedback and flagged next steps including further public review, consultant revisions, and eventual consideration of an implementation plan that could include prescriptive standards and application requirements.