Good morning everyone welcome to the Thursday hearing
We'll call this meeting to order and begin with a roll call, please
Commissioner botchco
Commissioner dumb low
Commissioner Eckerley here
Commissioner Escalante here
Commissioner Hart
Commissioner Jackson here
Commissioner Kelly here
Commissioner Lopez present Commissioner Lowenberg here
Commissioner not not off here
Commissioner presciado
Commissioner Turnbull Sanders here
Commissioner Williams here
Commissioner Wilson
president and chair Harmon here. We have a quorum. Thank you very much. We'll move to virtual meeting procedures, please
All right. Good morning. This Coastal Commission meeting is occurring both in person and through zoom.
This meeting is also being webcast and can be viewed online at cal-span.org.
If you have access to the internet
and wish to watch or listen to the meeting only and not speak on an item, we recommend you use the CalSPAN website.
Those who wish to address the Commission today can do so in person through the zoom platform or by phone.
The speaker request forms may be found on the commission's web page
Paper forms and a scannable QR code for paper lists of middle are available on the commission staff table just outside the meeting room
For those on zoom. We have posted virtual hearing procedures on the commission's agenda webpage, which is a guide on providing comments via zoom or by phone
Members of the public speaking during general public comment may be given up to two minutes to speak at the discretion of the chair
Requests to speak during the general public comment period will not be accepted after 9 a.m. On each day of the meeting
In order to provide the opportunity for the broadest range of public
Participation you may speak on a specific topic one time only each month
Those speaking on an agenda item that is not general public comment are typically allowed two to three minutes to speak at the discretion
Of the chair we will accept a request to speak on a regular agenda item up until the chair opens the hearing on that particular item
If you have internet access,
please go to the commission's webpage
and click on the link to fill out a speaker request.
If you do not have internet access
or prefer to testify by phone,
please call the commission staff at 562-477-9089.
Again, that number is 562-477-9089.
Staff will provide you with a telephone call-in number
and instructions for how to participate
and provide testimony by phone.
We will manage speakers coming in and out of the meeting
through a meeting organizer.
When it is your time to address the commission,
the organizer will invite you to turn on your video
and microphone or provide instructions
on how to unmute the phone.
Madam Chair, that concludes the virtual hearing procedures.
Thank you, Chris.
Now I will move to Ms. Warren
for a report out from yesterday's closed session.
Thank you, Chair Hart.
When the commission met in closed session,
it received litigation and information and advice
and took action on Rio Del Mar Beach Island
Homeowners Association at All
versus California Coastal Commission.
It also received litigation information and advice
regarding Sable Offshore Court
versus California Coastal Commission.
That concludes my report.
Thank you.
And now we'll move to agenda changes, Mr. Schwin.
Thank you and good morning to the commission
and to everybody who is joining us today.
We did publish a list on Monday of the agenda changes
that remains accurate but let me walk through those now. Starting with item 9A that's CDP
application 62364 the State Parks, Torrey Pines Reserve Comfort Station that's moved to consent.
Item 9B CDP application 624.503 Olnick that's postponed.
Item 10a, CDP amendment, application 616, 340, A3, the Moss application from Carlsbad,
that's moved to consent.
Item 12a, City of Newport Beach's LCP amendment, 2339-3 on accessory encroachments, that's
moved to consent.
Item 14A, CDP application 5, 2520, this is Orange County Public Works Ocean Outlet Maintenance
that is moved to consent.
Item 18A, that's LCP amendment 3, SCO 25, 21, 1, this is Santa Cruz County's Well and
Water System Update amendment that's moved to consent.
Item 18B, another Santa Cruz LCP amendment, that's 2522-1, Part B, the county's cannabis
update and produce stand changes, that's moved to consent.
Item 18C, Santa Cruz application, STC 2524, the homeless garden project site certification,
that's moved to consent.
Item 18D, that's San Luis Obispo County's Cannabis Update, LCP Amendment 2526-1.
That's moved to consent.
Item 19A, CDP Application 323-757, this is the Caltrans Big Creek retaining wall in Big
Sur that's postponed.
item 19 B CDP application 325 215 the bayside landing mixed use project in
moral Bay that is also postponed and that concludes today's agenda changes
thank you very much mr. shrink and now we will move to general public comments
okay two minutes for members of the public I'll be announcing the names of
the upcoming speakers and invite you to speak when it is your turn each speaker
We will be allowed two minutes during general public comment at the discretion of the chair.
In order to allow for live video testimony on Zoom, we will be bringing you in as panelists
as we bring you in, your Zoom will reload, and this may take a moment.
To speed up this process, we will bring several people in at a time, but please remain muted
and keep your video off until we ask you to speak.
After your time is up, you will be moved back to attendee mode.
For members of the public present in the room, I will call your names in the order that they
appear in our sign-up list.
When you hear your name, please line up behind the podium and announce yourself when you
approach to speak.
There is a raise your hand function that will help us find you in the attendee list.
If you are using a phone for audio, you can raise your hand by dialing star 9.
If you are participating by zoom, you should see a button on your zoom screen.
If you have signed up to speak for this item and are able to do so, please raise your hand
now.
When it is your time to speak, we will invite you to unmute and turn on your camera.
you can unmute yourself on a phone by dialing star six.
We do have a pretty hefty general public comment today.
We have a total of 59 people signed up,
including 40 in-person.
So we'll start with the in-person speakers.
We have Cara Woodruff, Jacob McNevin,
Chintan Desai, and then Carmen Rhodes.
so go ahead and then turn the mic on when turn turn the mic on there you
okay good morning my name is Kara Woodruff I'm the district director for
Senator John Laird he couldn't be here today but this is part of his district
so welcome or really happy you're here he's a big supporter and champion of
your work so thank you and also thank you yesterday for this significant grant
to the city of Pismo Beach to update their LCP.
That's a huge, important issue for this community.
Given the limited time, I just wanted to mention
two issues that came up yesterday.
The first is the Oceana Dunes SVRA.
As you know, the Coastal Commission and State Parks
are going to have a lot of discussion about how to respond
to the needs out there of the community
in light of recent court rulings.
And I just wanted to mention two things
that I speak from personally.
Number one, the community of Oceano is really hurting.
They receive the biggest of the impacts,
and I hope that you can really address the issues
that they have been speaking about for years.
Number two, in solving the Oceano problems,
you don't wanna create a new issue
for another disadvantaged community
in the city of Guadalupe.
Putting in a southern entrance
that would negatively impact and bring all those impacts
down to the city of Guadalupe
and also threaten the Osaflaca Lake Natural Area
is not the right solution.
that is a world-class biodiversity site
and the most important birding area on the central coast.
So please continue to protect it.
The second issue is Diablo Canyon Power Plant.
As you are in discussions with PG&E
about the potential future of the operation of that plant
under the Coastal Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act,
keep in mind that this will be your only opportunity
to protect the 12,000 acres
that surround the Diablo Canyon Power Plant.
Those are known as the Diablo Canyon lands.
includes North Ranch, South Ranch, and Wild Cherry Canyon.
This is an area that has been the subject
of a public referendum.
It's extremely important to this community.
Use this opportunity to protect that land
and ensure public access.
This probably will be your only opportunity.
And if you want more information about that area,
please check out jabocanyonlands.org.
Thanks again for coming.
We're really glad to have you here.
Thank you, again.
Jacob McNevin, Chintan Desai, Carmen Rhodes, Ted Key.
Good morning commissioners.
My name is Jacob McNevin.
I'm a local resident, a scientist,
a volunteer with the San Luis Obispo chapter
of the Surfrider Foundation,
serving as the chapter's climate
and clean energy program coordinator.
I'm also a little bit nervous public speaker.
I'm here today to demonstrate Surfrider's slow support
for the responsible and timely implementation
of offshore wind in the Morro Bay wind energy area.
The ocean is carrying the weight of the climate crisis.
It absorbs over 90% of the excess heat
and a quarter of the carbon pollution generated
by human activity.
Here on the Central Coast,
we see the consequences firsthand.
Rising sea levels, warming waters,
and the dramatic loss of critical habitats
like our kelp forests.
The science demonstrates that transitioning away
from fossil fuels is essential to protecting our ocean
and our coastal communities.
Offshore wind is a critical piece of that transition
that offers an opportunity for positive change.
Our support for offshore wind is based
on both the scientifically determined need for renewables
as well as a firm expectation that projects move forward
only under the strongest environmental safeguards
and public oversight.
We ask that you ensure that any offshore wind development
avoids and minimizes harm to marine life,
protects public access, cultural resources,
and the traditional uses of ocean space,
and upholds a transparent, science-based review process
that allows for public input and adaptive management.
The critical reality is that global energy demand is rising,
and the use of fossil fuel-intensive energy production
is contributing to the degradation of our planet.
Offshore wind does not present us with the choice
between clean energy and healthy ocean.
In fact, clean energy is part of a healthy ocean.
It plays a vital role in reducing our impact
on the ocean and championing for California's path
towards climate resilience amidst rising energy demand.
Let's move forward together to make offshore wind
a true climate solution, one that benefits our coast,
our communities, and our shared future.
Thank you for your service and for your time.
Thank you.
Chintan Desai, Carmen Rhodes, Ted Key,
And then Russell Johnson.
Good morning, commissioners.
My name is Chintan Desai, and I'm here today
to voice my strong support for offshore wind energy
development on the Central Coast.
I am deeply connected to this region.
Grew up here, came back here at the beginning of the year,
and was unfortunately laid off from the role
that I was in in April.
Since then, I've been searching for meaningful employment
opportunities in our community.
This personal experience has given me
a profound understanding of why offshore wind development
is so critical for our region.
The numbers speak for themselves.
According to a Cal Poly School of Business report,
the three gigawatts of offshore wind planned off Morro Bay
could create more than 600 year round local jobs
for the project and nearly 24,000 additional jobs
during the construction phase.
These aren't just statistics to me,
They represent real opportunities for families like mine
and thousands of others on the Central Coast.
As someone who serves as the Canvas Director
for the Offshore Wind Project in May,
my team spoke with thousands of Central Coast residents.
The overwhelming majority support this project
because they understand what I've experienced firsthand.
We need more high quality job opportunities
in our community.
The offshore wind industry promises to bring good
union paying jobs that will provide stable careers
for local workers.
Climate change remains the greatest threat
to our communities and marine ecosystems.
Offshore wind energy is essential
for protecting the very environment
and the way of life that makes Central Coast special.
Please don't let a vocal minority derail
what promises to be a tremendously beneficial product
for Central Coast residents.
The data, the research and the voices
of hundreds of local supporters
all point in the same direction.
Offshore wind represents a once in a generation
opportunity to create jobs, generate clean energy,
and protect our environment for future generations.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next, Carmen Rhodes, Ted Key, Russell Johnson, Mandy Davis.
Good morning, Coastal Commission members.
My name is Carmen Rhodes, and I'm
a resident of Santa Barbara and the director
of the University of California Santa Barbara Community Labor
Center.
We recently began convening a network of labor,
environmental justice and environmental organizations
from San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura counties
focused on the opportunity to ensure
that responsible development of offshore wind
benefits our Central Coast communities.
If done at scale, offshore wind could create
thousands of new good paying jobs
from manufacturing and construction
to operation and maintenance,
offering pathways out of poverty and supporting families.
These projects can benefit local communities
while providing a sustainable energy solution
California's future. However, realizing these benefits won't just happen and
requires proactive community engagement and foresight. We urge the Coastal
Commission to support the development of community benefits agreements that
ensure local residents, especially marginalized and underserved populations,
have a voice in project planning and decision-making. Such agreements can
address local concerns about environmental impacts, access to
employment opportunities and revenue sharing,
creating a foundation of trust and shared prosperity.
The California Coastal Commission has expressed
strong support for meaningful public engagement
of disadvantaged communities,
recognizing that inclusive decision making
is essential for a just transition.
It is imperative that residents of San Luis Obispo,
Santa Barbara, and Ventura counties
actively participate in this process.
These communities stand to benefit
from offshore wind projects, but only if their voices are taken into account and translated
into action.
I urge the California Coastal Commission to champion and prioritize community benefits
and ensure local voices are central to offshore wind development.
Thank you very much for your leadership.
Thank you.
Ted Key, Russell Johnson, Mandy Davis, and Brian Lausl.
Good morning.
Ted Key, Cambria.
The last time I gave public comment, I suggested covering the state aqueduct system as an alternative
solution for passive power rather than the ill-conceived proposed floating offshore wind
colossus.
This project will create monumental amounts of CO2 to produce an infathomable volume of
fossil fuels to erect, maintain, and eventually decommission.
We mustn't be doing this when CO2 levels continue to rise dramatically, and if the elimination
of fossil fuel dependency is the goal, this isn't it.
We need results now, according to the IPCC, not a question mark for a decade.
Some claim hundreds of miles of subsurface mammoths chain and cables will have minimal
effects on sea life.
I don't believe that, but the effect of 300 stadium size blades on the upwelling is simply
unknown by anyone.
Advances in solar panel efficiency are staggering.
New titanium and periscope panels from PV Oxford increase their efficiency many times
over and if used for the aqueduct project, begone by the Sacramento Utilities District
would present far less CO2 footprint, distributed power as it's built, minimal maintenance,
reduced evaporation, meeting energy needs, and providing local jobs statewide.
No endless, ugly, onshore industrialization appeals for you to deal with,
since I have a couple of minutes and I'm from Cambria.
The main reason Cambrians, and I'm telling you, we're unified against this thing,
Our unified and opposition to this project is the threat of what happened in Nantucket
when blades constructed of toxic plastics flew off turbines washed up as shores onshore,
shutting beaches down for months.
We cannot have that happen to our moonstone beach.
I can tell you that the hoteliers are really upset as they should be as is Steve Hurst.
Tourism is our only economic income.
Nobody can tell me that any mitigation by the oil companies will control the lightning
which can explode a turbine easily, much less one at 1,000 feet. Thank you.
Thank you. Next, Russell Johnson, Mandy Davis, Brian Lawsoll, Zach Musherafi.
Morning, everybody. Russ Johnson. I live here on the coast. Actually, it's right out
here. And man, there's a lot of power in this room, so I appreciate the
opportunity to speak. All right. Oh, you can't hear me? Okay, it sounds like I was
ringing. So can you reset the clock? So anyway, thank you for protecting the
coast. Like I said, I surf out here, I'm in the ocean all the time and really
appreciate what you do. I'm speaking today against offshore wind and why it's a
bad idea. I first came to the Central Coast for my college
education at the time, the hills above Avila were just covered with big oil
tanks. The oil was piped to the pier, sent off to local and world markets in the
oil industry was confident that this would not harm the environment yet. Years later,
50% of Avila had to be torn up, decontaminated. And so my point here is that even with the
best intentions, industrialization of our coastal ports can have devastating effects
on the environment. Avila is loved by all, and heavily used for recreation, boating and
fishing. The last thing we should be doing is building out infrastructure that the roads
and port facilities cannot handle.
This holds true for Morro Bay as well.
So I'm kind of focusing on the onshore part of this,
not the offshore.
But building these behemoth sized wind turbines and platforms
off our coast and the unknown effect
it may have on marine life is just a wrong-headed idea.
Unfortunately, the moneyed interests are huge
and billions of corporate dollars are at stake.
Please quash any proposed wind turbine project off our coast.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Mandy Davis, Brian Lussell, Zach Musharafi, Scott Buckles.
Good morning, you guys, and welcome
to the new commissioners.
We really appreciate your efforts.
My name is Mandy Davis.
I am president of React Alliance.
A little bit of history, those of you
that haven't been seeing me for god knows how many years,
is React Alliance was formed two and a half years ago
to educate the public about the negative impacts of offshore wind.
And those negative impacts are many to say the least.
We have been able to educate the public in a large part due to the fact
that we have been able to glean all kinds of information from various sources
and they are all pretty much peer reviewed and very responsible sources to be able
to tell people what is going to happen.
What I would like to be able to do in the future
is up to this point in time on the permitting processes,
we have only given information and data to your staff.
That has not proven to be particularly effective
as they have shown bias towards offshore wind
and they have basically not done due diligence.
What we plan on doing in the future
is every time we send studies, data, information
that will help you make a decision on offshore wind,
that will not only go to your staff,
but every single one of you will get a packet.
And before I go any farther,
I would like to turn around and ask people here,
those of you that are here to oppose offshore wind,
I would like you to stand up, please.
So they have the, the people that are here to, to propose that we continue on
with offshore wind, would like you to believe that the majority of the
for it, it is not the majority of the public is against offshore wind.
Please listen to us.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Brian Lawson, Zach Musharafi, Scott Buckholz, Asia Hudson.
Hi, my name is Brian Lawson.
I've, um, I want to thank you guys for being here and we appreciate your presence.
I've been a resident of 44 years of San Luis Obispo City,
and I'm just here to basically say
I really appreciate Diablo Canyon
and PGE being in our community.
I mean, they provide over 1,300 well-paying jobs,
living jobs, union jobs.
During the outages, they provide over 1,000 seasonal jobs,
and I think that's just an economic powerhouse
to our community.
Another piece of their great presence as a corporate partner
is their educational piece to our San Luis Obispo
districts, school districts. I've been given these dynamic times I think every
dollar we can put back into our school systems is is a benefit without educating
our society and having well educated local residents let alone just students
are going to populate through the nation and our state. I think that's a
fantastic contribution as them being a partner in this community. Lastly with
With AI, whether we like it or not, it's here, and as a power source, PG&E producing, I
think, over 10% of the power in our state grid, I think going forward with that technology,
we're going to need to continue to have them licensed and online, and providing that power
to our state grid.
I mean, it's inevitable that we're going to need that power going forward, and beyond
2030 and beyond their production needs.
And so California being the 7th largest economy in the world, I think AI is going to continue
to impact everybody's lives as it continues to ramp out.
Thank you so much for your time and I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Next, Zack Mosherafee, Scott Buckles, Asia Hudson, Glenn Silaway.
Hello, thank you commissioners.
My name is Zack Mosherafee, and I'm a student at Cal Poly, and the president of the Nuclears
Clean Energy Club there. We're dedicated to spreading awareness and information about
nuclear energy. I will be speaking about the Diablo Canyon power plant. I've had the opportunity
to visit Diablo Canyon twice now. The lands of Diablo Canyon are some of the best preserved
coastlines in America. It's honestly amazing to see. And scientists at the plant are constantly
monitoring the wildlife and have not found any adverse effects of the plant's operation.
I've hiked the Point Bouchon Trail from Los Osos
down to the lands of the power plant.
And it's great to see how small of a footprint
the largest produce of energy in the state occupies.
Like as time goes on, the energy needs of this country
are only going to rise with electrification of new systems,
as the previous speaker mentioned, AI.
So it's important to keep the largest producer of energy
in the state operational,
and the largest producer of clean energy in the state.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you, Scott Buckles, Asia Hudson, Glen Silaway,
Sheri Haefer.
Well, hi there, good morning.
Thank you guys for coming to Pismo Beach.
I'm a resident of Pismo Beach as well,
so it's wonderful to have you here on the coast.
Hopefully the marine layer burns off.
I wanted to talk a sec about the Pecho Coast Trail.
It's right here in Abola.
It's on the Diablo Canyon lands that he mentioned.
I volunteer there, I've been volunteering
for about five years as a docent.
It's getting harder to keep public access on that trail.
PG&E has kind of shifted a little bit.
I think there was an amazing woman in this role,
Sally Crenn, a long time ago.
And today, there's no good incentive.
So the problems, kids under nine can't go on the trail.
That's really weird.
And by the way, that's a trail that the kids would go
from the lighthouse to school and back every single day,
twice a day, 130 years ago.
The other thing that we ran into trouble with
was same day sign ups are not allowed anymore.
So if we have open spots,
we're only allowed to take 40 people on the weekends,
PG will not let us do it anymore.
That's kind of a new thing.
And then I would say the third thing
that we're struggling with
is they've also changed their online sign up
so that you can't sign up if it's within 48 hours.
That's also kind of a new thing.
I just wanted to bring it to your attention.
We tried to work with Linda Lachlan.
I tried to work with Linda Lachlan a year ago.
just want to make sure you guys are aware of it.
Last but all, thank you for what you do.
Love what you do for protecting the coast.
I really appreciate it.
Listening to everybody here too,
I would say I'm also pro power plant
and I live right next to it.
We want clean energy, all of the energy that we can get.
And then of course I think on the wind,
I'm super mixed, I love green energy,
battery electric, solar, battery, everything.
Yeah, I don't love the oil.
I don't love the idea that it could destroy the beach either.
share that with you guys but thank you for your time. Excuse me through the
chair, can you say the name of that trail one more time? Sorry, Pacio Coast
Trail. Great, thank you. Cool. Thank you. Next, Asia Hudson, Glenn Silaway, Sheri Hafer, Paul Gallo.
Good morning, good morning commissioners. My name is Asia Hudson, a marine
conservation analyst and program manager at the Environmental Defense Center, a
a public interest law firm that defends natural and advance nature...
Let me back up. Defends nature and advances environmental justice on California's central
coast through advocacy and legal action. We primarily work in San Luis Obispo,
Santa Barbara, and Ventura counties. We support a robust, equitable, and science-driven planning,
permitting, and leasing process for offshore wind energy in the region. The ocean is experiencing
a biodiversity crisis caused by warming water temperatures, ocean acidification, shifts
in key oceanographic features and habitat availability, and other harmful changes due
to fossil fuel driven climate change.
The resulting climate crisis demands immediate progress in transitioning away from our fossil
fueled economy.
The state's goal to diversify our energy portfolio does not need to conflict with the need to
protect biodiversity.
we can and need to accomplish both goals.
When developed responsibly,
offshore wind can provide an important opportunity
to increase access to renewable energy,
reduce carbon emissions and air pollution,
and improve grid reliability.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you all
and thank you for the awesome job you guys are doing.
Thank you.
Next, Glenn Silaway, Sherry Hafer, Paul Collo, Sarah Rizzo.
Good morning, commission.
Thanks for joining us again here in this county.
My name is Glen Siloway, I'm a resident of Morro Bay for 20 years.
I'm here to urge you to consider positively offshore wind in the future.
This is a long-term solution, but it's one we need to add to our arsenal.
Climate change is being driven by the use of fossil fuels.
We know that.
It's established by science.
It's not going to change until we do something about it.
Wind energy is part of the solution.
I'm a burger and an open space advocate, and I know from the inside that there are threats
and dangers in all of the solutions we come up with.
Every technology we've ever had has had some issues with it.
We've had to mitigate or do tradeoffs, and that's not going to be any different for offshore
wind than anything else.
But I want to save all the whales, and I would like to save all the diversity of life we
can and that means we have to stop burning fossil fuels we have to do it
now so as far as fossil fuels go yes in my backyard and as soon as possible
thank you thank you next Sherry Haefer Paul Gallo
Sarah Rizzo Alyssa Buckles good morning I have a slideshow presentation should be
coming up we're bringing it up I'm here I represent the Morrill Bay commercial
Fishman's organization and I'm also a director of React Alliance. I'm coming
to speak to you about the CDP that you issued to Atlas Wind July 12, 2024. It
allows them to do site survey work for cable routes for offshore wind to be
We just found out in February, and I've been hounding you guys since then, that this area
is protected by a land conservancy.
It's a three-phase plant.
It's called the Toro Creek County Park Land Conservancy.
It's been millions of dollars spent to protect this property.
That was once owned by Chevron, 3,000 acres, but is being sold off, and in 2012, several
people in Slough County said, no, let's protect it from any residential or commercial development.
In blue, it was, that was purchased to the Dog Beach area in 2021, long before the CDP
was approved.
Okay, next slide.
So this is an actual area of Dog Beach that is between Cayucas and Morro Bay that has
restrictive covenants.
Next slide.
So these are the restrictive covenants.
I can't have enough time to read through them all, but they're basically to protect the
wildlife, the seal head trout, red legged frog, because it has also watershed protections,
the Thai water goby, riparian habitat.
You get the idea.
Okay, next slide.
So this is what Atlas went and proposed to you guys.
I was kind of concerned.
We got correspondence back saying that you haven't got any kind of plan to go
to that area, but that's not true just because there's approval for a site survey there.
So just go to the next slide.
I just wanted to just go to the next slide.
So in pink is what you guys approved.
It's to go to that exact area that's protected.
That should be revoked, because it's not legal.
And you guys need to better evaluate your landing sites.
Thank you.
First.
OK.
Thank you.
Paul Gallo, Sarah Oruzoo, Alyssa Buchholz, Courtney Kino.
You just turned off.
Yeah.
There you go.
Good.
Good.
Thanks.
And staff, my name is Paul Gallo,
and I'm the resident of the Central Coast
and with React Alliance.
I've been following the proposed development
of offshore wind off our coast here
in San Luis Obispo County for several years.
It's become clear to me that this endeavor
has been systematically rolled out with great deception.
The initial pitch by wind developers
was that it is over 20 miles offshore
and you won't see it, essentially out of sight, out of mind.
The wind companies, BOM, and state and federal governments
have failed to fully inform the public
of the multitude of nearshore and onshore impacts
that will result from the offshore wind projects.
React Alliance, an independent grassroots organization
with absolutely no connection to the fossil fuel industry,
has been working tirelessly for the past two years
to help central coast residents understand
the impacts offshore wind energy will bring
to our precious coastline.
We have gained tremendous insight
into the environmental and economic consequences
that offshore wind energy projects
have brought to the East Coast in the past several years.
It was just a year ago this week
that a turbine blade failure resulted in tons of debris
entering the ocean off Nantucket.
This resulted in the closure
of one of the most visited beaches in Massachusetts.
And that was actually in low wind speeds.
I think it was under 10 miles an hour.
So I can't imagine what would happen off our coast
and the adverse weather conditions we often get.
I would implore the commission and your staff
to learn from the many ongoing consequences
of offshore wind projects.
It is your duty to protect and preserve
our precious central coast and saving the earth
doesn't mean destroying our oceans.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next, Sarah O'Rizzo, Alissa Buckles,
Courtney Keano, Liz Summer.
Good morning, Sorrow Rizzo, resident of Avila Beach
for 35 years.
First of all, welcome to the beautiful
Central Coast commissioners.
It's wonderful to have you here.
I think the last time I spoke to you was about 30 years ago
down in Huntington Beach.
Back then I was a young attorney
and I took on Unical with a bunch of other people
and we fought to clean up Avila Beach.
And if you go down there, it's a beautiful clean
and thank you commissioners back then.
Again, I'm here now talking about Avila Beach
And as you can see by my blue shirt,
I am opposed to offshore wind, living there,
and now I have the opportunity to raise
my two young, beautiful boys, and Avila Beach.
In the court of law, I use expert witnesses all the time,
but there's something you do not need
to be an expert about.
And that's a thing of common knowledge,
something that you can see with yourselves.
And now that you're here, take the opportunity
if you have, during a lunch break,
drive two, three miles up north,
visit Avila Beach, Port San Luis Obispo,
a godsend. We have whales breaching up their international news. It's considered one of
the most beautiful pristine beaches. Access to everybody, poor people, rich people, people
of color, people come from the central coast, people come from Visalia Valley when it heats
up, they come over here and recreate. Go there, take a look at it. You don't need to be an
expert to imagine what's going to happen with a big new pier out there. That's what they
want to do, an operation and maintenance port. Ships coming in 24-7, and not only that, when
they're going to have to be repairing,
maintaining these huge 900 foot wind turbines.
You're going to see them from here.
You're going to see them from Pismo.
You're going to see them everywhere.
They're big and they're ugly.
And it'll destroy Avila Beach.
It'll destroy Port San Luis Obispo.
This is not the place for that to happen.
I urge you, you're all wise, you're all smart.
Take a look at it, go to Kraken's, have a cup of coffee,
and see why we are here to protect the coast.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Alyssa Buchholz, Courtney Kienau, Liz Summer,
Randall Jordan.
I'm Alyssa Buchholz and I live in Pismo Beach.
You can pull that mic right down.
Yes.
Just feel free.
I could put it right where you need it.
Thank you.
I'm Alyssa Buchholz.
I live in Pismo Beach and I would like to talk to you
about the Peko Coast Trail and how people under nine
or yeah, under nine can't join.
I climbed Half Dome, and I was seven.
Yeah.
Thank you.
It was really scary from what I remember.
But yeah, I think it was pretty cool.
We started it at 5 a.m., I think, and we didn't get back
to our cabin at the nearby hotel at like 12.
It was a long hike.
But yeah, and then I fell in love with the outdoors so much
that I joined the BSA, all girls, troop at 10 years old.
I'm now 12.
And yeah, I think it would be really cool
if 9-year-olds could join an under with adult supervision
because it's a really great hike.
I like it.
And I think there's a swing there.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thanks so much.
You're awesome.
Twelve years old.
Thank you.
Courtney Kino, Liz Summer, Randall Jordan, Bridget Day.
It's a real hard act to follow.
Good morning, commissioners.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak and welcome.
My name is Courtney Kino and I'm here on behalf of Cal Poly President Jeff Armstrong.
As a public university, Cal Poly is committed to sustainability, energy innovation, and
preparing the next generation, as we just saw, to solve the most pressing challenges
of our time, including climate change and energy resilience.
We view Diablo Canyon Power Plant as a vital part of California's clean energy future.
We rely on clean energy sources like Diablo Canyon to achieve our goal of carbon neutrality
by 2030.
Its operation also supports our researchers, students, and faculty who depend on stable
power to operate campus facilities and to advance innovation in renewables, energy storage,
and climate smart technologies.
Diablo Canyon has served as a living laboratory for Cal Poly students and faculty in disciplines
ranging from environmental science to nuclear engineering.
It offers a real-world context for understanding energy systems, marine ecosystems, and regulatory
frameworks. Additionally, the plant's employees are deeply woven into the
fabric of our region. As head of household wage earners, community
volunteers, and contributors to local nonprofits and youth programs, the
economic and civic impact of this workforce cannot be overstated. We also
recognize the significance of 12,000 acres of coastal land surrounding the
plant. Land that includes culturally sacred sites for the Yautichututu
Yachtilhimi, Northern Chumash Tribe, and the potential for future public
access that complements the neighboring Montanity Oro State Park. While Cal Poly
does not take a position on whether the plant's operating license should be
renewed, we want to recognize the many contributions PG&E makes in our local
community. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Thank you. Next Liz Summer, Randall Jordan, Bridget Day, Antonio Gonzales-
Good morning, my name is Liz Summer. I welcome you here and thank you for
spending some time with us in this beautiful section of the coast of
California. I moved here 30 years ago. I've been very involved in the community
since I moved here. Our youngest was two, he just turned 32, and now our three
children have all relocated back to this area and are raising their children here.
I'm here today to support Diablo and to continue the operation of it.
I spent time at the plant, I've spent time at the water around the plant with biologists
and what Diablo does for this community is great but it's also good for what it does
with the state of California and the production of electricity as it's been brought up today.
AI is going to continue to suck more electricity as well as vehicles and it has to come from
somewhere.
has been a partner to this community, to the nonprofits. I support it and I just
wanted to go on record as an individual, as a mother and a grandmother with the
third generation of our family being raised here now in support of this plant.
Thank you very much. Thank you. Next Randall Jordan, Bridget Day, Antonio
Gonzalez Bradford, Colette Beach. Thank you guys for being here. Thank you for
coming to the Central Coast we really appreciate your work and thank you. I'm
here in support of Diablo Canyon. I am a 41 year resident of the Central Coast
and actually live very far north in this county San Miguel. I am more interested
in keeping Diablo open for basically personal reasons. I run a small
construction company up in Paso Robles been there for 41 years same time I've
been here and we are seeing the trend and this is happened to happen over the
last 25 years for all electric homes we're seeing heat pumps for FAU units
we're seeing heat pumps for heating water we're seeing the phasing out of
natural gas which I don't agree with but electricity is very important very very
important to us in our industry. Also for me personally we live like I say in
rural San Miguel and we have had four brownouts so far one was two days long
luckily we get notified by PG&E but it's very inconvenient to plan your life
around not having electricity and if we take away Diablo Canyon it's going to be
worse. Diablo Canyon has been there since 1985 and has been maintenance
free and and actually very very safe. As someone already said it has it provides
1300 household jobs for this county which we desperately need and it's it's
a good partner for us here in San Luis Obispo County. So please keep Diablo
Canyon open. Thank you. Thank you. Next Bridget Day, Antonio Gonzalez-Bradford
Collette Beach, Rita Benavides. Good morning commissioners my name is Bridget
and I work for the Central Coast Labor Council. We are a coalition of 75 labor
unions representing over 70,000 members in slow Santa Barbara and Ventura
counties. This includes workers in the energy sector from fossil fuels and
nuclear to emerging clean energy fields like solar, wind, hydrogen and battery
storage. Recently the Labor Council has embarked on a coalition building effort
alongside community-based organizations and environmental organizations who are
committed to both workers rights and environmental justice throughout the
Central Coast. We are unified by a shared vision to remake our energy economy and
provide good union jobs to more residents throughout the region and the
entire state. Local communities and workers are uniting to call for more
career opportunities, training programs and pathways to middle-class jobs and clean energy.
The decisions this Commission makes over the next several years will have a profound impact
on our ability to recruit, train and hire the energy workforce of tomorrow.
We are here today to make sure you know that this community and its workers are ready to
meet and exceed the lofty clean energy goals set forth by the State of California.
Thank you guys so much for being here.
Thank you. Antonio Gonzalez Bradford, Collette Beach, Rita Benavides, Susan Callery.
Good morning commissioners. I am here to speak in support of offshore wind energy projects.
I speak not only as a UCSB student, but also a resident and a worker of Santa Barbara County.
Through my time at UCSB, I've had the privilege to learn about the complicated history of
the Central Coast with fossil fuels, nuclear power,
and our community effort to lead clean energy
transition in California.
It's not often that we get to talk about an idea
with the potential to fundamentally reshape
the future of the Central Coast.
Not just for the environment, but for our local economy,
our job market, and all of our residents for years to come.
These new industries don't just need engineers.
They need construction workers, a manufacturing workforce,
scientists, policy experts, environmental analysts,
data specialists, and public communicators, all rules my generation is prepared to fill.
As these projects come online, they'll give students like me a chance to learn, learn
a trade, apply their skills, and stay connected to their communities rather than get pushed
out by housing costs and job scarcity, problems far too common in our region today.
This isn't just a climate issue, it's a student issue, a labor issue, and a regional development
opportunity.
projects like this means choosing a future where students can stay, work, and thrive
right here on the Central Coast. Thank you.
Thank you. Next, Collette Beach, Rita Benavides, Susan
Callery, Gary Wollner. Okay. Then next will be Rita Benavides.
Good morning, commissioners. Thank you for your time.
So offshore wind has been presented as a clean energy solution, but the truth is the proposed
infrastructure would totally industrialize our ports,
destroy vital ecosystems, and introduce irreversible harm
to species that depend on undisturbed ocean habitat.
We're talking about seismic testing, dredging,
noise pollution, increased ship traffic,
which all have deep impacts to resident
and migrating marine mammals, birds, fish, and plankton.
And entire fishing grounds will become impacted
and threatening the livelihood of our local fisheries.
And despite its green label,
offshore wind depends on diesel fleets,
toxic gases like sulfur hexafluoride,
which is the most potent greenhouse known,
and a carbon-heavy construction and maintenance.
And even Boem, the Bureau of Energy, Ocean,
of an ocean energy management explicitly states, and I quote,
overall, it is anticipated that there would be no collective
impact on global warming as a result of offshore wind projects.
So this whole climate change that's going
to save everything is completely false.
And it will never replace oil because it depends on it.
So I urge you from the bottom of my heart,
from all of our hearts to protect our very precious coast.
It is your job, after all, the one we count on you
to do with awareness and care.
That is why we, the people, the taxpayers who live here,
appeal to you to halt the development of offshore wind
on the central coast of California.
We need real solutions, not reckless experiments
with irreversible consequences.
Thank you.
Thank you, next Susan Callery and Gary Wollner, Mark Simon and Ava Curtis.
Good morning commissioners, my name is Susan Callery and I thank you for being here in
the Central Coast.
I am retired from NASA, I led NASA's climate website and I led Earth Science Communications
out of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, so I'm very familiar with the impacts of fossil fuels
and the need for good clean renewable energy.
I'm also a grandmother and I also rely on data
and peer reviewed science for my information.
So the oceans are planets heat sponge
as Mr. McNevan said, 91% of the energy
from our warming climate due to fossil fuels
ends up in the ocean.
And believe it or not, since 1950 the ocean has taken up
the energy of eight billion atomic bombs
every second of every day.
It's frightening.
That's why marine heat waves are killing whales,
thousands of whales, and laughing doesn't do any good.
This is all public, this is all peer reviewed research.
It's sickening, it is true.
Sickening marine mammals along the coast
due to a combination of warming waters and fertilizer runoff
and wiping out fish populations.
The ocean's in trouble and so are we unless we act.
We need clean renewable energy, including offshore wind
to protect our kids and grandkids.
It must be done responsibly with community input,
with care for people, wildlife, and our communities,
But we cannot wait.
The ocean isn't waiting.
And I don't know if I have time,
but I would like to address a couple of the comments.
One saying there is no,
BOEM says there's no impact on global warming.
If they may finish that.
Just finish your thought very quickly.
Okay, that was taken out of context.
It means that the building of offshore wind
and the usage of offshore wind
does not add to global warming. Thank you.
Thank you.
Next, Gary Wollner, Mark Simon and Ava Curtis, Lexi Head.
Welcome, Commissioners. I really appreciate you being here, and I'm a very small cog in
obviously a very big wheel here, so I just want to talk about this. My name is Gary Wollner
and I am a local resident of AG. I strongly support offshore wind energy because I understand
the science behind human-caused climate change. Our region has a rare opportunity to lead
California, California's transition to clean energy and meet the state's offshore wind
goals. We can't keep burning fossil fuels. That's pretty clear. If we do, Earth will
keep getting hotter. Ocean temperatures and acidification will rise. We'll face longer
heat waves, stronger storms like the ones we've had in Texas, more intense wildfires
including those right here in our own county and rising seas. Flooding is
becoming more frequent with the sharpest increases along the Gulf Coast, East
Coast, and Hawaii. Fossil fuels also harm the ecosystems we rely on. Droughts, heat
waves, and floods are damaging our farmlands and threatening our
food supply. I understand that opposition voices are loud but they are not
ground in peer-reviewed science. It's much easier to stir fear and resistance
than to inspire action and solutions. I urge you to follow empirical evidence as
you move forward. The decisions we make today will shape the future of our
community, our state, and our planet. Thank you very much for allowing me to talk.
Appreciate it. Thank you. Excuse me, Chris. Before we continue, can I ask the audience
to please not react to speakers while they're giving testimony either silently or out loud.
It's very distracting and we would like to give every speaker our full attention.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next, Mark Simonon, Ava Curtis, Lexi Head, June McIver.
Good morning Chair Harmon and commissioners.
We sure appreciate you guys taking the opportunity to come to our beautiful area and experience
this and have your meeting here.
My name is Mark Simone, and I'm a labor representative for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.
I was reading my pin that got issued to me a little bit ago. Clean coast power really suits our area.
We're uniquely categorized here with the clean energy. We have the energy that's developed out in increased planes
with
Topaz Solar Farm, which has been instrumental. Diablo Canyon, I'm a third-generation
employee of Diablo Canyon
Working there to support my family my father my nephew
We've all been parts of Diablo Canyon and what great clean energy that is brought to our area and an economic driver
So we're very supportive from the IB w's perspective
Training with these jobs bring training. We're supportive of the offshore wind
But we do believe it wholeheartedly in these type of meetings where we have the ability to be pros and cons
Whatever the case is I know that the cons whether we're pro or cons do make these jobs stronger safer
More efficient the training is going to be we've the IBW started training for offshore wind currently
We are part of the offshore wind on the East Coast
We're very involved where we've developed
New and better better safer methods and we get we are confident that the infrastructure here is very well suited in San Luis
Bespo County to compliment what we have with Diablo Canyon with the potential
that we do have battery storage here developed locally. Some of you guys are
aware we just we just came online with the battery storage in Napomo safe or
better we did have some experiences and up north a little bit that were adverse
but at the end of the day that technology has changed and over the last
decade we've seen a lot of improvements and we do see everything how it
complements with Diablo Canyon offshore wind and storage are critical for our
future. And we appreciate your time and we appreciate you coming to our area. Thank you.
Thank you. Next Ava Curtis, Lexi Head, June McIver, Peter Schwartz. Good morning and thank
you for having me. My name is Ava Curtis. I'm an agricultural science student and researcher at
Cal Poly and have served as a climate education fellow with Slow Climate Coalition for two years
and I support offshore wind energy. As a Gen Z college student, my friends and I are coming to
age at the precipice of environmental and social disaster and it is abundantly clear
that we must fight for people and for the planet. Despite the controversy of offshore
wind energy, it's important to remember that we are on the same team.
We're on the same team. I think it's safe to say that everyone here cares what happens
to our community, what happens to our ocean and what happens to our planet. Given that
that it is critical to understand that now more than ever we need solutions to the climate
crisis that is unfolding before us. Offshore wind energy is a part of that solution and
we are fortunate to have it available to us in the central coast. It's inarguable based
on the scientific literature that wind energy produces substantially less carbon emissions
than fossil fuel and evidence suggests that some marine animals prefer offshore wind developments
as a reef-like refuge.
While it is impossible to know all of the consequences
to this development before it is constructed and operational,
it is one of the tools that our community has
to combat fossil fuel emissions.
As our situation becomes more dire,
it becomes vital that we do everything we can
to make our community more sustainable.
We're on the same team.
We want the best for our world,
and the net positives of wind energy
vastly outweigh the potential negatives.
Our community must do its part to fight climate change,
and we have the opportunity to send an example
for our state, our country, and the world.
Let's make it a good example.
Let's start today and let's stand united
against climate change and fossil fuels.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next, Lexi Head, June McIver,
Peter Schwartz, Tricia Boaz.
Good morning, Chair and Commissioners.
My name is Lexi Head.
I live in San Luis Obispo
and I'm here with Slow Climate Coalition.
I'm here today to speak in support
of offshore wind development in the Central Coast
because I care deeply about our environment
and my future on this planet.
Supporting responsible clean energy
and moving away from fossil fuels
is one of the most meaningful ways that I can act on that.
Here on the Central Coast,
we're lucky to not yet face the worst effects
of climate change,
but that doesn't mean that we're immune.
Every year throughout the world,
the US and right here in California,
we see hotter temperatures,
our seasonal weather becomes weirder,
and we see more destructive natural disasters.
This is all the result of the climate crisis,
and that's exactly why we need clean energy solutions
like offshore wind.
The offshore wind projects are going to minimize
our reliance on fossil fuels for daily living
on the Central Coast,
and while every project has a carbon footprint,
the emissions from building offshore wind are minimal
compared to the massive and ongoing damage
caused by fossil fuels.
In return, we get long-term local renewable energy
and a real chance to cut emissions at the scale
this moment demands.
I do not believe people against the offshore wind project
understand the severity of our current climate crisis,
as no opponents have suggested
alternative clean energy solutions,
except for the solar over the aqueducts now.
The one thing we know for sure though,
is continuing to rely on fossil fuels
will make life harder for everyone,
whether on land or in the ocean, human and non-human-like.
You may have heard that our sea life, whales and birds,
will be threatened by the installation of offshore wind,
and this is false.
The reality is that the sea life is already feeling the impact of a warming ocean and
without bold action, their habitat and ours will only become more hostile and more unlivable.
We need offshore wind.
We need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and we need to act now.
Thank you so much for your time.
Thank you.
June McIver, Peter Schwartz, Trisha Bose, Dawn Gade.
Good morning commissioners.
Thank you for being here.
My name is June McIver.
I'm a 22 year resident of San Luis Obispo County, raised my family here.
I know that you know that climate change is the ultimate threat to our oceans,
our coast, and our planet.
That getting to 100% renewable energy is critical to slowing climate change and
that responsibly developed offshore wind is an important part of getting to those goals.
What I want you to know is that outside of a vocal but
ultimately small group of NIMBY-ers, if that's a word,
there is strong support in San Luis Obispo County
for offshore wind off the Central Coast,
both for reaching our clean energy goals
and for the potential economic benefits to our region.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Next, Peter Schwartz, Tricia Boas,
Dawn Gade, George Hansen.
Good morning and welcome to the Central Coast.
My name is Pete Schwartz.
I'm a 25 year resident, raised my family here
in San Luis Obispo.
I'm also a physics professor at Cal Poly and a specialist
in energy society environmental issues.
And yes, I recognize that when we engage
in something new offshore wind is really relatively new,
especially on the West Coast where we drop off
and they have to float the wind turbines.
There's gonna be some unknowns that we need to study,
but the alternative is really well known
that what climate change is doing is really untenable
And it behooves us to develop renewable energy, clean energy,
nuclear energy as an alternative,
that we may be divided on what is the best technology,
but the enemy.
And I'm addressing you, and I'm addressing everyone else
in the room, is that we need to develop the alternatives.
And we talk about the massive die-offs of marine life
because of climate change.
I mean, it's been mentioned here.
And amongst the animals that are killed through climate
change, my primary concern is humans.
And we see it.
We're reading it right now in the news from heat waves,
from hurricanes, the floods in Texas,
the forest fires right here in San Luis Obispo,
and Southern California.
And that's just from climate change.
The emissions, the direct emissions
particulate matter and pollutants from burning
also claims approximately ten percent of
uh... human life
is uh...
you know recent study
in any case i advocate for moving forward
developing these technologies and studying it
when i think back twenty years when i first came here
a lot of the opposition that i'm hearing now
similar to the Carrizo plane opposition.
And so, yeah, I advocate for two things.
We need to study this.
Please finish your thought.
And please lean into Cal Poly.
We're here, we're scientists.
We'd love to study this stuff.
Contact me directly if there's anything I can do.
Thank you.
Next, Tricia Bose, Don Gade, George Hanson, Kathleen Bond.
Good morning, Chair, members of the Commission and staff
and fellow passionate people.
I am Trisha Bassey Bowes.
I am a fourth generation, I guess, nimby now being called.
When Greenlight Project came,
they are proponents of the offshore wind project to town.
They posted a video online
supporting the offshore wind project.
They got 88 comments, 100% of them were negative.
Examples. I will fight until my dying breath to keep this from happening. The
biggest grift and scam to hit California. No way I've seen the plans and it
destroys the landscape of Avila. There is an empty stretch. Hell no. I've seen the
plans. This would destroy the ecosystem. Avila Beach is already home to safe and
reliable nuclear power plant which can be upgraded and maintained to provide
all of the power without wrecking Port San Luis, which I grew up enjoying. My
mother and her parents grew up enjoying as well. Healthy eco ocean systems, where
the hell do you get that insane comment from? You can't tell me that won't mess
up whales, dolphins, and other millions of sea creatures. Straight-up propaganda.
Hell no. Scam. These are people that couldn't be here today. I'm sure they are
working and how will the tens of thousands of jobs that are mentioned in
this video be created. There's a lot of misinformation going on around about the
benefits of this offshore wind project. There is no net economic or environmental
benefit from this project and this project offshore wind relies on fossil
fields. If you go home with anything, all this talk about no fossil fields in
reliance offshore wind relies on fossil fuels to operate. Thank you. Thank you.
Next John Gade, George Hansen, Kathleen Bond, Courtney Shepler.
Good morning commissioners, yeah my name is Don Gady and I'm a resident of
San Luis Obispo. As you're aware the mission of the California Coastal
Commission is to protect and enhance the California coast and oceans for present
and future generations. Well there's no greater threat to the coast and the
ocean than climate change. Emissions from fossil fuels are fueling climate change
and offshore wind energy is one of the critical ways we can do to wean ourselves
ourselves off of those fossil fuels. Every method to produce
energy has a certain carbon footprint, but the footprint of
offshore wind is one fortieth, one fortieth of that of natural
gas-fueled power plants. As a physician, I am concerned about
the adverse health effects of burning fossil fuels and climate
change on our patients. By replacing fossil fuels with clean
energy, offshore wind projects can help protect the public
health while meeting our energy needs.
And finally, I'd just like to mention the many, many
environmental groups that support offshore wind. Locally, we
have the Sierra Club, Cal Poly Initiative for Climate
Leadership, Morro Coast, Audubon Society, Slow Climate
Coalition, and my group, the Slow County Citizens Climate
education. Nationally we have National Audubon Society, Environmental
Defense Fund, National Resources Defense Council, NOAA Fisheries,
National Wildlife Federation. I think most of us here are on the
same page. We want to see a healthy environment for our children
and our grandchildren. Let's follow the science and encourage the
development of this valuable energy resource. Thank you.
Thank you. George Hansen, Kathleen Bond, Courtney Schoelper, Kurt Teiner.
I'm George Hansen from Roya Grande, esteemed members of the Coast Commission. Thank you
for hearing us. I've been hearing a lot of questionable statements about how an offshore
wind facility might not benefit the community and environment of the coastal zone. I'd like
to address some of those statements, especially those that pertain to tourism provision and
recreation. We can stack up real-world experience against speculation and
verifiable real-world experience. I submitted the article in which this is
based at the sign-up. One copy, sorry. And we encourage you to look at that if
you wish to see the...or what backs up the statement. So we can look at the
experience of the Block Island wind farm off Rhode Island. This started operation
in 2016. It is located just 3.8 miles off the coast, and Block Island is heavily dependent
on tourism, fishing, and recreation. What they did is they interviewed hundreds, several
hundred tourists in Block Island, and they asked them about how seeing the wind farm
off the shore there affected them. And they found that about half the respondents were
and different, neither positive or negative, to turbines,
and that was across all recreational activities.
On the whole, those who had seen the turbines
in person reported a positive experience.
In monetary terms, they looked at how,
whether people would say they would pay more
to visit whether the turbines were there.
And they found that, on average,
Those who seen the turbines in person reported that they would pay more, pay actually more
to visit, to fish, and to stay there with the presence of the turbines.
Just knowing that the turbines were there in the community produced approximately 20
million U.S. dollars improvement in tourist-generated revenue.
If the turbines were there, generated 20 million dollars.
They even have ferries and charter boats bringing people out there and increased fishing in
thank you very much thank you next Kathleen Bond Courtney Shelper Kurt
Tyner dr. Aaron purse commissioners good morning happy to see you this morning I
would like to give you some good news and I'll do that by picking up on on
Don Gady's list of organizations that support accelerating offshore wind
development and that organization is the Nature Conservancy it's a global
organization of over 70 countries and territories and they, just like you, work to support the
conservation of land and of water around our globe.
Now I want you to consider three strategies that the Nature Conservancy employs. The first
is to use scientific data to support decision making.
Use the real science.
The second is to develop policies based on the science.
And the third is something we have the opportunity
to become, a demonstration site for best practices.
I would like to read to you a statement
from the Nature Conservancy.
Rapid deployment of offshore wind energy
is a critical part of the clean energy transition
and can be done in ways that are nature friendly.
Thank you for your work, commissioners.
Good morning.
Thank you.
Next is Courtney Shepler, Dr. Erin Pierce, Marra Stephens.
Good morning, Chair and commissioners.
My name is Courtney Shepler and I'm a resident of Morro Bay.
For the better part of the last 20 years,
I have been a climate migrant.
I lived in Louisiana when in 2005 the state was walloped
with hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
We didn't feel it was safe to stay
and we relocated to California shortly thereafter.
In 2021, the record-breaking Kaldor Fire came within
three miles of my home at Lake Tahoe
and we realized it wasn't safe to stay
as that beautiful paradise was also at risk.
This past weekend, nearly 30 children died
at the summer camp I attended as a girl
due to a record-breaking rain event.
How many more records do we need to break
before we do something?
This is all related to climate change.
Where will it be safe to stay?
It's not that I have bad luck.
This is happening to hundreds of millions of people
around the globe.
Climate change is real.
We must find solutions.
I am not afraid of the solutions.
I'm afraid of the status quo.
Offshore wind is absolutely a solution.
We should be welcoming with open minds.
Legitimate concerns can be addressed.
However, lies, misinformation, and conspiracy theories
have no place in this discussion.
I welcome offshore wind as a solution to climate change
and also as an opportunity for our community to be a leader
in slowing the impact of climate change
and to be a beneficiary of the positive economic impacts.
please use your platform to create meaningful fact
and science-based public participation.
Thank you.
And thank you.
Sorry we had your name entered incorrectly.
Next is Dr. Aaron Pierce, Mara Stevens, Andreas Seastrand
and Michael Foote.
Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to comment.
I'm Aaron Pierce, the Director for the Initiative
for Climate Leadership and Resilience at Cal Poly
and a professor in the Mathematics Department.
My comments are in support of responsible offshore wind development in the Morro Bay
Call area.
As a basic premise, our population will continue to increase.
Also, our society will continue to require electricity.
Additionally, we can expect these needs to increase with our technological advancement
and to increase as our economy transitions towards clean energy.
So, how do we provide power in the most responsible and least environmentally impactful way?
Offshore wind is a critical part of the power supply mix that cannot be readily replaced
by other clean energy sources due to its scalability, its efficiency, its small environmental
footprint, its benefits to grid stability, and its proximity to load centers, which results
in a corresponding reduced transmission loss.
For example, the entire country of Uruguay now uses 97% renewable energy, and they did
not do this using any batteries.
They solve the challenges of solar intermittency entirely by balancing the power supply mix
with offshore wind, biomass, and hydro.
Consequently, any decision against offshore wind
development is effectively a decision
in favor of fossil fuel development.
These decisions can be influenced by misinformation,
and so it is important to be on your guard.
According to investigations by Brown University,
the Center for American Progress,
and multiple other research teams,
fossil fuel corporations are actively spreading
misinformation about offshore wind
and exaggerating impacts in a bid to discourage development.
You actually heard one specific example
of such a misinterpretation during today's comments
that BOEM, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
claims offshore wind would not impact the climate crisis.
In fact, the report states that offshore wind
would not impact the environment negatively.
With respect to emissions, effluent ecosystems damage,
transportation impacts, material lifecycle analysis,
and other metrics, the impacts of fossil fuel energy
are orders of magnitude more extreme.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next Mara Stevens, Andrea Seastrand, Michael Foote.
Good morning, commissioners.
Welcome to our beautiful central coast.
Really appreciate the opportunity to speak.
And if you're staying in the area,
I invite you to go out tonight and look
at the full moon on the ocean.
There's just nothing quite like it.
And I think it will move your souls, your hearts, which
is what I'm appealing to today, your hearts
and your divine intelligence, which I know you all have,
and were given at birth.
And I think if you really search your hearts
and just look around, and as Mr. Sorrow suggested,
go down to Avila and remember that there are whales,
dozens of whales, in that small bay a few years ago
when I was working in Sea Canyon at Kelsey Winery,
having babies and spawning there,
and it was nationwide news.
People come there to get married,
they bring their children there,
as many people have already spoken
who have lived here for decades,
three or four generations worth of people, the trails.
And the truth is is that those who are saying
that offshore wind is green are misinformed, ill-informed.
These turbines are not recyclable.
The blades are not recyclable.
At best, they may last 20 years if they don't break off
pollute the area or catch on fire or function well at all in our fickle wind.
This is not a green energy. There's many many ties to fossil fuel companies actually.
And for the gentleman and I think a lady that mentioned groups like the Sierra Club,
the Autobahn Society, and the Nature Conservancy all being for offshore wind,
I urge you to take a look at who funds those groups.
Orsted is one of them connected to the Nature Conservancy.
And they are wind companies that give millions of dollars
to those groups like the Sierra Club who have been captured,
obviously by big folks that money.
Thank you for hearing our comments today.
Thank you.
And that's Andrea Seastrand, Michael Foote.
And that would conclude our in-person speakers.
And from there, we'll go to Zoom,
starting with Adam Leverins, Sandy Manich,
and Elena Tillman.
Well, welcome to San Luis Obispo County.
58 counties, and I'm here to say
that San Luis is the most beautiful county in California.
So enjoy your stay.
I've been a resident of the Central Coast for many years.
In fact, I was trying to count on my fingers and toes.
I think it's been over 30 years,
and I've reside right south of Diablo Canyon Power Plant.
Never worried about the safety factor and always very supportive of the activities at Diablo I
Want to emphasize that nuclear power is a clean energy, and it's right here in our backyard
providing electricity
What is needed today?
with the grid
Very shaky we need more electricity and especially with the new technologies that are here in our developing
We need electricity
And as was stated, I'll be brief on this because you've heard it before
providing so many high paying jobs and also
Giving to the community in so many ways
Educationally and so on into the nonprofits and not only here, but the economy that Diablo Canyon provides
also affects our state of California, so we need more clean energy and
we need nuclear power. So I'm here to ask you to remember Diablo Canyon power plant and
continue its operation and
May we all
Have a good day today. Thank you so much
Thank you. Next Michael Foote
Then it'll be Adam Levrens, Sandy Manitch, Elena Tillman, Robin, Robin Davidoff
Hello, my name is Michael Foote. I'm the director of economic development community affairs at REACH
the Regional Economic Impact Organization,
with the mission to support economic planning
and unlock economic opportunities
for San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties.
Thank you for spending some time in our region this week
and continued work on the critical opportunities
for the future of the Central Coast.
Over the past few years, we have collaborated
with regional, state, and federal partners
to advance the state's goals and clean energy,
space and aerospace, high tech,
while also supporting regional efforts
to create accessible career pathways
and housing for our workforce.
The Central Coast has been a longstanding climate
and energy leader.
And our future, sorry, our efforts have included engaging
with broad base of partners on the future of Diablo Canyon,
this county's largest private sector employer.
We have coordinated with community efforts
to plan for long-term future of the site
to ensure economic stability, maximize opportunities
lead on clean energy innovation, and as the state evolves its energy ecosystem and advances
its climate efforts.
In line with SB 846, extended operations of Diablo Canyon have preserved 1,300 good-paying
jobs as well as provided new resources to support clean energy innovation and economic
development, land conservation, and tribal celebration.
This adds stability to our regional economy and a foundation to build towards the community's
future.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak and close out public comment locally.
Thank you.
And now on to our Zoom speakers.
I'll note that we have 19 people sign up to speak on Zoom.
We'll start with Adam Leverins.
You can go ahead.
We have your presentation.
We're bringing it up.
Great.
Are my audio levels okay?
It's a little loud in the room.
We're going to bump you down on our end.
Oh, OK, sorry about that.
Adam Levren is providing updates on recent developments
from Newport Harbor.
Marin Council appointed two harbor commissioners in June.
And there were four applicants, two of those
having earned law degrees.
It was suggested that ideas coming out of the Harbor
Commission might be more equitable and less
discriminatory with some attorneys on the Harbor
Commission.
the mayor and council apparently didn't agree with that as neither of those were seated.
On the top of this slide is the applicant of the incumbent who was seated again and
in red note a statement from him that says I believe that our city owns and operates
the most beautiful harbor on the west coast. The lower portion of the slide is from a city
financial report which like the Beacon Bay Bill and the granting statutes and I believe
the state constitution indicate that the city does not own the harbor. And many of the problems
here result from the misconception and continued pushing of the idea that the city does own
the harbor. Next slide, please.
The harbor commission in next slide, please. There we go. At harbor commission in June
and July, there was a resolution to upgrade the weights for offshore moorings which is
adding weights to the anchors. At council in June, at Harbor Commission in June and July,
I suggested that at the very least, the mooring permittees to be impacted by this should be informed
that they so that they could attend the meetings and share their opinions. The mayor, council,
seven Harbor Commissioners, a city attorney, and a deputy city attorney disagreed. I'm sure Miss
Warren knows more about me on the legalities of that, but even if it isn't unlawful to
not tell people you're going to impose restrictions on them, I feel it's improper.
The bottom of the page is a quote that we heard from Executive Director Hucklebridge
last October in San Diego.
She said, speaking of the State Lands Commission, we were collectively pleased that the city
opted to pause its consideration of mooring rate increases and rule changes while the
lands commission conducts review of the city's management of its granted public trust lands.
The city has not paused. They made new rules last night and it continues. Thank you so much.
Thank you. Next Sandy Manich. Elena Tillman, Robin Davidoff. Sandy, go ahead.
Good morning. My name is Sandy Manich. I'd like to thank the committee for allowing me to speak
this morning. I am a mooring permit owner in Newport Beach. I have a legal
liveaboard permit. I'm also a public school teacher in Orange County in the
Orange Unified School District. And as I said, I live on my mooring so that I can
afford to live here in Orange County and be a public servant. And as I would like
to back up what was just prior stated that the city was told to stop proceeding with
changes to the moorings by the California Coastal Commission last year when they tried
to push through a second 200% fee increase in five years on the moorings only where they
discriminated and separated out the private peers for no fee increase on the same public
water way on the same body of water. Now there's some confusion. I believe I wanted to like to
clarify with the California Coastal Commission because a letter from the commission to the city
calls the moorings rentals. I do not have a rental. I have a permit to operate that I purchased.
So I'm not really sure what their reference to is a different set of moorings, but in any case now
the city has proposed turning into leases the moorings they're going ahead with that even though
there's been they've been ordered to pause until the coastal commission reports their findings
please ensure equity in Newport Beach the billionaires are paying
200 less taxes than I am as a public teacher with no services on the moorings that's another issue
I'd like to address the lack of services and the lack of support from the service providers.
Thank you for listening. Thank you. Next Elena Tillman, Robin Davidoff and Jan Boudart. Elena Tillman,
we have your videos. Okay, I'll go ahead and introduce it real quick if that's okay. Okay.
Okay. Good morning commissioners. We're here just last month and we're here again with an update.
there's been no meaningful improvements in enforcement or protection for the sea lions
in La Jolla Cove. On any given hour at La Jolla Cove, over a thousand people crowded into a small
beach where the sea lions haul out, multiply that over eight hours and you have an unchecked
disturbance at a massive scale. Over the holiday weekend alone, city officials estimated over a
quarter of a million visitors to La Jolla, yet there remains no consistent ranger presence,
no crowd control, and no mechanism to prevent people from petting, taking selfies with,
or blocking access between sea lion mothers and their pups behavior that has led to documented
pup deaths the city continues to deflect responsibility claiming that noah alone
must enforce federal laws but the mnpa doesn't prevent the city from protecting marine mammals
through local measures it obligates them too this is not just a policy failure it's mismanagement
with fatal consequences we urge this commission to hold the city accountable and require immediate
meaningful protections on site please now watch this video from the last 10 days this is just me
asking the public to write the city and call. There's another video if you have the time to
show it. If not, my colleague Rob and Davidoff will be the next speaker. We're bringing up the
second video really quickly. My narrations aren't on the audio but these are all examples of the
reasonable technical violations. Thank you. Next is Rob and Davidoff, Jan Boudart, Hein Austin.
Robin Davidoff and we have your presentation. We're going to bring it up really quickly.
Go ahead. Good afternoon. This is Robin Davidoff. I'm the Sierra Club Seal Society Chair.
Next slide please. In April, the CCC approved City of San Diego's update to the long-term
management plan allowing Rangers staffed at Point La Jolla to monitor the La Jolla Cove,
which is just 20 yards away, and use a bullhorn to make announcements to stay back from the
sea lions. In June, we showed you a video illustrating San Diego's complete failure
to implement the plan. Many of you voiced your concerns and asked the city to San Diego
to appear and give an update. It's now July and overcrowding and chaos continues. In short,
there's been little to no implementation as you just saw. Thousands of daily visitors
crowd around the sea lions, pet them, and take selfies. And there's deadly consequences
too. Tourists are literally loving the sea lion pups to death. In June, five of the eight
sea lion pups born in the Cove have died or been abandoned due to human interference.
And the crowding causes a public safety hazard, as people block the beach and the stairs.
Next slide, please.
The goal of the monitoring plan was to gain compliance and educate visitors to stay a
safe distance from the sea lions, and rangers were to monitor the La Jolla Cove, and to
make public announcements on their bullhorn, and rangers were to create incident reports
of harassment if witnessed and sent to NOAA enforcement.
This isn't happening.
Over the past week, a few rangers have come to the cove and made announcements, but it's
inconsistent and insufficient for the kind of crowds you just saw. Next slide, please.
The City has been reluctant to implement that plan and are waiting for you, the Commissioners,
to instruct the City to update the long-term plan with a monitoring frequency of every 30 minutes,
as required by special condition number three. Tell the Rangers to use targeted announcements
such as stay three car lengths away from the sea lions and record them in multiple languages,
and implement an emergency protocol for sick and newborn sea lions using temporary cones
and A-frame signs on the beach. And for public safety, temporarily close the gate when sea lions
are on the stairs. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Jan Budart. Hi, Austin and Samantha McDonald.
Jan, we're having trouble promoting you as a panelist. You should now be able to unmute as an
attendee. Jan Budart, you should be able to unmute. I'm not seeing any movement. We're going to keep
moving on. Haine Austin, Samantha McDonald, Jennifer Creston. Haine Austin, we have a
presentation. Give us a moment to bring it up. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you.
Honorable commissioners, my name is Haine Austin and thank you for this opportunity.
As you know, the public trust doctrine and transparency are intertwined principles
that ensure government accountability and public access to the California tide lands.
On July 9, 2024, the City of Newport Beach wanted to adopt a recommendation that would have raised low-cost mooring permits by around 500%.
The attorney for the moorings sent a list of objections to the City and to the State Lands Commission that said we are hereby submitting objections to the City of Newport Beach's expressed intention to adopt the Harbor Commission's recommendation or the alternative.
In response, the State Lands Commission wrote a letter to the city asking it to delay its vote pending an outcome to the Harbor Permit Review.
During that time, the city quietly launched a similar alternative license plan that permanently re-converts low-cost moorings into high-cost mooring licenses,
one morning at a time in direct violation of the State Lands Commission's request.
The City pertains to be in compliance with the State Lands Commission's request,
but in state the City is bamboozling the State with this alternative license plan.
I ask that you consider investigating this alternative license plan for four reasons.
Number one, it lacks the transparency of the CDP brings.
Number two it puts all low-cost coastal access at risk. Number three it is an
alternative plan that is in direct violation of the SLC's ongoing
investigation and four it discriminates against mooring permits only. The longer
this alternative plan goes unchallenged it is harder the harder it will be to
address the city's ongoing tight lands rate discriminant discrimination
violations. Thank you so much for your service. Thank you. Next. Samantha McDonald, Jennifer
Creston, Maura O'Neill. Samantha McDonald. Hi, my name is Sam McDonald. I am also a
liveaboard in Newport Beach. My partner and I just successfully delivered a catamaran across the
Atlantic Ocean from Maryland to Portugal. We are sailors and we really care deeply about the outcomes
of your and the state lands commission's decisions. I really just want to reiterate, especially for
for new commissioners that our ability to live in California
depends on the decisions around Newport Beach's ordinance.
The ordinance eradicates the livabore community
by converting all moorings to city licenses
without livabore capacity.
The ordinance also states that a boat that vacates
their mooring for more than 25 days
can have their mooring permits
automatically terminated without appeal.
For cruisers like us who spend season sailing in Mexico,
or our neighbors who have sailed to French Polynesia
and back with their families,
This is devastating and eradicates that opportunity.
The rule goes against everything boats are made to do,
and it's a clear act by the city
to remove people they deem unworthy
of the right to afford to live on the coast.
Please reject the conversion of morning permits to licenses
and the overall ordinance.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next, Jennifer Creston, Mora O'Neill, and Marsha Hanscom.
Jennifer Creston, we have a video for you.
Let us know when you want it to play.
Oh, thank you.
Good morning commissioners, Jennifer Creston.
Thank you for allowing me to present this video to you today.
It was originally prepared for the state lands commission,
but I believe it's relevant to the concerns
of the Newport Harbor mooring permatease of which I am one.
And I hope to the coastal commission as well.
And that thing about the sea lions was absolutely horrific
and I'm still trying to recover from it.
Thank you very much for paying attention
and for listening to this video go.
I'm currently helping a friend sail across the ocean
for their first time, so I do apologize
that I cannot address this committee in person.
You've heard me speak before.
My name is Dr. Michael Spano,
and I am a live aboard sailor in Newport Beach.
I wish I didn't have to keep addressing this committee,
but it seems that the city of Newport Beach
is determined to push forward with changes
that will directly affect my ability to live my life.
Me and many other mooring permittees
dedicate our lives to a maritime lifestyle.
People often reminisce about sailing stories of the past,
but the fact of the matter is
Those stories never stopped happening.
For people of humble origins, like myself,
owning a mooring permit is the only way
we can keep making these stories happen.
The city of Newport Beach often vilifies mooring permittees
and the Newport Beach Mooring Association.
But from our perspective, we are the targets
of systematic oppression and discrimination
by a local government.
I bought this permit with my entire life savings
because it was enshrined in federal nautical charts,
state charter, and municipal code.
I paid sales taxes on it directly to Newport Beach
and recognized my permit in public notary.
It feels like everything that the Harbor Commission
and city council do regarding moorings
is to erode our rights one way or another,
often disguised as improvements.
I'm sick of all these charades,
and I'm asking you, the state agency
that granted these titlands,
to demand equal treatment among mooring committees
and peer committees.
Why is it that so much of the city's efforts
regarding improvements around the harbor
are to reduce my access to the water.
These Tidelands are not theirs, they are ours.
The peoples of California.
The Tidelands are not a business, they are a legacy.
And it's past due for the state
to make this fact abundantly clear
to the city of New York City.
Thank you for listening to my opinion
yet again on this matter.
Thank you.
Next is Maura O'Neill, Marsha Hanscom,
and then Brett Garrett.
Maura.
Good morning commissioners, thank you.
My name is Maura O'Neill, I'm a policy analyst
for Better Neighbors LA, a coalition of hosts, tenants,
housing activists, and community members
who conduct data analysis and research
on the short-term rental industry,
including in the coastal zone where we advocate
for regulating short-term rentals through to home sharing
to balance coastal access and long-term housing needs.
I'm here today to offer general public comment
on short-term rental regulations in the coastal zone
by highlighting recent international developments
that show a potential regulatory path forward for California,
one that maintains access to public access to the coast
while protecting long-term housing.
Spain and California share more than a Mediterranean climate
and a love of good olive oil.
Both faith and escalating crisis made worse
by the proliferation of short-term rentals.
Similar to the findings in the Walk Smooth study
heard by this commission,
an autonomous University of Barcelona report
found that in Barcelona neighborhoods
with a higher concentration of short-term rentals,
rents were increased by 8% and home prices by 19%.
One way that Spain is addressing its housing crisis
is by reducing the number of short-term rentals.
In 2017, Barcelona adopted strict short-term rental
registration requirements,
including a centralized electronic registry.
The city also stopped permitting short-term rentals
in areas facing intense housing pressures.
As a result, the number of illegal short-term rentals
dropped by over 68% over five years.
Despite the regulations, the city still welcomed
over 15 million tourists, both in 2023 and 2024.
We share this update with the commission
since it's indicated that short-term rentals
and their impact on housing is an area of concern.
Better Neighbors LA urges the commission
to require coastal cities to implement strong
and forcible, hosted only policies
that preserve affordable access to the coast
and long-term housing.
Thank you for your time today.
Thank you.
I'd just like to announce that we have five more people
that we're able to find.
So that's our last five people.
Marsha Hanscom followed by Brett Garrett
and Timothy Robinson.
Marsha Hanscom.
I do have a, before you start the clock,
I do have a brief, yes.
Could you please play that?
And then I will speak up.
During the excavation of a pipe, you don't do that anymore.
You fill it up with cement slurry and cut off the risers so that they do not obstruct
the surface.
You do not have to remove the whole thing.
Fill it up with cement slurry.
Please do not remove the drains right now.
I agree with that.
Don't remove them in five years.
shouldn't be removed at all. Maybe what Dr. Williams suggested of filling in with the cement
makes more sense. But definitely bringing in heavy equipment to extricate these drains that
never should have been put there. That's just wrong. This is a very interesting argument from
some of the public testimony at the end talking about it's less harmful to keep the pipes there
and just fill them in as opposed to do all the bulldozing and taking it out.
And I do want to be, do the most environmentally friendly thing.
You can see here later this month the Wildlife Conservation Board is contemplating another
$1 million of public money to go to CDFW to bring in heavy equipment that we do not agree
should happen.
You can see the yellow lines there.
That's the incredible amount of habitat that will be disturbed.
So I'm Marcia Hanscom with Defend Biowatlands and Coastal Lands Action Network.
I just wanted to say thank you to you for finally hearing us.
You know, the public advocates actually saved half a million dollars in state money and
reduced impact to native habitat.
But we had to keep repeating ourselves for almost five years before CDFW listened out
of necessity.
not allowed to use that money for a violation. So I want to thank you for what you did last
at the Bione Wetlands on the Los Angeles coast. Thank you.
Thank you. Next Brett Garrett, Timothy Robinson, Julia Chun here and then last will be Juan Lares.
Brett Garrett, go ahead. Good morning. I am Brett Garrett in Santa Cruz calling to oppose the
nuclear power facility at Diablo Canyon. Please do not rubber stamp Diablo Canyon to continue
without a formal hearing and thorough analysis regarding the risks and coastal impacts of this
facility. Nobody really knows how to safely dispose of Diablo Canyon's nuclear waste, especially since
the area includes multiple earthquake fault lines. Worse than ordinary fault lines, they are rust
faults creating a huge risk of earthquakes and tsunamis. The once-through cooling system
is warming ocean waters, harming protective native species such as black abalone. I believe
the Coastal Commission probably would have rejected this system a long time ago if not
for the false promise that Diablo Canyon was to be shut down in 2025. Yesterday I was shocked
to hear commenters claiming that PG&E is a proven environmental steward with an exemplary
safety record. That's not reality. Everybody knows about the 2010 San Bruno gas explosion
that caused eight deaths and six felony convictions for PG&E. Everybody knows the city of Paradise
was destroyed in a fire caused by PG&E's negligence, and more PG&E fires have followed
since then. Here in Santa Cruz County PG&E cuts down trees instead of maintaining PG&E infrastructure,
so don't believe anyone who says PG&E is a good environmental steward. Can we trust PG&E to safely
operate a nuclear power facility? Of course not. They don't even test for embrittlement.
Furthermore, heaven forbid, if we have an actual meltdown, we can't expect any help from what's
left of FEMA under an administration that wants to punish California. So I
urge you heed the lessons of Three Mile Island and Fukushima. Please hold formal
hearings and a thorough analysis regarding the risks and coastal impacts
of the Douglas Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Timothy Robinson, Julia Chun here, and then Juan Laras. Can you hear me okay?
Yes, we can hear and see you. Okay, great. My name is Tim Robinson and my family
owns the adjacent property to the proposed project at 501 Sandpoint Road in Carpentaria
in Southern Santa Barbara County that you will be discussing in closed session this
meeting. My family has owned that property since 1970. I have a PhD in environmental
science and wrote a dissertation on the watersheds of the Carpentan Saltmires, so I have extensive
long-term personal and professional experience in the area. I have watched the subject project
shrink in size over my lifetime to the point of being mostly consumed by the
estuary with upland dune mat habitat. Normally I am aligned with the Coastal
Commission in their mission and case determination but in this case of this
proposed project at 501 Sandpoint I was shocked and very disappointed the
Commission voted three to one three six excuse me six to three in favor of the
project going forward. Their reason for approval was flawed and the list of
conditions were insufficient for the level of impact to the extremely sensitive wetland
habitat to the neighboring property and to the Sandpoint Road community.
As the Commission acknowledged, it is a terrible location for development that goes against
the Coastal Act and sensitive coastal land preservation.
The impact on the adjacent property at 539 Sandpoint Road is going to be severe.
Sorry, next slide.
Okay, so there you can see where the proposed project is going to be and our house is right
to the right.
The impact to the project on 539 Sam Point is going to be severe.
From our kitchen to the center of the easement road to the subject property is about 20 to
25 feet.
Next slide.
Every small and large vehicle that goes to that property will feel like you're traveling
through your personal space.
This first slide here shows a SCAP semi truck going to the project site just this last week.
And the next slide, please, shows a drill that's out on that property.
So, in closing, I'd like the, I request that the commission reconsider their ruling, add,
and adding in more conditions that sufficiently mitigate the potential impacts of the project
to neighboring communities and the salt Mars.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my comment.
Thank you.
Julia Chen here, Juan Lares.
Julian Chen here, go ahead.
I'm Julia Chen here
with the California Coastal Protection Network,
a unique advocacy organization dedicated
to protecting California's greatest natural asset
from magnificent 1100 mile coastline for all generations.
Offshore wind holds promise to help California
meet its renewable energy goals,
decrease greenhouse gas emissions and curtail the impacts of climate change.
However, this new industrial use of the coast and ocean must be implemented responsibly
with conservation priorities at the forefront. Negative impacts need to be avoided, minimized,
and mitigated to the fullest extent possible. PCTN supports offshore wind to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions when projects are designed, planned, and cited to avoid negative impacts
to marine life, coastal resources, and coastal communities, especially those of Native American
tribes and constituents that have already borne disproportionate burdens from past pollution
and industrial development. We are confident that the Coastal Commission and sister agencies
will address the concerns surrounding floating offshore wind based on the best available science,
and we look forward to the interagency coordination efforts. I did want to point out that the bone
quote mentioned earlier was taken out of context, and I can send information supporting that fact
to the staff if needed. We do need to remain curious and open and learn more. Other parts
of the world are implementing offshore wind and choosing to expand. Even if we just look at new
energy demand, I certainly hope that comes from new clean renewable sources and not increase
reliance on fossil fuels. Oil spills alone are reason enough not to rely on fossil fuels. Thank
you for your time today and your continued service. Thank you. Juan Lares, and then after Juan, I will
We'll call a few names that we weren't able to find
and ask you to raise your hands.
But go ahead, Juan Lares.
Good morning, Chair and Commissioners.
Thank you for your time and consideration of comments today.
My name is Juan Lares.
I'm a Ventura County resident
and lifelong coastal Californian.
I currently serve as the project director
of the Central Coast Climate Justice Network.
We're a coalition advancing just community-led,
guided and informed climate energy solutions
across Ventura, Santa Barbara,
and San Luis Obispo counties.
here today to speak in support of responsible offshore wind development. This isn't just about
infrastructure, about building a future that includes working families, indigenous communities,
and all of us along the coast. We have a generational opportunity to shape clean domestic
energy in a way that delivers lasting community driven benefits. That includes creating family
sustaining union jobs, engaging tribes, and frontline communities early and often, and
and protecting our marine ecosystems through strong oversight.
With growing energy needs, as many have mentioned,
we must be realistic and proactive.
Planning now for the future we know is coming.
Offshore wind offers a path to reduce our dependence
on fossil fuels, prevent further future harm.
The communities such as those in Oxnard,
which has long shouldered the burden
of polluting existing energy infrastructure
like that of the Ormond Beach Generating Station.
While some have raised concerns
about the visual impacts of offshore wind,
I understand those concerns.
But I ask us to weigh them against the long-term damage
of extractive industries,
like the devastation caused by the 2015 Rifuihilo oil spill.
The risk of inaction are far greater.
With the background in environmental science,
focus on natural resource management and conservation,
I approach offshore wind development with deep respect
for both ecological systems and community resilience.
I am not naive.
This transition will require fossil fuels in the short term,
but we cannot move beyond
without investing in viable, just alternatives.
Offshore wind done right can be one of them.
Thank you for your leadership,
your commitment to public participation
and your continued efforts to protect
in Stuart, California's coast for all who call it home.
Well, I know some have had to leave
as far away from the importance of just
and equitable sustainable energy future
by supporting offshore wind to raise their hand or stand up.
Thank you all for your time.
Thank you.
I'm now going to call names that we have signed up
but we aren't able to find in Zoom.
If you hear your name, please raise your hand.
Jan Boudart, Claudia Harman Worthen, Brenda Auer,
Matthew Simmons, David Reichart, Peter Wiener.
Jan Boudart, we're going to try you again.
We had you earlier, but we weren't
able to get you unmuted.
Jan, you should be able to unmute.
OK, there you go.
I'm Jan Boudard, but I need a minute, I just got here,
I need a minute to find my little speech
and I'm wondering if you could put me off
until the next person.
Okay, we do have one other hand raised,
we'll come right back to you.
Thank you.
We have the name iPad, please state your name.
You can unmute and state your name.
My name is Tom Pierre.
We don't have a sign up under that name.
So unfortunately, we're going to try Jan again
when you are ready.
You should be able to unmute
and begin when you have the opportunity.
I'm not going to be ready for just a few more minutes.
I'm sorry.
Okay, then we need to keep moving on then, unfortunately.
Madam Chair.
Any more speakers?
There's no one else.
Okay, thank you very much.
Thank you so much to the public for all of your comments.
I'll bring it back to the commission.
Any questions, Commissioner Kelly.
Thank you, I had a question for staff
regarding some of the comments with the La Jolla Beach
and where things stand with concerns about the safety
of both the visitors and the sea lions and the pups
that we heard about.
I know this has been an ongoing conversation,
so I just am wondering if we have a staff update
and it sounds like the concerns are continuing
and the concerning behavior is continuing
and especially during the summer months
when we're seeing a lot of visitors to the San Diego area.
I'm growing increasingly concerned that the response
and kind of our communication towards La Jolla
or the city or whomever is responsible
maybe is falling on deaf ears.
But hopefully that's not the case.
Do you have any information for us?
Thank you through the chair.
So you may recall at the last commission hearing,
Commissioner O'Malley had offered to engage
on this whole issue directly with the city.
And at this point, he is actively doing so.
I don't have anything specific to report today,
but I do expect we will have some for the next hearing.
Thank you.
And through the chair, would it be possible
if we could formally ask for an update next month
from the folks at the city of San Diego
or from commissioner O'Malley or both?
We can certainly make the request.
Absolutely seeing no other questions. I'm gonna suggest Oh commissioner Jackson. Sorry a little slow to the punch here
I appreciate the comments about the short-term rentals and what some European countries are doing
because of the
unbridled
Take over so to speak of a lot of municipalities particularly coastal cities
and the never-ending tension between the housing as well as
affordable accommodations.
So it's certainly something we need to continue to look at.
So I appreciate that comment.
And I had a question about the mooring issue in Newport.
And when is that coming back and how is that coming back?
Because one of the things the speaker mentioned,
she owned a mooring.
So I just did a quick Google search.
And Newport Beach says it's a misnomer.
It's not ownership, but it's a lease.
But then that lease is then transferable.
And so I just did a quick Google search
and the transferrals are 47,000, 62,000,
47,000 of an existing lease.
So I was just kind of curious about that
and is that gonna be a part of our discussion
when this comes back?
Again, through the chair.
So some of the issues that were brought up today
are ones that, you know,
we were directly contacted about as well,
and we did reach out to the city
and are awaiting some feedback.
But our expectation about all these changes
that are being discussed was that they were paused.
And that's our continued expectation.
But whether that's actually happening,
we're not certain about this point.
So we are again reaching out to the city to discuss that.
In terms of the way that comes back to the commission,
I don't think we have that determined at this point in time.
We are of course expecting, and again,
the reason for the pause was for this to,
for the state lands commission to complete their review
of the city's mooring program and other title and issues.
And so we were waiting for that to be completed
and then would be just determining our next steps.
Thank you, thank you Madam Chair.
Thank you very much.
Okay, so I'm gonna suggest we take a very quick break
and then come back and try to power through
the rest of the very short agenda.
So I'll see everyone back here right around 1110, please.
Thank you.
Okay thank you all. We will now move on I believe to the administrative calendar.
Thank you Chair Harmon. So yes that does take us to item five the administrative
calendar for all districts and units on the agenda today. There's two projects
from Huntington Beach and one from Newport Beach. Conditions are acceptable
to the applicants. There's no known opposition so on this item we're looking
for whether four or more commissioners object to the issuance of these
administrative permits. Thank you, Mr. Schwing. Are there any speakers on any of
these items? We have one speaker signed up, Susan Kirks, but we're not seeing
them in the Zoom meeting. Susan, if you are in the meeting, please raise your
hand. I'm not seeing Susan Kirks. Okay, thank you. Do any commissioners wish to
remove an item from the administrative calendar? Seeing none, the items were
approved thank you now we will move on to the consent calendar please thank you
and again this is for all units and districts on the agenda there's one item
from San Diego staff would note that this matter this project is replacing
eight existing residential units none of which were deemed affordable with 13 new
residential units two of which will be made affordable we aren't aware of any
controversy on these items and applicants are in agreement with staff
recommendations so staff recommends approval of that matter on concern thank
you very much are there any ex partes to report any members of the public who
wish to speak on this item I know we just have one available for questions
thank you very much does anyone wish to remove the item if not I will take a
motion to approve. Lopez wish. Second and good to see making it easier to build
denser housing in the coastal zone. Thank you. That's a motion by Commissioner
Lopez seconded by Commissioner Notoff. Any objection to unanimous consent?
Seeing none the consent calendar is adopted and we'll move to those items
that have been removed from the regular calendar to consent please. Thank you and
And again we have eight items that we're recommending starting with item 9A, application 62364.
That's State Parks, Torrey Pines Reserve, Comfort Station, item 10A.
That's the Moss application 616340A3.
Item 12A, that's City of Newport Beach's LCP amendment on accessory encroachments.
Item 14A, application 52520, that's Orange County Public Works ocean outlet maintenance
permit.
Item 18A, Santa Cruz County's well and water system updates LCP amendment.
Item 18B, Santa Cruz's Cannabis Update and Produce Stand Changes, LCP Amendment, Item
18C, the City of Santa Cruz's Homeless Garden Project Site Certification, and Item 18D,
San Luis Obispo County's Cannabis Update.
There are addenda on items 9A, 10A, and 14A with various clarifications and corrections
to the special conditions and findings and in some instances just responding to correspondence.
However, there's no opposition or objections known on any of these items.
I do want to note that on item 18C, this is an amendment that certifies LCP provisions
for an area within the city of Santa Cruz
that was historically been in an area
of deferred LCP certification or an ADC.
So we're always looking for opportunities
to close ADCs in LCPs
and we appreciate the collaboration city
to do this in this case.
I also just wanna note,
although we're moving quite a number of items
to consent today, there's a tremendous amount of work
involved with each one of these items and we do appreciate the collaboration
from the applicants and the agencies involved in the stakeholders and the
very hard work of our staff on each one of these items so and with that we're
recommending these adders get get moved to the consent calendar and approved
for the staff recommendations. Thank you very much we we echo that appreciation
thank you I'll start by reporting my own ex parte on item 12a it was this
morning around 840 for less than five minutes with Don Schmitz and Liz West
Moreland from the city of Newport Beach they indicated their appreciation for
staffs collaborative efforts and that the process was so successful and their
gratitude that this is moving forward does anyone else have any ex partes to
report Madam chair I was approached to meet on item 12a and I took no action
thank you very much are there any members of the public would like to
speak on any of these items yes we have across the items about eight speakers
and a bunch available for questions I'm gonna go through each item move to
consent for item 9a move to consent we have three from parks available for
questions from for item 10 a move to consent we have one speaker Mitch
Silverstein give us a moment while we bring you and then for 10 a we also have
the representative for the applicant for available available for questions and
then Mitch we have your presentation give us a moment to bring that up and go
go ahead. Thanks. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Great. Mitch Silverstein, Senior
Policy Coordinator for Surwriter Foundation in San Diego County. The item moved to consent
deals with the following. Next slide, please. A CDP amendment wherein the property owners
of a Carlsbad Bluff staff home have agreed to remove unpermitted bluff retaining walls
and restore a pre-postal private staircase. The bluff retaining walls were installed in
direct conflict to the CDP for their home. This is definitely a positive development
to bring this home back into accordance with the Coastal Act and Surfrider supports it.
Next slide.
However, what's not being addressed today is the property owner's unpermitted rock
revetment.
These rocks were illegally placed on the beach in the early 1980s, over 40 years ago and
remain unaddressed today.
Next slide.
I understand the revetment was not part of today's item and am very supportive of restoring
the unpermitted development on this property's upper bluff.
But these violations are relatively recent and do not directly affect public beach access.
Meanwhile, the long-standing violation on the beach
has direct negative impacts to beach,
both lateral access and sand supply.
As this image shows, there is no dry beach
in front of this house at a 3.3 foot tide,
in part due to these rocks stopping natural bluff erosion.
Next slide.
In this image, you can clearly see
that there's dry sandy beach directly to the South
where the bluffs are unarmored
and have been allowed to erode naturally.
Next slide.
So I end with two asks of the commission
on behalf of Surfrider San Diego County Chapter.
First, looking back to 2016 when the CDP to build this house was approved, the applicant
was allowed to build a new structure without being required to remove this harmful legal
revetment.
This directly contradicts Coastal Act Section 30235 and Carlsbad's LCP, both which expressly
forbid new developments to rely on shoreline armory.
Please don't allow a similar situation to occur again.
And secondly, please address this existing, unpermitted revetment as soon as possible.
40 years is a long time for it to remain unresolved with zero consequences or mitigation by the
property owner. Thank you. Thank you. Other no more speakers for item 10a. Item 12a move
to consent we have in person Liz Westmoreland and Don Schmitz. Next moving on to item 14a move to
to consent Giles Matthews in person.
Hi, good morning, I'm Giles Matthews.
I represent Orange County Public Works, the applicant.
I just wanted to, I'm mainly here for questions
if you've got any, to respond to any public comments,
but we've worked with Carl's team,
with all the scientists and things,
and we've got a much more improved permit outcome,
much better environmental outcomes over this and just really want to say gratitude to
Carl's team for working through this. We've had a very productive process with it. We've
got working with NGOs or the wildlife agencies to make sure we've got the wildlife as protected,
the public as protected and everything while doing the work and we maintain our flood
And really just any questions, let me know any response from any of the other public on here to answer that.
Thank you. We do have a couple more people signed up for item 14 a Dan Silver and Scott Thomas Scott Thomas we're not seeing you in the zoom meeting, can you please raise your hand so we can find you.
And then Dan silver go ahead.
Good morning, Chair Honourable Commissioners Dan Silver and Danger Habitats League in Los
Angeles, and I'm also able to testify on behalf of C&Sage Audubon Society if Scott can't make it.
We are here to support this multifaceted permit, which will allow much better channel maintenance,
which will improve the ecological health of the estuary. The Outlets Project has also been
coordinated with both U.S. Fish and Wildlife and California Fish and Wildlife.
We appreciate the attention to shorebirds, to granion, and to other natural resources
and generally appreciate the very constructive approach of Orange County Public Works and the
Commission in working towards environmental goals. We hope to work in the future with
Public Works and your Commission on in this area. Thank you very much.
and we are not seeing Scott Thomas. So moving on to the next item, Move to Consent 18A. We have
one person from the County of Santa Cruz available for questions. And then moving on to item 18C,
Move to Consent. We have also someone from Santa Cruz County available for questions. And then Doug
Engfer, who is signed up to speak. So Doug, you're being moved in as a panelist. And when you're able
will too please unmute and begin. Thank you very much. Can you hear me? Yes we can hear you.
Thank you. Chair Harmon and members of the Commission. My name is Doug Engfer. I serve
on the board of the Homeless Garden Project currently as its Vice President. I speak today
on behalf of our team. The project strongly supports staff's recommended actions regarding
item 18C, the City of Santa Cruz's proposed local postal program amendment to designate
the northern four acres at 2395 Delaware Avenue for long-term agricultural use.
We're pleased that the city and commission staff have developed a
proposal that upholds the coastal axe goals of agricultural resource
protection, environmental stewardship, and responsible sustainable land use
practices. This proposed amendment preserves the long-standing agricultural
nature of this site and subject to the city's LCP and creeks and wetlands
policies protects sensitive resources. This land has been farmed continuously for about 100 years
including the project's nearly 30 years of tenancy here. Designating this site as agricultural grazing
and zoning it as an agricultural district aligns with the LCP's intent to maintain the city's urban
rural boundary, prevent sprawl, and support sustainable land use practices. Our low impact
regenerative farming approach is well suited to this location and provides a model for how
of agriculture, social enterprise,
and environmental integrity can coexist.
We urge the commission to approve this amendment
as submitted and help secure the future
of our organization and the land we've so carefully tended.
Darry Ganzhorn, our executive director,
Ron Swenson, the property owner,
and I are available to answer any questions you may have.
As always, thank you for your time,
consideration, and service.
Thank you.
We had one other person sign up to speak for item 18C,
Sandy Brown, but we're not seeing the Zoom meeting.
Sandy Brown, if you're in the meeting,
please raise your hand.
I'm seeing no hands raised.
Madam Chair, that concludes the speakers
for the item's move to consent.
Thank you, Chris.
May I ask staff to please respond
to the public comment by Surfrider?
Yeah, so that's Surfrider's comments were correct
in terms of this permit amendment is limited
to the violations related to the retaining walls
Removal of those so it resolves that issue
As far as the the revetment component, that's not part of the amendment that's in front of the Commission today
It is an ongoing concern and it is something that our enforcement department is working on
Thank you very much Commissioner Escalante
Thank you chair and just real quick observation because
you know, I appreciate Sir Freiders just consistently showing us this images of
the reality of beach loss with this armoring, you know across the state, so
You know, it's just images speak louder than words. I appreciate you guys making the effort to just show this. Thanks
Okay, does anyone wish to remove an item from the consent calendar?
Seeing none. May I have a motion and a second move consent?
Okay, that is a motion by Commissioner Wilson,
a second by Commissioner Escalante.
Any objections to unanimous consent?
Seeing none, the consent calendar is so adopted.
And we'll move on to the DDR from the San Diego coast.
Thank you.
So in our deputy director's report
for San Diego coast district,
we're reporting completion of an LCP amendment certification
for the city of Coronado's housing element update
Here the executive directors determine the city's action is legally adequate to complete the certification process
We're also reporting two waivers
And one CDP amendment for projects in San Diego and Solana Beach no normal position on those
So we're asking whether three or more commissioners object to the waivers
the amendment
Or the amendment in this case
Thank you. Are there any ex partes to report?
Seeing none any speakers on the DDR. I know we only have three available for questions great. Thank you do three or more commissioners
Object to any item on the deputy directors report
Seeing none the Commission concurs. Thank you
That brings us to item 11, I think which is the South Coast District deputy directors report
Yes, that's correct. So here again, we're reporting for waivers for projects
in Sunset Beach and San Clemente and three CDP extensions and one CDP amendment. Again,
no known opposition on any of these items and we're asking whether three or more commissioners
object to the waivers extensions or the amendment. Thank you. Any ex parte? And how about public
comments? There are no speakers for this item. Thank you. Do three or more commissioners object
to any item in the report? Seeing no objections, the commission concurs. Thank you. And now we will
move to item 13. Thank you yes that's correct and there is a staff power point on this item if we
get that brought up and Vince Lee with our Long Beach office is going to do the staff presentation
on this item. Vince whenever you're ready please begin. Thank you Carl. Hello commissioners item 13A
is an appeal filed on behalf of the Commission of a coastal development permit granted by the City
of Dana Point to Roland Sansan. Slide, please. The subject site is a blufftop lot located within
the Nugeo Shores residential community and sits atop a massive landslide complex that affects
nearly one mile of coastline north of the Dana Point Headlands. The landslide complex reaches
the depth of nearly 40 feet below sea level and encompasses the first three rows of homes
directly landward of a raw revetment within the Niguel Shores community. Therefore the
bluff is impacted by the landslide complex that underlies a significant portion of the neighborhood
and the stability of the site of the project site depends on in part of the Niguel on the Niguel Shores
revetment that the Orange County Parks maintains. The project site is developed with a two-story,
3,820 square feet single-family dwelling constructed in 1974. A landscape slope
descending to a private walkway is located at the rear of the property which abuts the Pacific Ocean
and the Dana Strands Beach. The city approved project authorizes the addition and remodel to
the subject's single family residence property. A 364 square feet portion of the second floor
deck would be enclosed to construct an addition on the seaward side of the house.
Side improvements also include development directly on the bluff face, including deck
expansions, new retaining walls, relocation and expansion of existing private stairs,
a new spa, and a fire pit. The Commission's standard of review for the proposed development
is the City of Dana Point's certified LCP and the Chapter 3 public access and recreation
policies of the COSL Act.
Next slide.
The appellants contend that the City-approved project raises issues as to consistency with
the COSL hazard policies of the LCP.
Specifically, the appellants contend that the project raises broader concerns about
enlarging and extending economic life.
Both structures in a hazardous area does not include sufficient geotechnical information
to assure that the proposed development is cited and designed to minimize risk to life and property
in this area of high geologic hazard. It does not minimize landform alteration and it does not
require waiver of future shoreline protection and does not assume the risk of new development
at a hazardous location. Staff believes that these appeal contentions raises substantial
issue as to whether the project is consistent with coastal hazard policies of the certified OCP.
and the second contention is that the opponents contended that the project
directly on the bluff slope are inconsistent with the development standard policies of the OCP.
These include substantial alterations to the existing private staircase descending down the
bluff face, a new retaining wall to support the stairs, deck expansions can deliver seaward
of the bluff edge, and a new spot within the coastal bluff setback area. In this case too,
staff believes the appeal contentious do raise a substantial issue as to whether the project is
consistent with development standards filed in the certified LCP. Next slide. Therefore, staff
recommends that the Commission determine that a substantial issue exists with respect to the grounds
on which the appeal has been filed because the project, as approved by the City of Dana Point,
has not been adequately reviewed for consistency with Chapter 3 of the Co-Select and the certified
LCP policies. Unless three or more commissioners wish to hold a hearing on the substantial issue
determination, substantial issue will be deemed to exist and we will move on to the commission's
denover action on this item. Thank you Mr. Lee. Are there any ex partes to report? Seeing none,
do three or more commissioners wish to have a hearing on substantial issue?
substantial issue has been found. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Next slide please. Thank you.
So we will now move on to the Denovo CDP application for the project. We will keep this
presentation brief as we understand that the applicant is in agreement with staff's recommendation
and there is no non-opposition to this project. So after consultation with commission staff,
the applicant has revised his proposal to remove the proposed improvements to the bluff slope,
which are deck expansions, new retaining walls, relocation and expansion of the existing private
stairs, a new spa, and the fire pit. Therefore, the revised proposal before the commission's
de novo permit hearing only includes constructing a new addition by enclosing the 364 square feet
second floor deck to add living space on the sewer side within the existing footprint of the house.
footprint of the house, and then four new deep-in pad footings to support the added living space,
and also repairs to the existing deck and new landscaping. So with the reduced project scope
that removed development directly on the bluff slope, the applicant structure engineer submitted
an opinion letter clarifying that the increased gravity loads in this area for the proposed living
space addition will be negligible. The commission staff, coastal engineer, and geologists reviewed
this opinion letter and determine that the proposed living space addition should not
significantly impact the stability of the slope. Staff also believes that the project with this
reduced scope from the city of Cook project is not a major remodel or redevelopment as defined in the
LCP and that the second story living space addition and the deck repair would not materially increase
the degree of non-conformity of the structure with respect to geologic stability or extend the
the economic life of the existing structure.
Next slide, please.
Therefore, staff recommends that the commission
approve the denial of a permit as revised
with five special conditions,
and the motion can be found on page 14 of the staff report.
This concludes staff presentation
and we are available for questions.
Great, thank you very much.
Now we'll open the public hearing
and I'll turn it to the applicant if they're available.
Yes, we have the applicant, Ronald Sanson,
as well as the representative for Ronald, David Bailey.
And they're both on Zoom.
Mr. Sanson, how much time would you like?
And give it a second.
Can you hear me?
Yes, you can.
You know, I'm okay with staff's recommendations.
I mean, I would like to make the stairs
and it was a recommendation
by the Dana Point Building Department
is to bring the stairs up to code.
They're not code compliant.
The coastal commissions prefer I not touch them.
My neighbors have turned theirs to be code compliant,
but it was before many years ago.
The tread and the risers don't comply.
They're very thin and it's easy to fall,
but I'm okay leaving them as they are.
They've been there 50 years,
but I would, if for some reason something changes,
somebody should notify me.
I'm happy to spend the money to bring the stairs
to be code compliant.
Other than that, I'm good with staff's recommendation.
Great.
Thank you very much.
We appreciate it.
Are there any speakers who like to comment?
We also had David Bailey.
We've got a good afternoon or good morning, everybody.
I'm David Bailey.
I'm the architect for the project.
And we just want to say thanks to Vince and the commission
for helping us move our project along.
Mr. Sanson, as he mentioned, he agrees with all the conditions.
And we're hoping to get this resolved today.
Thank you very much.
Any public comments on this item?
And there are no other comments or some aside.
Wonderful. Thank you.
I'll bring it back to the commission for yes.
Commissioner Lomond.
Can I just ask staff?
Why not let the applicant replace the stairs?
Is there a subset substantive reason?
Well, we're not under any understanding
that the city's requiring that at this point.
What was in front of us was more than just, you know,
work on the stairs, there was a deck and spa
and all kinds of development associated on that slope,
on the bluff face essentially.
And those changes are plainly inconsistent
with the city's LCP.
So the applicant simply revised the project
to not do any further work on the stairs.
And so that's what's in front of us today
is just the work on the house.
So the applicant could come back and ask for that.
They could.
We'd have to see what the scope of work on that is.
Usually, you know, if there's some limited amount of work
that they need to do to the stairs to make them safe,
you know, repair and maintenance, essentially.
That's something that could be considered.
Thank you.
Further comments, questions or a motion?
I'm prepared to move.
Thank you.
I'll second it.
I wanna make a comment, brief comment.
Okay.
I move that the commission approve
Coastal Development Permit Application Number A-5-DPT-22-0066
pursuant to the staff recommendation
and staff recommends a yes vote.
And I will second and as one of the opponents
I just want to thank staff so much for their work on this
and also the applicant for getting this resolved
and just really appreciate it.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
So that was moved by commissioner Nada,
seconded by vice-chair Hart.
Are there any objections to a unanimous yes vote?
Seeing no objections, the permit is approved.
Thank you.
Now we will move on to item 15A.
Thank you again.
Just a brief staff PowerPoint on this item and Jeff palm with our Long Beach office is going to do the staff
presentation on this matter
Jeff when you're ready
All right. Good morning commissioners. Item 15a is the hearing for revised findings on cdp 5-23-0753
on
February 5th 2025 the Commission denied the subject CDP application by a vote of 9 to 1
Because the Commission action differed from the staff recommendation on the CDP application,
the staff report for this item contains revisions to reflect the Commission's action.
If approved by the Commission, the proposed revisions will be incorporated into the adopted findings.
Commissioners who are eligible to vote on the revised findings are those from the prevailing side
were present at the February 5, 2025 hearing, including Commissioners Hart, Loewenberg,
Notoff, Trumbull Sanders, Bacheco, and Escalante.
Notice of today's hearing for the revised findings was sent to all of the interested parties that were previously notified of the Commission's hearing in February on the CDP application.
To date, Commission staff have received three letters on the revised findings which are included in a correspondence packet for this item.
The notice that was sent to interested parties for today's hearing specified that the Commission will only take testimony about whether the revised findings reflect the Commission's February decision.
The majority of the comments received by the Commission staff did not raise an issue whether
the revised findings reflect the Commission's February decision and therefore were not addressed
in the addendum.
The addendum also includes one minor revision to the staff report to improve clarity.
Additionally, Commission staff would note that interested parties providing oral testimony
today should similarly limit their comments to whether the revised findings reflect the
Commission's February decision.
Staff recommends that the Commission adopt the revised findings for the Commission's
February 5th, 2025 action on the subject CDP application. The motion and resolution can
be found on page 6 of the staff report. This concludes staff presentation and staff is
available for questions. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any public comments
on this item? I guess we have two speakers signed up, Adam Leverens and Thomas Peer. Thomas
Peer, we're not seeing you in the Zoom meeting. Could you please raise your hand so we can
find you. Adam Leverns are bringing you in right now. Adam Leverns, can we see that you're
unmuted? You can go ahead. Okay. Thank you again. And in the letter to
Mr. Palm that I had submitted, I didn't want to create any more work for staff or you folks.
We remain incredibly grateful to the commissioners who voted this down on February 5th. I just
wanted to point out some inaccuracies from the applicant,
which I have done so hopefully through the attachment
of the letters to the record.
I'd encourage commissioners to read those.
You're surely going to see additional applications
from the city of Newport Beach.
And the inaccuracies, I think, create all kinds of work
for you folks, the staff, for us.
And I just encourage more accuracy in the future.
And as I noted earlier, this too,
I would say not reflective of a city pause,
this would have made a bunch of substantial changes
to rules and rates.
And I just encourage the city to actually pause
so we can quit complaining.
And thank you again for all you folks do.
Take care, bye.
Thank you.
And then we do have Thomas here.
that was the iPad earlier.
Thomas, you can unmute and begin.
You should be able to unmute.
Unmute, how's that?
There you go, we can hear you.
Very well, thank you very much.
My name is Tom Pierre.
I've been a, held a mooring in the
sea field for approximately 35 years,
been a resident of Newport Beach on and off
since about 1962.
I'm also the chair of the voting and waterways commission.
So greetings to all my fellow commissioners.
And first off, I just wanted to answer a question
from a commissioner earlier,
which is that yes, the permitees are permitees.
They also own the ground tackle and the chain
and everything associated with that.
to the accuracy of the findings
and whether they reflect the February hearing.
Thank you.
Okay, all right, that's fine.
I was just trying to assist one of your commissioners
who may have had a question.
But regardless, yeah, I do agree with the accuracy
and I wanna just commend staff for coming down
on the right side of this issue.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, we appreciate it.
OK, from among the commissioners eligible to vote,
I will accept a motion or questions or comments.
I can move to adopt the revised findings.
Second.
OK.
It's moved by Vice Chair Hart, seconded by Commissioner Nodoff,
and I'll ask for a roll call vote, please.
Thank you.
Commissioner Bacheco?
Bacheco, yes.
Commissioner Escalante?
Yes.
Yes.
Commissioner Hart?
Yes.
Yes, Commissioner Jackson.
I don't know if you can he's not eligible to vote.
Commissioner Kelly.
So, Chris, the only remaining commissioners who are eligible to vote are
Loewenberg, not off and Turnbull Sanders.
OK, sorry about that.
Commissioner Loewenberg, Loewenberg.
Yes, Commissioner not off.
I know. Yes.
And then Commissioner Turnbull Sanders.
Yes. Oh, yes.
The vote is six, yes, zero, no.
Great.
The revised findings are so adopted.
Thank you.
And we'll move on to items.
Madam Chair.
Yes.
Madam Chair, I'd like, in the future when some of us
aren't able to participate or be part of a voting process,
so I realize there's a process.
We need clarification so that I'm new,
So I don't understand the entire process.
And so just be helpful and also help it to the public
to know why a limited number of the commission
is able to participate in the vote.
Sure.
Why don't we ask our council to give a brief overview?
Thank you.
Absolutely.
This is somewhat unusual circumstances,
but the commission's regulations require
that when the commission takes a vote on an item that
is substantially different than the staff recommendation,
than the staff is required to take the comments
of the commissioners on the prevailing side
made in that hearing and to prepare revised findings
that reflect the reasons why the commissioners
voted the way that they did.
So when these revised findings are taken back
to the commission for action,
it's the commissioners who voted in favor of the findings.
Sometimes it's not in favor of the project,
that's why I'm hesitating here,
but the commissioners on the prevailing side of the vote
at the original hearing,
the findings are supposed to reflect their reasons
for voting the way that they did,
which is why they are the only people who can vote on them
because they're the ones who articulated
why they voted the way that they did
in the original hearing.
We do still, however, need a quorum of commissioners
to conduct business at all,
which is why the whole panel sits on revised findings,
but the reason for only the commissioners
on the prevailing side voting is because
the findings are reflecting their internal thinking
at the time of the vote.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much, Ms. Lauren.
The next item doesn't look like there is anything to report
in the North Central Coast DDR.
So that brings us to 16A.
Yes, that's correct.
There's nothing in item number 16.
We do have a item number 16a is an informational update
about the muscle rock site in city of daily city.
And we have a PowerPoint for this.
And Julian honey, who's our analyst for this area
is going to give our presentation
and he should be on the zoom.
Yes, I'm here.
Go ahead, Julian.
Excellent.
So thank you chair Harmon and commissioners.
As Dan said today with item 16a
we're going to be providing an informational overview
the pressing issues facing the Muscle Rock landfill site, both to prepare you for an
upcoming condition compliance item that we intend to bring for action later this year,
but also to raise public awareness in hopes of finding proactive solutions in the long term.
The photo on slide one gives you a view of the site looking north towards San Francisco with
the western Marin headlands in the far distance on the left. While this image captures the beauty of
this section of the California coast, you can't see what underlies it, which is literal tons of waste
left without many easy solutions, as I'll get into in this presentation. Next slide please.
The Muscle Rock landfill site, which is owned and managed by the City of Daily City,
is a since-captain closed landfill that is located at the southern end of Daily City,
directly north of Pacifica, and an area of high geologic instability running along the Pacific
Ocean. The city limits are shown on slide 2 in blue, with the location of the Muscle Rock
landfill site marked by the red star. Next slide please. Slide 3 gives you another sense of the site
again looking to the north. In the bottom right image the former landfill stretches out before
you with a series of public access trails and utility roads crisscrossing the landscape that
exists atop its soil cap. The image on the left depicts the revetment as constructed in May of 2025.
Also pictured on the top right of the slide is the entrance via a pedestrian gate. Today the area is
used as a public park of sorts for hiking, fishing, and paragliding and is fronted along
almost its entire seaward length by a large armoring structure that helps to contain the
former landfill materials. While this area was previously a landfill and is now used as open
space, it has a notable and important history, and archaeological finds have demonstrated that
Muscle Rock was home to a series of Native American villages for thousands of years
and additional work will be needed to address these cultural resources. Next slide please.
Muscle Rock was operated as a municipal landfill serving the cities of the daily city and pacifica
for 20 years from 1957 until 1978 when it was then closed by the regional water quality control
board due to concerns about its water quality impacts. Although the overall site measures about
150 acres the waste itself occupies roughly 29 acres in two main regions. The first is an
approximately four acre area called the upper disposal area which is generally shown in red
in the images on slide 4 and the approximately 25 acre lower disposal area that is generally shown
in blue. Taken together, these regions represent where about 1.4 million cubic yards of trash were
previously placed. Also illustrated on the slide is the approximate boundary of the revetment
outlined in green. On the left of the slide are two oblique aerial images of the site. The top
left depicting the site while it was still being operated as a landfill in 1972 and the bottom left
showing its captain managed configuration as of 2024.
These pictures illustrate a number of things,
including that the site was actively being managed
in the 1970s with a large engineered slope
in the center of the image
and a revetment extending from that slope
down coast to the right.
Since that time, the photos show an expanded revetment,
progressive bluff erosion,
particularly in the area fronting the upper disposal area,
landsliding in the up coast part of the site,
and the almost complete loss of Sandy Beach over time.
Next slide, please.
This site is located at the intersection
of numerous serious hazards
that significantly undermine its stability,
including not only systemic erosion,
landslides, and storm and wave action,
but also the potential for considerable seismic activity.
This is the site of one of the largest active landslides
in coastal California and is located at roughly the point
where the San Andreas Fault bisects
San Francisco Peninsula and dropped into the Pacific Ocean. Although these types of hazards
were known when the landfill was first established in the late 1950s, they were clearly discounted at
the time, and since then there has been substantial need for regular, ongoing and costly maintenance,
monitoring, and remediation. While this kind of hazardous site would be problematic for any number
of developments and uses, it is particularly problematic when the site in question includes
over a million cubic yards of solid waste immediately adjacent to the Pacific.
The image on slide five zooms in on the bluffs fronting the upper disposal area and the erosion
and landslides that are affecting it. This episode, pictured from 2018, dropped trash and
drainage infrastructure to the beach below, some of which can be seen dangling over the bluff in
places, all harming water quality. Just this year, erosion affecting the same area has led
to similar outcomes. And accordingly last month the Commission approved an emergency coastal
permit to extend the riprap revetment fronting the site further up coast to more thoroughly
front the landslide area at the north of the site. This revetment work is still ongoing.
Next slide please. The revetment, which can be seen here looking north,
fronts the site and serves to hold in and contain the landfill materials. The revetment originated
in the 1960s and 70s when it was built as part of the Regional Board's requirements back when
the landfill was in operation to curtail garbage that was being washed into the ocean due to
instability at the time. Since then the revetment has been augmented multiple times and today
extends along over a half mile of coast reaching some 35 feet in height with gabion basket retaining
walls shown here on the inland side of the access road extending even higher than that in some places
and with associated integrated water quality and stormwater drainage infrastructure,
all of which can be seen in this image. This revetment continues to be the city's chosen
method to prevent pollutants from entering the ocean. As might be expected, given that the
armoring has been present at this location for over 50 years, limited sandy beach area remains
sewered at the revetment, and it is essentially located directly at the ocean's edge where
continuous tidal and wave action, severe winter storm events, site instability, and episodic land
sliding all combined to destabilize both the revetment and the overall site. Next slide please.
The Commission's involvement at the site began in 1978 when it issued a CDP that authorized capping
the landfill, installing public trails atop the cap, implementing other closure related activities,
and constructing a new solid waste transfer station at the southern end of the site,
all intended to meet the water board's closure requirements.
Ultimately, the City found itself out of compliance with that CDP when the required
public access improvements were not initiated, and the City undertook further development at
the site to comply with the Water Board's requirements, including revetment modifications,
all without a CDP. It wasn't until some 25 years later, in 2002, that the City pursued a CDP
when problems with the revetment again required remediation. At the time, the Commission
authorized the repairing expansion of a 50-foot section of the revetment and a roughly 150-foot
section of Gay Beyond Retaining Wall, but for the next 10 years, work continued to be performed
without CDPs. Ultimately, the City approached the Commission about further armoring changes,
which prompted staff to then take a closer look at the permitting and non-compliance over the years.
The City proposed and the Commission authorized past unpermitted revetment work,
as well as more augmentation and site work in 2012, where that permit reauthorized the
armoring structure as it existed at the time, and that 2012 permit is thus the base permit that
applies to this site. In 2012, it was made apparent that the site was becoming more problematic,
which raised concerns that either an episodic event or gradual destabilization was going to
lead to significant trash and related materials finding their way to the beach and into the ocean.
At the time, the Commission expressed strong concern that there was no comprehensive plan
to address the problem, including when the armoring had proven to need constant upkeep
and was continuing to lead to significant coastal resource impacts and a direct and ongoing loss of
beach. The Commission also wanted further details and analyses related to the future of the landfill
and armoring, and identified the need to develop a long-term solution to address the issues raised
by the continued protection of the closed landfill.
Accordingly, the commission required the city
to consider options for planning for retreat of the landfill,
including a detailed feasibility study
and cost assessment for relocation of some
or all of the landfill and the restoration of the site.
Thus, that 2012 base CDP limited the armoring authorization
to three years and required that a planned
retreat management plan, also referred to as a PRMP,
submitted for review and approval by the Executive Director by 2014, and such a plan be implemented
in 2015.
The PRMP was required to fully evaluate potential relocation of the landfill, removal of the
armoring, remediation and restoration of the site, and identify potential constraints,
phasing options, timelines, project costs, and funding sources.
Although the city has submitted multiple iterations of PRMPs over the years, these plans have
not been sufficient to meet the base CDP's requirements.
In the interim, the armoring authorization under the Commission's 2012 CDP expired in
2015, and thus the armoring at the site has been out of compliance for 10 years.
At the same time, the dangers have persisted, where the image on the left of the slide shows
a revetment failure from late 2024, and the image on the right of the slide depicts what
buried waste looks like once it's exposed as it sloughs towards the coast. It's clear that
the site is extremely problematic and will likely only become more so as coastal hazard risks
intensify, including considering riders in sea levels. It's unclear whether continued
landslide remediation and revetment augmentation at the site will be sufficient in the long run
to contain the landfill in place, nor whether that is the best public policy and coastal resource
option for this site. As previously mentioned, there are numerous ecological,
geologic, and cultural sensitivity issues which have not been effectively addressed.
Presently, the landfill continues to sporadically shed trash onto the beach and into the ocean,
and the water board requires active monitoring for leachate, which continues to be a significant
concern. Staff continues to believe that this former landfill poses a severe threat to beach
and marine resources, especially due to its hazardous location, and we are seriously
concerned about the risk of a catastrophic failure driven by any of the hazards that exist here.
For whatever reason, the issues surrounding Muscle Rock have been under the collective
environmental radar, and in staff's view, it's extremely important to raise the profile of these
issues in the public arena, which is at least partially the reason for this informational item
today. It's also important to raise awareness because a potential remediation project of this
scope would be quite expensive and require partnerships and engagement at all levels.
It's our hope that increased awareness can also help to act as a spark towards
action on appropriate long-term solutions. Regarding the next steps, the city is in the
process of preparing a revision to the PRMP which staff will review and we intend to bring the plan
back before the Commission to understand the Commission's perspectives on the site moving
forward hopefully sometime later this year. Once a PRMP is approved, regardless of its
recommendations it will likely take some time to be implemented and ultimately as required by the
base permit implementation would need to be approved by the Commission through a coastal
permit amendment. Importantly today's presentation is just for informational purposes and questions
about how this problem should be solved are intended to be asked and answered in relation
to the PRMP review which we hope to bring to the Commission later this year. While we're happy to
answer informational questions we would ask that the Commission and any interested parties limit
their discussion about the possible future outcomes here and instead defer that analysis
and discussion to the PRMP review when more information will be available. With that,
Daily City Director of Public Works Richard Chu is here and intends to speak to you next.
That concludes staff presentation but we are available for questions. Thank you.
I guess we can hear you.
Okay, great.
Yes, thank you.
Good afternoon, madam chair and members of the commission.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
As mentioned, my name is Richard Chu
and I'm the director of public works here
for the city of daily city.
First of all, I wanna thank your staff
for working with us over the years on this challenging site.
In addition to working
with the California coastal commission,
we are also working with region
water quality control board, county of San Mateo,
environmental health, Golden Gate national recreation,
as well as other regulatory agencies as required.
The city became responsible for the issues
at the Muscle Rock Landfill
after the landfill was closed in 1978.
As indicated in the staff presentation,
the site is a challenging site and we continue to work
with all regulatory agencies to stabilize the site
so that we can perform the needed studies
and analysis to develop a long-term plan
that will be acceptable to all regulatory agencies
while continuing to seek funding
to support this challenging site.
The city has been spending significant resources
on the site over the years.
However, additional resources will be needed.
Just last year, the city spent approximately $1.5 million
on the upper disposal area,
and this year we will be spending approximately $6.5 million
on the seawall repair as well as revetment installation.
Regarding grants, we continue to look for opportunities
and apply as appropriate.
We did receive a small cow recycle grant
a couple of years ago,
And we have also partnered with one shoreline recently
to submit another grant application.
I will conclude by saying that we will continue to work
with your staff on addressing their comments
on the plan retreat management plan.
And I do want to thank you for the time.
And I am here to help answer any questions
that the commission may have for me.
So thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chu.
Are there any public comments on this informational item?
So we have no speakers for this item.
Great, okay, thank you.
Bringing it back to the commission
and just highlighting the request that staff made
to hold our questions around solutions
to the appropriate time.
Is there anyone who wishes to make a comment
or ask a question?
Commissioner Wilson?
Yeah, just kind of like when we were talking
about wastewater treatment systems back
when we're talking about the city of San Francisco.
Just, it was not unusual to place solid waste
at the edge of our oceans and bays.
It just was not unusual.
And I would imagine this may have even started out
as an unofficial place to dump debris
and then it became official at some point,
which has happened in a lot of places,
including Humboldt Bay, San Francisco Bay, LA,
a lot of landfills and a lot of even places
we're constructed on.
So I just, sometimes we look at this through a lens
of like, how could this possibly happen?
Well, it just happened in a time a long ago
and now we're dealing with it.
And so I don't want to put on the city staff
in this day and age as if they're responsible
or the past transgression of where we as humans put our waste,
and hopefully we'll be working with them as moving forward.
And as noted, it is right on the San Andreas Fault, which
I think is something to consider.
But again, it's good that we're talking about it,
And then I'm glad it's been brought up.
But also, I just want to make sure we're not condemning
anybody at this time.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Well said.
Commissioner Turnbull, Sanders.
Just one additional question.
Staff may have covered this, which
is looking at some of the photos online.
There are homes that are located nearby.
What's the status of those homes in terms of the stability
there?
Are they pre-coastal?
or are there any issues there with those as well?
There's definitely, as Mr. Honey indicated
in the presentation, there's still
a significant active landslide there.
A number of homes were removed,
and I would ask Mr. Honey the exact date,
probably 10, 15 years ago, because they were affected
by said landslide.
It's not clear at this point that any more
of those homes are gonna become in danger,
but again, I think it's the second largest
and coastal California and so there is that potential up and then their way up
on the hill as you probably saw in the in the photographs so yeah that there's
that danger too we're I mean obviously we're focused on the challenges
associated with the former landfill but that's gonna become you know part of the
issue at some point in the future as well so yeah. Commissioner Nada. As a child
growing up in on San Mateo County in the 50s and 60s I probably am responsible
for some of the waste that's now buried there so I would certainly hope that I
could be part of the solution going forward I did I was just checking is is
this in Senate District 11 is I believe Sande Daily City is in Senate District
So, you know, we have some folks that we could work with to try and identify resources.
Okay, thank you very much and thank you to our staff for bringing this forward and starting
continuing the conversation.
Thank you.
Now, brings us to our final item for today, which is the Deputy Director's Report for
the Central Coast District.
yes that's item number 17 and then the Central Coast DD's report this month
we're reporting four waivers one coastal permit amendment and one permit
extension I'd note that we did receive an objection to the Moss Landing harbor
districts proposed amendment to add a small area to their regular dredge
operations the objectors not objecting to adding the area per se so much as
objecting to any dredging at the harbor contending that the harbor sediments are
are simply too contaminated to remove including related to fallout from the
Vistra battery storage fire and related remediation work that was from earlier
this year. So staff has two things to note in response. First is that the
underlying coastal permit allows for dredging over a 65 acre area and that
authorization exists independent of the proposed amendment. So this proposed
amendment would add approximately 0.2 acres of allowable dredge area. In other
words the amendment it's only the 0.2 acre area that's before you today. But
second and probably more importantly to the comment the coastal permit already
counts for the potential that there might be contaminated sediments in any
particular proposed dredge area and it requires extensive pre-dread pre dredge
sampling and testing to determine the nature of the sediments. If they're found
to be contaminated meaning that the sediments do not meet clean water act
standards than the material cannot be dredged unless and until the permittee prepares a
plan for how they intend to conduct the dredging safely, and that plan requires the executive
director to review and approve it.
So put another way, if the materials aren't adequately clean and their removal could lead
to aquatic or other sorts of problems, the permit requires an executive director approved
plan to address those problems, and that plan must be able to be implemented in a way that
doesn't lead to safety problems of the sort alleged by the operator or excuse
me by the objector. This requirement was added with the concept of legacy
contamination in mind particularly as it relates to agriculturally related
contamination that's been known to be present in this harbor more broadly. Thus
we think the permit already accounts for the issues that are addressed and we
continue to recommend approval of the amendment. Past that we're not aware of
any objections or controversy regarding the other items and so the questions
whether three or more commissioners object and if not then the items in the
DDS report will be approved. Thank you. Are there any ex parte's to report? Okay
how about any speakers on any of these items? There are no speakers for this item.
Great, thank you. Do three or more commissioners object to any item in the
Deputy Director's report? Please, Commissioner Lopez. Just on the
moss-lining issue obviously being very intimately informed of what is
happening there at this time. I'm wondering the testing that's normally
done as was explained, does it include heavy metals? Again, we have not yet seen anything
above baseline levels, but just curious if that would be included in the testing that
is done as part of the process.
I would imagine, but I'd also ask, is Braylon Allman, who is our analyst on this, Braylon,
are you on the Zoom? He would have a better answer for you than I might.
Braylon is not on Zoom.
As a general rule, they're required to run through a whole series of testing,
that's basically EPA set up, EPA Army Corps Regional Board set of testing.
I would imagine it would address heavy metals, but I'm not positive right now.
So happy to take that answer offline if staff could follow up.
Yeah, definitely can follow up.
Thank you.
Great, thank you.
Do three or more commissioners object to any item in the Deputy Director's report?
Okay, seeing no objection, the commission concurs.
And now I think we'll be heading into closed session,
so let's just do five minutes and then be back here
so everyone can be part of it.
Thank you.