Good morning everyone.
Good morning.
Welcome to the Thursday session of the California Coastal
Commission.
May we begin with a roll call, please.
Commissioner O'Malley.
Present.
Commissioner Eckerly.
Here.
Commissioner Escalante.
Here.
Commissioner Hart.
Present.
Commissioner Jackson.
Here.
Commissioner Larson.
Here.
Commissioner Rodoni.
Present.
Commissioner Lopez.
Present.
Commissioner Loenberg.
Here.
Commissioner Notoff.
Here.
Commissioner Preciado.
Here.
Commissioner Williams.
Good morning.
Commissioner Wilson.
Present.
Chair Harmon.
Here.
You have a quorum.
Thank you very much.
OK, now we will move to the 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 internet access and which to watch
or listen to the meeting only and not speak on an item,
we recommend 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 webpage.
Paper forms and a scandable QR code
for paperless submittal are available
on the Commission's 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.
Request 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's
staff at five six two four seven seven nine zero eight nine. Again, that number is five
six two four seven seven nine zero eight nine. 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 yourself on the phone.
Madam chair that concludes the virtual hearing procedures. Thank you very much
Chris and now we will go to agenda changes. Thank you and good morning
chair Harmon, vice chair Hart and commissioners. I will now go over the
agenda changes today first item 11b the County of Los Angeles Santa Monica
Mountains LCP amendment for the disaster recovery ordinance is moved to consent
Item 13a, the MRCA,
Mountains Recreation and Conservation application is withdrawn.
Item 15a, the City of Manhattan Beach,
LCP Amendment Time Extension is moved to consent.
Item 16a, the CDP application for the Yoda family is moved to consent.
In addition, we do have two additional changes
since the agenda changes memo was prepared.
Item 5B, the Cala Markiarian CDP application is postponed.
And item 12A, the city of Santa Barbara CDP application
will be moved to consent.
That concludes the changes to today's agenda.
So that brings us back to item four,
general public comment.
And with that, I'll turn the mic back to you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much, Mr. Hudson.
Okay, before we begin public comment,
I just want to make a brief announcement.
We're going to be taking 30 minutes of general public comment
today, and we'll be trailing the remaining speakers
to the end of the day.
I'd ask those of you who are either online
or here for general public comment just to be aware,
we have a really long, big item coming up today.
So to the extent that you have availability tomorrow
to make your general public comment,
you might want to think about shifting your comments
to tomorrow, we think it's gonna be a pretty long day here.
With that said, we're very excited
to hear everyone's testimony.
And so, Chris, let's begin, thank you.
All right, 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 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'll be moved back to attendee mode.
For members of the public present in the room,
I'll call your names in the order
that they appear in our signup list.
When you hear your name,
please line up behind the podium
and introduce 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'll invite you
to unmute and turn around your camera. You can unmute yourself on a phone by dialing
star 6. So it looks like today we have a total of 25 people sign up for general public comment,
five in person
Which we'll start with
Julian Lake
Anthony Butler Torres and then Steve ray
If you've heard your name you can know personally
There you go. Good morning commissioners Anthony Butler Torres on behalf of the California Hispanic chambers of commerce
The CHCC represents over 135
Hispanic and diverse chambers of commerce and business associations
representing more than 1.8 million diverse small businesses in California
the CHEC supports PG&E's application for the relights and see yeah this is
general public general gotcha thank you so they're going through now I'm
actually seeing a lot of people signed up for general public comment that
indicate that they're talking about Diablo Canyon I'll go through that list
again and double check but Steve Ray go ahead okay good morning Madam Chair and
commissioners with your leave Madam Chair I will reserve my comments for
tomorrow I'm going to speak tomorrow on something I call it never ends which I
think is what Chris says every time he sees my name on the speaker list
certainly and mr. Ray on the behalf on behalf of the Commission we want to say
thank you for your service and advance to Veterans Day this Tuesday. Also I'm told
the anniversary of the Marines, which you were a proud member, you're grateful for
your service. Very much so. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Thank you. And then I believe we also had Jacob Evans here in person. Jacob Evans.
Good morning. I have a comment for Debra Canyon. Shall I say that for a different item? Okay. Thank
Okay, I believe that's all the people that we have in person.
Moving to Zoom speakers, we'll start with Donna Turner, followed by Vidya Shalk, Joseph
Mangano.
Donna Turner, give us a moment as we're being moved in.
Donna, when you're able to, please unmute and begin.
Good morning.
My name is Donna Turner, and I live in Oroyo Grande.
My home is approximately three miles
from the Oceano Dunes Recreation Area.
I am here today to talk about an issue
that is negatively affecting my quality of life.
Since January of 2025,
riding on the dunes has been allowed 24 hours a day
every day with no restrictions.
Prior to this change,
riding was allowed only until one hour after sunset.
I often hear the drone and revving of engines
all day long only to have the noise continue into the night. This means disrupted sleep,
stress, and diminished quality of life. The sound studies that California state parks
rely upon to determine what constitutes a noise violation does not capture what is actually
being heard from bedroom windows in my neighborhood. Wind, weather, and the way sound travels across
sand and open land all affect the level of sound I experience. The current methods used
in sound monitoring are flawed and simply do not reflect reality. If they did, I would
not be here today. While I understand and respect that off-road recreation is part of
California's beach culture, I would like to point out that no other recreational or transportation
activity operates 24 hours a day without limits. Every other California state park has quiet
hours, why not this one? I'm not asking to eliminate off-road riding, only that we bring
its hours into alignment with other recreational uses.
Our coastal management plan should serve everyone, not just those who ride on the dunes with
motorized vehicles.
A return to the rule that ends riding one hour after sunset would be a fair and balanced
remedy to this situation.
Thank you for considering a reasonable limit that supports both recreation and rest.
Thank you.
Next, Joseph Magnaano, for some moment as you're being moved in, and following Joe will
be Emma Heidose and then Alex Farron-Mignona, Holly Sherwin, Chely Hilkama.
Yes, good morning.
I'm an epidemiologist and director of the Radiation and Public Health Project.
We study health hazards from nuclear reactors and publish results in medical journals and
books.
Our group opposes the permits as they would lead to continued operation of the abel canyon.
Excuse me, this is an item on our agenda today.
Right now is a moment for general public comment for items not on our agenda.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I thought today was the abel canyon comments.
No, this is general public comment.
Please come back at that item, sir.
When will that be?
All right.
Great, I'm not seeing Emma Hadosie.
Oh, no, okay.
I see they're on.
She's on the next panelists.
And then Alex Farron-Magnona,
Holly Sherwin, Chely Hulkema.
Emma, please go ahead.
And this is a Surf Rider presentation.
So if we can have AGP bring up the presentation.
Good morning, Chair Herman, commissioners.
Emma Hadosie, Senior Manager
of the Coast and Climate Initiative
with Surf Rider Foundation.
Next slide.
Climate change is accelerating the loss of beaches
across the country and in California
at an alarming rate.
Next slide.
With upwards of 70% of California's coastline
at risk of being permanently lost by 2100.
Last month, the Surfrider Foundation released
our 2025 State of the Beach Report highlighting efforts
to preserve and restore beaches nationwide.
Next slide.
Beach erosion is an abnormal process
driven by coastal dynamics.
However, climate change is intensifying these processes
and exacerbating impacts along our shores.
Next slide.
Coastal communities have long relied
on costly approaches like hard infrastructure
and sand renourishment to protect beaches
and nearby development, which often diminish
or destroy the resources they aim to protect.
Surfighters novel approach to coastal resilience
is three-pronged and rooted in nature-based solutions
via our climate action program,
community-driven adaptation planning
and science-driven policy.
Next slide.
Just gonna show you that graphic a different way
and I'll ask you to advance the slide again.
The report highlights two case studies
along California's coastline,
the first at Surfer's Point in Ventura,
the leading global example
of nature-based community-driven coastal adaptation.
In the mid-1980s, a bike path and parking lot
were built on the shoreline
despite strong local opposition.
The city of Ventura then armored the beach,
which as would be expected, exacerbated erosion
and contributed to the loss of more than 60 feet
of shoreline in some areas.
When the Coastal Commission denied a permanent permit
the rock revetment, a decades long effort began to relocate the parking lot and bike path inland
and restore the shoreline. Next slide. This project is finally on the verge of completion with a ribbon
cutting at the restored site coming next month, adding decades of resilience to this treasured
shoreline and surf break. And with that, I will conclude and say next slide and next speaker
with Alex on deck. Yeah, thank you. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Perfect. Alex Vermeñana,
Surfighters Coastal Adaptation Manager here, as the report also highlights San Clemente and San
Inofre faced similar coastal challenges, yet their futures could diverge. Next slide. San Clemente's
beaches are a local treasure, regional economic engine, and an essential space for equitable
public access. But San Clemente is becoming a cautionary tale of how coastal squeeze
and climate-driven erosion can collide with poor planning and vulnerable development,
leaving a community at odds. Fighting against nature with continued
armoring threatens to erase beaches that once provided habitat,
recreation, and an important natural buffer for the rail line.
Surf Rider believes we can do better than short-term and damaging riprap
band-aids instead envisioning long-term nature-based
coastal planning that protects beach access
and resilience. Next slide. Just down the coast at San Onofre State Beach,
storms and tides have repeatedly damaged the only access road
leading to months-long closures at the fifth most visited state beach and the enduring loss
of nearly half its parking. An emergency revetment installed in 2017 is also accelerating erosion
on its flanks. Next slide. To address this, SurfRider is driving the San Onofre Shoreline
Resilience Project, working alongside this amazing community of stakeholders and the entire community
at large to plan long-term for a future that holds space for healthy beaches and people.
California has long recognized the realities of our changing coast and the Coastal Act remains
one of our strongest tools to protect the public trust. But the Coastal Act alone won't save our
beaches unless we enforce it. Next slide. With every decision you make, you help determine who
will have access to the coast in the future. So Surfrider thanks you commissioners and staff for
your stewardship of California's greatest public trust resource and we urge all of you to consider
nature as a great partner in coastal protection and resilience and to take a
read through the 2025 State of the Beach report. Thank you so much.
Thank you. Next Holly Sherwin and Chaylee Hilkoma. Holly. Good. Go ahead. Okay good
morning commissioners and thank you for this opportunity for public comment to
express my concerns about the development being proposed for 501
Sandpoint Road and that's the last parcel of land adjacent to the inlet of
the Carpentaria Salt Marsh. My name is Holly Sherwin. I'm an environmental
educator and also a member of Friends of the Carpentaria Salt Marsh. I have been a
resident of Santa Barbara for over 20 years and have a great fortune of
spending time visiting and exploring this public and protected natural area.
Carpentaria Salt Marsh is one of the most important treasures of the Carpentaria
Valley and to the citizens of Carpentaria. And this is why it troubles me deeply that we've
spent so much time and money on this environmentally destructive proposal to build a
prominent elevated single-family residential home with construction requiring 28 caissons and 107
subsurface piers all on a spit of land that is already being impacted by king tides and more
frequent violent storms? It simply makes no sense. These coastal creeks are ephemeral bodies of water
constantly shifting and constantly changing. Carpentaria salt marsh is a public treasure
enjoyed by bird watchers, beach walkers, and researchers. In California we've already lost
90% of our historic wetlands. When is enough enough? When will we understand how important it
to protect diversity of species, water quality, habitat for fisheries, open space for scenic and
cultural values and vanishing habitats. This proposed residential home has no place bordering
our wetland preserve. Please continue to be the voices of reason and the protectors of our
dwindling natural resources that you are appointed to be. I strongly urge you to explore alternatives
to this project, to require adequate environmental review, and act on the clear mandates of the
the California Coastal Act.
Thanks for all you do on behalf of this amazing coastline,
its people, and wildlife.
Soon.
Thank you.
Chaylee Hilkama?
Good morning, Madam Chair and commissioners.
My name is Chaylee Hilkama.
I'm a Newport Harbor mooring permit holder.
The city of Newport Beach has regulated discrimination
against mooring permit holders.
It hasn't managed the public tight lands fairly,
and its relentless focus on changing policy
makes us feel like unwelcome second class voters.
The city wants to end mooring transferability again and it has approved a 3 to 500 percent mooring permit fee increase,
even though our harbor code states that development shall protect moorings as an important source of low-cost public access to the harbor.
Historically, the city's policies have financially burdened mooring permit holders compared to those with residential peer permits.
by paying less for their docks
and nothing for the votes tied
to them.
Plus, they've been gifted the
right to rent their dock space
for private gain.
Contrary to its duty under the
public trust doctrine, the city
has failed to collect fair
market rents from those with
residential peer permits and
its biased policies has cost
the state millions.
We all store our votes on the
same public waterway.
But the city doesn't
comprehensively review rates
the city's budget. The city is
of the city of Newport Beach.
We hope this commission will do
what it can to stop this blatant
gentrification maneuver by the
city of Newport Beach. Please
choose to protect and promote
low cost public access to
Newport Harbor. And again, thank
you so much for all you do to
protect our coast and the people
who use it. We appreciate it.
being moved in as a panelist.
Adam, go ahead.
Good morning, Chair Harmon, members of the Planning Commission.
My name is Adam Finestone.
I'm the Planning Manager with the City of Manhattan Beach.
I understand that the item that we had before you
this morning has been moved to the consent calendar.
However, I just wanted to take a quick moment
to first thank Coastal staff for their hard work
and assistance in helping the City of Manhattan Beach
get these coast, these amendments through.
Yes. This item is on consent, so you can come back at that time to make your comment. Thank you.
Can I make a comment during the consent calendar? Yes, sir. You can.
Oh, very good then. I will wait till then. My apologies.
All right, thank you. There were a number of people that were signed up to speak on Diablo Canyon.
I'm going to call out names I believe we weren't able to find that are not talking about Diablo.
If you hear your name please raise your hand. Vidya Shok, Michael Clayton, Brenda Carol Montoya,
Andy Patrick, Benouche Salim, Lori Lara, Adriana Perez, Ron Rodarte, Danielle Marie Becker.
If you've heard your name please raise your hand in the Zoom meeting.
All right I'm seeing no hands raised. That concludes general public comment.
Great. Thank you very much. And thank you to the public for your testimony and for your understanding as we try to move through this quickly.
I will ask briefly, are there any members of the commission who wish to ask questions or respond?
Thank you very much. Seeing none, let's move to the consent calendar.
Oh, excuse me, Commissioner Escalante. Apologies. I knew that I had a question and then I forgot what it was.
But the writing in the middle of the night on Oceano, I know that one of the conditions
to our previous I don't know what it was that so many things were done on that issue but it seems
to me that that's violating something. So our understanding is that State Parks is aware of
the comments today I think there was letters submitted and they've issued a response on that
but just to say we are in active discussions with State Parks about this and other issues right now
So nothing to report on that, but our understanding of state parks has responded to this comment
already. Much appreciated. I think it is very concerning and I think we're just still having
to deal with with that torture in the middle of the night. So thank you. Thank you very much.
Okay with that we'll now move to the consent calendar please. Thank you. And the next item
is item five. It is the consent calendar for all districts on the agenda today. There are two items
on the consent calendar. Staff is not aware of any opposition to these matters
and both applicants are in agreement with the staff recommendation and thus
we're recommending that the Commission vote and approve the consent calendar.
Thank you. Are there any ex parte? None. Are there any members of the public who
wish to speak on these items? Not for these items, no. Thank you, Chris. Does
anyone wish to remove an item? All right, then I'll accept the motion. Move consent.
That motion by Commissioner Wilson, a second by Commissioner Nada.
May we have a roll call vote, please.
Commissioner O'Mellie.
Yes.
O'Mellie, yes.
Commissioner Escalante.
Yes.
Escalante, yes.
Commissioner Hart.
Yes.
Hart, yes.
Commissioner Jackson.
Aye.
Jackson, yes.
Commissioner Redoni.
Yes.
Redoni, yes.
Commissioner Lopez.
Yes.
Lopez, yes.
Commissioner Lowenberg.
Yes.
Yes, Commissioner Notoff?
Aye.
Notoff, yes.
Commissioner Presiado?
Yes.
Presiado, yes.
Commissioner Wilson?
Yes.
Wilson, yes.
Chair Harmon?
Yes.
Harmon, yes.
The vote is unanimous.
Thank you.
The consent calendar is adopted.
Now we will move to those items that
have been removed from the regular calendar to get that.
Thank you.
And that brings us to item six.
It is the applications to be moved from regular
to the consent calendar for all districts on the agenda today.
First, I have a correction to the agenda changes
that I mentioned this morning and to the agenda changes memo
to note that item 16A, that's the CDP application
for the Yoda family, should be correctly noted as postponed,
not moved to consent.
So we will be bringing that item back
for commission action at a future meeting.
Now, there are three items that staff recommends
be moved to the consent calendar today
and those are item 11B, that's the County of Los Angeles,
Santa Monica Mountains LCP amendment for the disaster recovery ordinance item
12a the city of Santa Barbara CDP application and item 15 a that's the
city of Manhattan Beach LCP amendment time extension now I do have some
comments on these items I would note that although staff is recommending item
12a that's the CDP application for the city of Santa Barbara to be moved to
consent. That application is for the follow up authorization for a 360 foot long temporary
rock revetment that was built pursuant to an emergency permit and that was necessary
to protect a portion of the city's harbor that was in danger from shoreline erosion.
Now this item did involve some significant shoreline development issues and our staff
worked with the city to address those by taking a phased approach to sea level rise adaptation
planning through the inclusion of a condition that limits the authorization of the revetment
to no more than 10 years and were to a 10-year period and allows the city to
complete a comprehensive study focused on long-term adaptation measures to sea
level rise for its entire waterfront area and so that was necessary for the
city to be able to do that sort of comprehensive planning to come up with a
long-term solution for this site as well. I would also like to note that although
item 11b that's the Santa Monica Mountains LCP amendment by LA County is
being processed as a minor amendment and being moved to consent. This was also a
very important LCP amendment and your staff worked very closely with the
county to modify existing regulations permit procedures to facilitate and
help streamline the process for rebuilding structures that were damaged
or destroyed by natural disasters by providing some additional waiver
processes for development that do not already qualify for a waiver under the
governor's recent executive orders and that includes temporary residential and
office trailers. Now, I would emphasize that the county's proposed changes to its LCP would not
in any way supersede or modify any of the provisions of the governor's recent executive orders
that exempt certain types of disaster rebuild projects from our coastal permit requirements
and that this amendment will help the county more efficiently respond to the recent palisades fire
rebuilding effort as well as future disaster response efforts while still ensuring coastal
to resource protection.
I would just like to thank the county
for working closely with our staff
to make the necessary revisions
to the original draft language
to make this a better amendment
and ensure a successful outcome.
And finally, in regard to the time extension
for the city of Mad Hatton Beach LCP amendment,
which we heard there is a speaker from the city for today,
I would note that it adds new regulations for ADUs,
multifamily housing, density bonus incentives,
lot consolidation incentives,
an allowance for residential uses in commercial areas,
and that the city has submitted a letter which
has been posted to our website as correspondence for this item.
And the city is requesting that the time for action
for this amendment be extended for only 90 to 120 days.
Now, the Coastal Act provides for the commission
to extend the time limit for action on an LCP amendment
for up to one year.
And we are requesting, your staff
is requesting an extension to the 60-day time limit
to act on this LCP amendment to allow
for necessary coordination between our staff,
the local government, and the state's housing department
of community and development or HCD to occur.
Now, I do recognize the importance and urgency
of addressing our state's housing crisis.
And given that this amendment relates to housing issues,
our staff is committed to working with the city and HCD
to bring this item back for hearing as quickly as possible
and in compliance with all of HCD's requirements.
And we intend to do so, and we hope to do so,
and intend to do so by no later than this spring.
However, our regulation limits the commission's ability
to grant a time extension to only one time.
So we only have one opportunity to grant this extension,
and that's for up to one year.
So thus, although our staff intends
to bring this matter to hearing in just a matter of months,
our staff continues to recommend that you approve this extension
today for the standard one-year time limit and that's to allow for any
unforeseen issues that are may arise in order for those in order for those to
be adequately addressed and especially given that this particular amendment is
especially complex it has five different sections and we want to ensure that
we're able to protect close to resources while still meeting the city's needs in
working with HCD. So in closing I'll just note that we're not aware of any
opposition to any of the other items being moved to consent and we're
recommending that the Commission vote and approve this item I am available for
questions. Great thank you very much Mr. Hudson. Does any commissioner have any
ex parte for any items on consent? I have one I'm just trying to remember the
number of the city of Santa Barbara item and just the Waterfront Director emails
and asked me if I had any questions and what I'd like to discuss. I did not respond to the email
and I didn't have any questions. Thank you. With that, are there any members of the public who
would like to speak? Yes, we have Adam Finestone again who we just had earlier. And Adam is speaking
on item 15a, move to consent. Great, good morning. Again, thank you for your time. My name is Adam
Finestone. I'm the planning manager with the city of Manhattan Beach. Thank you for this opportunity
to speak and I also wanted to extend my thanks to commission staff for their guidance and assistance.
As summarized in the staff report the city's requested LCP amendment would amend the
implementation plan to make changes necessary to implement various programs in the city's six
cycle housing element. Implementation of these programs is essential in facilitating new
residential development in the coastal zone through amendments to various entitlement
procedures and development standards including those which would allow for mixed use development
in the coastal zone. City staff acknowledges that the scale and scope of the proposed amendments
are significant and that the decision by the commission within the statutorily mandated 60
day time frame is challenging and that an extension is justified. That said, city staff
respectfully requests an extension of less than one year. We would love to see an extension
somewhere in the 90 to 120 day range, which is fairly consistent with the request or the
information stated just previously that the commission staff is committed to doing what
they can to bring this forward to the commission for consideration in the spring of 2026. We greatly
appreciate that. Staff really also wants to reiterate our appreciation for Coastal Program
Manager Spencer, District Supervisor Ravel, and Staff Analyst Tate Pulliam for their assistance
as we've gone through this process. And with that, I am available should the commission have
any questions for city staff. Thank you. Thank you. And then for item 12a we have two people on zoom
available for questions. There are no other speakers. Great. Thank you very much. And thank
you Mr. Finestone for coming back. Does anyone wish to remove an item from consent calendar?
Okay, I'll entertain questions, comments, or a motion. Commissioner Nada. I'm prepared to move,
but I did want to just thank the commission and also the County of LA for working with us on the
disaster streamlining and I think that there's this emblematic of the work that the commission
does up and down the coast to deal with natural disaster things as expeditiously as possible. So
with that I would move approval of item 6 consent calendar removed from the regular calendar.
Second. Thank you. That's a motion from Commissioner Nottoff, a second by Commissioner Löwenberg.
May we have a roll call vote please Ms. Miller. Commissioner Escalante? Yes. Escalante yes.
Commissioner Hart? Yes. Hart yes. Commissioner Jackson? Aye. Jackson yes. Commissioner Rodoni?
Yes. Rodoni yes. Commissioner Lopez? Yes. Lopez yes. Commissioner Löwenberg? Yes.
Loenberg, yes, Commissioner Nadoff.
I.
Nadoff, yes, Commissioner Presiado.
I.
Presiado, yes, Commissioner Wilson.
Yes.
Wilson, yes, Commissioner O'Malley.
Yes.
O'Malley, yes, Chair Harmon.
Yeah.
Harmon, yes, the vote is unanimous.
Thank you. The consent calendar is adopted.
Okay, now we will move on to Item 7, which is the Deputy Director's Report
for Energy, Ocean Resources, and Federal Consistency.
Mr. Teuchel.
Thank you, and good morning Chair Harmon, Vice Chair Hart, and Commissioners.
As you said, that brings us to Item 7 and the Deputy Director Report for Energy, Ocean Resources,
and Federal Consistency Division. We have four negative determinations to report and I believe
there are two speakers signed up for this item today. Great, thank you. Any ex parte? Seeing none,
I'll turn it over to Chris for the public speakers, please. Yes, we have two people,
Leslie Purcell and then Nancy Okada. Leslie Purcell, give it a moment as you're moving in.
Thank you.
Good morning, mission and I am speaking about the last item on this report regarding the negative determination for emergency and exploded ordinance removal at Point Mugu state beat, and I was actually shocked when I read this.
beach in Ventura. I don't go there often but I had not heard of this. The public is not aware
that since October 2021 nine pieces of derelict military munitions have been discovered and
several with potentially live fuse mechanisms have been destroyed in place by the navy. So
It's peculiar to me that this has been since October 2021, they're asking now for an emergency
declaration for removing and surveying the beach for more, which is wonderful, we need it
taken care of, but it's been four years so it's a little bit peculiar. And also it says that it's
supposed to begin on September 29th and take three to four weeks possibly longer. So my question was
has this been done already since we're in November? And I know the government is the federal
government is supposedly shut down but this is also a state beach so state parks should be involved
And I'm just wondering if we could have any update on that.
And I know that there's also a wetland marsh
that's adjacent to this beach with a lot of shorebirds.
And that that needs to be considered
if ordinance is found and exploded.
So I'm also questioning whether there should
be more notification to the public.
And thank you very much for bringing this story, Kensohn.
Thank you. Next, Nancy Okada.
Nancy, you should be able to unmute.
Hi. Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
OK, wonderful. Thank you.
Good morning, commissioners.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the same item,
which also kind of surprised me.
I figured it was just kind of a cleanup operation,
But in reading this letter that was then sent nearly 10 days after your staff received the
email and commenting that it's an emergency situation when they discovered these things
in October 2021.
And these are Vietnam era military training items, 3.5 inch super bazooka rockets that
are buried in the ground.
I just wonder in terms of the Navy cleaning up military items, what is their process and
how can you get better involved to make sure that these things are not anywhere near the
public.
It says that it is highly likely that additional ordinance from Vietnam era military training
activities remain within the beach and or near shore areas and that there is an imminent
and substantial risk of public health welfare in the environment that needs to be addressed,
including direct contact risk and the potential for contamination release and UXL exposure
due to tidal and wave action.
I mean, this is a situation where you shouldn't have waited how many years since October 2021.
I mean, I actually saw that film about dumping the DDT into the ocean, and that was done
a long time ago, but we have a lot of stuff that's remaining in our beaches that is dangerous,
and it's good that you're there to be able to let the public know and to monitor and
to keep rains on the Navy.
So thank you so much, and please, any additional information would be much appreciated.
Thank you. Thank you. No more speakers. Great. Thank you very much. Do three or more commissioners
object to any item in the deputy director's report? Okay. Seeing no objections, the commission
concurs. Thank you. And now we will move on, Mr. Toyful. Thank you. Thank you. That brings
us to items 8A 9A. These items are for a consistency certification and a CDP application by Pacific
gas and electric for extended operation of Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant.
Because the project requires federal authorization and involves development activities within
the coastal zone, it's subject to both the Commission's federal consistency authority
as well as coastal act reviews.
Staff is recommending approval of the CDP with conditions and conditional concurrence
with a consistency certification.
Our staff presentation today will provide some relevant background and context for this
project and go over the key issues staff focused on during its review. I'm joined
today by several colleagues and members of my team that contribute to this
review. Senior environmental scientists Tom Lester and Wesley Horn, senior
attorney Sarah Smiley, supervising ecologist Lauren Garsky Garcia, and our
engineering geologist Phillip Johnson. We'll be combining to provide this
presentation. I believe we have a presentation if our staff can put that
up and with that Mr. Horn please continue. Thank you Cassidy. The Diablo
Canyon power plant is located in San Luis Obispo County with the town of Los
Osos and Montana to Oro State Park to the north and Avila Beach and Port San
Luis to the south. Next slide please. The power plant is located within more than
12,000 acres of land owned or controlled by PG&E and its subsidiary
Eureka Energy Company. Included within this area is a 600 acre parcel P on which
the plant and the nuclear waste storage installation are located, the 4,600
acre North Ranch property owned by PG&E, and the 5,000 acre South Ranch and
2,400 acre Wild Cherry Canyon properties owned by Eureka. The cultural zone is
identified by a blue line on this slide. Next slide please. This photo depicts the
layout of the plant including its unit 1 and 2 reactors. PG&E proposes to extend operations
of these reactors up to 20 years. This would involve the withdrawal of roughly 2.5 billion
gallons per day of seawater for the plant's cooling system and associated discharges
into the ocean as well as continuation of a security zone around the plant that limits
access to the adjacent coastline and ocean, replacement of a dock within the plant's intake
cove, repair of the cove's breakwater, and a range of maintenance activities.
Next slide, please.
Good morning.
I'd like to begin by acknowledging that because the proposed project involves a nuclear power
plant under the oversight of the Federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission or NRC for short, some
aspects of the commission's authority are limited.
The NRC has exclusive jurisdiction over radiological safety aspects of the plant and the adjacent
independent spent fuel storage installation.
Under federal law, the state is preempted
from imposing upon operators of nuclear facilities
any state regulatory requirements
concerning radiation hazards and nuclear safety.
The commission may only analyze conformity of the project
with the applicable policies of the Coastal Act
and cannot evaluate or consider nuclear safety
or radiological issues.
Commission staff received several public comments
related to issues preempted by federal jurisdiction
And the staff was not able to address them
as part of our review.
However, some of the issues of concern overlap
with areas that the commission is able to evaluate.
For example, analysis of plant structures
and operation with respect to potential seismic hazards,
which will be discussed later in this presentation
by engineering geologist, Phillip Johnson.
Next slide, please.
This slide provides key milestones for Diablo Canyon.
Its two reactors came online in the mid 1980s
were licensed by NRC to operate until 2024 and 2025. Construction of the plant began prior to
enactment of the Coastal Act and thus PG&E applied for and received a vested rights determination
from the Commission for it rather than a permit. The Commission has, however, issued several CDPs
over the years for various projects at the power plant site. Because the onshore area is covered
by Standless Abispo County Certified LCP, most of these permits were initially considered by the
the county and came to the commission on appeal. Several of these projects
resulted in notable conservation and public access benefits including the
Petro Coast Trail, Point Bouchon Trail, and a 1,200 acre conservation deed
restriction around the Point San Luis area of the South Ranch property owned
by Eureka. While it had previously begun to seek license extensions from the NRC
to operate beyond the expiration dates of its original 40-year licenses, in 2016
PGNE announced a proposal to instead decommission the plant as part of a
settlement agreement with labor and environmental organizations. In 2018 the
California Public Utilities Commission approved PGNE's application to close
the plant and PGNE then withdrew its license renewal application to the NRC.
In 2021 PGNE filed a permit application with San Luis Obispo County for the
decommissioning of the plant. One year later however Senate Senate Bill 846 was
enacted to extend power plant operations for up to five additional years subject to various
conditions and agency approvals. SB 846 also provided PG&E with a $1.4 billion loan to
support the extended operations of the plant. PG&E then resubmitted its license renewal
application to the federal NRC requesting a 20-year operating license. The California
Public Utilities Commission, however, only approved extended operations for five years
consistent with SB 846.
Thus, any operations beyond those five years
would require additional authorization from the CPUC.
NRC's review of PG&E's application is ongoing,
but cannot be completed until both the Commission
and Regional Water Quality Control Board
provide authorizations.
Next slide, please.
As noted earlier, the plant uses up to about 2.5 billion
gallons of seawater per day,
which is almost a cubic mile each year.
This represents the single most significant coastal resource
impact of the proposed project and one
that will require substantial mitigation, which
we'll describe shortly.
This slide shows a close-up of the seawater intake structure
and a diagram with the flow of seawater shown with red arrows
as it passes through the intake screens
and continues into the plant.
Along with drawing in seawater, this cooling system
pulls in billions of the small marine organisms
that make up the base of the ocean's food web.
This results in essentially 100% mortality to these organisms
as they are pulled along with the water
and killed due to changes in pressure,
temperature, and other stressors.
This loss of marine life productivity is significant,
equal to that produced in about 14 square miles
of nearby ocean waters each year.
To calculate this impact and to identify the type
and number of organisms lost to entrainment,
state agencies have long relied on two main methods,
the empirical transport model, or ETM, in the area of production foregone or APF.
Next slide, please.
ETM calculations are used to identify the proportion of organisms within nearby ocean
waters that are pulled into the intake.
The extent of ocean waters included in the calculations is known as the source water
body and is based on the area from which affected organisms, specifically fish larva and the
the planktonic forms of several species are subject to being entrained before they grow
to a stage where they can resist the pull of the intake. Each species has a different
source water body based on its growth rate and on characteristics of the area such as
water depth, current speeds, and habitat types. At Diablo Canyon, the source water bodies
range from a few miles to up to 75 miles from the intake. In these studies, it's not possible
to calculate the effects to the dozens or hundreds of species that are untrained, so
we instead use several species as surrogates. These surrogate species usually include up
to about a dozen of the most prevalent species sampled, species of commercial or recreational
interest, and those with known ecological importance or that are associated with a particularly
important habitat. Most intakes pull in a relatively small percentage of all the organisms
in a source water body that have the potential to be entrained.
The ETM calculation provides this percentage, and when multiplied by the area of the source
water body, it provides what's called an area of production for GON, or APF, for each of
the surrogate species.
The APF is the key metric for determining the scale of the project's impacts.
It provides a common currency that represents the number of acres within a source water
body that would be needed to replace productivity loss due to entrainment of those species each
year. Although the percentage of organisms lost is often very small, those small values
when multiplied by a large source water body can result in a large APF and represent a
substantial loss of marine life. Importantly, the APF does not represent a loss of habitat
other than seawater, it represents the loss of productivity from a certain area of habitat.
We can then combine the APFs for individual surrogate species to get an overall average
APF that represents an overall loss of productivity. This overall APF will vary based on the number
of species included and the level of statistical confidence used. The current best available
science approach used by California resources agency is to calculate APFs based on a 95 percent
statistical confidence level which results in a higher acreage but also provides much
greater assurance that we are adequately characterizing the impact and the amount of needed mitigation.
Although the entrainment studies done at Diablo Canyon are now about 20 or more years old,
we are still able to use the data from those studies and apply the updated calculation
methods to them. For this project, commission staff used the current version of these methods
and identified an area production foregone of 9,360 acres, which represents an annual
loss of productivity from about 14 square miles of nearby ocean water habitats. Commission
staff shared these methods and results with technical experts in the field who confirmed
that this APF was reasonable.
Next slide, please.
The APF is focused on where the entrained organisms originate.
A related way of assessing the entrainment impact
is to look where those organisms but four being entrained
would continue to drift with the currents
and either remain a part of the food web
or settle into habitats and grow to their adult stages.
This slide shows the extent of that area for Diablo Canyon,
about 120 miles between Big Sur and Point Conception.
From either of these perspectives,
the stretch of coastline or the 14 square mile APF,
this represents a significant loss of marine productivity
and demonstrates why California has implemented policies
over the past 15 years to transition away
from the use of open intakes
and once through cooling systems that rely on seawater.
While the few such power plants remaining in operation
are scheduled to close or transition to different systems
the next few years it's not feasible for Diablo to use a different cooling method to avoid or
reduce this impact. This means while the plant remains in operation its impacts on marine life
cannot be avoided and instead must be mitigated. Next slide please. Most mitigation for entrainment
projects in California has involved marine or estuarine habitat creation or restoration.
However those projects and associated impacts have been much smaller than what we're seeing here.
In-kind mitigation through the replacement of marine habitat has never been attempted for marine life impacts at the scale of Diablo Canyon's operation.
For example, there are no known locations or opportunities available for creating the hundreds of acres of wetlands and artificial reefs that would be needed.
Further, even if available, these types of projects would require years of planning, design, permitting, and monitoring before we'd know if they'd succeed.
As such, Commissioned Staff's evaluation has shown that these mitigation methods are
unavailable or impractical to use for this project.
This fact, along with the consistent, widely held, and decades-long objective of conserving
the Diablo Canyon lands, as most recently reflected in SB 846 and the associated 2023
report by the Natural Resources Agency, led us to consider that as the main aspect of
the project's mitigation approach.
Specifically, staff evaluated the use of conservation easements over Diablo Canyon lands as mitigation
for the plant's effects on marine life.
Conservation easements are a way of protecting existing habitats and thus providing mitigation
through preservation, rather than by creating new or restored habitats.
Staff's analysis found that given the unique location and character of the Diablo Canyon
lands, conservation easements over them could indeed offset the plant's adverse impacts
on marine life and productivity.
Protecting the land would maintain connectivity
between the coast and adjacent intertidal and near-shore
habitats.
It would allow for the continued exchange
of energy and nutrients, limit land development
effects on the marine environment,
such as harmful stormwater, pollution, and sediment runoff,
and support wildlife uses such as seabird nesting and roosting,
marine mammal haul-outs, and migration corridors
across the coastal landscape.
On this slide, you can see a view of the Diablo Canyon lands
and the location of nearby marine conservation areas,
including reserves and national marine sanctuaries.
Conservation easements cited here
would enhance the state and federal marine protected areas
located directly offshore and boost the resilience
of the marine environment by increasing its ability
to withstand a broad set of stressors associated
with climate change and sea level rise, among other things.
Thus, staff recognizes that in this case,
land conservation represents a feasible, meaningful,
and holistic approach to compensatory mitigation
for marine resource impacts while also
affording ecological and public benefits on the adjoining lands.
Next slide, please.
Following this approach, PG&E developed and proposed
a mitigation package focused on protection
of the Diablo Canyon lands.
The approach also includes public ask us elements
to help achieve the long-held objective, that long-held
objective, and address the loss of coastal access
associated with the continuance of the plant's security zone.
PG&E proposed its mitigation in two phases based
on the duration of plant operations.
Phase one would be for operations up to November of 2030
and would include first establishment
of a conservation easement across approximately 1,100 acres
of North Ranch, North Ranch lands owned by PG&E,
as well as the pursuit of transfer of these lands
to a public agency, such as state parks.
Second, establishment of a right of first refusal
for government or nonprofit land conservation organizations,
including those of California Native American tribes,
to purchase the lands within the approximately 5,000-acre South
Ranch, owned by PG&E subsidiary.
Third, an offer to dedicate an easement
for approximately 10 miles of new public access
trails across the property.
And four, an offer of $5.6 million
to accompany the trail easement for use
in planning, constructing, maintaining, and managing
the public access trails.
Phase two of the proposed mitigation
would be triggered by operation of the plant
beyond five years,
and includes an additional conservation easement,
an effort to transfer approximately 2,200 more acres
of North Ranch lands,
as well as an additional 15 miles of trails,
including an extension of the California Coastal Trail
across the property connecting
Montano de Oro State Park with Port San Luis.
Given that this mitigation takes the form of preservation
rather than habitat creation or restoration,
staff determine a ratio of 10 to one would be appropriate,
that is 10 acres of preservation for each acre of impact,
although other values could have been used.
Next slide please.
Applying this ratio to PG&E's
proposed two-phase mitigation approach,
and depending on how many years
the plant continues to operate,
the 14 square miles of annual marine life productivity losses
would be mitigated within roughly 71 to 209 years,
as shown on this table.
Although this is a significant period of time,
it should be noted that this justifies the proposed permanent
rather than temporary conservation approach,
included in PG&E's mitigation proposal.
However, this long duration and the proposed ongoing use
of the plant seawater-based cooling system
does not allow it to maintain biological resources,
sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters,
or minimize the adverse effects of entrainment,
as is required by Coastal Act sections 30230 and 31.
As we'll discuss in a moment,
this triggered consideration of the project
under the Coastal Act's override policy.
Next slide, please.
We want to acknowledge that the Diablo Canyon area
is the ancestral home of the Chumash people,
one of the most populous
and socially complex indigenous groups in California,
with the territory stretching across
much of the central coast.
Encroachment and colonization
by those of primarily European ancestry
devastated these people and forever disrupted
their way of life.
Evidence of the Chumash presence on the Diablo Canyon lands
includes written in oral history,
including from tribal members consulted
as part of the current regulatory process.
In addition, the lands are known to include
a number of sites of former villages,
including within the area of Parcel P
and areas of South Ranch.
While the proposed extended operations at the plant
would continue to use existing facilities
and would not include activities
involving ground disturbance or excavation,
thus avoiding potential damage or disturbance of culturally significant sites, the importance
of the lands to California Native American tribes guided and motivated outreach, engagement,
and consultation efforts throughout the regulatory process.
Those efforts included tribal consultation by the NRC and Natural Resources Agency as
well as by commission staff.
In implementing the commission's tribal consultation policy, commission staff received from the
Native American Heritage Commission, or NAHC, a list of eight tribes it had identified as
traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area. Commission staff sent consultation
letters to these tribes in January of 2024, May of 2025, and October of 2025. Of the tribes
contacted, only the Yak-Tichu-Tichu Yak-Tahini tribe, also referred to as the YTT, responded
with a request for consultation.
Commission staff held consultation meetings with the YTT on January 9th and November 3rd.
Those consultations covered a range of topics, including the YTT's position regarding its
connection to the project area and that it is the only tribe with documented ancestral
connections to the Diablo Canyon lands.
While Commission staff understand and respect the YTT's position, it is also dedicated to
implementing the Commission's adopted tribal consultation policy and to carry out meaningful
engagement and consultation with all tribes identified by the NAHC.
The Coastal Act states that where development would adversely impact cultural resources,
reasonable mitigation measures shall be required.
Although the extended operation of the plant does not include any development that would
adversely impact cultural resources, the conservation easement and right of first refusal proposed
by PG&E would have the added benefit of prohibiting development on Diablo Canyon lands that could
adversely affect tribal cultural resources.
The recommended special conditions developed to implement these mitigation proposals also
include for tribal access to the Diablo Canyon lands, including ceremonial uses and practices
to help ensure that such uses can occur on areas from which the tribes may have been
excluded in the past.
In addition, several of the tribes included on the NHC list for the project area have
publicly identified interest in obtaining lands within the areas of ancestral territory
or historical interest.
Pursuits can be considered tribal land return and these efforts have been acknowledged during
planning efforts for the Diablo Canyon lands. PG&E's proposal and the associated special
conditions recommended by commission staff would not preclude a tribal land return outcome.
Next slide please. The Diablo Canyon site is subject to several geologic hazards that
have the potential to affect the safety and reliability of the power plant.
These include strong seismic shaking, tsunami, landslides, and fault rupture hazard. Strong
Long seismic shaking is by far the most significant of these geologic hazards because it has the
greatest potential to damage critical structures.
Commissioned staff focused heavily on seismic ground shaking and carefully reviewed PG&E's
approach to this hazard.
As the Coastal Commission geologist, I also serve as a member of the Diablo Canyon Independent
Peer Review Panel, which is abbreviated IPRP.
This panel consists of experts from several state agencies, including the Coastal Commission,
the California Geological Survey,
the IP and the California Geological Survey,
the IPRP reviewed PG&E seismic hazard assessment
for Diablo Canyon and the results of that review
are summarized in the staff report.
We recognize that PG&E has recently completed
2024 seismic hazard assessment,
determined that the power plant is safe
to continue operation for the real licensing period.
However, we found that additional investigation
of nearby faults, including the offshore Hosiery Fault
and incremental improvements
to the seismic hazard assessment are warranted
if operations are to continue beyond 2030.
Specifically, as a commission geologist,
I recommend that the fault slip rates
used for PG&E seismic hazard assessments
rely primarily on the highest quality data,
rather than the current approach
of considering a mix of high and low quality data
for the House to be fault slip rate.
This recommendation aligns with that made by the IPRP
and should lead to an improvement of slip rate estimates.
This recommendation is reflected in special condition seven, which requires PG&E to include
a hazard assessment that relies only on high-quality slip rate data within any CDP amendment
application for operations beyond 2030.
Special condition seven also requires additional information regarding the geometry of nearby
faults.
As shown on this slide, Diablo Canyon is located on the southwest side of the Irish Hills.
The faults located at the northeast and southwest flanks of the Irish Hills are important seismic
sources due to their proximity to Diablo Canyon. The Los Osos Fault forms the northeast boundary
of the Irish Hills, and the set of faults known as the Southwest Boundary Zone Fault
separate the Irish Hills from the San Maria Valley to the south. The fault geometry and
slip rate for the Los Osos and Southwest Boundary Faults remain uncertain. In a report in 2015,
PG&E identified three possible fault geometries, all of which
involve a major component of vertical slip. Using this assumption, PG&E estimated that the slip
rates on these faults are reasonably well captured by the uplift rate for the marine terraces in the
Irish hills. If that is correct, the slip rate for the Los Osos and southwest boundary zone faults
should be relatively low in keeping with the low uplift rate for the Irish hills. However,
initial research by the US Geological Survey indicates that the offshore Los Osos fault may
be a strike-slip fault which moves laterally with relatively little vertical slip. If this
is the case, the slip rate may be significantly greater than PG&E had assumed based on the
uplift rate. Additional investigation to evaluate the geometry of the Los Osos and Southwest
Boundary Zone faults is needed to better determine appropriate slip rates for these faults and
the associated seismic hazard. PG&E recently started some of those investigations in partnership
with the U.S. Geological Survey. Special Condition 7 requires that the results of those investigations
be included in any applications submitted by PG&E to extend the term of its CDP authorization.
In conclusion, though we considered a range of geologic hazards that could impact the
Diablo Canyon site, the primary geologic hazard of concern is strong seismic shaking. In their
2024 report, PG&E indicated that even with incremental increases in slip rate for the
the Hawsbury fault, the risk to Diablo Canyon facilities
from strong seismic shaking remains
within the NRC's accepted range.
However, it remains important to regularly update
the seismic hazard assessment with the most accurate
and best science to improve our understanding
of the seismic hazard at the site.
In closing, I want to note that we've identified
several opportunities to incrementally augment
and improve future seismic hazard assessments.
The currently available information does not indicate
that the extended operation of the plant
will be inconsistent with the Coastal Act's hazard policies.
With that, I hand the presentation back to Ms. Smiley.
Next slide, please.
As noted previously, the proposed project
is inconsistent with the Coastal Act's
marine biological resource protection policies
due to the adverse impacts associated
with its use of a seawater-based cooling system.
However, Coastal Act section 30260 provides
that coastal-dependent industrial facilities
found to be inconsistent
one or more Chapter 3 policies may nonetheless be approved by the Commission of four tests
are met.
The two of these tests relevant to the proposed project specify that first, permitting the
project would not adversely affect the public welfare and second, adverse environmental
effects are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible.
That believes that the project, as conditioned, meets these tests.
Regarding public welfare, the state's energy agencies, the Energy Commission, Independent
System Operator and the Public Utilities Commission have all recognized the need
for and importance of the electricity the plant provides and have projected a
shortfall risk if the plant's operations were not extended beyond 2025. SB 846
also states that quote it is the policy of the legislature that seeking to
extend the Diablo Canyon power plants operations for a renewed license term is
prudent, cost-effective, and in the best interest of all California electricity
customers end quote. Further staff believes the mitigation proposal
developed by PG&E and offered as part of its project represents the maximum
feasible mitigation to address the project's adverse impacts to coastal
resources. As discussed earlier staff identified land conservation as the most
feasible option for mitigation. Initially staff identified the potential for a
conservation easement over the entirety of the approximately 12,000 acres of
Diablo Canyon lands including North Ranch which is owned by PG&E and South
Ranch and Wild Cherry Canyon which are owned by PG&E subsidiary Eureka Energy.
However PG&E conveyed that such an easement over these entire areas would
be infeasible and raise several issues. PG&E indicated that approximately 1100
acres surrounding the plant would be retained as part of its additional
security buffer, called the owner controlled area under NRC regulations.
The NRC allows a nuclear power plant operator to establish the owner controlled area as
an additional safety zone where the operator has authority to control all activities.
As to the 2,400 acres of Wild Cherry Canyon, which is owned by PG&E subsidiary, Eureka
Energy, there has been significant interest for the past few decades in the permanent
conservation of these lands.
However, the status of that land has been tied up in litigation.
Specifically, there is a pending legal dispute about whether those lands remain leased to
a real estate developer, home-fed corporation, and other third parties.
On the one hand, Eureka argues that the leases that issue expired in 2019.
On the other hand, home-fed and the other third parties argue that the leases remain
in effect until 2066 and with an option to renew for another 99 years until 2166.
Just a few days ago, the California Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Home Fed and
the other third parties in their leasehold interest.
Therefore, Wild Cherry Canyon is not currently available as mitigation in light of a third-party
leasehold interest in that land.
Eliminating these two areas, Wild Cherry Canyon and PG&E's owner-controlled area from the
12,000 acres of Diablo Canyon lands means that nearly the entire remaining
acreage would be included in the two phases of PG&E's mitigation proposal.
As to the protection of the approximately 5,000 acres of South Ranch
through a right-of-first refusal rather than a direct conservation easement,
PG&E indicated because that area is held by its subsidiary, Eureka Energy,
CPUC restrictions make it infeasible for conservation easement to be placed
directly on those lands. Instead PG&E has offered a right of first refusal
initially to public agencies and then to non-profit land conservation
organizations including those of California Native American tribes to
purchase those lands at fair market value. If there is an exercise of the
right of first refusal the conservation easement would then be required as part
of that purchase. PG&E has indicated it intends to pursue the sale of these
lands in the next five years. Considering these constraints and the
infeasibility of mitigation alternatives, staff believes the proposed mitigation
is the maximum feasible. This concludes the staff presentation. The motion and
resolution can be found starting on page 9 of the staff report and staff is
available for questions. Great, thank you very much and thank you for that thorough
report. So I will begin by asking my colleagues if there are any ex partes
they'd like to report. Commissioner Lopez start with you. I have quite a few to
report so I will go mostly from memory here and see if I miss any but first I
did meet with Senator John Layard last week I also met with Assemblywoman Don
Addis. Senator Layard mostly covered everything in his letter which is up
here on the dais for all of us as well. Assemblywoman Don Addis had a slightly
different perspective on our project here and a desire to go in a different
direction but I did have a great conversation with her for in person for
about an hour last week I met with supervisor Don Ortiz leg yesterday
morning by phone I met with supervisor Bruce Gibson last night by phone and I
met with the representative Tom Jones of PG&E last night by phone so those were
my expertise on this side thank you thank you commissioner commissioner O'Malley
Thank you I just have one ex parte of his email received that in from the
senator Laird's office that is the exact letter that's in front of us it was on
1031 at 440 p.m. and staff was not copied on that and that is on record
thank you thank you commissioner Wilson yeah I received a few emails that I did
forward to staff but I want to also say did receive a text on Tuesday that was
just buried in my stuff and I just want to say I don't receive I don't take
ex partes for anything outside the North Coast generally speaking but
sometimes someone will send me a text it slips through so Don Ortiz legs sent me
something that just basically said four out of five of supervisors support the
consistency findings of coastal staff regarding Diablo Canyon see you Thursday
that was that was there and I bet I had conversation with Senator Laird and my
reports on file. Yes, thank you. I received the same letter from Johnson
Laird last Friday about 5 p.m. by email and I did report that. Thank you.
Vice Chair Hart. Thanks. I had a brief phone call with Senator Laird on Monday
November 3rd, you know very briefly going over what's contained in this letter.
Commissioner Wilson. Yeah also I forgot this part which is on July 11th of this
year after our meeting at Pismo Beach Commissioner Kelly and I took a tour of
driving tour of Diablo County with staff PG&E. We did not enter any buildings. We
observed the intake and outfall. We were given information about the operation
and natural and cultural features of the area. We observed some really beautiful
views and wildlife stunning we did not discuss this item before us and to be
honest I was not informed of the details of what was coming and nor did I know
when it was coming but I just want people know we we did that to her and
that was it thank you commissioner Jackson thank you
madam chair I have nothing to report I just want to apologize to those who have
reached out to me I try to be as responsive as I can I have been derelict
This month so I just wanted to apologize to all of you who've reached out and it did not receive response. Maya, Coba
Alright, I have a few ex parte's to report myself
I'll start with
On October 29th at 2 p.m.. Via zoom I met with Linda crop and Jeremy Frankel of environmental defense center on behalf of their client
at Leathers for Peace.
We spoke for about 25 minutes.
They shared with me their concerns about the staff report,
particularly around the adequacy or inadequacy
in their perspective of the proposed mitigation.
The next day on October 30th at 9.30 a.m. via Zoom,
I spoke with Tom Jones, representative for PG&E.
He shared with me his support for the staff recommendation
and described the incredible amount of work
that went into developing those recommendations
from their perspective and his appreciation for staff
for the continued engagement.
On October 29, in person, I had a brief conversation
with Susan Jordan, where she expressed her support
and agreement with the letter that was submitted
by Senator John Laird.
On Wednesday, yesterday, at 8 AM via phone,
I spoke with Assembly Member Dawn Addis,
and she briefly covered the items that were submitted
in her letter, and we specifically
spoke about Wild Cherry Canyon and how
she views that particular parcel of particular importance.
Finally, I also received a text from Don Ortiz-Legs
with the same content that my colleague described.
With that, I think our ex partes are done.
So I will begin by opening the public hearing, and we will go to the applicant who has 20
minutes, I believe, Mr. John.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good morning, Chair, Commissioners, staff, and members of the public.
Tom Jones representing Pacific Gas and Electric Company today.
We have a brief presentation to go over a little bit shorter to compliment the staff
report which I thought was very thorough and well done on the complexities of this issue.
We're going to dive a little deeper in our presentation on some of the concurrent regulatory
processes we're in so that the commission has full line of sight to the things that
are incumbent upon us to successfully re-license the facility.
I am joined today by several members of my technical and environmental team and my legal
team in case we have questions, which I assume we will, that get very deep into the weeds
on these things.
So we want to be sure that we can satisfy the commission, take action today, and again
and reiterate that we do support the staff recommendation
for approval, though we got there on very different paths
is the way I would describe it.
We'll go to the presentation here and the clicker.
So a couple areas we're going to cover today,
the background of the project, certainly, mitigation program,
how we thought we achieved a reasonable way
to pursue terrestrial mitigation from rain impacts.
talk about our regulatory framework,
some future commission actions that we see,
and then also a Diablo lands flyover
to give folks context that haven't been able
to enjoy the properties.
So again, the staff recommendation
went into great detail about the legislative findings
and the need for the facility,
and subsequently the Energy Commission
and the California Public Utilities Commission
have arrived at that same decision.
The facility is essential for the operation
of California's reliable grid.
In addition, our mission has changed.
Diablo Canyon historically was simply for PG&E's customers.
We serve 48 of the 58 counties in California.
However, the legislation now, we serve over 40 load-serving entities and that power goes
as far down as San Diego Gas and Electric and through the PG&E service territory in
Southern California.
The power's now distributed across the entities that are under the jurisdiction of the Public
Utilities Commission.
note on this slide the middle bullet PG&E proposes no changes to the facility. We
operate it the same way that we have in the past so the same amount of water for
cooling, the same amount of fuel in the reactor, the same amount of power output.
That's static for us. And then on the bottom we built off a previous coastal
development permit that mitigated these same impacts when we replaced our steam
generators. So the permit is there for reference but that at this facility
established the original ratios for terrestrial mitigation for these marine impacts.
So this slide shows the concurrent regulatory proceedings that we have to successfully
re-license the facility and the NRC refers jurisdiction for consistency
determination to this Commission. We also have site control that we got
originally from the State Lands Commission through the original five-year
extension from the state legislature and would have to go back if there was an
extended period. There's ongoing mitigations required by the state and
regional water board and in fact SB 846 made most of the state water board
findings in the legislation and then some of the items that we agree upon
today will still go to the Public Utilities Commission to be sure that
they're fair and in the best interest of consumers. So sadly this is about all the
agencies line up but we're nonetheless trying to make sure that we have a
regulatory path work to get approval to continue to serve California. With that
when we get into once through cooling mitigation, the principle mitigation, we
agree that this is the appropriate tool based on feasible technologies
available. We have not agreed with the staff's necessary application of the
area production foregone, but nonetheless to drive to closure we are agreeing on
the mitigations available before us. There are different interpretations in
in the record before the commission today,
but out of the spirit of cooperation,
we wish to move forward and again,
support the staff recommendation.
The mitigation proposed by the commission
goes significantly above the mitigation
from the state water board.
And SB 846 adjusted up northward
that mitigation significantly.
It's based on the amount of water we float per year
through the power plant.
So every third or fifth year,
we'll have two refueling outages.
So the mitigation actually goes down
because we use less water that year.
However, it was historically between $4 and $5 million.
The legislation doubled it to $10 million,
but then when it went through the water board's policies,
it came up to nearly $13 million.
So substantial, and those funds are also available
for mitigation projects in the area.
So I want you to be aware of the concurrent OTC mitigations
that are quite sizable for the facility.
The Land Conservation and Public Access
really achieves conservation and public access on about 90% of the properties
that we're going to discuss today. I know a lot of the public correspondents has
talked about 12,000 acres. It's less than 10,000 acres because again I thought the
staff did a very good job of explaining the recent court action and that
Wild Cherry Canyon is simply not available. The utility has no rights to
it and Home Fed Corporation enjoys the lease through the next 140 years
approximately. We'll go to the next slide and kind of walk through the properties
to make sure that we have good context of what's before us today. So Diablo
Canyon in the part 50 license boundary, that's that navy blue area with the star.
It's approximately 750 acres and that has our dry calf storage facility, our
transmission infrastructure, and the power generation facility, and the marina
and breakwater. To the north, the lands in the yellow are owned by Pacific Gas
an electric company. Those are the focus, the primary focus of the mitigation. While
the Commission is focusing on conservation as a tool, we also have
conditions in there that make these available for public ownership. So state
parks has expressed interest in that. They've toured the facility several times
since this condition has been available and I would say they're in early due
diligence and I know they've been in communication with your staff as well
about that. No action or agreement today but they're agreeable and looking at it.
To the south in that light green shaded area those lands are owned by Eureka
Energy an unregulated affiliate and then the lands to the right are that are in
that reddish color that's the Wild Cherry Canyon area we talked about. So you can
see Wild Cherry Canyon is a sizable several parcels it's five parcels it's
also the focus of legislation and that the state has allocated 40 million
dollars for its acquisition outside of this process, 35 for the direct capital and 5 million
for feasibility including public access. Those efforts are underway with the California State
Conservation Groups. So what we do now is we will have some animation here to show you
phase one of the mitigation for the first five years. It's front loaded and heavier
based on ratios of mitigation than the entire project. So we show the immediate 1100 acre
dedication to the north that's contiguous to the state park and then
the first rider refusal mechanism to move quite quickly as well. And then the
second phase of mitigation has these other properties to the north. The
majority of which aren't in the coastal boundary but are important for both the
watershed and when you look at them in context they're essentially the missing
puzzle pieces for public ownership in the area. This third animation shows the
light blue that's all state parks. The purple is the Bureau of Land Management
and then the orange is the Hibber Preserve which is a significant
conservation easement held by the San Luis Land Conservancy. That is the
majority of the Irish Hills notwithstanding Wild Cherry Canyon. So
again you can see through that animation the importance to the public and
preservation that these puzzle pieces have for continuity of preservation
through the Irish Hills.
Then public access.
What this slide shows is the light blue trails
on the north and south property are expanded loops
of existing public access.
That sets us up for the trails to be used
in a much more user-friendly way.
Right now they're linear.
You hike out four miles and you hike back the same way.
This provides new areas of access, apologize,
and a route system so you end up back
however you got to the trailhead.
We do that on the North and South right away,
and it takes advantage of existing alignments.
The second part, it's a little hard to see on the slide here,
the golden line in between is essentially
a golden spike moment of public access through the Irish Hills,
and that would be in phase two.
That also has a route that goes behind the security buffer
on some ridge lines when we're adjacent to the power plant
and the transmission infrastructure.
Staff has toured that alignment, and so we also
have a proposed campground location in there
that doesn't appear to have any cultural impacts.
It would be an appropriate low impact area
because the distance will be well over 20 miles.
It'd be unlikely people could traverse it in one day.
And so we've seen the public comment,
and there's a lot of energy around act before.
It's too late.
This is your last chance.
It's certainly not.
While we think this is a comprehensive mitigation
package before the commission, we
do contemplate several and are aware of several future actions
that bring us back before this very commission.
One is because of the uncertainty
of the duration of operations.
We have an active environmental impact report
for decommissioning under development
with the County of San Luis Obispo.
That EIR has actually been developed
since its inception in concert
with the Coastal Commission and State Lands Commission
so that this one environmental document
can help all three proceedings.
Right now we're four years from unit one not operating
unless there's additional legislation.
So planning for a nuclear decommissioning is complex.
so we can keep that process going on a concurrent path.
There would be two permits probably before this commission,
certainly the original jurisdiction application,
and then potentially an appeal
for the local coastal program for that project.
And then the reuse of parcel P,
that environmental impact report does take note
of the valuable energy infrastructures there.
And while it's been slowed by recent events,
offshore wind looks to make use of some of those facilities.
And then any other reuse of that facility,
and then also any future development changes
outside of what's contemplated.
So we see ourselves before the commission
several times in the next decade for these complex projects.
And lastly, we'll let the lands do the talking here.
What we have are two brief flyovers
of the areas in public access so that you have context
of what is a little more impactful
than a PowerPoint slide.
So the first one is the two loop systems
on north and south of the property.
This will take about 50 seconds.
So the south ranch trails currently available are about 200-foot along the coastline there,
and the new trail look and paths get about 600 feet higher. They come over these ridge lines,
and then you get these views you can see all the way across the bay through to Vandenberg Space
Force Base and Point Sal. Here at the new coastal overlook, we've modeled this after the Catalina
Trans Trail. We think that's a really good model for the rugged primitive type of experience people
would have. And then on the north very different topography and a very
different ecosystem and so we bring it up on the ridge line here and then
through a place called Crowbar Canyon and then under some special oak canopies.
So again we're taking advantage of these existing roads ways that are in very
good shape that have only ranch traffic on them and occasional security patrols
from us on them. And that trailhead there Point Bouchon trailhead that's adjacent
to Montana and de Oro State Park.
The phase two mitigation looks like this.
Adds about an additional 11 miles of trail.
That's Bo, he's here for scale in the back of the room.
And the connector trail would connect those two loop systems
we talked about obviously,
and dart in and out of the coastal zone.
But the view shed is tremendous.
Again, being able to see all the way across the Avila Bay
to the Vandenberg area,
and then through the horizon west.
And then lastly, we'll show this site.
It wouldn't require grading while primitive.
It's nestled along this oak grove
and then looks out over the Pacific Ocean down that canyon.
So that's, again, just resting on the total alignment
if we operate five years.
And one thing to emphasize is whether it's six years
or 20 years, all this mitigation occurs in the second phase
once we go past year five.
So whether it runs 14 years or 20 years, that's our business risk.
If it runs year six, all of this mitigation comes into force.
And then this has a summary of some of the numbers that we've talked about.
Happy to address any questions that the commission might have and
reserve the five minutes for rebuttal and come back after public comment.
Great, thank you very much, Mr. Jones.
Okay, before we move to elected officials,
I'm gonna suggest we take a very brief bio break.
if we could all be back in 10 minutes, 10 45.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you, everyone.
So we will get started first with our elected officials
and tribal representatives.
We'll start with Senator Laird.
I'll have five minutes, please.
And we have Kara Woodruff,
district director for Senator Laird here.
Are we good?
Good morning, commissioners.
My name is Kara Woodruff.
I am very honored to be here on behalf of Senator John Laird,
who unfortunately was not able to make it today.
I wanted to also mention I'm a long-standing
and one of the original members
of the Diablo Canyon Decommission Engagement Panel,
as well as a member of the Shumash Heritage
National Marine Sanctuary's new Sanctuary Advisory Council.
I'd like to refer you today to the Senator Laird letter
that's in front of you.
It's six long pages full of information.
And I want to mention that,
and it's important to mention on behalf of Senator Laird,
these comments are made with full respect
for the Coastal Commission, its leadership and staff.
And we want to thank you
for protecting our precious California coast.
So Senator Laird's letter makes a clear case
for alternative mitigation programs
to offset the impacts of Diablo Canyon's operation
the years 2025 to 2030. That alternative mitigation package has a couple of elements. Number one,
full conservation easement across the entire North Ranch. Number two, full conservation easement
across the entire South Ranch. Number three, protection of Wild Cherry Canyon. I'll discuss
that in a moment. Number four, the trail system that's really well outlined by the staff report.
and number five an endowment program to support that trail management so it can actually be
well managed for years to come. I wanted to address a few key points that you keep hearing
about today and I know you'll hear more in the public comments to come. First of all we've heard
from PG&E that's infeasible to put a conservation easement on South Ranch. I want to challenge that
and I don't believe that's the case.
Over the last several years,
PG&E has applied for coastal development permits
for projects in the coastal zone at Diablo Canyon.
Those include for the drycast storage site,
the training building,
and the steam generator replacement.
In the case of the drycast storage site,
they set aside Point Bouchon Trail.
In the case of the training building,
they set aside the Pecha Coast Trail.
And in the case of the steam generator replacement,
they set aside and put a deed restriction on 1,200 acres.
Both Pecho Coast Trail and the deed restriction
for the steam generator renewal unit are on South Ranch.
They've done it in the past.
They can do it again.
I wanted to also mention Wild Cherry Canyon.
Tom Jones is correct that it looks
like that litigation is complete.
And the Court of Appeals held that the long-term leaseholds
held by HomeFed are valid for about another 140, 150 years.
But even under that litigation, the underlying fee title
is still held by Eureka Energy, a PG&E subsidiary.
You should transfer that underlying fee title
as mitigation for these permits.
And doing so has two very real impacts.
Number one, to protect Wild Cherry Canyon,
You have to acquire both interests.
You have to acquire the long-term leaseholds, and you have to acquire the underlying fee.
So if we can acquire that underlying fee, we're halfway there.
Secondly, there is a lease agreement between who holds that underlying fee title and the
lessees.
And if you're the lessee, you're home fed and you want to do a development program,
you have to get permission from the underlying fee title to do that.
So if that piece is transferred to state parks or a nonprofit conservation group, they would
essentially be able to say no, they don't support that development.
So that little piece that doesn't come into being for some 140 years still has a lot of
value in protecting Wild Cherry Canyon, and incidentally the fair market value of that
because it's so far off in time is about zero dollars.
It's an easy way to protect Wild Cherry Canyon.
I also wanted to address tribal issues.
Senator Laird's plan is consistent with,
and indeed opens the door,
to tribal ownership of North and South Ranch.
By putting a conservation easement on it,
it reduces the purchase price,
which further enables tribal ownership.
It also leaves money thereby in SB 846
to help cover tribal management costs,
which are sorely needed.
Yak-Tichu-Tichu-Yak-Tilhini is not in a position
to take on ownership of large parcels of land
without the financial support to do so.
Finally, the terms of that conservation easement
can be informed by a local process
that's gone going right now.
Under SB 846, the state coastal conservancy
received a $5 million grant.
And in that grant, a local group has been formed,
the Diablo Canyon Working Group.
May I go on a few minutes longer?
Thank you.
So that working group is charged with one of their tasks is to actually develop conservation
easement language.
And guess who serves on that working group?
Yachtitutiti, Yachtilhini, and other regional tribes, the Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo
County, Supervisor Don Ortiz-Legg.
I am also on that group plan representing Senator Laird.
Finally, I want to address this point. We need to protect these lands now. The impacts
from SB 846 for the 2025 to 2030 operations are well documented in the staff report. The
alternative mitigation plan proposed by Senator Laird and allies is a bare minimum to address
just those impacts between 2025 and 2030. The only authorization the state is provided
for the extension under SB 846 is 2025 to 2030.
So discussions beyond that are premature
and even speculative for reasons that are outlined
in Senator Laird's letter.
And I just wanna mention the fact that PG&E unilaterally
applied for a 20-year permit
with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is not relevant.
They didn't have to do that.
By the language of the NRC alone,
it states that you can apply for up to 20 years.
They could have applied for a five-year permit.
they decided unilaterally to go for more.
I'd like to end the presentation with statements
by Senator Laird himself.
Given the extensive history
of community conservation efforts,
as well as the issuance
by the California Natural Resources Agency
of its report calling for complete conservation
and public and tribal access to the Diablo Canyon lands,
the staff report, as it now stands, falls particularly short.
This is especially true when you consider
that the staff report fully acknowledges
that its proposed mitigation plan is, quote,
not sufficient to achieve consistency
of the proposed project due to the large scale
of the project's environmental impacts.
The Coastal Commission is urged to rectify this imbalance.
It can do so by adopting the alternative mitigation plan
that comes closer to satisfying the mandates
of the Coastal Act
and the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act
while being in sync with over 25 years of efforts
by the Central Coast community
to ensure the conservation of and public access
to the full 12,000 acres of the Diablo Canyon lands.
It is the Coastal Commission's obligation
to fully mitigate the SB 846 five-year extension
of the Diablo Can power plant.
Thank you for your consideration.
Thank you, Ms. Woodruff.
Thank you.
Next we have a state assembly member, Dawn Addis.
She is on Zoom.
Good morning and first and foremost thank you so much to the commissioners for addressing
this topic today. I'm actually down here in San Luis Obispo right now and in the beauty of
our community. So first and foremost I'm assembly member Dawn Adams. I represent 200 miles of
California's coastline. That's 20 percent of the coastline and the 20 miles of contiguous
untouched coastline are about 10% of the district that I represent, but for over 20 years I have
lived in Morro Bay within the evacuation zone of Diablo Canyon, and I just thought it would be
important to share a tiny bit of what that kind of a life looks like. As beautiful as San Moses
in the community. And so we're
us in case there's a disaster at Diablo.
Some of the benefits obviously include the economics, the jobs, the clean power in this
time where we're facing a climate crisis.
So there's a lot of push and pull, as all of you know, when it comes to Diablo Canyon.
One thing, though, that everybody can agree on and that voters have said that they have
wanted over the last 25 years is that there is an environmental impact from
Diablo and that the 12,000 acres in the North and the South Ranch and Wild
Cherry Canyon are incredibly important to the local community and the local
community really does want to have access to those lands for the benefit
the health and the welfare of all of us and I will add that public access to
those lands is not just about San Luis Obispo people.
It's also about underserved school children
who come to the coast.
Sometimes it's the first time they've ever been to the beach
or seen the coast is when they come
to San Luis Obispo communities.
And we could have a future where those school children
and where those communities could have access
to this pristine land.
It's why in 2000 voters passed the dream initiative
saying we want to have public access on those lands.
It's why during the negotiations of SBA 46 and 2022
that many people had concerns about
because they happened at the end of session
and the legislature had concerns
if there would be true mitigation.
But there was $160 million allotted
during those negotiations for land conservation.
It's also why last year we fought
and we worked very closely with Senator Laird
to make sure that we brought $40 million into the budget
even during hard budget times
to conserve Wild Cherry Canyon.
So there have been many, many steps taken
and I wanna concur with what Director Woodruff just said
on behalf of Senator Laird,
there have been many steps taken
to move land conservation forward.
and we know that PG&E can do that conservation.
There is a footprint for this.
So I am adding my voice certainly in my perspective
that we do need full conservation
of the North and South Ranch
that we need to be able to conserve
Wild Cherry Canyon in perpetuity
that we need to be able to have public access
to with trails and with long-term management
and that we have also worked closely with the tribes
to make sure that as we move down this process,
there can be co-management, co-ownership
for the betterment of all of us.
So I wanna say thank you to the commission.
I look forward to our continued work.
I'm very hopeful that you'll make the decision today.
I don't think that this should wait.
I'm very hopeful you'll make the decision today
that can serve these lands fully,
including making moves to conserve Wild Cherry Canyon fully.
And I'll just end with this.
I think all of us in public service
have felt that there is a huge attack
on protecting our wild spaces, on protecting our environment.
And there's a very low trust for public officials right now.
And I think we collectively have an opportunity today
to turn the corner on both of those things,
to both increase public trust by completing the promises that
have been made around conservation,
but also making sure that we're moving forward
with the environmental mitigation
that our communities truly need and every Californian deserves.
So thank you so much.
Thank you.
Our next speakers are representatives
for the Chumash Tribe, and they will each
be given five minutes as well.
Mona Alevis Tucker, Veronica Mendoza, Michael Kuos,
and Janet D. Hall Garcia.
Mona Alevis Tucker.
Good morning, California Coastal Commission.
My name is, excuse me, my name is Mona Alevis Tucker,
tribal chair of Yakutichu Teacher Yak-Telhini,
Northern Shemesh Tribe of San Luis Obispo County.
Among our tribe are the direct, documented,
lineal descendants of the villages of Diablo lands.
This is based on primary verifiable evidence
of who we are and where we come from.
Our request is simple and direct.
Don't impede the return of North Ranch and South Ranch
to our tribe.
With the return of these lands taken from us
without consent or compensation,
we can fulfill our responsibilities to this place
that holds our ancestors
and more than 10,000 years of our history.
Our stewardship practices are grounded in countless generations of lived experience
and proven success.
SB 846 provides for a transfer of these lands to an appropriate tribe.
The appropriate tribe is irrefutably YTT.
SB 846 also states that continued operation of the Diablo Canyon power plant should not
delay a transfer.
We appreciate the time the Commission has spent with us, but in our opinion, consultation
was not clear or thorough. I sent a letter this morning with more details and other concerns
and our tribe requests that it be entered into the record of today's proceedings.
Two days ago, San Luis Obispo County Supervisor Bruce Gibson and Senator Laird's Senior Policy
Advisor Cara Woodruff publicly affirmed their support of our tribe's claim to Diablo lands.
We appreciate that acknowledgement and we share their commitments to conservation and
and managed public access.
These will be carried out under our guidance
in collaboration with the Land Conservancy
of San Luis Obispo County,
with future planning to include our other partners,
Cal Poly University in San Luis Obispo,
and the economic revitalization organization called REACH.
We call upon you to include the Yaqtichu-Tichu-Yaktahini
Northern Chumash Tribe of San Luis Obispo County
in your recommendations and to support
the just returns of these lands to us.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next, Veronica Mendoza.
Good morning.
I want to thank the California Coastal Commission
first and foremost.
I stand before you today as a proud representative
of the Northern Schumash Tribal Council.
My name is Veronica Mendoza.
And I speak on behalf of Chairwoman Violet Sage Walker,
who is currently abroad being honored and named
time magazine's time 100 climate list of the top 100 most influential leaders
driving business climate action. Our family has been an integral part of the
land surrounding the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant for countless
generations and we carry the essential duty of protecting and preserving these
lands which are rightfully ours as descendants of this region. I firmly
oppose the staff's recommendation regarding the relicensing of this facility. I also reject the
misguided notion that only one tribe holds the title of rightful descendants of these lands,
the very land where I was born. We possess a profound understanding of our identity
and ancestral origins. We do not seek validation or judgment about our heritage.
our knowledge has been handed down through generations.
It is deeply disrespectful for outsiders to scrutinize our lineage
and make decisions on issues that are solely our responsibility.
My people are unwavering in our commitment to safeguard the land,
its sacred sites, and the burial grounds.
We are all interconnected with profound ties to our Chumash ancestors
and deep roots in Chumash homelands. We assert that extensive consultation with northern Chumash
individuals who have ancestral connections to the Diablo Canyon lands will enhance dialogue
with invaluable cultural knowledge, diverse experiences, and spiritual insights. This
collaboration will lead to stronger protections for our northern Chumash culture and spiritual
practices. We commend the county for its dedication to honoring all northern
Chumash people and for engaging with diverse tribal groups throughout the
DEIR process. We take pride in the county of San Luis Obispo's commitment to the
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a landmark
resolution acknowledging our rights for the first time in the nation. Our active
involvement has been instrumental in establishing the Chumash Heritage
National Marine Sanctuary. We are deeply engaged in initiatives
protecting and restoring the natural landscapes of San Luis Obispo
and Santa Barbara counties. We are resolute in our commitment to
transferring parts of north, south, and wild cherry canyons back to
tribal and public ownership, ensuring this will be realized within
our lifetimes. A summary of our contributions is included in our recorded statement. We have
actively participated in the SCC which has allocated 5.6 million dollars to support planning,
construction, and maintenance of public access trails. We firmly oppose the transfer of land
to the public until it has been fully restored to tribal stewardship. This step is crucial for
hearing, for healing, and restoration, especially in the second phase of PG&E's proposed management
plan, should the Diablo Canyon power plant continue operations beyond its current timeline.
Our tribe and other Chumash groups must be included as active participants
in all future discussions. I am deeply concerned about the inadequate outreach to gather our
insights. Whether this was an oversight or missed opportunity, it is imperative to acknowledge the
the significant efforts of the Northern Chubash Tribal Council.
We have dedicated countless hours to CPUC proceedings, coastal conservancy project plans,
tribal outreach, decommissioning, and offshore wind planning.
While we do not support long-term re-licensing, we view this as a necessary transition to
alternative energy and urge the Commission to prioritize open communication and consultation
with our tribes. Our perspectives must be sought to address potential issues and guide
future actions. We must share our stories and uphold the traditions passed down by our
elders. Everyone must understand that we are still vibrant, beautiful people, possessing
indispensable knowledge of our land. In our hearts, we uphold a profound reverence for
for Grandmother Ocean, Mother Earth and all living things.
As I step into a leadership role
in pursuit of positive change,
I feel deep hope for the restoration
of our traditional way of life.
I'll just finish.
I look forward to witnessing this audience engage
in supporting specific initiatives
and connecting meaningfully
with the Northern Chumash community.
Together we can play a crucial role
in ongoing discussions and decisions
about the land and cultural preservation.
Respectfully Violet Sage Walker,
Chairwoman Northern Chumash Tribal Council.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Next, Michael Kuss, followed by Janet D. Hall-Garcia.
Janet D. Hall-Garcia, we're not seeing you
in the Zoom meeting.
If you are in the meeting, please raise your hand.
Go ahead, Michael Kuss.
Yes, thank you very much.
the opportunity to address the commission today.
My name is Michael Kuss, the elected vice chair
for the Coastal Band in Sumonish nation.
Please go to our website at coastalband.org
to learn more about my tribe.
The Heritage Commission mailing list is not up to date,
so we did not receive requests for consultation.
We have consulted in the past with SLO County
and with PG&E about the plans for decommissioning
toward the area many times and we do wish to consult with the Coastal
Commission about this issue. Briefly however, I can tell you this about who
we are as the Coastal Band. We are the people, the only tribe who were at
Diablo Canyon to protect our buried ancestors as they were removed from the
graves, their graves, to make room for construction for Peach and
nuclear power plant. Later, over a four year period, I personally led social
ceremonies with our people in the shadow of the nuclear containment structures,
praying that there would be no nuclear accidents and that someday that that place
would be returned to its natural state of peace and beauty once the plant was gone.
So coastal bands connection to Diablo is both ancient and modern and we are both resolute
and consistent in our message which is you need to find a way, you need to find ways to protect
all of the 12,000 acres of this pristine coastal area from the inland canyons to the water's
offshore. All of it. This staff recommendation that strips 11,000 acres of protection from
the bulldozer in heavy development is not up to what CCC or Coastal Commission stands for.
Commissioners, with all due respect, you need to instruct your staff to go back and read the
original 1976 California Coastal Act and instruct them on the mandate that your
commission was given by the state legislature so i quote to protect maintain and were feasible
enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and natural resources
unquote your staff seems to be recommending that you not do that that you abandon your legal and
moral mandate coastal ban advocates for travel ownership for some of the diablo lands but
But regardless of who owns it, it is more important that all 12,000 acres be permanently protected.
Furthermore, we ask that funds be set aside for public access trails, not only to create them,
but to maintain them in the long term.
That the offshore marine life and habitat not be destroyed or degraded.
That we finally see an end to the abuse and exploitation for profit of a place
that is meant to remain natural and a sacred place for the spirits.
A place that was once so powerful that even the colonial Spanish called
it the place of the Diablo.
So thank you for this opportunity to make this statement here this
afternoon, this morning.
I look forward to consulting with, uh, coastal commission staff.
Thank you.
Uh, we are still, still not seeing Janet D Hall Garcia.
We do have a few unknown phone numbers.
If one of them is you, could you please dial star nine
to raise your hand?
Star nine will raise your hand on a phone.
Give me one second.
OK, I'm seeing one hand raised under the name Sanchez2.
You should be able to unmute now under that phone number.
are you Janet D. Hall Garcia under the name Sanchez too?
You're unmuted now?
Yes.
Could you proceed?
I have a message.
Yes, Raw San Sanchez.
You don't have that speaker right now.
Sanchez too.
Yes, but what is your name speaking?
Raw San.
We'll come back to you when is your turn?
All right no other hands raised. So we will move on to our next set of
elected officials. We have 18 more. I will start, I will come back to the room with Don Ortee's leg
followed by Heather Moreno, John Peschong, and then Bruce Gibson. Don Ortee's leg.
Good morning commissioners. Madam Chair Harmon, nice to see you all. Thank you. I will be
Starting here. I thought I was number 11. So here I am. Okay. Good morning. And my name is Dawn Ortiz leg
Pardon me for looking down at my screen. There's so many things that we want to keep straight here
So just want to give you all eye contact, but I appreciate the courtesy if you'll let me do this
I am the third district supervisor for San Luis Obispo County Diablo Canyon
Nuclear power plant is in the third district and thus I am the electorate
Representative of this area for the for our constituents and visitors
We are dreaming of all the access trail loops to enjoy breathtaking views of the Pacific Ocean coastline
Stunning panoramic views all the way past point Sal to this point Sal to the south and from the north seeing beyond
San Simeon while witnessing magnificent wildlife teeming through the lands and the seas last week
I spent four hours traveling the proposed offer and what can I say this land in trails is nothing short of?
it's very resemblance of things if you think about going to Hawaii or going to
the Grand Canyon or places like that it's it's truly one of the country's
most remarkable areas and aren't we grateful this plant and its operator has
preserved and kept this land and coastline in pristine condition for all
these years. As a former member of Parks California which is the
statutory partner to California State Parks we know conserving and maintaining
and public access lands is expensive and challenging.
Here, with this proposal made with your staff
in collaboration, the potential addition
of adding land to Montana De Oro State Park
is a manageable approach and with a workable timeline.
That is very helpful.
These are practical things that are coming forward to you.
In recent past, working with the Central Coast
fishing community, they have always said
that the best fishing in the region
is the area right around the Diablo Canyon
once through cooling.
they will be thrilled with the expansion of this area.
The Diablo Lands Working Group,
referred in the previous comments,
is a relatively cumbersome, slow, and expensive approach
and not as inclusive as mentioned
for the original documented descendants, the YTT.
Five members of that group, which I am of,
did ask for a singular recognition of YTT
regarding these lands.
And I will just note that that did not include
Director Woodruff.
It is estimated that 80% of our Central Coast community
Overwhelmingly wants this plant open and wants the lands to and with this plan we can coexist
Which we do very happily and I think that you'll hear from many of our seven cities the leadership there
That is what is within our reach of our community and our state of California with the proposed plan by the applicant and the California
Coastal Commission recognizing conservation lands is costly and requires thoughtful approaches to ensuring while offering this public access
This is what's offered now is the beginning of permanent and forever access
I see this as a collaborative plan we get the trails we get the vista we get the land it continues to come plus
We get the clean energy and the job that is why four out of five San Luis Obispo County supervisors support the Coastal Commission staff
Recommendations and findings on the consistency. This is a pragmatic pragmatic approach
I'm gonna just be quick on the rest of this, you know in 2000 we talked about the dream initiative
It was the board of supervisors that put that on the ballot and in that initiative
It talks about the fact that, yes, the lands are something very special, we want to see
it happen, but we also need the nuclear power plant running.
That's very much included in that language, and that's often missed in some of the people
talking about it.
I also note that the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors in 2024 did pass a resolution
noting that climate action required us to ask for Diablo Canyon open until 2045.
This is something based on the Biden administration's actions at the COPE28 and talking about it
as a solution for climate.
As a member of the vice chair of the community energy provider, 53CE, that's five counties,
we know how hard it is with rising costs.
And really what we're talking about here is we're talking about affordability.
We're talking about creating this path to open spaces, but also doing it not on the
back of ratepayers but actually trying to find a path they'll allow us to do that.
So I just wanted to say thank you and we support the staff's recommendation.
Thank you.
Heather Moreno, John P. Shung, Bruce Gibson, Erica Stewart.
Thank you.
Good morning commissioners.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak.
I'm Heather Moreno, San Luis Obispo County District 5 supervisor and I want to express
my support for the continued operation of Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant.
I strongly endorse the comments just made by our chair, Don Ortiz-Lague.
I'm going to focus on just two core priorities, clean energy and affordability.
Diablo Canyon is the single largest producer of clean energy in California,
providing enough carbon free electricity to power about 4 million homes.
It makes up about 9% of the electricity that we produce here in this state
and nearly 17% of our clean energy supply.
It is available day, night, rain, shine, and that reliability really matters.
If we were to lose Diablo Canyon we would have to replace it with power sources that emit greenhouse gases.
We've seen this before, other plants close, emissions go up, and the progress on our state's goals slow down.
So keeping Diablo open and online just through 2030 even reduces emissions by the equivalent of taking 8 million cars off the road.
But it isn't just about clean energy, it is also about affordable energy.
California has some of the highest electricity rates in the country.
Studies show that extending the power plant's operation saves customers billions of dollars every year,
and it keeps our energy system more stable.
Continuing to operate a facility that we've already invested in is one of the most cost-effective ways to maintain clean, reliable power for Californians.
Diablo Canyon gives us time, time to expand our renewable energy, improve storage, strengthen our grid without jeopardizing reliability or affordability.
it is part of the bridge to California's 100% clean energy future. As a representative of
the local community, I must note that the plant provides good jobs as well. It's a significant
economic benefit here in San Luis Obispo County, but most importantly, it helps ensure that
California's families and businesses have access to clean, dependable, and affordable energy.
I urge the commission to support the Coastal Development Permit and help California continue
leading the way on clean energy with Diablo Canyon as a vital part of that
mix. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. John Pichon, Bruce Gibson,
Erica Stewart, Ken Bose. Hi John Pichon, first district supervisor from San
Luis Obispo County, and we represent I represent a majority of 1,300 different
employees at Diablo Canyon, they're working families. Keeping an affordable
energy source like Diablo Canyon online has economic benefits for all Californians and
all working families in our community. Diablo Canyon operations in 2024 resulted in wholesale
electricity cost savings of $474 million to customers across the entire PG&E system.
And I think affordability is probably the word of the week with the last elections that
just occurred. So I think we're really focused on the affordability here. A
recent CPUC report shows extending Diablo Canyon will save customers up to
3.7 billion dollars on average annually. We all have invested so much in Diablo
Canyon over the years to build it, so continuing to let it run will save our
family's money and will also be very cheap to be able to produce that energy.
Please vote to approve staffs recommendation and approve the coastal development permit. Thank you for your time. Thank you
Bruce Gibson Erica Stewart can pose Elizabeth Arona. Good morning, Madam Chair members of the Commission
I am Bruce Gibson second district supervisor of the County of San Luis Obispo and also a member of the independent
Peer review panel that looks into seismic hazard at Diablo Canyon
I'm here primarily to speak to the conservation issues that are before us
But I would if I could reserve a bit of time at the end to make a couple comments on the seismic hazard that mr
Johnson led into
As I indicated today, I stand in strong support of senator Laird's request to strengthen
the environmental mitigations by requiring conservation easements and conservation on all 12,000 acres of
Diablo Canyon lands the details are in his letter and a letter that I also have on your record
mine's only two pages long if you want to if you want the cliff notes but in
there your staff has done an excellent job showing the nexus and proportionality
of that complete conservation as being warranted. We also speak about the long
held vision that the community of San Luis Obispo and beyond has in terms of
eventual protections. You're going to hear a lot about that I expect in comment.
I'm here to just emphasize three pieces of context as you consider this. First of
First of all, the complete conservation with easements is consistent with the vision articulated
by Ms. Tucker of the Aktichu-Tichu in terms of providing the pathway toward which these
lands can be owned once again by the Native American tribes that first inhabit them.
And it's a pleasure and we're proud to work with Ms. Tucker and the Aktichu-Tichu toward
that end.
Second, the complete conservation is feasible, despite PG&E's assertions to the contrary.
Many of you commissioners know I have been before you a number of times on the matter
of sea level rise adaptation.
And from those experiences, I know that your commission has a very bold vision as to what
is feasible and a high expectations as to what is feasible, and I would urge you to
to exercise that vision as you consider the question
of feasibility here on this matter.
And third, the cost of this complete conservation
is absolutely reasonable.
First and foremost, the granting of a conservation easement
in and of itself does not incur costs.
I suppose, I guess, lawyers always get paid.
So there might be costs for that.
But there is no cost.
But it is an encumbrance against a capital asset of the company, in which case, as such,
I would submit that any ongoing cost of that or devaluation of that would rightfully fall
to the shareholders of PG&E and should not burden the rate payers.
Indeed, the ongoing, I endorse the ongoing operation of Diablo Canyon as a matter of
affordability.
So in summary, the time is now to do complete conservation.
We can do this, and we should do this.
If I might then speak briefly to the seismic hazards, as I indicated, I am our county's
representatives to the IPRP by virtue of a doctorate and my first career as a research
seismologist.
I will tell you that per SB 846 the IPRP has carefully looked at PG&E's 2024 analysis
of the seismic risk.
We responded with IPRP report 16.
That's referenced in your special condition 7.
PG&E, and we noted there were several questions that needed to be answered, PG&E responded
to IPRP report 16 and quite frankly our panel did not find that response satisfying.
We don't believe the questions we posed were fully answered.
We have a document that outlines our continuing concern, our continuing quest for information.
That document for some reason is bottled up in the CPUC awaiting their release.
I find that odd because we are, after all, the independent peer review panel, but I can
tell you in brief that the issues that Mr. Johnson, your engineering geologist raised,
are key.
How fast is the Hawes-Greece fault moving?
What's the nature of the tectonics in the Irish hills?
And there's one more that we seek to get more information on, which is the exact nature
of the materials that surround the site.
very important as to the seismic response. So your special condition that
seeks further studies on this is absolutely appropriate. I endorse it
completely and happy to answer questions on that or the other. Thank you, Madam
Chair. Thank you. Next, Erica Stewart followed by Ken Bose, Elizabeth Arona and
then Bob Nelson. Erica Stewart. Thank you so much. Good morning, Chair, Commissioners
and staff. I'm Erica A. Stewart, Mayor of the City of San Luis Obispo and I want
first just thank you for your continued service and your commitment to California's Central Coast.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the whole entire San Luis Obispo City
as you consider the continued operation of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant. While the plant sits
outside of our city limits, what happens at Diablo directly affects the people of our community.
As you consider moving forward, we urge continued collaboration to prioritize safety,
transparency, and local input in all decisions about the plant's future.
You've heard today from previous speakers that many local agencies,
tribal partners, and coastal stakeholders have been
already in process with planning of the 12,000 acres
of the Diablo Canyon property. So please ensure that each of these
stakeholders have a seat at the table in decisions about the stewardship of the
land surrounding the plant. Please also include local governments in
discussions around emergency preparedness and response, workforce housing, transportation
needs, land conservation, and community access planning. Establish a clear limited operational
timeline tied to measurable progress in bringing new renewable energy sources across- sorry,
new renewable energy sources online across California. For decades the plant's presence
had had a significant impact on San Luis Obispo's economy, housing market, and workforce providing
approximately 1,300 high-paying jobs. We recognize Diablo's Canyon's significant role in our regional
economy and appreciate the plant's economic multiplier effect through supporting local
businesses, nonprofits, and schools. The plant's reliable carbon-free energy aligns well with our
city's commitment to climate action and sustainable energy today and in the future.
Yet economic benefits and reliable clean energy cannot actually take place of public safety,
environmental protection, or meaningful local involvement. So please, as you make your decision
today, please keep the people of San Luis Obispo and the protection of our coastline front of mind.
Thank you for your continued service and have a wonderful day.
Thank you. Next, Kent Bowes, Elizabeth Arona, Bob Nelson, Cassie T.
Good morning Chair Hoffman and honorable members of the commission. My name is Kent Bowes. I am a
county supervisor representing the citizens of the third district in Calusa County located
at the northern part of the Central Valley. I recognize the primary mission of the California
Coastal Commission is the protection and enhancement of our magnificent coastline.
My county, while hundreds of miles away from the Pacific, yet I am here today because of
the health of the coast, the stability of our environment and the energy future of California
are inextricably linked.
The decision before you, the final approval for Diablo Canyon's power plants continued
operation through 2030 is fundamentally a climate action and therefore a coastal protection
measure.
To those concerned about the immediate local environment, I commend PG&E's award-winning
land stewardship and their incredible partnership with the local tribe to preserve the sacred land.
I also note the presence of the nation's longest running marine biology research program and the
robust wildlife including sea otters and sea lions which I've seen myself during a tour of that place.
It's quite amazing. That thrive in the plant's vicinity and also under constant dedicated
monitoring. The final supplemental environmental impact statement released by the nuclear regulatory
Commission confirms that Diablo Canyon meets all environmental requirements for an additional
two decades. As an elected official from the Central Valley, I am responsible for serving
communities that endure some of the hottest summers in the country. Our reliance on electricity to
simply survive these extreme temperatures is absolute. We cannot afford to have 9 percent of
California's electricity and a massive 17 percent of its clean energy simply vanish. The California
Energy Commission has confirmed that no existing clean energy resources can fully replace Diablo
Canyon's output. While San Ono Free went offline, the power was replaced with greenhouse gas emitting
energy leading to a measurable correlation with increased carbon emissions. If we allow that
mistake to be repeated, we are taking a monumental step backwards. Extending Diablo Canyon's
operation is projected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 34.5 metric tons, the equivalent
of taking nearly eight million cars off of the road. California wants a 100% clean grid,
and we are pushing aggressively towards electrifying everything from cars to cooktops.
This massive necessary electrification will skyrocket demand. How can we possibly meet this
demand with clean power 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, without our single largest source of clean
baseload power? Furthermore, this is an affordability issue for the entire state.
for customers like mine who already face high utility bills we desperately need reliable and
affordable clean power. Recent analysis from the CPUC shows that extending Diablo Canyon saves
customers between 2.7 and 3.7 billion, that's with a B, billion dollars annually. This is not just
an environmental win, it is an immediate and critical economic benefit for every Californian.
Commissioner's Diablo Canyon has operated safely and reliably for four decades.
The NRC has deemed it seismically safe and ready for continued operations.
So much has been invested in this infrastructure and continuing to run it is comparatively
the most cost effective and reliable path to maintaining clean energy momentum.
California cannot achieve its ambitious climate goals by retiring our most powerful tool for
clean energy generation. I urge you to look beyond the immediate locale and vote in favor of these
final approvals securing the plant's future and in doing so securing the stable clean energy future
of the entire state of California. Thank you. Thank you. Elizabeth Arona followed by Bob Nelson,
Cassie Dee, Mark Infante, Elizabeth Arona. Good morning. Good morning, commission
chair, commission members. Thank you very much for your service and thank you for allowing me this
time to speak in support for an approval vote to extend the Diablo Canyon power plant operations
for another five years. My name is Elizabeth Arona. I'm a member of the city council for
for the city of Solvang in Santa Barbara County.
And recently Solvang issued a proclamation
in full-throated support
of the DCP power plant continued operations.
This action underscores that we value DCPP
as it provides essential electric power to our community
and it helps in delivering essential clean energy,
renewable energy at lowered costs
and does so safely responsibly
while providing high-scale jobs and economic ecosystem.
that's important to San Luis Obispo County
and Santa Barbara County.
While there are many points to justify an approval today,
I would like to emphasize just a few.
Many have been said already,
so I'm gonna underscore a few.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
released its final environmental impact statement
confirming that DCPP meets all the environmental
requirements for another 20 years of operations.
Like many, I visited the facility and toured its operations.
I can confirm that the DCPP land is singular.
It's beautiful and PG&E does a great and excellent job
as a responsible custodian of these lands
and it's recognized as driving a series of programs,
stewardship and monitoring programs
that include extensive partnerships with universities,
scientists, cultural tribes, seismologists, researchers,
and dedicated teams to measure and access
the points of impact many of you've heard from already today.
DCPP has operated safely and reliably for 40 years already,
and the NRC has a very strong record of safety oversight.
I have observed that PGE's leadership
is strong, transparent, experienced,
they're accountable, and they're embedded in this community.
Their organization is the largest private employer
in San Luis Obispo County.
You've heard about the high-scaled, high-paying jobs,
but their operations of this plant
creates an ecosystem of suppliers, workers,
and other community jobs that multiply the benefits.
At this time, energy costs are extremely high.
Demand is increasing.
Production projections for nuclear energy
will be at an all-time high in 2025.
Taking DCPP offline now is counterproductive
to our economic and our future requirements for the state
to maintain energy growth, energy resiliency,
and clean energy production.
In short, California cannot afford to lose the 9%
of the electricity produced for the state by the plant.
Forecasts show that the state
will need an additional energy resource
equal to 10 Diablo Canyons by 2040.
I'll just simply state that taking this plant offline now would create a gap in current
energy production baseline that would create a deficit and a gap that we do not have the
time to overcome and remain competitive with other states or frankly with other countries.
While the decision before you today is a key consideration for coastal conservatorship,
access and environmental responsibility, it also affects a strategic critical asset
for the state of California's future and current economy. We simply cannot afford
to take Diablo offline today. Please consider with the proportionate balance,
the recommended conditions to support this position, and consider with the appropriate
proportionality, security, safety, and conservation versus recreation. Thank you very much for the
the time and the consideration.
Thank you.
Bob Nelson, we're actually no longer seeing Cassidy D
in the meeting, followed by Mark Infanti,
Mayor Alice Patino, and then Eileen Lowe.
Bob Nelson.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair Harmon and commissioners.
Bob Nelson from Santa Barbara County Supervisor,
not speaking on behalf of the county,
but I'm speaking on behalf of my constituents
in Northern Santa Barbara County,
that's the Santa Maria Valley, the Los Alamos Valley,
and the Lompoc Valley, which is the hometown community
of Coastal Commissioner Chairwoman Megan Harman.
I first of all want to thank staff for their hard work
with PG&E to come up with some reasonable conditions
for consistency here.
You're gonna be hearing from others
and you already have heard about PG&E
being the largest employer in San Luis Obispo County
and the relative impact on their economy.
I also want you to understand
that that's not the San Luis Obispo County,
but it's the region that is impacted here.
Santa Barbara County suffers from some
largest wealth gaps in the state and in the nation. Diablo and PG&E are in fact
one of our largest employers along with the jobs from the associated contractors
and businesses serving that plant in totality make up one of our largest
sources of head of household jobs in my disadvantaged communities. My region
often feels like it's at the epicenter of regulatory review and pressure like
others. Those impacts that impact our local economy whether that's in
in agriculture, oil and gas, commercial space,
or in this case, clean renewable energy.
I respectfully ask that you consider
my constituents in your vote.
I'd ask that you defer the alternative conditions
that are being proposed today
and go along with staff's recommendation
for conditional concurrence with a consistency determination
and approve the PG&E's CDP with conditions.
Thank you.
Thank you, Sue.
Right there.
Thank you.
Mark Infanti, Mayor Alice Patino, and then Eileen Low. Mark Infanti.
Hi Mark. We're unable to hear you. We see that you're unmuted. It appears that
you're unmuted but we are still unable to hear you. Let's move on to the next
speaker and come back to you in a little bit to see if you can work out the mic
issue. Next will be Alice Patino followed by Eileen Lowe and then we'll try Mark again.
Okay, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Okay, great. I'm Alice Patino, the mayor of the city of San
America. We have a population of over 112,000 people, and we want to support the staff
recommendation that has been brought forward. We need the facility for San America.
You know it's so important as Californians that we do protect and preserve our coastal environment
and that does include the marine life. The trail system there that allows public access
to the coast is so remarkable. When I see PG&E and Diablo promoting and providing 17% of
California's clean energy, this is so so important to us. In Santa Maria we have to plan for 30 to 40
more residents in the next 15 years, and Diablo does produce enough energy to
power the homes that we are going to be needing. Solar panels would only take up
much of our fertile ag lands. We are a fertile, we are an ag economy here in
Santa Maria area. As I said, with a population of over 112,000 and a median
income of 81,000 we need Diablo and we need the head of household paying jobs that it
brings to us.
All the vendors that work with PG&E also operate the plant creates economic multiplier.
I live in a community that cares about affordability, we care about the reliability, and we know
that electricity in California is extremely expensive and Diablo can provide the energy
that we need and the economic benefits, not just to Santa Maria or to the coast, but to
the whole state.
Diablo provides the clean power, which is great, but the clean sources are expensive,
as I have said before.
The state has mandated that our homes and our cars and the state be electrified.
And how do we do that if we don't have Diablo online?
And I want to thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today.
Thank you.
Let's actually give Mark one more chance to unmute.
Are you able to speak now?
If you are, we're still unable to hear you, unfortunately.
Now, let's move on to Eileen Lowe.
Good morning, commissioners and chair.
Thank you very much for having me.
You can hear me okay? Good?
Yes, we can. Thank you.
Great. Thank you. My name is Eileen Lowe.
I'm a member of the Aurora Grande City Council.
However, I am speaking on my own behalf today,
as the city has not considered
this or taken a position on this matter.
I am speaking in favor of the proposal to
re-license and extend the operation
of the Diablo Canyon power plant,
And I am impressed by all the speakers that have come before with many good and valid concerns
and praise for the overall proposal. I recognize that preparing for our future really requires an
extensive balancing act. I'm a lifelong resident of California and I really value Diablo Canyon
as the largest producer of clean energy in the state. Speakers before you have quantified what
that means for us in terms of clean power for our homes and what it would cost in terms
not only in money but time and other impacts and not to mention the release of greenhouse gas
emissions. Should we try to seek a replacement with technology that's available to us today?
PG&E also has a proven track record of operating a plant safely and reliably for 40 years.
Additionally, I'm a long time resident of San Luis Obispo County and have lived all my adult life
on the Central Coast and I really value Diablo Canyon for the positive impact on the local
community which extends beyond San Luis Obispo. It is the whole Central Coast as you've heard from
speakers that came before me. 13 head of household jobs is significant in and of itself but it's also
really a multiplier effect because it really influences the vibrancy of the communities here
on the Central Coast and the economy up and down California. So these benefits, you know,
not just the permanent jobs but considering the additional thousand workers or so that come in
to town during the refueling activities. So I just urge you to please approve of the
the re-licensing in light of all the comments that you've heard today. I look
forward to you doing the hard work to balance the impacts and the benefits of
this proposal. Thank you very much. Alright, here's that Mark and Fonsi
dropped out of the meeting and then we weren't able to find a few other
elected officials. If I call your name, can you please raise your hand in the
meeting if you're there. Cassie D, Jules Tuggle, Nick Salinas, John R Hammond
Jr., Jose Luis Barajas, Robert McCauley, Matthew Serrado.
I'm seeing one hand raised under the name Bobby and you're being moved in
right now. You should be able to unmute shortly and then we see you. You should
be able to unmute. Good morning and thanks to the Commission for the
opportunity to comment this morning. My name is Bobby McCauley. I'm a County
Supervisor in Madera County. I also serve as Vice Chair of the San Joaquin
Valley Air Pollution Control District. I'm a former resident of Slow County
and a lifelong resident of Central California. So while I'm not calling in
today on behalf of the district or the county I am calling in support of staff's recommendation
for approval. I want to start by making some comments with my resident hat on. You know I've
always enjoyed going to Slough County and enjoying the Point Bouchon Trail as well as the Lighthouse
Trail to the south. But as an avid fisherman I also enjoy kayak fishing in the waters to the north
out of Spooners Cove, the waters to the south, out of Port of San Luis, and as a student in San
Luis Obispo, I took advantage of the opportunity to partake in research fishing vessels up in the
marine protected area. And I've always found the fisheries to be very plentiful with sea bass,
halibut, linkod, and other species of fish. As an elected official, particularly as vice chair of
the Air Pollution Control District, I very much appreciate the comments in regards to
emissions needed to take the place of Diablo Canyon. I believe residents in the Central Valley
would bear most of the brunt of those impacts. As many folks know, air quality in the Central
Valley is difficult to improve due to our geographic conditions. So every effort we can
make to keep emissions low increases public health in the Central Valley, so I do appreciate
those comments. In addition, I think we all know that Diablo Canyon is essential for California,
not just for the next five years, but for the foreseeable future. And this is a result of the
clean, reliable, and affordable energy that it produces. So with that, again, I want to reiterate
my support for staff's recommendation and thank the Commission once again for the opportunity to
comment. Thank you. Thank you. And we were we were able to find one more. David Brown.
David Brown, you should be able to unmute. Yes, good morning. Thank you. David Brown here. I'm
mayor of Solvang and I think there'd be more energy in the room if y'all had able skivers
this morning but that's okay Solvang still has plenty for you when you get to it. As stated
earlier by council member Arona we did pass a proclamation for the city of Solvang representing
our constituency and our support for PG&E and their application for licensed renewal and extensions.
We do support that in earnest and find that, without exception today, I've heard everyone
say that this land is pristine and amazing. I think that's a testament to the stewardship
that PGD has had as it's been in their control over the many, many decades now. Then from
economic perspectives. It will help us in our in our needs for power and at an enjoyable or
discounted rate, if you will, taking advantage of existing infrastructure.
And then finally, I think it's incumbent upon us to know that it is a strategic and national
asset that here on the west coast, I would liken it to that as a strategic as Vandenberg
Space Force with what we do here and the needs for this type of infrastructure within our nation.
So with that I'll leave a little time left and I'll take a quote from Will Rogers,
never miss a good opportunity to shut up. Thank you so much for all your help.
Thank you. And I am not seeing any other elected officials in the Zoom meeting or in person,
I believe. And so Madam Chair. Okay, great. Thank you. We will continue on. And I believe the next is
general public comment. Yeah, for this item. Yep. Okay. We have a group from EDC,
Environmental Defense Center, Linda Krop and Kao Rau Konyeda.
And just for some meeting management,
after the presentation from EDC, I'm
going to suggest that we will take a lunch break.
I know the public's waiting.
I apologize.
I think we will all be able to come back refreshed
if we do that.
So thank you, Mr. Frankel to you.
And then we have been told that you're
allowed 15 minutes for your presentation. Linda crop and
Ralph, Connie Dana, whenever you're ready.
Okay. All right, good morning or afternoon. My name is Jeremy
Frankl. I'm an attorney with the Environmental Defense Center
representing Mothers for Peace. With me on zoom as our chief
counsel Linda crop, and Dr. Ralph Connie Dana, an expert in
energy transmission planning, who will explain why the
continued operation of Diablo is unnecessary. He'll also be available for questions should
you have any following our presentation. And as explained in our comment letter, we urge
you to deny both of PG&E's applications. So next slide, please. I don't have the clicker.
Do we have a clicker? So I think it's important to start with the context for how these applications
came before you today. So going back to 2016, as you heard a little bit about, environmental
groups reached a landmark agreement with PG&E to shutter Diablo since it was no
longer necessary in light of growing renewables and then in 2022 after a very
rushed three-day process the legislature passes SB 846 casting aside that
agreement and authorizing this five-year extension but in hindsight 846 was
really a knee-jerk reaction and it was justified by concerns of short-term grid
reliability that, as we'll explain, no longer exists.
So unfortunately PG&E has now seized on 846 to not only pursue a five-year extension,
but a 20-year license renewal.
So next slide.
So with that in mind, to approve PG&E's CDP and consistency applications, the commission
must find, respectively, that its proposed five-year and 20-year extensions are consistent
with all enforceable policies of the Coastal Act.
As we'll explain, continued operations would be inconsistent with several of those policies,
as you've heard a little bit about.
And so really the only path forward for either application is through the override provision.
But that provision can't be invoked, really importantly, because PG&E has not proposed
to mitigate to the maximum extent feasible.
And separately, because continued operations would be unnecessary, any extension would
adversely affect the public welfare. Next slide. So turning first to marine resources.
Next slide. So as you guys know, these sections require among other things that marine resources
be and biological productivity be maintained and were feasible restored. And considering
the immense impacts of the once through cooling or OTC system at Diablo and the shortcomings
of PG&E's mitigation package, which you've heard a little about.
We agree with staff that neither proposed extension is consistent with these policies.
Next slide.
So there's a reason that the state has moved to phase out once through cooling systems.
And here's some figures from the staff report, two and a half billion gallons of seawater
a day, and for context, that's 3,800 Olympic-sized swimming pools a day.
And in the process, the system kills billions of larval fish in platonic organisms, organisms
that importantly are the foundation for the food web in our coastal waters.
So the result is, unsurprisingly, widespread degradation, which staff has accounted for
as about 14 square miles of habitat a year.
And that comes out, just for context, that is larger than the size, the entire size of
nearby San Luis Obispo every year.
And the sheer scale of entrainment reduces biological connectivity between nearby MPAs.
So it threatens the effectiveness of California's NPA network as well.
Next slide.
So I think, importantly, those impacts are likely well underestimated.
And as the staff report acknowledges, these figures are based on studies that are near
two decades old, may not reflect current conditions, and importantly, don't appear to account for
for Diablo's elevated intake velocities.
So while undoubtedly substantial,
the full extent of entrainment impacts remain unknown.
Next slide.
So also unknown are the cumulative impacts
of Diablo's thermal effluent,
which require further analysis
that accounts for climate-driven ocean warming.
And while regulating effluent limits
generally is left for the waterborne,
effluent impacts are still relevant
when considering appropriate mitigation
and whether to invoke the override provision.
Next slide.
So let's look at the proposed mitigation from PG&E.
And so first, I just want to point out
that out of kind mitigation, it's not mitigation.
That some amount of land conservation
can replace the loss of tens of thousands
of acres of ocean habitat is just a fiction.
And second, this right of first refusal.
This is likewise in a looser reform of mitigation.
There's no guarantee that there's gonna be an approved buyer
to actually purchase this property at market price.
And true, special condition two does require PG&E
to come back, if that's the case,
and propose alternative mitigation.
But the fallacy here is that, at least according to staff,
PG&E is already mitigated to the maximum extent possible.
So a real possibility exists that a buyer can't be found,
that conservation never occurs,
and that PG&E doesn't have the ability
to provide some sort of equivalent alternative mitigation.
Next slide.
So we do agree with staff that the proposed mitigation
quote, falls significantly short
of offsetting the immense impacts of Diablo's OTC system.
And so the five-year and 20-year extensions
are inconsistent with 302.30 and 3.1.
Next slide.
And then briefly touching on the seismic hazards.
Next slide, please.
So here, section 30253, if you're familiar with,
requires PG&E to minimize geologic risks
and also assure stability.
Next slide.
So we did submit a report from Dr. Mark Legg
that addresses a few issues with staff's analysis,
which relies on this PSHA study from PG&E.
But just want to set aside that critique for a second
and just point out that the staff report
notes that that study, and as you've heard again today,
may have used inaccurate slip rate estimates
and accordingly the staff report itself calls
for additional studies.
Next slide.
So unless and until those studies are completed,
we think the commission lacks the necessary assurance
it needs to actually conclude that these proposals
would be consistent with 30253
and that the development is structurally sound.
Next slide.
Which brings us to the override provision.
Next slide.
So, first of all, whether to invoke this provision is left to the sound discretion of the commission.
If you look at the statute, there uses a permissive may.
And should the commission choose to invoke this provision, it can only be invoked under
certain specific conditions.
The two relevant here today are that impacts are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible
and that the development would not adversely affect the public welfare.
So for at least four reasons, the Commission can't find that the proposal
mitigates to the maximum extent feasible and in the interest of time I'm just
going to address these first two here. So simply because full compensatory
mitigation would be impossible, it seems that staff is just dismissing the idea
of any habitat restoration or mitigation in that degree, which really ignores the
mandate of the override provision to require maximum feasible mitigation. So
at least some habitat creation or restoration is likely feasible and at
the very least additional study is required to actually rule out that
possibility which hasn't been done. And then second, this phased conservation
plan, it can't just as a matter of basic logic be considered maximum mitigation
for the five-year CDP. So PG&E is offering to conserve 1,100 acres of the North Ranch
for the five-year extension, but holding in reserve an additional 2,200-plus acres for
down the road. But to maximize mitigation, all parcels that PG&E has identified as available
for conservation must be conserved as part of the five-year CDP. And again, that's a
sentiment that was shared by Senator Senator Laird and Assemblymember Addison
and a few others. Next slide. So as to the separate welfare finding, this requires
the Commission to balance the impacts of Diablo with the public's need for
continued operations. Next slide. First, because the full scope of Diablo's
impacts remain unknown, the Commission is unable to even engage in the
requisite balancing analysis here. However even with the information that we
do have, I think it's clear that Diablo's impacts are substantially adverse to the
public welfare. And in addition to the substantial impacts of the OTC system,
Diablo's embrittlement issues and possible lack of dry storage capacity
past 2030 also detriment the public welfare. And even if the commission is
restricted from regulating certain nuclear activities, it still must analyze
all potential impacts of the project in determining whether it's adverse to the
public welfare. Next slide. So as to the need for the project, I'm going to turn
over to Dr. Kony Dena to explain why Diablo is no longer necessary. Hopefully
he's online. I'm moving him in right now. Thank you. They should be able to unmute.
can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Okay, thank you. So Chair Harmon and
commissioners, my name is Rao Kannadhan. I'll walk you through a couple more
slides here on the need for Diablo. I used to work at the Midcontinent
independent system operator, MISO, like the California ISO. I have done a lot of
reliability resource assessments such as this one that I'm presenting which is
based on the California Public Utility Commission and the California Energy Commission
Joint Agency reports. Both indicate that Diablo is not needed because as you can see on the chart
to the right hand side, almost 27,000 megawatts of new resources have come online in the last few
years, five years, mostly solar storage, hybrid solar plus storage. But in the next four or five
years also this trend will continue. Additional 12,000 megawatts of new resources are contracted
and in development and the report that I'm alluding to from a California energy commission
recently the third quarter report doesn't necessarily say that Diablo is needed because
retirement Diablo doesn't mean we need new gas either. Next slide please. I'll walk you through
a couple more data points here because not only is 26 gigawatts been added recently, but 7 gigawatts
was added last year alone. And the transmission plan that the California independent system
operator is putting together, which California Public Utility Commission has an input into,
doesn't rely on Diablo for local capacity or grid support. As well as if you look at the 15 years,
2030 to 2045, there is very limited transmission value that DCPP has because they already assume
DCPP is going to be retired per SB 846. There is a model that the California Public
Development Commission ran to assess the impacts of the Diablo extension. So the real term impact would be on solar, for example, solar build would be seven gigabytes per year without Diablo, but with Diablo, if Diablo was extended, it would fall down to 4.5.
there is also an impact on solar plus battery storages. If Diablo was extended, then it differs
the need to build almost 8 to 12 gigawatts of solar plus battery. And I want to also comment
on the 17% carbon free that DCPP provides because in the model that the California Public Treaty
Commission ran, the planning reserve margin, which is the target that these resources have to meet in
in that model is not binding, meaning it's not necessary that the model doesn't see
DCPPS needing to meet that planning resume margin target.
And so next slide please.
In the comments also that the staff had, they were concerned about new gas coming online
if DCPP retired, but the capacity factor, meaning how much gas is actually needed for
every 100 megawatts, only 11 megawatts of new gases needed by 2031 in this CPUC model,
As well as no new gas was built through 2036.
So that's another consideration.
So I will, one more slide please and then I will turn it over to Mr. Frankl.
So there are new technologies coming online in California and elsewhere that would increase
the throughput of existing transmission systems.
So you can get almost 2.3 gigawatts three, four times than Diablo.
And that would also, if extending Diablo means that would also displace offshore wind.
So that's why I wanted to lay this groundwork for you, Mr. Frankel.
Next slide.
Okay.
So just briefly, we would maintain that the resource, the policy findings for 3031 can't
be made.
Same with the seismic policies and that the override provision, likewise, can't be invoked
here.
And I would just, I think Dr. Connie Denner was a little rushed for time and we did submit
a pretty comprehensive report from him responding to all the stuff in the staff report.
And it's in your packet.
OK, thank you very much.
With that, we are going to break for lunch to my commissioners.
It's a quick lunch.
Please be back at 1 PM.
Thank you.
OK, thank you.
Now we are ready to go.
So we will return to general public comment.
And I want to start by just making a few notes about how
we're going to manage the public comment to come.
This is an immense item with so much public interest.
We really are grateful for the engagement.
We want to hear all of your testimony.
But we also want to make sure that there's
sufficient time for us to get to deliberations
and to really dig in and have this conversation.
So I want to be upfront about the fact
that we're going to begin with two minutes per person.
We're probably about the first hour of general public comments.
And at that point, I will then be moving to one minute.
So I encourage all of you who are making
general public comment to please be as succinct as possible.
Try not to be repetitive to the extent that you can.
And please know that there is no need
to take the full two minutes, if you don't need it,
to communicate your ideas.
We would very much appreciate brevity.
And it in no way signifies a lack of passion on your part.
we fully understand that.
So, with all that said, I will turn it over to Chris
and we will begin with two minutes per person.
Thank you.
All right, and on my list we have 29 people in the room.
We'll start with Sean Bothwell, Susan Jordan,
and then Ryan Pickering.
There we go, that helps.
Good afternoon, Commission.
Sean Bothwell, I'm the Executive Director
for California Coastkeeper Alliance.
Our organization was the primary stakeholder
negotiating the once new cooling policy
from 2001 through 2010, and I personally have been the lead watch dog of the implementation
of the Once Through Cooling Policy for the last 15 years.
The requirement for best technology available has been on the books since the beginning
of the Clean Water Act, 1972, and that has required all power plants to install the best
technology available to minimize environmental impacts.
The State Water Board in 2010 adopted its Once Through Cooling Policy, which also required
power plants in California to install wet cooling towers to meet that Clean
Water Act requirement and yet since then since 2010 PG&E has done nothing but
cut a check and avoid installing any technology measures. As you heard from
staff earlier today Diablo Canyon is the most destructive facility along our
California coast. They literally have to scrape marine life off the grates to
ensure circulation maintains as they intake seawater. They're also the largest
discharger of pollution in the state of California. They discharged 2,630
million gallons of water a day. Put that in perspective, the largest wastewater
facility in California, in Los Angeles, only discharges 420 million gallons a
day. San Francisco, only 43. I want to read something from the once new cooling
policy. Quote, the State Water Board staff has concluded that impacts associated
with one-suit cooling operations, including those from Diablo Canyon, have not been sufficiently
addressed such that they can be considered compliant with the Clean Water Act 316B technology-based
mandate. And yet, Diablo Canyon has done nothing but pay mitigation, insufficient mitigation,
and illegal mitigation since 2010. There's a Supreme Court case, Riverkeeper cases, that
It says that you cannot pay restoration in lieu of best technology available.
With that I'll turn it over to Susan.
Thanks.
Hi, Susan Jordan.
I'm executive director of the California Coastal Protection Network and I'm speaking also on
behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council and Environment California.
As a reminder, in 2022 Diablo Canyon was already in the process of shutting down as a result
of a landmark 2016 legal settlement when the administration suddenly decided that it was
important for California's energy reliability to extend the plant's operating life by five
years, notably not 10, not 15, not 20 years, five years.
Despite strong opposition, including our groups, on the last night of the session, the legislature
approved SB 846 authorizing the five-year extension, including certain requirements
to mitigate the plant's impacts.
This was not a kumbaya movement, it was a hectic and controversial decision.
And here we are today.
I want to be clear that our groups, all three of us, strongly support EDC's recommendation
to deny both the permit and to object to the consistency determination.
But if the Commission concludes that it is not willing to deny both, we would urge that
you at least object to the consistency determination.
And if you decide to approve the CDP for the five-year extension, that you incorporate
the conditions so clearly outlined in Senator Laird's letter and ensure that they are required
now, not later in some later proceeding or future point in time.
This plan has done immeasurable, and there's a difference in definition of immeasurable
versus unmeasurable, and I'm using immeasurable, to California's coastal resources over its
40-year operating life. More damage by far than any other coastal power plant. The time
to require compensatory mitigation is now and hold PG and accountable for the clear
damage it will incur during the five-year extension. Should they want to continue to
operate past five years, they can always return to you for your consideration at that time.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ryan Pickering, Clint Olivier,
Jennifer Savage, Dora Westerlund.
Thank you.
My name is Ryan Pickering.
I'm an energy policy researcher here in California,
speaking on agenda items 8A and 9A.
Yachtichu Tichu, Yachtilhini is the only tribe
with a documented ancestral and cultural claim
to the Diablo Canyon lands.
Their connection to this coastline is supported
by extensive historical, linguistic, and archaeological evidence and affirmed by state and federal
agencies. Any future disposition of these lands must center their leadership, vision,
and stewardship. SB 846 Section 9.712 makes this clear, quote, the Commission shall include
consideration of tribal interests in its review, including the opportunity for tribes to acquire
lands that are cultural, historical, or tribal significance.
The law further specifies that the authority for land disposition resides with the California
Public Utilities Commission, not the Coastal Commission.
Any pending action that seeks to dictate or constrain the use of these lands is outside
the Commission's jurisdiction and opens the door to unnecessary legal conflict.
Within that framework, PG&E's proposed mitigation measures should not include encumbrance on
on the land itself.
A wiser and more forward thinking alternative
would be a mitigation fee to support ocean rewilding,
specifically, Yachtichu Tichu Yachtilhini's
abalone restoration initiative in the project area.
This honors tribal stewardship,
meets ecological goals, and eliminates legal exposure.
It is clear California wants this plant to remain online.
Diablo Canyon is the state's largest single source
of clean, reliable electricity,
delivering base load energy to 4 million residents
while protecting rate payers and reducing carbon emissions.
The facility operates in harmony
with one of the most ecologically monitored coastal zones
in the country and its continued success depends
on honoring local tribal partnership.
Thank you.
Finally, I urge the commission to remove
Northern Chumash Tribal Council from this proceeding.
They are known to be not native people
and determined by California courts in 2017
reaffirmed by this book who gets to be an Indian which documents that they
have deceived the public for decades the charade must end as part of
California's responsibility to protect. Thank you next Clint Olivier Jennifer
Savage, Dora Westerland, David Wiseman. Good afternoon commissioners my name is
Clint Olivier I am with the Business Federation of the Central Valley. We
support an all-of-the-above energy strategy and Diablo Canyon is a key
part of that. It's safe, it's reliable, it's environmentally responsible, and
produces clean power for millions of Californians. Extending its operations
strengthens grid reliability and keeps energy affordable as we continue
expanding renewables statewide into the future. Please adopt this extension. It is
a smart, balanced step towards California's energy future. Thank you.
Thank you. Jennifer Savage, Dora Westerlin, David Wiseman. Good afternoon
commissioners. My name is Dora Westerlin and I'm the president CEO of the Fresno
Area Hispanic Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing
economic prosperity and entrepreneurship in Central Valley. I am here today to
express our strong support for the continued operation of the Ablo Canyon
Power Plant. As an organization that champions equitable economic growth
We recognize how reliable, affordable, and clean energy supports thriving communities
and helps local business grow particularly in regions like Central Valley where energy
reliability is essential to both families and entrepreneurs.
I have personally visited Diablo Canyon and I see it as one of the wonders of this world
and I can say that today that with confidence that this plant is operated with the highest
the standards of safety, care, and environmental stewardship.
From dedicated staff to the detailed safety protocols,
it is clear that Pacific Gas and Electric Company
takes seriously its responsibility
to protect both people and the beautiful coastal environment
that surrounds the facility.
Seeing the thriving marine life and the commitment
to preserving coastal resources left a lasting impression
in me.
Diablo Canyon produces 17% of California's clean electricity
enough to power 4 million homes.
From an environmental standpoint,
Diablo Canyon represents California largest source
of carbon free energy reducing emissions equivalent
to removing nearly 8 million cars from the road each year.
In the Central Valley, we see firsthand
how reliable clean energy drives business growth,
creates jobs and fosters innovation.
Extending Diablo Canyon's operation through 2030
is not just a smart environmental decision.
It is an economic lifeline that helps keep our communities
strong and competitive.
Thank you for your support.
Thank you.
Jennifer Savage, David Weissman, Benjamin Shaggy,
Nathan Jacobs.
Hi, thank you.
Good afternoon, Jennifer Savage, Surfrider Foundation.
The staff reports admission that this mitigation plan
cannot achieve consistency with the coastal acts marine resource protection policies due
to the scale of entrainment impacts should be a starting point for crafting adequate
mitigation not an end point for invoking override provisions.
In the interest of brevity and avoiding repetition we urge you to give utmost consideration to
the presentation by EDC on behalf of Mothers for Peace and if you do not choose denial
we urge you to require more sufficient mitigation to actually achieve your mandate to maintain
marine productivity.
We ask that you require the proposed mitigation measures put forth by Senator Laird, conservation
easements across North Ranch and South Ranch, protection mechanisms for Wild Cherry Canyon,
realistic trail funding for perpetual management, and that all this mitigation is tied to the
currently authorized 2025-2030 period.
Thank you.
Thank you.
David Weissman, Benjamin Shaggy, Nathan Jacobs, Rohan Reddy.
David Weissman, Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility.
the sole reliance on land protection scenarios for mitigation produces an unacceptably long
period to achieve a net zero balance point between impact and mitigation. The staff report
fails to fully investigate the advantage of including an artificial reef as a sole mitigation,
which is what they're looking at it as, rather than as part of a portfolio of mitigation.
Writing they do, it is not clear there is a sufficient area nearby to construct the hundreds
acres of artificial reefs that would be needed. If it is not clear, then this ambiguity needs
to be resolved and clarity achieved before this potential solution can be dismissed.
Further, the report goes on, direct mitigation through habitat restoration on a scale to fully
offset the adverse impact of marine life has not been shown to be demonstrated or successful.
Again, the staff has provided no indication they evaluated a reef's role in providing
partial mitigation in the portfolio of methodologies.
It does go on to say that if it were successful, 300 acres of reef would offset 20 years of
operation in 44 years, as opposed to 209.
Well, if your goal is maximum feasible mitigation, is this not a path to success?
What about evaluating multiple smaller reefs?
In addition to that, the staff report also dismisses the feasibility of reducing entrainment
by installing mechanical fine mesh screens, but they air in claiming, quote,
the screens would likely be subject to review and approval by the NRC,
not only for safety purposes, but to ensure the structures meet required
standards for safe plan operation. In actuality, the Diablo Canyon
Independence Safety Committee reviewed this and concluded that
the Betel assessment that no license amendment request is required
might be correct for the inshore fine mesh screening system
because this option involves the least modification to the plant.
If this was a process like a 1970s game show,
it seems like the contestant just gets to pick one door to choose from.
But in this case, the adverse impacts demand a portfolio of solutions.
Thank you.
Thank you. Benjamin Shaggy, Nathan Jacobs,
Rohan Reddy, Nev and Green.
Good afternoon. I'm a student at UC Berkeley and a geospatial scientist
working in nuclear policy and safety research, I am here in support of the staff recommendation
to enable re-licensing of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant.
Diablo Canyon alone currently produces about 9% of California's energy.
The simple truth is that, especially with the growth in novel computing technology techniques,
we cannot afford to take that offline.
While aspirations of replacing Diablo Canyon's capacity with solar and wind are acute, I
I would like to remind commissioners
that when the San Inofrio reactor was shut down,
it was replaced almost entirely by fossil fuels.
Further over-reliance on renewables
that produce intermittent loads without black start capability
leave us exposed to mass power crises,
like what happened to Texas in the winter of 2021.
The evidence is clear.
Nuclear power is the cleanest, safest, and most reliable,
and most physically sound way to generate power.
I would like to acknowledge the staff's rigor
in researching the real environmental impacts
of the continued operation of this power plant.
I would like to place this into the context
that any environmental impacts from the Diablo Canyon
absolutely pale in comparison to the impacts of fossil fuels.
Need I remind the commissioners of the explosion
at the El Segundo Chevron refinery just last month
that grievously injured workers and spewed untold amounts
of toxic fumes into the coastal environments.
Last May, I had the opportunity to visit the Diablo Canyon
power plant.
It was truly incredible to see the exhaustive extent
PG&E goes to, to support and protect natural landscapes
in the area around the reactor.
The safety culture around the plant is kind of insane.
As an example, just before we visited,
the entire staff was compelled to go through a safety training
just because someone fell off a short ladder
and sprained their ankle.
This safety culture extends their storage of used fuel,
all of which is stored on site using industry leading engineer storage systems.
I think you go up your time.
Thank you.
Next Nathan Jacobs.
Rohan Reddy, Neven Green, Conrad Buck.
Good afternoon.
I'm Natan Jacobs, a student at UC Berkeley, and I'm studying nuclear engineering.
I'm also part of the Nuclear Is Clean Energy Club.
It's a nuclear advocacy group on campus.
So I've lived all across California.
I lived in Philcal, Los Angeles, and now I'm in the Bay.
And now I also live in Redding, California.
I've seen pretty much all parts of our coastline,
from Pismo Beach to Eureka to Santa Monica.
And I am coming to you today to ask
you to allow Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant
to use our beautiful coastline.
Last May, I had the privilege to visit the site of Diablo
Canyon and get a tour of the land it used.
The group which I was part of visited the waters around the
power plant.
And we saw a very minimal impact on the water and the
environment around it.
We saw seals, we saw active environment, active animals.
I also like to acknowledge that if Diablo Canyon can't
continue operating, California can also lose 9% of its
energy with an already exhausted grid.
we would need to replace it with natural gas
or any other kind of non-renewable fuel.
These non-renewables, which have a well documented effect
on the environment, would have a much larger effect
than if Diablo Canyon continued operating.
If we replace it with renewables, such as solar or wind,
it would require many, many more times
the amount of land the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant
already takes up, which could possibly disturb
native lands and native animals.
is in the interest of California who wants to reach its carbon-free goal by 2025 to
re-license Yellow Canyon. Thank you for your time.
Thank you. Rohan Reddy, Neven Green, Conrad Buck, Precious Ina.
Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Rohan Reddy, and I'm a student at UC Berkeley studying
nuclear engineering. I am the co-president of the Nuclear Is Clean Energy, or NICE, club.
My fellow students and I toured Diablo Canyon in May and it was one of the most memorable
experiences of my life.
Diablo Canyon is a bastion of sustainability and safety.
The first thing I noticed when I arrived there was how beautiful the land around the power
plant is.
It is a pristine Californian ecosystem, as nature intended.
Human technological growth so often harms the world around us, and I'm so grateful
to nuclear power plants like Diablo Canyon for showing the world that it doesn't have
to be that way.
When I saw the inner workings of the power plant, I learned about how it protects not
only nature, but humans as well.
Rather than emitting tons of carbon dioxide and other air pollutants like fossil fuels
do, all the waste, from 40 years of powering 9% of California, is stored in a few sturdy
casks on site, not in my lungs.
These casks are so strong, you could crash a rocket-powered train into them, and they
will not crack or leak. I encourage you to look up dry-cask accident testing
videos on YouTube. They're some of my favorite videos ever. I learned that, I
also learned that Diablo Canyon is built to withstand magnitude 9 earthquakes
which is incredible. So Diablo Canyon is protecting the land and protecting the
people of California and now it is our turn to protect Diablo Canyon. This
facility has to stay operational for as long as possible. Our fight against
climate change, against air pollution, and against ecological destruction depends on
it. Thank you. Thank you.
Nevin Green, Conrad Buck, Prishasina, Valeria, Garcia Herrera. If any of you have heard
your name, you can approach it. Let's see. Good afternoon commissioners. My name is Conrad
Buck. I'm a student at UC Berkeley studying nuclear engineering, and I've come here today
to express my support for the renewable of Diablo Canyon's access to California's coastline.
I took a tour of Diablo Canyon last spring during the Unit 1 refueling outage.
Our tour guides took us on a hike around the plant to see the native wildlife of the hills
and on a boat tour in the outfall and intake harbors of the plant where we saw a variety
of sea life.
Diablo Canyon is an energy source that is on 24-7 throughout the year, consistently
generating 10% of California's electricity.
It provides clean energy throughout the day without creating any carbon emissions.
If Diablo Canyon were to be replaced with intermittent sources of energy, such as wind
and solar, we would need additional combustion based energy sources to match the capacity
and the consistency of the nuclear plant. The carbon emissions from these sources would
contribute to ocean acidification and the amount of land needed to deploy these energy
sources could never match the energy production density that Diablo Canyon has.
I understand that the plant may have a negative impact on the ocean environment immediately
at the cooling unit of the plant, but the alternatives for generating the same amount
of electricity as Diablo Canyon are far worse for the environment overall. Because of this,
In the interest of reducing carbon emissions, utilizing the clean energy sources that we
have today, and making the most efficient use of our natural resources, the Diablo Canyon
nuclear energy plant should be allowed to continue operations and keep producing clean,
grid-stabilizing electricity for as long as possible.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Again, Nevan Green, Prisha Sina, Valeria Garcia Herrera, Brian Assel, Nevan and Prisha had
Council Valeria Garcia can't make it today sorry okay Valeria Garcia Herrera
Ryan Afsall Caitlin Jennings hello my name is Ryan I'm a student at Cal
Berkeley I grew up on the west coast I live in California I would like to
briefly speak to the Commission today in favor of keeping Diablo Canyon open
beyond 2030 I have a great deal of respect for the concerns of other
community members over health of people, wildlife, the environment, and the sustainability of
our energy. Diablo Canyon provides 2 gigawatts of clean, reliable electricity and has done
so for over 40 years. The San Onofra nuclear plant also 2 gigawatts shut down in 2013 and
when it did, we were promised, as we are today with Diablo, that it would be replaced with
clean renewables. But it was replaced with almost 2 gigawatts of new natural gas turbines
that operate today. Natural gas currently provides 34% of our state's electricity, and
it is well understood in the scientific community how poisonous it is for human health and for
that of the environment. Statistically speaking, several hundred people in California alone
will die every year because of the air pollution emitted by our natural gas turbines. The two
gigawatts of capacity which replaced San Onofra will cost several dozen people's lives every
from the pollution they emit to say nothing of their impact on the
environment, on warming our planet, on the health of our oceans. Yet zero people
die every year from Diablo Canyon and nobody has died from the anything
emitted by that plant for over 40 years. The fate of that plant is now in the
hands of the Coastal Commission and should the commissioners choose to have
the plant shut down they will be doing so understanding that the electricity it
produces will likely be made up for by natural gas and that people's lives will
be put at risk should it be that way. I know that the Commission will consider
this decision very carefully and I hope that they take into account the risk
that shutting it down in the name of protecting the environment or as a
precautionary measure may have unintended consequences that will place human lives
and the health of the environment in great danger. Thank you.
Thank you. Valerie Garcia Herrera, Kaitlyn Jennings, Jacob Evans, Alvin Dione.
Hello everyone. My name is Kaitlyn Jennings and I'm a nuclear engineering
undergraduate at UC Berkeley. I was a graciously hosted at Diablo Canyon for
a facility and grounds tour this past spring and it was a privilege to see the
impact of remote, robust environmental stewardship. The lands and water the
plants sit on are pristine.
It was incredible to see so many seals, sea lions, and sea
birds, and to hear about the newly-cited sharks in the area.
More interesting was to hear about the thriving black abalone
population and endangered species living in the waters
off the coast of Diablo.
The marine ecosystem of Diablo's coast
is thriving and home to important species.
And I hope that we can continue to have the plant operational.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next, Jacob Evans, Alvin Dion, Donny Davis,
Gabrielle O'Conn. Good afternoon, commissioners. Jacob Evans. I'm a senior policy strategist with Sierra
California, a map of over a half a million members and supporters in
California today. The Coastal Commission must deny PG&E's coastal development
permit that is before you and find this project inconsistent with the CCMA. The
staff report's outline mitigations do not come close to the needed mitigations
for Diablo's extension, nor do they align with the long-suited desires of the
community, the priorities of the legislature and CNRA, or the Coastal
the permanent protections outlined in the Coastal Acts.
Should permitting move forward,
the permit must require the minimum mitigations
necessary to protect our coast.
We ask that three key mitigations be included
in any CDP for Diablo's extension.
One, permanent conservation of all 12,000 acres
of the Diablo Canyon lands,
their conservation easement or otherwise,
including the mandatory transfer
of the Wild Cherry Canyon lands to a state agency
or nonprofit land conservation group,
and the entirety of the North and South Ranch
of the Diablo Canyon lands
placed under our conservation easement.
Two, offshore marine mitigation such as artificial reefs and estuarine habit restoration are
a full explanation from staff as to why these would be infeasible as partial mitigations.
And third, sufficient funding from PG&E to ensure that the planned trail system has long
term financial support for implementation and maintenance and that future conservation
efforts remain well funded.
The decision to permanently protect the Diablo Canyon lands has been kicked on the road for
decades and has an insufficient permit before you fall short.
In 2006, the opportunity to protect the Dablo Canyon lands came before the coastal commission
as part of a different CDP, but the protection of all 12,000 acres was pushed off for a future
decision.
Should you move forward with granting a CDP today, please include all, not some, of the
required protections that have been postponed for decades.
It's quite possible that this is the last opportunity to require these mitigations.
If Jablos permit moves forward, these protections cannot wait.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next.
Alvin Dion.
Davis, Gabriella Econ, Scott Buckles. Good afternoon commissioners. My name is Alvin
Deon, California resident. The decision before is requires a clear-eyed analysis of net outcomes.
The evidence points out to one conclusion that continued support and operation of the
Advil Canyon under the proposed terms that would represent a significant net benefit
California. Considered effects the proposal mandates a conservation of 12,000
acres of critical coastal watershed, a permanent environmental gain, and it
ensures that continued production of the vast carbon-free electricity which is
indispensable for the grid reliability and our climate targets. The
comprehensive environmental oversight provides a robust framework for
protecting marine sources, and when weighted against the alternative, the benefits are clear
and compelling. I strongly recommend you to please vote to approve items 8A and 9A. Thank you.
Thank you. Next, Donnie Davis, Gabriela Cahn, Scott Buckles, and then Alyssa Buckles.
Good afternoon, Congress. Excuse me, commissioners. My name is Donnie Davis. I am a lifetime member of
resident of California. I'm coming to you, of course, just like everybody else
just spoke on, of keeping Diablo Canyon power plant open. Like the majority, I
would assume the majority of California would believe in climate change, right.
With that being said, Diablo Canyon is the largest clean energy producer in
California. You guys already heard the number as far as four hundred, four
million people being serviced with energy. If we're serious about a hundred
percent greenhouse gas, free electric grid, we cannot afford to lose the vital infrastructure.
If Diablo Canyon closes, of course, we're going to need like 10 of them, 10 Diablo Canyons
within the next, by 2040, just to keep, just to meet the need, right?
With that being said, Diablo Canyon is not just a power plant, it's a climate solution.
Please approve the permits and help California lead the way in clean, reliable energy.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Gabriela Khan, Scott Buckles, Alyssa Buckles, Anthony Butler-Torres.
Hello everybody, I'm Gabriela Khan, I'm just a California resident, I'm here today to hope
you guys will keep Diablo Canyon running, oh hello everybody, I'm Gabriela Khan, just
a California resident, I hope you guys will keep Diablo Canyon running for the people
that work there and also to help reduce the stress off the electric grid and that's all
Well, thank you.
Thank you.
Scott Buckholes, Alyssa Buckholes, Anthony Butler
Torres, Kayela Jones.
Well, hi there.
I'm Scott.
I'm coming from the Avila Beach Point St. Louis Lighthouse.
And it's a pleasure to see you guys here.
That's kind of a picture of what it looks like.
And next slide.
Boy, I tried.
It was built in 1890.
And it sits on the Pichot Coast Trail,
which is one of the trails that's up for discussion today.
It was used for the kids that lived at the lighthouse
to go all the way to the schoolhouse and back.
Next slide.
It was completely restored.
Everything is original.
It's an all-volunteer force.
75 volunteers, to this day, are active.
Many of them docents, some of them
like to be workaholics, especially on the Tuesday work
crew.
Next slide.
What you might not realize is that we do a lot with the kids.
We're the organization on the ground
to bring a lot of the people out to the coast.
Especially folks that have never been out there.
We do a huge fourth grade program with the schools.
And we do a lot with the high schoolers as well.
Next slide.
That Fresnel lens has made its home back.
It's in the horn room.
You can go all the way up to the top,
and it's all docent led.
The challenge that we have is on that Pedro Coast Trail.
Next slide.
This is a zoomed in view to kind of see
what that section looks like.
It's lost in the noise of all the other really cool trails
that are coming that we're very excited about.
Next slide.
This gives you an idea of what it looks like on that trail
today.
A lot of kid groups come out and all volunteer led.
And of course, we have the Patsy Stowe-Stebins Memorial
at the Oak Grove.
And that Oak Grove, just to give you an idea, on the next slide,
is located where we think the new proposed trail will enter.
But look at all that blue trail that we lose.
So that's what's gonna be lost forever with this change
unless we have something in the CDP.
That's what makes us sad.
We think there's a realignment opportunity
to simply provide a walk path,
which you can kinda see in these photos,
to the stairway that leads up there today.
And then the next slide, next slide.
The last slide, sorry.
Yeah, that's basically our ask if that can't be done.
And thank you so much.
Thank you.
Alyssa Buckles, Anthony Butler Torres, Ayla Jones.
Steve Ray.
Alyssa.
OK.
Thank you.
Hello, Anthony Butler Torres, on behalf of the California
Hispanic Chambers of Commerce.
Don't want to go through all the same facts
everyone has said, just in general.
With this, we want to support PG&E's application
for the re-licensing and extension for the Diablo
Canyon and the power plants operations.
this will just help the local economies
and the areas over there.
So with that being said,
the California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
urges you to approve the request before you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Kayla Jones, Steve Ray, Julian Lake, Ben Davis Jr.
Good afternoon, commissioners and Madam Chair.
My name is Kayla Jones.
I'm a California resident and I mean,
I am here in support of extending PG&E operations
at Diablo Canyon Power Plant.
California's energy grid is under strain
On hot days, customers receive Flex Alerts
warning of potential blackouts.
And as you have heard many times today,
Diablo Canyon provides a total 9%
of California's electricity,
a baseload source that operates 24-7, 365 days a year.
Removing Diablo Canyon from the grid
would be a step backwards and harmful for customers.
We would be trading a safe, clean,
and reliable energy source for uncertainty.
As we build out renewables,
We need a stable foundation.
Diablo Canyon is that foundation.
I don't believe we should gamble with reliability.
We are asking for your support to approve the permits
and keep California powered safely and sustainably.
Thank you so much for your time.
Thank you, sorry for mispronouncing your name.
Steve Ray, Julian Lake, Ben Davis Jr.
Oh, Madam Chair, commissioners, staff,
and members of the public.
I'm gonna say something you haven't heard yet today.
I attended the original hearings
And I'm still alive.
So that all these years later, I'm
disappointed that we have to still argue about this.
I'm disappointed that there isn't better and more science
to help guide our decisions here.
It's a shame we've gotten this point
and still don't have all the information like we
did all those years ago.
I would say that you're probably going to approve this project
simply because it creates energy that we need.
It's operable, it's clean, at least for the air,
but it's deadly for the sea life.
You know, there's good and bad here on all sides.
I would say as you go into your deliberations,
consider a couple things.
One, that the extension time for this could be reduced.
We don't have to go for the full load here.
Second is that the mitigation is woefully inadequate.
It needs much, much, much more mitigation.
You've heard from a lot of people
here about what some of those could and should be.
I would encourage you to think carefully.
I know you will.
And hopefully, I won't have to come back 40 years from now
and do this all over again.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next, Julian Lake and then Ben Davis Jr.
and then we'll move to our zoom participants.
Good afternoon, Chair Harmon and commissioners.
My name is Julian Lake.
I'm speaking on behalf of the Bay Area Council, which
represents over 350 of the Bay Area's leading
employers and civic leaders.
For 80 years, the Bay Area Council
has worked to make our region the most innovative,
sustainable, and inclusive in the world,
and also reliably clean carbon free.
And essential to that mission is the Diablo Canyon nuclear power
plant. I'm here to express support for the approval of the coastal development
permits and consistency certification needed to continue the operation of the
Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant through 2030. Today Diablo Canyon
provides about 9% of California's total electricity and nearly 17% of its zero
carbon electricity. Extending its operation will help prevent millions of
tons of additional greenhouse gas emissions and avoid reliance on fossil
fuels, and support the state's decarbonization goals while protecting customers, consumers,
and potential rate spikes and reliability risks.
We understand that the Coastal Commission must ensure California's coastal resources
are protected, and I've personally visited Diablo Canyon and seen the local flora and
fauna living in harmony with the power plant.
We're confident that the Diablo Canyon team has taken appropriate mitigation measures
and continues to responsibly manage its environmental impacts.
The marine ecosystem surrounding the plant is clear evidence of that balance.
We urge the Commission to approve the pending permits and allow Diablo Canyon to continue
its operations as an essential bridge in California's clean energy transition, supporting our climate,
economic, and environmental objectives.
Thank you for your consideration.
Thank you.
Next Ben Davis, Jr.
Hello.
I'm Ben Davis, Jr.
I'm credited with drafting the initiative that closed eventually the Rancho Seco Nuclear
Power Plant and for doing so I was served several years on SMUD's rate advisory board.
I learned how to draft initiatives and how to navigate the federal preemption issue because
of a case I filed against Sacramento County for adopting the nuclear power plant response
plans and taking an exemption not unlike the one you're considering today, they used public
resources code, 21-080-B4, you're using another one of that section's exemptions.
The reason I bring all of this up is I filed another, I filed that initiative to close
the power plant after Chernobyl.
After Fukushima, I filed a statewide initiative to close the rest of the state's nuclear power
plants.
And as a result, I came to terms with the Public Utility Commission, the Energy Commission,
in Cal Iso who all said we needed nuclear power.
They told the legislative analyst office that we needed it.
And the legislative analyst office cited with them
said we would lose tens of billions a year
if we closed the nuclear power plants.
I disagreed.
I took the issue to the Supreme Court.
And the legislative analyst office changed its mind
and sided with me.
This took all the language out about costing
tens of millions of dollars.
bring all this up because you're going to be throwing all sorts of facts and
figures today. You cannot digest them, you cannot determine what's facts and
what's fiction. What I can offer you is a track record. When I disagreed with
the state's main energy advocates, I won and I can tell you today we do not need
the energy from Diablo Canyon. We didn't need it clear through 2017 when they
decided to close the plant suddenly we needed it again they go back and forth
for political reasons not based on science really and so I think you should
I would just add one other thing if I could the reason I bring all this up is
you haven't considered the economics in considering your environmental review as
far as a no project alternative and therefore I would side against your
staff recommendation thank you very much for your help thank you before we go on
to zoom speakers. I will just give a reminder. We will be bringing you 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'll be moved back to attendee mode.
I will be have a list of 74 speakers that we are seeing on zoom. We'll start with Linda Seeley,
Linda Parks, Rachel Whelan, and Carl Wertz.
Linda Seeley, I'm moving you in.
Linda Parks, Rachel Whelan, and Carl Wertz.
We're starting there.
Linda Seeley, you should be, all right, we see you.
I see that you're unmuted.
You can go right ahead.
Good afternoon.
Thank you so much for holding this hearing today.
Something that I've noticed in your staff report
is that you've paid very little attention
to the storage of the nuclear waste over the next 20 years.
I know that you're precluded from considering issues
about nuclear waste.
However, you are not precluded from figuring out
where it's going to be stored.
PG&E has said that they can store all of the nuclear waste
that's created through 2045 in their spent fuel pools
plus the dry cask storage.
The dry cask storage can hold waste up through 2025.
So what we're talking about is holding an additional 20 years
worth of highly radioactive nuclear fuel in spent fuel
pools for 20 years.
And there is nowhere to transfer that spent fuel in.
That's within a practicable site,
because there are no sites identified
to take that spent fuel.
What you'll be left with is the responsibility
when PG&E applies to build a new independent spent fuel
facility, where they're going to have to blow up a mountain,
essentially, to make a safer storage space.
Because the waste is safer in dry cask storage
than it is in the spent fuel pools.
You're going to be left with that decision
about the cost, the environmental consequences,
et cetera of building a new ISFSI.
Don't forget that Supervisor Gibson reminded you
that the independent
review family
has not quite finished its report.
You need to look at that.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Linda Parks, Rachel Whelan, Carl Wurtz, Jill Zimek.
Linda Parks.
Hi, good afternoon.
I'm Linda Parks.
former Ventura County Supervisor, Mayor, and Council Member, I'd like for you to look at the
proposal before you as though it were a new nuclear power plant coming before you instead of an old
embroidered nuclear power plant. And I think if you look at it with that perspective, that this
is something new coming before you but with the same old technology, I think you would certainly
disallow once through cooling, right? Because of the extensive significant damage to marine life
through the entrainment and because of ocean heating. I think you would also disallow the
siding for the plant until it's determined whether the active thrust faults underneath it could
destroy the plant in an earthquake. I think you would also disallow stockpiling of radioactive
waste in ponds that have inadequate protection from drone and terrorist attacks. And I also think
you would disallow its nuclear energy from keeping clean renewable energy from coming online
due to the limited capacity of the area's transmission lines. Senator John Laird,
whose district includes Diablo Canyon, states PG&E has yet to meet the requirements of SB 846,
including its requirement for sufficient mitigation. Indeed, it's ludicrous that
the litigation PG&E agreed to for decommissioning of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant is actually
more than what is now being offered for keeping it running.
Additionally, it is not within the Coastal Commission's charge to enable PG&E's 20-year
license extension when SB 846 only authorized five years.
Therefore, you should also deny the consistency certification.
PG&E has not met today's standards or laws, including SB 846, and the result is inadequate
mitigation for the unprecedented destruction of marine life on the Central Coast.
Please deny the Coastal Development Permit and the-
Thank you.
Next, Rachel Weyland, Carl Wertz, Jill Zemeck, Kalea Conrad.
Rachel Weyland.
Good afternoon.
I'm Rachel Weyland, and I'm the Governmental Affairs Coordinator at the San Luis Obispo
Chamber of Commerce, the largest and oldest business organization on the central coast.
We're here today to express our support for PG&E's continued long-term operations at Diablo Canyon.
The NRC recently found the plant safe to operate and fully compliant with environmental standards
for another 20 years. That confirmation reinforces what we already know,
that Diablo Canyon is a vital part of our energy and economic future.
As the voice of local business, we know that a stable electric grid is essential.
Diablo Canyon provides nearly 10 percent of California's power and does so without emitting
carbon. Losing that source would threaten grid reliability and hinder the state's ability to
meet climate goals. The California Energy Commission has found no existing clean energy
resources that can fully replace Diablo's output yet. As we continue to electrify our world through
carbon free energy, to battle climate change, the demand for power is going to grow. Renewable
energy is critical to our long-term strategy of meeting that need, but we're seeing that
the continued struggle of permitting and bringing battery storage, wind, and solar projects online.
We cannot meet our current needs for electrification without the carbon-free power
of Diablo Canyon power plants. Nuclear power is consistent and a carbon-free source of power.
Diablo Canyon stands as the largest private employer in Sanappos Obispo County and is
central to the health and vibrancy of our regional economy. Please approve PG&E's continued operations
at Diablo Canyon. Thank you for your time and commitment to California's energy and energy
future and environment. Thank you. Next is Karl Wertz, Jill Zemeck, Kalea Conrad, Jean Nelson.
Carl Wurtz, and we have your presentation.
OK, great.
Good afternoon.
I'm Carl Wurtz, representing Fish in Transition.
First off, I'd like to thank staff for the thorough analysis
you've performed on this recommendation, which
we support.
We hope for a situation where tribal lands can be completely
returned to YTT, its rightful owners.
With the understanding, continued operation of Diablo
could be negotiated with a lease from the tribe.
We understand sometimes compromises
necessary that PG&E's proposal represents a suitable offset to effects entrainment has on sea
life. In my power plant and my power point I wanted to make a simple but important point
about long-term reliance on natural gas which I think is overlooked. Can clean power from Diablo
Canyon power plant be replaced by renewables? Next slide. Governor Newsom and others have touted
renewable energy including solar and wind as a potential replacement for Diablo Canyon if the
The plan closes in 2030.
Unlike Diablo Canyon, solar and wind are intermittent sources, the power they provide is dependent
on weather and time of day.
When they aren't available, it's necessary to generate electricity by burning natural
gas to meet customer demand.
Since 2010, adoption of wind, solar, and other intermittent renewables has resulted in an
percent increase in U.S. electricity generated at gas-fired power plants. Gas is now the
second largest source of U.S. CO2 emissions after gasoline. Next slide. Wind and solar
can reduce CO2 emissions but only when they're available. Diablo Canyon's ability to provide
Californians with reliable baseload power that emits no CO2 is irreplaceable and will
be essential for meeting California's aggressive zero emissions goal by 2045.
Next slide.
With Diablo Canyon, we have an $11 billion investment in a state-of-the-art nuclear plant,
one that should not be wasted.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next.
Jill Zamek, Kalia Conrad, Gene Nelson, John Steinbeck.
Jill Zamek.
Hi.
I'm Jill Zamek.
live in a rural grande downwind from dangerous Diablo Canyon. I call upon you to deny both the
consistency certification and the coastal development permit. First and foremost, the energy
from Diablo Canyon is no longer needed. Much has changed since SV846 passed in 2022. Its energy is
now replaceable by the significant increase in new renewables, storage and geothermal resources.
This is made clear at the recent Diablo Canyon Decommissioning Engagement Panel Meeting
with a presentation by David Earn from the California Energy Commission.
Quote, if you look between now and about 2030, we have sufficient resources on just an average
one in ten kind of situation. We're doing great. We have excess resources. If we were to have
something like the event we had in 2020, we'd still have enough resources to ride through there
about a gigawatt of resources. If we had an event like we did in 2022, we should still have enough."
I'd like to add to Linda Seeley's mention about high-level radioactive waste. When Diablo Canyon
is decommissioned, there will be what is called greater than class C waste. The current storage
area is not large enough to accommodate the approximately 10 casks of this waste.
It has not yet been determined where this waste would be stored but it looks like PG&A would likely
need to construct a new storage pad. I didn't see any mention of this in the staff report.
Let's see, there's no debate regarding the severity of the detrimental impacts of the
marine environment from the once through cooling system, but trading land for the destruction of
our local marine environment is not a good deal for sea life. I'm looking for direct
mitigation, artificial reefs, or fine mesh screens, or shut the plant down. Also, Diablo
Canyon is surrounded by a network field. Thank you. Kalia Conrad, Jean Nelson, John
Steinbeck, John Lindsay. Kalia Conrad, go ahead.
Good afternoon to the California Coastal Commission. My name is Kalia Conrad and I live in the
City of San Luis Obispo. Considering the enormity of the impacts to marine life of Diablo Canyon,
I'm here to echo the alternative mitigation plan outlined in Senator Laird's letter
and the Yachtichu Tichu tribe urging you to require the immediate conservation with an easement or
otherwise of all 12,000 acres of Diablo Canyon lands as a minimum mitigation as soon as possible
and in perpetuity regardless of decommissioned timing. Please reject the staff recommendation
that reduces the total acreage of 12 of total a area of 12,000 acres to 1100 acres which is
less than 10 percent and unacceptable. I'm here to tell you that it's your responsibility to
conserve the entirety of the Diablo lands and work with and fund the Yak-Tichu-Tichu tribe,
the original stewards of this land to support both onshore and offshore mitigations and restoration
opportunities including financial support for YTT to purchase and restore the abalone farm.
The Commission should also require a sufficient endowment to manage all of the proposed public access trails.
You have the responsibility to pursue maximum mitigation measures and that includes all 12,000 acres of these lands.
For 25 years, the preservation of the entire area has been well supported by SLO county voters, California Natural Resources agencies, the state legislature, Diablo Canyon decommissioning panel, and even PG&E at one point.
Please do not delay the permanent conservation of all of these lands.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next, Gene Nelson, John Steinbeck, John Lindsay, Tom Kerhart.
Gene Nelson, and we are bringing up your presentation.
Chair Harmon and members of the California Coastal Commission.
Wait a minute, let's get that going.
Try that again.
Okay, I think we're working now.
All right, Chair Harmon and members of the California Coastal Commission.
My name is Dr. Gene Nelson, President and Senior Legal Researcher for CGNP.
We support the staff recommendations regarding extending Diablo Canyon power plants operations
at least until 2045.
The Commission's determination of APF is excessive.
Next slide.
The plant is seismically rugged as demonstrated by its full power operation before, during
and after the nearby December 22nd, 2003 Magnitude 6.6 San Simeon earthquake.
We've also documented that extended Diablo Canyon operations were extremely cost effective
at the high end of operating a hydroelectric dam.
Recently toured Diablo Canyon, noting the abundant sea life on Lion Rock.
Prior to 2001, the Cove was extremely popular as a fishing location.
CGMP employs sea lions as an indicator species.
Per the experience at SeaWorld, these carnivorous marine mammals consume between 15 and 40 pounds
of fish cephalopods each day.
Here's the variety of marine life that sea lions consume.
Lion Rock is the largest island on the Diablo Canyon outfall cove at about 4.1 acres, at
the widest points from north to south 500 feet, east to west 375 feet.
The photo and the following photos are courtesy of PG&E.
Note there are some sea lions shown on the back haunches of the lion.
the white color is the dried sea lion waste products from consuming the abundant sea life.
Next slide. Here's a close-up of some sea lions like we saw from the PG&E boat. Tom Jones banged
the side of the boat with a rubber hose. The sea lions came off Lion Rock as they thought it was
feeding time. They stayed away from the boat. Next slide. Here's a sea lion convention with
likely thousands of attendees on Lion Rock with Diablo Canyon in the background. This is clear
evidence of the island's area's high biological productivity is not being
harmed by Diablo Canyon. Keep the sea lions happy, keep Diablo Canyon running.
Thank you. At this time, thank you everyone for your testimony. We want to
make sure we hear from everyone, so we're going to switch to one minute for
the public speakers. I know, I know, we just want to hear from all of you, so
Thank you. All right, thank you. So next, you heard that one minute. John Steinbeck, John Lindsay,
Tom Kernhardt, Denise Allen. Hi, John Steinbeck. I've submitted comments on the staff report,
but I mainly wanted to comment on some of the past comments I've heard from speakers regarding
in the impacts at Diablo Canyon.
In contrast to the comments that the impacts
are poorly studied.
There's over 50 years of data on the effects
of the thermal discharge.
And those are well-documented.
It's probably one of the longest studies
of its type in the country.
Also the effects of entrainment have been studied
in three different periods that amount for three years,
three 12 month periods of entrainment sampling
and data that again, represent one of the largest
or long best sources of data on entrainment available
and so the-
Thank you. John Lindsay, Tom Kernhardt, Denise Allen, Lori Tamara. John Lindsay? Can y'all
hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Very good. Hey, I worked at Diablo since 1991 with Tenere
Environmental Services and then transitioned over to PG&E and I could tell you that the
stewardship program there in the Diablo Canyon lands is world class. I'm just so proud of the
job that PG&E has done in preserving the 12,000 acres of Diablo Canyon lands, North Ranch and
the South Ranch. And I fully support the re-licensing effort because over 90% of that land would be
basically open to the public. North lands would be of course transferred to the state park system
and the Southlands would be open to hikers who would really enjoy this these incredible views
and of course the hike from Rattlesnake Canyon all the way to MDO to Montana at Eero State Park is
really something. The main point I want to make is Slow 2 is probably one of the most significant
archaeological sites in California and right now Slow 2 enjoys world-class material. Thank you.
Next. Tom Kernhardt, Denise Allen, Lori Tamura, Gary Kirkland. Tom Kernhardt?
Hey, it's Tom Kernhardt. I live in Oakland. I just wanted to fully support Senator Laird and
Assemblymember Addis's comments in full, as well as Mothers of Peace. I respect all the comments
made here about energy and nuclear being carbon free, but it actually increases global warming
with that effluent being 20 degrees warmer and the impacts there up there by are just are
unacceptable. The staff report was great on the negative impacts but falls short and what we need
to conserve all 12,000 acres immediately and look at further marine mitigations to restore that
marine life there and the energy can be replaced over the next five years with cheaper forms of
of clean energy, wind, solar, storage, geothermal,
and as been said by others,
the energy is not needed from Diablo Canyon.
So please deny the permit for consistency certification
on the Coastal Development Permit.
And make sure that the land,
all 12,000 acres get preserved.
Thank you.
Next Denise Allen, Lori Tamura, Gary Kirkland,
John Evans, Denise Allen.
Hi, my name's Denise Allen.
my family and I have lived within miles of Diablo
since the 1950s.
I'm supporting the Diablo extension of their permit.
However, please increase the protected conservation
of the land to 12,000 acres.
I feel this is fair because the plant does
have environmental impacts on our local area where I live.
And also the long term spent fuel storage risks,
as well as the mitigation for the ocean.
This is our Yosemite.
Please expand the conservation umbrella to 12,000 acres,
including Wild Cherry Canyon.
Thank you very much.
Lori Tamura, Gary Kirkland, John Evans, Ruth Strauss.
Lori Tamura.
Good afternoon, my name is Lori Tamura.
I am a land use planner here in Santa Maria.
I work with many development projects
and the number one condition that we're dealing with
is EV parking for vehicles
and requiring housing developments to have all electric.
Where is that energy source is going to come from?
At this point, we don't have enough
and we are very strongly supporting
BGNE's continued operation of Diablo.
On a second note, I am the president of Econ Alliance,
which is a local organization
supporting the development of businesses
and industry in the north county of Santa Maria Valley
and on the central coast,
including Vandenberg Space Force Base,
which is growing very rapidly
and we need the energy to support those jobs in this area.
Please approve the application today.
Thank you, Gary Kirkland, John Evans,
Ruth Strauss, Douglas Tate, Gary Kirkland.
Gary Kirkland, you should be able to unmute.
Hello. There you go.
Okay, thank you.
I'm supporting the licensure of Diablocanyon
for as long as they need it.
And if they're embrittled,
they should be replaced by new nuclear power plants.
Also, as a biologist,
I know that when you change an environment, it changes.
And environments constantly change.
So if the water warms up,
new species will show up instead of the old ones.
So also, one does not own something unless one can defend it. You can ask the Sioux what happened
with the Dakotas. You can ask the Chinese, the Russians, and the Arabs what happens when the
Genghis Khan and Nikmongol showed up. Also, we've seen what happens when, quote, native,
although they're first settlers, show up. They tend to build, they don't conserve the land
from their point of view, they build casinos.
You don't have to conserve land.
Land's going to stay there.
It may be different, and you just constantly change.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Ruth Strauss, Douglas Tate, Siever Wong,
Laeluck, I know, John Evans, sorry.
John Evans, Ruth Strauss, Douglas Tate, Siever Wong.
Madam Chair, commissioners, my name's John Evans.
thank you for the opportunity to talk to you today. I have been a resident of San Luis Obispo
City for the last 50 years and I've worked in San Luis Obispo for the last 40 years. I've raised
my family here as the Crow Flies. I probably live about 10 miles away from Diablo Canyon and I've
I've been very comfortable raising my family
next to the plant.
I've had the opportunity over the years to visit the plant
and there's really, I was struck mainly by three things.
Number one, how beautiful it is.
Number two, how small it is, especially for generating
10% of California's power.
And number three, that it already exists
and is producing power.
So I would support your approval
of the coastal development permit.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Next.
Ruth Strauss, Douglas Tate,
Sivra Wang, Leila Cabugos.
Ruth Strauss, you should be able to unmute.
You should be able to unmute now.
And I see that you're on a phone.
Either that or I see you might be on another device.
Ruth Strauss.
Okay, can you hear me now?
Yes we're hearing a you double you though, so you might want to mute one of your devices.
Okay.
And then try again, all right, one of your devices has been removed.
Can you hear me now?
Yeah, that's a lot better.
Hello?
That's good, go ahead.
Hello?
I think she can't hear us now.
But if you can eventually, go ahead.
Ruth, go ahead if you can hear us.
Welcome to your meeting ID, followed by a count.
Ruth, can you hear us?
You have not entered any numbers.
Please re-enter your meeting ID, followed by a count.
All right.
We'll come back maybe in a little bit.
Douglas Tate, Seiver Wong, Leila Kabugos,
Mitch Silverstein, Douglas Tate.
Yes, can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Okay, my name is Douglas Tate.
I'm speaking on my own behalf.
I'm a Slough County resident for over 28 years.
And I have a strong connection to this land
as I'm a Pachow Coast Trail Steward
on the Point Bichon Trail for the last 15 years.
So my comments come from that perspective.
I take some issue to the staff report that the long-standing community stakeholder goals are
being met. I don't believe that's true. I also say there's no guarantee on the number of acres to be
protected in the staff report because purchasing the land does not guarantee protection unless
under a well-written conservation easement. By title, I'm a trail steward. To be a steward,
you must know the land is worth saving. One is not a steward, when regards the land as a commodity.
When we believe the land is a community, then we know it is worth saving and we love it.
Thank you. Thank you. Let's try Ruth Strauss again. I see that your phone logged off and
and came back on, you should be able to unmute now
on your phone, Ruth's phone.
Okay, can you?
Yes, we can hear you.
Can you hear me?
Yeah.
Oh, thank you very much for the diligence
of the group for the reports.
However, one thing that's sorely lacking here
is that you don't have any safety mechanisms set up.
And if that isn't done,
and there's gonna have to be an initiative
or a referendum on it.
When were the reactors last inspected?
Who inspected them in terms of a, you know,
not PG&E, they have a conflict of interest,
an independent nuclear regular.
When were they last?
Where are the results of that?
As far as I know, they haven't been inspected
and I don't know how long.
What regular inspections will they have in the future if they come online?
Where will those reports be published for the public?
PG&E safety record is not very good, and their investment is not very good in safety either,
as we know, thank you.
Thank you. Next, Dr. Seever Wang, Leila Cabugos, Robert Shucraft, Betty Winholtz. Dr. Seever Wang.
Hi, I'm Seever Wang at the Breakthrough Institute, an environmental
nonprofit in Berkeley. I hold a PhD in ocean sciences. I wrote part of my doctoral dissertation
on marine productivity in the California Current. I agree with the Coastal Commission's staff
recommendation to approve PG&E's coastal development permit. The commission knows that
the retirement of other coastal power plants has reduced total entrainment from 17 billion
gallons per day in 2007 to just 4 billion gallons per day. Also the Commission's scientific approach
for estimating fish larva entrainment, the empirical transport model using calculations
of the area of production foregone, is highly uncertain for Diablo Canyon and clearly biased
towards overestimation. The calculations assume 100% mortality of all entrained organisms despite
citing a 1983 Moss Landing study showing that measured mortality can be as low as 50%. The
method does not account for recirculation from Diablo Canyon of the offtake back to the intake.
The sampling method samples too far offshore and too deep, overestimating entrainment risks for
organisms that are not likely to be entrained. And lastly, does not account for current changes off
the California coast that will likely reduce the APF size. I believe this method is simplistic and
highly uncertain, especially for Diablo Canyon. Thank you. And a reminder to our Zoom participants,
please keep your video off until this is your turn to speak. Next is Leila Cabugos followed
by Robert Schucraft, Betty Windholt, Stephen Marks. Leila, go ahead. Hello. Leila Cabugos,
I'm a homeowner in Oceano and for brevity I'll just say that the trail easement connecting Port
St. Louis to Montenegro Oro, ideally with the wild cherry canyon alignment, is a high impact
and readily implemented part of PG&E's mitigation plan presently reserved for phase two
that I'd like to see in Phase 1. And I wonder if the loss of access for continued operations even
just until 2030 is not in itself sufficient to justify including the trail dedication in Phase 1.
I also wonder might the estimated lost local revenue alone balance the funding of trail
planning, construction and maintenance. I encourage the Commission to recommend an endowment based on
an estimate of true costs. The five and a half million seems unlikely to approach adequacy.
such payment might require CPUC approval but other parts of the staff report illustrate how
contingencies can be accommodated in the mitigation plan so this doesn't seem like an impediment to me.
I think we can do better than mitigation that is just characterized as substantial and I urge you
to push for a package that better serves the public interest in conservation and access. Thank you.
Thank you. Robert Schuchraft, Betty Windholt, Stephen Marks, Ted Rhodes, Robert Schuchraft.
Good afternoon. Do you know how hard it is to tell a lawyer he only has one minute to talk?
As you've heard, I represent Home Fed Corporation. We hold the lease to Wild Cherry Canyon.
Over the past decade, our client has invested millions of dollars to pursue a responsible and
positive development of Wild Cherry Canyon in a way that would be beneficial to the entire community,
something everyone will be able to enjoy rather than Wild Cherry Canyon being fenced off with no
trespassing signs. We appreciate your legal counsel updating the Commission on the Court of
appeals recent decision ruling in favor of Home Fed. We also appreciate Mr. Jones
confirming PG&E has no right to Wild Cherry Canyon and that Home Fed enjoys
the lease for the next 140 years. I must mention that Ms. Woodruff's interpretation
of our lease was mistaken. There is no provision in the lease that affords the
landlord the right to withhold consent to the lessee pursuing any lawful use of
the land. The lease allows Home Fed use the property for any lawful purpose. The
lessor may not take any action that would impact that right. We respectfully
I request the commission consider this application to be deferred to allow us a further opportunity
to evaluate this matter. Thank you. Thank you. Next, Betty Winholz, Stephen Marks, Ted
Rhodes, Rinal Porter. Betty Winholz. Thank you. I want to say that in spite of all the
comment by the elected officials and official offices and whoever, that this is not about
land. It's about water and you're not mitigating the water impacts. And so it's
not about whether PG&E continues. That's not the point here. The point is, is it
being adequately mitigated? And I would suggest to you that it's not. You need to
get rid of the once-through cooling, you need to do cooling towers, or you need to
do the barriers like I've been talked about earlier, but you're not addressing
the real issue, which is water impacts.
And even though these are other dreams by people
that they want this land, that's not the point here.
The point is the water, the wildlife in the water,
and you're not addressing that.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next, Stephen Marks, Ted Rhodes, Rinal Porter, Ace Hoffman.
Stephen Marks.
Hello.
If the planned conservation easement
is reduced from 12,000 to 1,100 acres,
I think it's quite possible that the rest of the land will suffer the fate of a huge
tract of uniquely beautiful and resource-rich beach and coastal land on the west coast of
the island of Kauai.
It was purchased a few years ago by a famous multi-billionaire and has been transformed
into his locked private compound and bunker to be used or sold at his discretion, much
to the dismay of long-term local residents and visitors.
One other comment in the few seconds I have left.
All this concern about the shortage of energy without Diablo does not take into account
the infinitely growing demand by unregulated crypto servers and growing demand of AI servers
that are going to outpace any possible future supply.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Ted Rhodes, Rinal Porter, Ace Hoffman, Geraldine Clemens.
afternoon, Chair Harmon and commissioners. My name is Ted Rhodes. I live down here in
Carpentry in Santa Barbara County and speak today to urge the Coastal Commission to deny
the PG&E Coastal Development Permit and Consistency Certification. I support the EDC and the Mothers
for Peace recommendations on this. The proposed out-of-kind environmental mitigation for ongoing
damage to the marine environment is inadequate and falling far too short. Most importantly,
For those of us who live here in Santa Barbara County, we all live downwind of the nuclear
plant and therefore in harm's way should there be an accident.
And there have been accidents elsewhere, unexpected.
The proposed environmental mitigation will not help us at all in the case of a nuclear
accident.
Indeed, the seismic safety of the plant has not been determined as required by SB 846.
Please deny this Coastal Development Permit and Consistency Certification.
Thank you and I'll just note right here that we have about 25 speakers left that we were
able to find and then 25 more that we're unable to find.
We'll keep going.
Renele Porter, Ace Hoffman, Becca Lucas, Thomas and Michael Quezada.
Renele Porter, go ahead.
Hello, my name is Renele Porter and I live in Atascadero.
I want to remind you of what this commission was created to do to protect and enhance the
California coast.
for the benefit of people, wildlife, the future, not for the convenience or the profit of PG&E.
If you choose to weaken environmental protections for Diablo Canyon, you're not upholding your mission, you're abandoning it.
PG&E has made billions from this coastline. If they get to keep the plant open longer, they should be required to do more,
not sneak in last minute rollbacks under the radar.
This coast belongs to the people of California,
not to PG&E.
You are its guardians.
Do the job you were appointed to do.
Protect this coast, protect this ocean,
protect the public trust.
Please do not give in to PG&E
and do whatever it takes to get this land conserved.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next, Ace Hoffman, Becca Lucas Thomas,
Michael Quezada, Jeremy Wynn, Ace Hoffman.
Ace, go ahead.
I see that you're unmuted.
Okay, you just remuted yourself.
You should be able to unmute.
And then if you are talking, unfortunately,
we can't hear you.
Let's move on to our next speaker
and come back in a little bit.
Becca Lucas Thomas, go ahead.
Hello, my name is Becca Lucas Thomas.
I am a Yaktichu-Chichu Yaktilhini,
Northern Trumesh tribal member
from the village of Zapata, today's Avila Beach.
I come before you today to ask you to be brave
and fight for our tribe to reclaim our homeland
and to listen to YTT tribal members
as the only people who can speak for YTT's ability
as land holders and managers.
Our tribe, YTT, is indisputably the homeland tribe
of the Pichot Coast.
While we have been involved in various activities
related to DCPP and the surrounding lands over time,
we were explicitly not included
in the Diablo Lands Conservation Planning Project workgroup,
as was previously inaccurately represented in comments today.
And thank you to Supervisor Ortiz- modes leg
for clarifying this as well.
Not everyone may be familiar with the long
and heartbreaking history of colonization
of this beautiful place that we call California.
So if you're unaware of the generations
of land grabs and genocide enabled
by the Spanish, Mexican and then US governments
in the lead up to California's admission
to the union in 1850 and following,
I invite you to take the time to educate yourself.
With the historic reality in mind,
I invite you to consider how you can make decisions now
to create a just future for the first stewards
this land, ensure land protection and perpetuity under our care in line with California's stated
goals of ancestral tribal land return. Thank you. Thank you. Let's try Ace Hoffman again.
Can you hear me this time? Yes, now we can hear you. Go ahead. Okay, great. I want you to consider
the safety issue because you talked a lot about the earthquakes and it was clear that you have
are very unsure as to what is going to happen with earthquakes and yet you handed this knowledge
over to the NRC so that they could approve of the plant, and that's not a proper way
to do it.
You should look at what you've got and say there's no way this is a safe place for the
next 20, 30, 40 years as long as it's going to be.
So that's one problem.
Another problem is this mitigation thing.
You're basically trying to bribe the tribes by giving them land back that they deserve
in the first place.
Why don't you just give them the land back?
for the cost of solar. In Australia, they're giving away energy during solar peak hours.
It's free. It's beyond free. And in China, they build a new new plant worth of solar
every two weeks. That's all. I run out of time. Thank you so much for letting us speak
at all, and thanks for retrying me.
Thank you. Next is Michael Kesada, Jeremy Nguyen, Jasmine Edvin Kula, and Mael B. Michael
Kasada. I see that you're on a phone. You should be able to unmute now. Thanks. My
name is Michael Kasada. I'm proud to call the Central Coast my home. My family and
I are deeply rooted here and we spend our free time exploring local trails
enjoying the beach and taking in the natural beauty that defines our coastline.
This is a place where community and environment are intertwined. It's that
balance that makes living here so special. As someone raising a young family
on the coast, I think constantly about the future we were building for our
children. Clean air, healthy ocean, and stable climate are all part what we want
preserve for the next generation. That's why the decision about Diablo Canyon
power matters so much. Diablo Canyon provides dependable carbon-free
electricity to communities across California.
I believe we have a responsibility to balance environmental care
with realistic energy planning. Not renewing the coastal permit for Diablo
Canyon now would not only threaten our energy
reliability but would also run counter to our climate goals
and the health of our communities. I urge the Commission to support the continued
operation of Diablo Canyon power plant from the benefit of our
environment, our economy, and the families who call this coast home. Thank you for your time
and consideration. All right, thank you. Next, Jeremy Wynn, Jasmin Advancula,
Male Benoumoff, Christina Lange. Jeremy Wynn. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Jeremy Wynn,
and I am a PG&E employee and an IBW 1245 member. For over 26 years, I've been an employee at the
power plant working firsthand with the systems and processes that ensure our operations are safe
They are in effect as a
place where we are safe and
dependable.
I have worked directly
alongside our resident and
our sea inspectors throughout
my career and their
confidence in Diablo Canyon's
performance is reflected in
the plant's safety evaluation
report which states that
Diablo Canyon is safe to
operate for an additional 20
years.
That's not speculation.
It's a documented
assessment by the federal
agency responsible for
nuclear safety oversight.
I have also worked closely
with our environmental team
to ensure that the ocean
water we use in return meets
all regulatory standards.
And in many cases, we apply
than is what is strictly required.
We do this because we live here, and we value the coastline, its marine ecosystem and our
community.
Diablo Canyon provides clean, carbon-free electricity to millions of Californians,
supports thousands of families through high-skilled jobs, and remains essential to maintaining
grid reliability as California expands renewable energy sources.
Extending Diablo Canyon's operations supports our final goals.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Next, Jasmine Advancula.
Good afternoon, I'm Jasmine Advancula here on behalf of the California Asian Pacific
Chamber of Commerce in support of PG&E's continued operation of Diablo Canyon Power
Plant.
Clean, reliable and affordable energy is essential for small businesses and the communities we
serve.
Extending Diablo Canyon's operations keeps 17% of California's clean power online, enough
to serve 4 million Californians and preserve one of the most affordable and dependable
clean energy sources we have. For small businesses and disadvantaged communities, affordability
matters. When energy prices rise, they are the first to feel it. Replacing nuclear power
with higher cost or carbon-emitting sources would only widen economic gaps. PG&E is also
SLO County's largest private employer, supporting 1,300 high-paying jobs and countless local
businesses. For clean energy jobs and equity, we urge support for Diablo Canyon's continued
operations. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next, Mayil Ben-U-Mauf,
Eric Castello, Cameron Kutta, Nadia Kaudja, Mayil Ben-U-Mauf.
Hello, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you.
Okay, I'll start my statement by saying my name is Mayil Ben-U-Mauf and I would
like to stand in solidarity with the Yakututu Yakutulhini
Northern Tumos tribe and demand that the Commission center them in the mitigation concerns and
that this land, the Pichu Coast sacred lands have been stewarded by them for time immemorial
and it is a policy of the California Public Utilities Commission, California Natural Resources
and the California Coastal Commission. That travel return is a goal of your agencies and
So I urge you to walk your talk and use this as an opportunity to achieve that goal and
remind you that this was, Tribal Land Return was a part of the formal plans of PG&E's original
disengagement statements and there's no plan for YTT to limit the public access to the lands or
do away with the plant, and so I urge you to center YTT. Thank you.
Thank you. Next, Ara Castello, Cameron Kuda, Nadia Kaja, Darryl Gail. Ara Castello.
There we go. I'm Ara. I live here in Slough County. I notice that many non-native people are
afraid of being seen maybe as on the wrong side or of being called ignorant or ill-informed,
maybe even racist. And because of that fear, it can sometimes seem easier to stay neutral
or to decide with whoever sounds the most confident
or performs an identity most convincingly.
But fear is not a compass
and the truth is very clear.
YTT Northern Chumash are the only legitimate
tribal descendants of the Pecho coast,
proven through genealogy, archaeology, anthropology,
all the ologies.
Refusing to provide proof is a red flag,
not a badge of honor.
For those of us who came here more recently,
We are guests here and we are still learning.
Learning means being willing to say harm happened
and we're going to make it right.
The choice is simple.
Repeat the harm or heal it.
Return the land to YTT.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next.
Cameron Kuda.
Nadia Kaja.
Daryl Gale.
Nina Beatty.
Cameron Kuda.
Hi, can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Great, so we all agree that the marine environment
damaged by the once through cooling system. The mitigation measures do nothing to protect
the marine environment and there's no reason why PG&E should get special privileges to get out of
these regulations. Once through cooling should be phased out by all power plants in California
and it was only allowed to be continued at Diablo because Diablo was supposed to have been shut
down by now. I think we also need to bring up the embrittlement issue of which PG&E has not provided
a credible answer for. Since its last study in 2003 which showed that one of the reactors
could be dangerously embrittled by 2021, PG&E has released no further testing, with many
excuses, but the strongest excuse was that it was supposed to be shut down by now.
I don't know why we are acting as though PG&E is so responsible and trustworthy after
we have seen scandal after scandal, causing explosions, wildfires, and destruction. Last,
I want to say that every year that Diablo continues to operate, creates more nuclear
waste.
Thank you.
Next, Nadia Khaujah.
Darryl Gail, Nina Beatty, Annette Limon.
Nadia, Khaujah, go ahead.
Thank you.
Hi, commissioners.
My name is Nadia Khaujah.
I'm born and raised in California, and I work with the Samuel Lawrence Foundation advocating
for the transparent handling of nuclear waste, and I urge you to deny PG&E's application
for continued operation of Diablo Canyon.
from Diablo Canyon is no longer needed. SB 846 allowed extension only if reliability required it,
but California's grid has more renewables, battery storage, and geothermal energy than ever before,
and Diablo's power can be replaceable. Land conservation does not offset marine destruction,
true mitigation will require direct marine restoration, and I'm incredibly concerned by
the dismissal of water impacts. Seismic safety has not been verified, and waste storage is reaching
capacity, and we really need to start thinking about the back end of this fuel cycle. Professor
Professor Digby McDonald, the late UC Berkeley nuclear materials expert warned tirelessly
that Diablo Canyon is the second most embrittled reactor in the nation.
An accident here could be colossal and catastrophic, making this area uninhabitable.
I urge you to reject PG&E's application and require comprehensive safety-based and legally
compliant review for any continued operation of Diablo Canyon.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next.
Darryl Gail, Nina Beatty, Annette Limon, Ty Connelly.
Darryl Gail, I see that you're on a phone.
you should be able to unmute now.
Darrell, I see that you're unmuted, go ahead.
Can you hear me now?
I guess we can hear you.
Okay, deny the Coastal, the Consistency Certificate
and the Coastal Development Permit and Coastal Commission.
Why do you believe PG&E and for that matter,
SoCal Edison, they both consistently lie.
They have incredible PR machines.
They openly lie to you and the public
regarding safety issues.
all I have to say is stop believing everything they say because I have
everything I was gonna say has already been said. Thank you. Bye. Thank you. Next
Nina Beatty, Annette Limon, Ty Connely, Sophia Marquez. Nina Beatty, go ahead.
This is Nina Beatty. I oppose the CDN extensions. Diablo Canyon adversely
affects public welfare. It has a history of engineering and construction fault,
safety violations, abuse to sea otters, drug and alcohol problems, deferred
maintenance, earthquake vulnerability, retaliation against whistleblowers, withholding health
and safety information while generating dirty, carbon-intense energy, but once through cooling
and earthquake risks alone are worth denial.
One or both reactors are shut down about 40 percent of the time planned and unplanned outages.
It doesn't provide reliable electricity.
PG&E hasn't completed its embrittlement study until it's complete and independently reviewed
extensions are premature.
through cooling is ocean warming and marine murder.
If USGS seismic research uses high decibel sonar,
it will destroy more marine life.
Conservation easements are distracting false solutions,
ignoring their damage.
PG&E has injured and killed for decades,
causing pollution and high rates,
enjoying immunity from accountability.
Gavin Newsom broke promises to the public.
Promises by PG&E and politicians are reliable.
Please protect the welfare and stop the damage.
Deny the CDC's extension and CDP.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next, Annette Limon, Ty Connolly, Sofia Marquez,
Jennifer Clay, Annette Limon.
Hi.
Considering your mission statement,
I have difficulty understanding the reasoning as to why
the land transferance back to Yak Tichu,
Tichu Yak Tohini, was removed from the proposal.
I ask this because who better to protect and enhance
the land other than those who are native to the region?
Indigenous folks are the fiercest and most loving
protectors of the land in all life that resides on it. Indigenous folks do not
protect the land because it is their job or a passion. They do it because it is
their home, a part of their heart, and they treat and love the land and all life
on it as a sacred family member. In their possession, the land and wildlife are not
vulnerable to the highest bidder, neglect, or a lack of respect. The land isn't safe
outside of a tribal land returned. We saw earlier this year that our public lands
weren't even safe when the big beautiful bill included the sale of public lands. Tribal
land return is the only ethical and logical thing to do. What is the point of the land
acknowledgment when you have the opportunity to return stolen land and choose not to? Thank
you.
Thank you. Next, Ty Connolly, Sophia Marquez, Jennifer Clay, Meredith Haker. Ty Connolly.
Hello and welcome to the California Coastal Commission.
My name is Ty Connolly, and I'm a resident of San Luis Obispo for the past five years
now.
And I grew up in San Clemente, which is not far from San downtime, the nuclear power plant
down there.
Yeah, and currently residing in the unceded lands of Yactitutituyaktohini, a northern
Chumash tribe.
And I would like to express my displeasure
in learning of the general exclusion of YTT
from the current land transference proposal
for the lands of the Petcho Coast,
and would like to propose that you do include them
to the highest extent in giving these lands back to them.
Having lived in Tilhini for the past five years,
I've created an immense appreciation
for these lands and its peoples,
and could only wish to see them stewarded
returned to the irrefutable descendants of this land. Thank you for your time and this is an
opportunity to stop repeating history and return to tribal lands. Thank you, next.
Sophia Marquez, Jennifer Clay, Meredith Haker, Bruce Campbell. Sophia Marquez.
Hi, can you all hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Perfect, okay.
Nuka Kas Sophia Marquez Mikani, San Luis Obispo Tilhini,
Mami-Yaktaman Tanikani.
Hello, my name is Sophia Marquez and I live and work
in San Luis Obispo, also known as Tilhini,
by the Yak-teachoo-teachoo Yak-Tilhini Band
of Northern Chumash.
And I come to you speaking the Kichwa language
of my indigenous Ecuadorian ancestors.
I'm a wildlife biologist and coordinator
for the San Luis Obispo Prescribed Art Association,
of which YTT is one of our partners
in greater land stewards.
I am now in support of the staff recommendation
to knock and serve the land surrounding Diablo Canyon.
Native tribes reserve the first right of refusal
to purchase and manage these lands.
YTT in specific are the unrefuted descendants
of the Pecho coast and whose name,
whose homelands reside on the land
where Diablo Canyon sits today.
To deny them this right would be to repeat history
and actively harm YTT in their quest
to land back in tribal sovereignty.
Indigenous people from all hemispheres
urge you to reconsider, thank you.
Thank you, next Jennifer Clay, Meredith Haker, Bruce Campbell, Jack Neff.
Jennifer Clay?
Great.
Hello, my name is Jennifer Clay.
I'm a resident of San Luis Obispo, professor and chair of physics at Cal Poly.
Diablo Canyon is the largest clean energy producer in California, producing enough power
for 4 million Californians.
Based on analysis by the California Energy Commission, no existing clean energy resources
can fully replace Diablo Canyon's energy production, nor can new clean energy resources come online
fast enough to affordably replace its output and meet our state's growing electricity demand.
I have visited Diablo Canyon and seen firsthand the excellent job that PG&E is doing to preserve
and protect the land and marine ecosystem. I'm proud to live in Slough County and I support
continued operations for the full 20-year NRC license renewal and beyond for Diablo Canyon.
I concur with the Coastal Commission staff reports recommendation and strongly urge the
Commission to vote yes to approve the federal consistency certification and coastal development
permit. Thank you. Thank you. Next Meredith Hager, Bruce Campbell, Jack Neff, Nico Will.
Meredith Hager. My name is Meredith Hager. I'm a long-time San Luis Obispo resident and I thank
you for the opportunity to speak today. I'm here to ask the Commission to oppose their staff's
recommendation. I ask that you require the conservation with an easement or otherwise
of all 12,000 acres of Diablo Canyon lands, not just the 1,100 proposed by the Commission staff,
as the bare minimum mitigation for Diablo's impacts. Additionally, it is the responsibility
of the Commission to comply with the policies of Tribal land return within the state's own policy,
keeping the Yachtihiti to Yachtilahini northern Chumash tribe at the table to make important
decisions regarding the future of this land. The best way to guarantee protection of these lands
is to abide by Pighini's original plans to return land to its rightful stewards and owners post
decommission. Please do not delay the permanent protection of all 12,000 acres of the Diablo
Canyon lands and all of the direct offshore marine habitat. In order to care for the well-being of
this land and to protect future generations' access to this land, you must require conservation,
easement, or otherwise of all 12,000 acres, and you must keep the Yakutichutiti Yakutilhini
northern Chubash tribe at the table for management and protection of this homeland. Thank you.
Thank you. Bruce Campbell, Jack Neff, Nicole Will, Nancy Okada. Bruce Campbell,
I see that you're on a phone. You should be able to unmute now. Bruce Campbell,
you should be able to unmute. You may need to dial star six to unmute. Okay, there you go.
Hi there, this is the Decostal Commissioners. My name is Bruce Campbell. Please reject both
The public consistency determination and the CDP regarding Diablo Canyon reactor extensions
due largely to the admitted major damage to marine biological resources in the area from
the facility while proposing insufficient mitigations.
The public was promised thick casks to house spent fuel rod assemblies, but instead got
very thin canisters, which would be more dangerous due to expansion of spent fuel storage in
thin canisters in fairly limited space upon extended Diablo operation.
Laird's spokesperson mentioned that the point Busan tape trail was to mitigate the dry task
site.
There is no dry task site, because they switched into thin canisters.
Look at the YouTube on dry-task accident testing.
Those are tasks.
Those aren't thin canisters like they have at Diablo Canyon, which are only a half-inch
thick.
Nuclear power is the most expensive energy source, not the cheapest.
the reactors emit radioactive carbon-14.
This is not carbon-free, and it's the energy mode
that will result in the most genetic mutations
in primates and other species.
And lastly, nuclear power has the highest carbon footprint
of any non-fossil fuel energy source,
due largely to emissions from uranium enrichment.
Thank you.
Next, Jack Neff.
Nico Will, Nancy Okada, Ben Lippert.
Jack Neff?
Chairperson and members of the Coastal Commission.
I urge you to reject the staff report.
The acceptance of a conservation easement
is merely a promise of the future.
It's a future interest in land that is PG&E seeks to control.
And once again, PG&E pays nothing and receives everything.
They're already 1.4 in debt to California
for their loan to stay operating to date.
This is not in the public interest,
the dangers of Diablo Canyon have been known forever.
I repeat what the other speakers said about PG&E
not being a good steward of the land
or California's environment,
their negligence stretches back every single day
with Diablo Canyon no less than other places
where PG&E is in business.
Please reject the staff report and support,
protect the California coast and coasting.
Thank you.
Next, Niko Will, Nancy Okada, Ben Lippert,
and then I'll start calling names
that we haven't been able to find.
Niko Will.
Hello, I'm Niko Will,
and I am a student studying engineering
at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.
So I have a vested interest in this matter.
While I may not be an expert on public policy
or management economics,
I do know that as we have seen in the past five years,
especially in the great state of California,
we base our policies not on fuel or misinformation,
but on science.
And the science and data says in addition to the 10,
about one 10th of our green energy coming
from Diablo Canyon. It is also the fact that nuclear has the lowest death rate per
terawatt hour compared to any other energy source tied with solar. And even as we see
here on this graph, it emits less CO2 per kilowatt hour than all fossil fuels and solar
and wind and therefore the data supports a case in favor of nuclear energy and in general
and Diablo Canyon in particular. Thank you. Thank you. Next, Nancy Okada, Ben Lippert,
and then we were able to find one already. Audrey Ford, Nancy Okada, you should be able
to unmute now. Nancy Okada, there you go. Okay, great, sure I am. Good afternoon, commissioners,
I'm the commissioner of Nantium, Cata Sierra California,
social subcommittee and also on behalf of the San Lucia chapter.
We actually urge you to deny PG&E's application for this consistency determination.
We are supporting the letters from Senator Laird as well as the land mitigation and EDCs,
and the mothers for peace suggestions also.
We ask you to support Claire's letter
and we also ask you to say really,
save the 12,000 acres that are required
that are being kind of piecemealed away.
We really need that saved
and that needs to be put into the application
into the whole proposal.
So please, deny this proposal from PG&E.
And they were gonna take away,
they were gonna stop the reaction before.
They need to stop it now, thank you.
Thank you.
Next, Audrey, no, Ben Lippert, then Audrey Ford,
then Gianna Patchen, who we were able to find.
Ben Lippert, go ahead.
Sorry.
Now you should be able to unmute Ben Lippert.
Actually, it looks like you don't have a mic attached,
or you don't have an active microphone.
Sorry.
So we'll move on to Audrey Ford and then Gianna Patchin.
Hi, can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Hi, I'm Audrey, I'm a marine biologist
with Committee to Bridge to the Gap and our allies.
We are begging you to reject the recommendation
to extend the license.
At this point, I have to forego my entire original comment
due to these time restraints.
would like it to be officially on the record that as a member of the public it feels incredibly
unfair that the first four plus hours were reserved for non-public speakers allowing nearly
all of the initial speakers to blatantly ignore their stated time restraints and speak well over
the allotted time. If you are trying to get through everyone fairly as you say you should
apply the same stringent adherence to your stated rules to everyone and not let that oversight
silence the public. We are begging you to reject these endless extensions and
shut this devastating tragedy in the making down now. The impact of this
decision will define your future. We are praying that you do the right thing.
Please, please close this toxic, toxic plant. Please. Thank you. Next, Gianna
Patchen or whoever is with the St. Lucer chapter. St. Lucer chapter. You should be
to unmute, I see that you're unmuted you can go ahead. Thank you. Hi everyone, I'm Giana Patchen,
the Sierra Club's Santa Lucia chapter coordinator representing over 4,000 Sierra Club members and
supporters here in San Luis Obispo County. We ask you to deny the CDP inconsistency determination
for the many reasons stated today, especially because the staff report's recommendations are
not adequate mitigations. If you decide to grant PG&E's permit, the following mitigations are indeed
feasible, permanent conservation of all 12,000 acres, direct marine mitigations, and sufficient
long-term funding for trails and conservation. Way back in the year 2000, 75% of Slow County
voted for the DREAM initiative supporting Diablo Canyon lands conservation. In 2006,
the commission had an opportunity to protect these lands. The staff recommended 9,000 acres
of conservation easement for PG&E's Diablo Canyon. The commission ultimately removed this requirement,
citing the dream initiative as sufficient. It clearly was not. Please don't make the same
mistakes as your predecessors. It's been decades if the adequate mitigations for diabulate operations
aren't required now. It's unlikely they ever will be. Thank you. Thank you. And now under the name
St. Lucia chapter you should be able to unmute. And who is this? Hello. Yes. Sorry. I'm speaking,
This is Susan Harvey. I'm speaking for California Land Watch in San Luis Obispo County. We incorporated
in 2001 a Paso watch and over the years we have commented on once through cooling nuclear waste
ponds as fishy steam generator replacement and seismic safety. Your commission has agency here
and responsibility for this permit. Please require the only mitigation measures that could possibly
minimize the impact of coastal resources in a realistic timeframe, require that once-through
cooling be replaced with a closed-cycle system, and require immediate conservation easements
over all the buffer properties.
If the applicant stands behind the viability, safety, and need for the plant, cost of replacing
the once-through cooling is a small expense compared to the benefits to PG&E.
If real, full mitigation is not feasible, deny the permit.
We support the positions of Senator Laird,
Mothers for Peace and others.
And thank you so much for the opportunity to speak.
Thank you.
And then I think we do have Ben Lippert now.
You should be able to unmute.
Hi, are you able to hear me?
I guess we can hear you.
Okay, thank you so much.
Sorry, I'm sorry for the background noise.
I'm in San Luis Obispo.
I'm picking up two children at an elementary school.
I just wanted to say that your job is not to determine
whether grid stability matters right now.
your job is to make sure that the externalities
of Diablo Canyon are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible.
And I don't think there's any way that you can justify
your staff's recommendation as meeting that standard.
All right, thank you.
Those are all the names that we have signed up
that we're able to find.
I'm going to list out a bunch of names
that we weren't able to find.
If you hear your name, please raise your hand.
Sarah Oruzzo, Ron Pomerance, Christina Lange,
Geraldine Clemens, Mikel, Greg Haskin,
Kathy Sampson-Cruz, Corey Black, Joseph Mangano,
Caroline, Michael Cannon, Bob Larson, Mark McGinnis,
Tina To, John B. Ashbaugh, Chris Goldblatt,
Haken Hoken, Williams, Alice McNally,
Slow Gutierrez, Mary Beth Brannigan,
Brad Branken, sorry, Sophie Crosh, Lucy J. Swanson,
Kelsey Schafer, Josh Cross, and Danielle Mary Becker.
I'm seeing some hands raised.
We have Alice McNally.
Alice, you should be able to unmute now.
Hi, can you hear me?
Yes, go ahead.
Today I speak in agreement with Mothers for Peace
and the Sierra Cub to oppose both state and federal permits.
PG&E requires for continued operations at Diablo Canyon,
blows the plant and protect and permanently preserve
all 12,000 acres of Diablo coastal lands
as anticipated for 25 years.
The commission must require a sufficient endowment
to manage all of the proposed public access trails
and direct offshore marine habitat mitigation
in addition to the long-planned land service and mitigations.
Now is likely your last chance
to permanently protect this land for open space,
habitat, conservation, and public coastal access,
which is your mission as the coastal commission.
No amount of mitigation makes re-licensing acceptable.
Don't let California down.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'm gonna try the person under the name iPhone,
raising their hand, the name iPhone.
You should be able to unmute, please state your name.
Could that be me?
Yes, what is your name?
Thanks, Greg Haskin.
Okay, go ahead.
Representing Colabs, San Luis Obispo
and Santa Barbara counties.
And we're the Coalition of Labor, Agriculture and Business,
calling in support of the staff recommendation.
You've heard all the arguments about economic impact
and the needs to expand our grid in California.
But this also gives you, the staff recommendation
gives you time and capacity to get the plan right
in the long run.
We need the economic support, we need the grid support
and we need the time that the 20 year extension
will allow to get the permits right,
get the land transfers right and do their job
the way that California needs you to do.
So please vote yes for the staff recommendation.
Thank you.
Now we were just able to locate Sarah Rizzo.
Sarah, you should be able to unmute now.
Yes, hello, can you hear me?
Yes, go ahead.
Yeah, hi, Sarah Rizzo.
I've lived in Avila Beach for close to 37 years now,
about a quarter mile from the entrance to PG&E.
I'm raising my two young kids there.
We enjoy the area.
PG&E has been a great neighbor,
a great steward of the land.
I fully support their application
and I fully support staff's recommendation.
Not to get into everything,
Don Ortiz-Lag, my supervisor,
I don't always agree with her, but I agree with her 100%.
I do not agree with Senator Laird on this.
I think it's an overreach.
I think you're gonna have Nolan Dolan problems.
I'm an attorney.
Like I said, I support staff's recommendation
and we need to keep Diablo open.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Now, the user under the name Kalisi, Kalisi.
You should be able to unmute and please state your name.
Hachyou micha kalasi wa mita ana yakta anus moon t'ilhin katityo.
My name is Kelsey Shafer and I am a member of yaktiti t'iju
yaktilhini northern Shumash tribe.
Sua micha yakpismono wa yakhi yastono olivas leithrup.
Kiitukasla yaktilhini wa tzapatu wa tzatawa wa pepatsu yakhi
Chono. Our families are the direct descendants of the Petro coast, the first
and oldest caretakers of our relatives, and the land, the water, and the sky
people. This proposed plan is inadequate by our standards. Our families work
tirelessly in mitigation, restoration, stewardship, and protection of Tsutowah.
We never left this place. Tsutowah translates to the place of our chest, the
place that holds our heart and our spirit. We continue to access this space.
our relationship is rooted in truth, respect, and responsibility to care for
its Atoa with reciprocity. Community input and state policy emphasize tribal
land return. Land can only be returned to the people it was taken from. We ask that
YTT be given the first right of refusal for the Pedro Coast for all 12,000 acres.
We don't need to wait for deep conditioning to buy our soul and land back. We do not want to be
consulted for consideration. We want our inherent rights and responsibilities
restored. Thank you. Thank you. And now the phone number ending in 320. You should be
able to unmute now. An unknown number ending in 320. You should be able to unmute. And
then please say your name. Roxanne Sanchez, California resident and student. I am a member
of the public community, the younger generation and the voice of the indigenous peoples. I
I am a speaker to those who speak of the heart
with human concern.
My argument with this mitigation is original plan
and documented first right,
a refusal given to Northern Chumash and its alliances.
The overlooked percentage of power this plan produces
along with full responsibility of preservation
and conservation to land, ocean and animal regard.
I stand with glad back.
Y'all teach you teach you Y'all teach me
more than Chumash, and the innovative chance
to protect and restore this land for future generations.
We cannot continue to erase the history of the land
and its people, thank you.
Thank you.
And we are seeing some other hands raised,
but those signups came after the cutoff.
We are seeing no more other speakers
that we have signed up this week, so, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much, Chris, and thank you to the public.
Now we're gonna take a break,
And then we will come back with the applicant's rebuttal.
And we'll move into deliberation.
To the commissioners, please be back, 325, 328.
We'll get started by 3.30.
Thank you.
OK, everybody, thank you.
So we will now return to the applicant.
And he will have five minutes for the rebuttal.
Mr. Jones, thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Six buckets to go over quickly here.
First is there's been some contentions
that PG&E applied for a 20-year license
with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
unilaterally and arbitrarily.
That's simply false.
PG&E consulted with the Department of Water Resources,
which holds our contract, the governor's office,
and other state policymakers.
Since the NRC regulations does say up to 20 years,
however, and over their 40 license renewals,
they have only evaluated and issued for 20 years
because they look at the safety of the facility
for the maximum duration.
The second is the NRC separately communicated
to both the utility and the Department of Water Resources,
that if the state needed us for simply five years in a day,
that next day would require a new license.
So, because we can apply for the 20 years,
which is what the regulator is accustomed to
when you get a more robust safety analysis,
we did apply for the 20 years,
and the state recognizes that they have five levers
to control how long Diablo truly runs.
It's the power of the purse string as a regulated utility,
no funding, no plant.
It's the ones through cooling policy
and the findings that the state water board needs to make.
No findings, no operations.
We have to have site control.
The state lands commission has jurisdiction there.
If they don't extend the lease, we don't operate.
We go down lists and lastly, legislation is required
and also this commission would need
a subsequent coastal development permit
as the staff report reflects.
The second bucket is PG&E has done this before on the South Ranch, they can simply do it
again.
Well, the first item that was cited was the trail in 1979 related to the training facility
after the Coastal Act was implemented.
Eureka Energy did not own the lands at the time and PG&E had to compensate the previous
landowner for that alignment in that trail.
The second was related to the 2006 steam generator permit when there was a 1200 acre deed restriction
encumbrance on the property. That occurred before additional layers of
affiliate rules have been applied by the Public Utilities Commission and your
staff independently corroborated those with the Utilities Commission and I
believe it's on the staff report in page 72 and 73. So the rules are different. In
one case the affiliate didn't own it and the second case rules have changed since
then. That's why we do think the First Rider Refusal is the most practical tool
it works in all the spaces and SB 846 contemplated purchasing these properties
as well it allocated 150 million dollars for the purchases of these properties
and the first right refusal tool makes that possible there's been comments
about Wild Cherry Canyon several time the short summation is Mr. Shoecraft
that represents home fed is correct the lease it does allow for any lawful
purpose of the properties and as always contemplated development the land owner
or can't arbitrarily deny the purposes expressed in the lease.
PG&E and Eureka Energy never entered into that lease.
Eureka Energy ended up buying the property
as a lot of properties when it purchased the power plant.
That was a sale on the county courthouse steps.
Eureka Energy and PG&E never fathomed
having Wild Cherry Canyon.
It was just a binary choice by all the lands
south of the power plant or by none of it,
including the land with the power plant.
There's been some discussion about the need of the energy.
SB 846 is quite clear it requires the California Energy Commission on an
annual basis to see if the plants need it. They do that they comply with the law
and their findings are the plants need it. I think I've checked through them
real quick there so we're in good shape there. Lastly I'll go back to that
previous encumbrance of the 1200 acres and that's why we talk about that your
staff's done a nice job in getting a more comprehensive mitigation package
Because those ratios again were 110 acres per year of operations for the same findings,
and we're looking at much greater mitigation than that on this go around.
That concludes our rebuttal remarks.
Thank you very much, Mr. Jones.
With that, we will close the public hearing, and we will return to our staff.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair Harmon.
Just covering a number of points that we felt warranted some response.
Starting with a comment was made that special condition seven regarding additional seismic investigations and information
Noted that
Until those that work had been done commits the coastal commission lacks
The info needed to find consistency with its hazards policy
I wanted to clarify that commission staff have reviewed all available information and found it supports a finding of consistency
with the coastal acts hazard section
Special Condition 7 acknowledges that there are opportunities, however, to incrementally improve the quality of that existing data.
And that... excuse me, that existing suite of data, and that some of this work would require many years to complete.
As such, Special Condition 7 requires this information to be collected and provided to the Commission as part of a review of a permanent amendment
Application that PG&E must submit if the plan is to continue operating beyond 2030.
I wanted to also acknowledge receipt of a letter from the YTT at 9 a.m.
This morning and that we've been unable to review it in detail
But it appears to align with the information shared by YTT representatives today
We've heard from and that information shared in consultation meetings with Commission staff
Questions comments were made regarding the authority for including in this letter from the YTT regarding the authority for land
and disposition and that it lies solely with the California Public Utilities Commission.
Recommended special conditions acknowledge the CPUC's role in approving proposed transference
of utility-owned lands and establishment of conservation easements on them.
SB 846 identifies this role as well and that the CPUC's review shall be in consultation
with other state agencies.
Mission staff have been in consultation with PUC staff throughout its review process and
confirmed that the recommended special conditions appropriately reflect the
CPUC's role and authority. Comments were made that the Commission's action should
not impede return of North and South ranch lands to the YTT. As noted in the
staff report, addendum, and presentation this morning, the recommended special
conditions have been carefully crafted to accommodate a land return outcome
through inclusion of tribal entities in the condition that would implement the
a first refusal portion of PG&E's mitigation proposal and through clarification that PG&E
is not required to only transfer North Ranch to a public agency. While we've heard a number of
requests for the Commission to actively require land transfer to only the YTT, staff believes
it's appropriate to retain the approach taken in the recommended special conditions and that
is aligned with the Commission's Adopted Tribal Consultation Policy and that it provides a broad
bought opportunity for all tribes identified by the expert agency, the Native American
Heritage Commission, as traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area
to seek acquisition of the land. Concerns were raised regarding the realignment of the
Pecho Coast Trail and then it would result in the loss of a substantial section of that
trail and may affect a memorial oak grove. To clarify, this realignment proposal is not
part of PG&E's application before you today and would be subject to future review and
PG&E has simply indicated its interest in pursuing a realignment to improve safety of
trail users by reducing a section of trail that's co-located on a road used by cars.
Regarding the ability of a conservation easement to be provided on South Ranch, I wanted to
clarify that the recommended special condition too requires establishment of that conservation
easement over South Ranch as part of the sale or transfer of that land.
Reports were made that the Commission should not consider or approve operations beyond
2030.
Again, I wanted to clarify that the CDP under consideration today would be limited to the
same five-year term included in SB 846 and approved by the California Public Utilities
Commission.
If PG&E wants to operate Diablo Canyon beyond that term, they would need to come back to
this Commission for an amended permit.
Representatives from Environmental Defense Center noted that the maximum feasible test
cannot be met because some direct mitigation is likely feasible.
In the staff report, ADENDA posted this week and staff presentation, we raise a range of
issues regarding the feasibility of direct mitigation, such as artificial reefs, even
in more limited sizes.
Specifically, the success of such projects in achieving rigorous mitigation standards
cannot be assumed and is very uncertain, as we have learned over the years from the San
and O'Fray Reef mitigation project.
Further, these projects can take many years to implement
and begin to provide benefits.
Finally, such projects currently face significant
regulatory uncertainty.
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife has
consistently opposed such projects, citing the need
for a consistent statewide artificial reef program.
While efforts have recently started on the development
of such a program, its timeline is unclear,
as are the recommendations and requirements it will include.
A big factor in staff's consideration was balancing potential direct mitigation projects
that carry with them significant uncertainty with land conservation that would provide
immediate, guaranteed, and diverse coastal resource benefits.
The definition of feasible in the Coastal Act states that feasible is capable of being
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account
economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.
we feel the proposed indirect mitigation proposal
best meets this feasibility standard.
Finally, a comment was made regarding
that having the mitigation in phases
is also inconsistent with the maximum feasible argument.
This comment doesn't consider that the mitigation
is proposed to scale with the impacts.
In other words, staff found that phase one mitigation
is the maximum feasible for the scale of impacts
associated with five years and phase two mitigation
the maximum feasible for 20 years of impacts. That concludes staffs comments.
Just wanted to note thanks Cassidy we have the whole team here and we are
ready for questions and turn it back to you. Thank you very much. Thank you to
our staff and all who participated today. So I'm gonna turn to my fellow
commissioners for deliberations and I would ask just to keep things orderly
Please catch my attention if you want to speak I'll put your name on a list. I know we all probably have a lot of
Comments questions. I'll start with Commissioner Wilson and we'll go from there. Commissioner Wilson the floor is yours
I don't usually go first, but this is how it rolls today
And fortunately for everyone I wrote things down this time
So
Here we go
Well, just firstly I want to express my appreciation
that we have the privilege of talking about such a beautiful landscape that we live in California that
California protects these landscapes and that we
really have something
Really significant to talk about I want to thank all the
Tribal people tribal governments and Oregon associated organizations connection of the coastline
Is you know countless generations and it's it's imperative and important that we listen to those voices?
I want to thank PG&E and its workforce, who have operated within this landscape for decades,
and some of whom I even know from work I did in the decommissioning of the Humboldt Bay
nuclear power plant.
And so I have some experience with some really good people.
I want to thank all the local and state officials and jurisdictions that have been here today
to talk, all the environmental community organizations, and of course all the citizens who waited
and got through all the comments. I just really want to appreciate that. We really take them
all to heart. So while I recognize all of the real concerns and opinions expressed today,
I'm not going to discuss any of the energy, nuclear safety, or the role of Diablo Canyon
power plant plays in the power grid. I'm going to leave that to others. I'm just going to
kind of focus on one thing.
No matter where we stand on this, the central question
is not whether conservation should occur,
but whether we can achieve conservation in a way that
adequately mitigates for significant entrainment
and other impacts as outlined in the staff report.
So again, I'm just kind of on that part.
Like others spoke to today, I believe
where it stands right now just doesn't adequately
address those issues.
I do believe we can get there.
This is why I strongly support the reasonable requests
for mitigation made by Senator John Laird.
The staff report itself recognizes,
and I just want to focus in on this,
the scale of the mitigation as a 10 to 1 ratio.
But it really says what they looked at in where we can land
is 10 to 1 or more.
And a review of scientific and administrative literature
shows the range of ratios as high as 20 to one.
And so I believe that 10 to one establishes a floor
for that ratio and not a ceiling
for what constitutes adequate mitigation
under the Coastal Act standard
of maximum feasible mitigation.
In light of the continued entrainment
and other impacts associated with the operation
of the Oblow Canyon power plant
and pursuant to the Coastal Act's override provision
under section 30260,
that requires adverse environmental effects
are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible,
I propose that the mitigation ratio
be increased from 10 to one to 20 to one,
and here's my reasons why.
One is the time lag of the mitigation benefits.
The current 10 to one ratio does not adequately address
the substantial lag between when the biological losses occur
and when mitigation benefits are achieved.
And if you look in the staff report,
you can see there's a table in there
that really helps outline that.
So the staff analysis shows that at a 10 to 1 ratio,
it would take more than 70 years to reach net zero
if the plant operated for only five more years.
And more than 200 years if operations continued
for more than 20 years.
This extended payback period represents for me
an unacceptable environmental impact.
I believe that a 20 to 1 ratio would better account
for these delayed benefits and provide
more proportionate realistic offset for the magnitude
and the duration of the ecological losses.
This is consistent with federal and other documented guidance
documents.
Out-of-kind mitigation, so the mitigation isn't out-of-kind.
The proposed conservation easements and land preservation
actions represent what we call out-of-kind mitigations.
And because these terrestrial preservation measures do not
directly replace lost marine habitat or productivity,
that a higher ratio is necessary
to approximate ecological equivalency.
Review of the literature on the subject can be found
that 21 ratio falls within an established range
that adjusts for reduced ecological equivalence
of terrestrial mitigation.
And third, this is proposing preservation
instead of creation or restoration.
The current mitigation emphasizes preservation
of existing habitat rather than the creation or restoration
of new habitat.
So preservation, while valuable for preserving future losses,
provides no biological production
and therefore cannot directly compensate
for the ongoing entrainment of marine life.
And so state and federal policy recognize that preservation
provides the lowest functional lift of all mitigation types
and typically warrants higher ratios
to achieve no net loss objectives.
And so increasing that ratio to 20 to one
ensures the mitigation gets closer
to meeting the Coastal Act's mandate
to maintain, enhance, and restore marine productivity.
And those are in sections 30230 and 30231.
Finally, consistency with the Coastal Act.
Section 30260 authorizes approval
of coastal-dependent industrial facilities
such as Diablo Canyon when no feasible,
less environmentally damaging alternative exists.
The adverse effects are mitigated to the maximum
extents feasible, and the project does not
adversely affect the public welfare.
Given the persistent and large scale entrainment impacts,
I believe a 20 to one ratio represents
the minimum necessary to satisfy 30260's requirement
for maximum feasible mitigation,
and ensures greater consistency with the sections
I've just mentioned before,
and I urge the commission to consider an amendment
that strengthens the staff's recommendation
by increasing the mitigation ratio to 20 to 1 that moves us closer to fulfilling the coastal
acts requirement of maximum feasible mitigation, and hopefully, finally, secure lasting protection
for this extraordinary stretch of coast.
And I believe Senator John Laird's letter outlines a practical way to move us closer
to that goal.
That's my statement.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Commissioner Wilson.
Commissioner Lowenberg.
question for you, Mr. Jones. From what I glean, PG&E would be willing to do a first
right of refusal on the 12,000 acres. Is that mischaracterizing? Please stop me.
No, no. I think there's more of an offer to dedicate on the north than we're ready to
even do fee-tidal transfer to a state or an appropriate agency.
I guess my question is, what am I missing? Why wouldn't you just do the conservation
easement on both the north and the south.
I get the cherry, the cherry hill, wild cherries are different.
Let's put that aside for a moment.
But on the north and the south, it would give people, I think,
a lot of comfort to know there's this conservation easement.
What am I missing?
The ownership on the south.
We're willing to do it on the north,
and we support the staff recommendation to do so.
On the south, PG&E can't act unilaterally.
It does not own the properties.
It would have to do a fair market transaction
with the affiliate.
And there are affiliate rules that guide what we can do and can't do.
But most notably in that affiliate rule transaction
from the Public Utilities Commission, it
says that the parties must have arm's length fair market value
transactions, and the affiliate cannot unduly
benefit the operation of the utility.
They look at competitive advantage against other utility operations.
And your staff report goes into detail on that.
And they do corroborate that independently
with the Public Utilities Commission.
So that first right refusal tool was a way
that we could thread the needle, keep the option for land
conservation open, and have quite a robust mechanism
that's in perpetuity.
So should Eureka ever decide to sell the properties,
that kicks in.
Moreover, and I just don't say it this bluntly,
as a power plant operator, we don't really want any neighbors.
We enjoy our buffer, and we have a lease for the next 40 years.
We propose no development.
We don't want any development there.
The other option we have is we have an option
to renew that lease for an additional 99 years.
Lease with who?
PG&E can exercise its option to extend that lease
to another 99 years.
On which parcel?
On the southern properties.
So we don't talk about her to take credit here because it's
not a mechanism, but an operating power plant
with our security buffer and that
results in de facto conservation.
So we can do those things to buy more time,
but that tool that staff helped create at First Rider Refusal
is in perpetuity so that if Eureka ever acts,
this first road refusal kicks in.
So let me just understand.
Eureka leases the land, the southern land, from you?
No.
Pigeonie leases it from Eureka.
They lease it the other way around.
OK.
And so these properties were acquired by Eureka in 1995.
The leases were entered into in the 60s from the Moray Cattle
and Land Company.
And so the lease terms were quite long
because we were constructing a multi-billion dollar facility
at the time.
And so the lease carries over when the ownership changes.
So we're bound by the leases in the 60s
and the affiliate roles today.
And in the lease, does it allow you to develop
that southern portion?
Could you, let's say, hypothetically,
if you wanted to even lease it again to a developer?
I'm not saying you would.
Are there restrictions in your?
There are some regulatory restrictions.
I don't have that portion at least memorized,
because it's not what we do.
But the property is owned differently.
Where we have our development and the power plants
been built under the local coastal program.
It's owned public facilities for things like energy generation.
The rest is owned either ag or recreation,
but I believe the southern ranch is all agriculture.
And then it's in the coastal zone.
But we don't have any desire to develop there.
What happens, walk me through what happens.
Let's just make an assumption for a moment
that you get the five years.
And at the end of five years, you start the decommissioning,
or you start it sooner, whenever.
What happens to that lease then?
The lease is still in force, and PG&E will need that lease
to execute the decommissioning activities.
And at the end of the decommissioning?
Depends on how long it takes.
So Humboldt, we started in year 32 of the plant not operating.
And we finished about year 43.
So the NRC regulations do allow for up to 60 years
to affect decommissioning.
And there's some science behind that.
Some of the isotopes that you deal with,
like the principal contaminations, Cobalt-60,
It has a 5.25 half life, 5.25 year half life.
So if you wait till 35 years to start,
your largest contaminant simply doesn't exist.
It changes your profile of the waste
and it changes worker exposure.
So there are some significant advantages
when a plant stops operating to wait.
Our proposal right now, and it's contemplating the EIRs
to go directly into decommissioning,
but that's still about a 10 year project
from when we stop operating.
If we forced you or asked you or pushed you to do the conservation easement,
that wouldn't automatically allow you to lose your buffer, would it?
I know you want to keep a buffer around for the public.
I get all that.
On the north, no.
It depends on the south.
On the south, I can't commit to you today that we
can achieve a conservation easement.
I think that tool is the most practical tool to do it.
The rover.
Yeah.
OK, all right, I may have another question down the road,
but thank you for clearing that.
You're welcome.
Is that you all concur with?
Yes, I just wanted to provide some additional clarification
on what staff learned from the CPUC in our discussions
with their representatives about the South Ranch situation,
where it's a subsidiary of PG&E that owns those lands, not PG&E
itself.
So the C.F.U.C. representatives indicated that, yes, there are these affiliate transaction
rules that the C.F.U.C. requires whenever a utility company is engaging in some kind
of transaction involving assets with an affiliate.
And that's really the rules are there to make sure that there isn't some unfair advantage
that's being given one way or the other.
And so, for example, if a conservation easement were to be placed on the Eureka lands, PG&E
would have to pay for the loss in value associated with the conservation easement being placed
there, and they would have to do that through an appraisal with a fair market valuation.
And then, under a different provision under the public utilities code, that transfer would
have to get approved by the CPUC through a different process.
So there is a path, I guess is what I'm saying is, it's uncertain what would happen.
There is kind of a pathway, but we don't know what the outcome would be of that whole process.
Are you saying that if we put a conservation easement on the southern portion, that would
be a diminution of value?
What we understand from PG&E is that there would be a diminution.
It would be a loss in value associated with the restrictions that come with a conservation
easement.
Conservation easements sometimes reduce the value of land, like 30%, 60%, it depends on
what the underlying zoning is.
Well, that's the point.
It's the underlying zoning.
So if the zoning doesn't allow development, it doesn't allow XYZ, it's got to stay open
pasture land has got to stay whatever there's no diminution of value what I
don't that poor that piece there might be I mean that we don't know that would
have to go through an appraisal and so that's what the affiliate transaction
rules would require is that there be some sort of fair market valuation and
appraisal this all has to be done arms-length dealings we don't know what
that would be what we've heard from PG&E is that they would have to compensate
eureka for the loss in value associated with the conservation easement if there
is if there is correct but they don't have to do that on the northern portion
because they own it directly correct although I think the loss in value there
with the conservation easement still would have to get approved by the PUC I
don't know why we're just assuming it's a loss in value but okay I I think you
can make a case there's no loss in value given the underline you said right
given the underlying zoning if the underlying zoning were you know they
could build 2,000 homes. Okay, I get it, but I think one of the points here is
that this would go to the CPC that there is that the CPC does have a
processor which to work through all of this and decide then whether it can go
forward or not and that is clearly uncertain. So that's just the point we
want to make is there's there are some uncertainties about about how you know
what would happen if a conservation easement was placed. It's definitely easy
way easier on the North Ranch as we talked about. It's owned by PG&E and so
that's they don't have the problem with the affiliate rules as well.
South Ranch has more complications. So is it so given that it's regulated by
the state PUC is it within our jurisdiction to put the conservation
easement on? Yes it is. Oh they still have to approve it. Thank you. So basically and
and so the way that and we've talked to PUC about this they understand what
we're you know what we are recommending his staff and so I think the the way this
This would work as whatever the Commissioner approves would eventually go to CPUC for approval
and then they would assess under their rules if they didn't approve, then PG&E would need
to come back and we would need to figure out a different mitigation.
Okay.
But it gets around it with the rover.
It gets with the first right of refusal.
Yes.
I believe it does.
And is that a recorded document that's recorded on the land?
Okay.
All right.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Vice Chair Hart.
Okay.
to start by Mr. Jones saying I don't see how a CDP can issue in this case in
this particular I don't think you're gonna find support on this Commission
unless we find a way through the to the conservation easement on them so yeah
sorry I'm just saying I don't think that the support is gonna be there unless we
figure this out I just want to start by clarifying about Eureka and so you could
come to the mic if through the chair first of all Eureka is a wholly owned
subsidiary of your company, is that right? That's correct. All right and did PG&E
ever own the South part? Never. Okay so your subsidiary Eureka bought it, is that
because Eureka normally holds land for you? What does Eureka do? Eureka is a
land-holding company. Right. And what happened in 1995, the county forced a
sale of the properties and seized them. There were either 13 or 17 parcels. The
power plant was built on one of them and ultimately the previous owner had
defaulted there was a bankruptcy there was ten years of back taxes and they
defaulted on some other loans. The county seized those in a 1995 auction them off
on the county courthouse steps in one auction lot. Eureki Energy purchased
them and got the South Ranch with it. That's how we ended up in this position
but the leases on the property were established in the 60s between Pacific
gas and electric company, and the Luigi Marais land and cattle company.
Okay. Just out of curiosity, how is it that PG&E and not Eureka Energy owns the
land on the northern tract? PG&E acquired those through a series of purchases over
time when landowners wanted to sell, and then some of the other lands that are
those puzzle pieces I showed you in the presentation earlier, those were acquired
during the transmission right-of-way. The utility does enjoy the power of imminent
domain. And so while we exercise it judiciously, if someone does sell land
to the utility under the threat of imminent domain, say a transmission
land siding, they don't pay capital gains on that event. So sometimes we get
easements, sometimes we end up with land ownership. So the utility has many more
tools to acquire land and we do the willing, buyably, sell their model.
So would it be true? It's the case and I mean there's a lot going on here but wasn't
150 million set aside for purchase of the South Ranch
to the Conservancy?
I don't think it was specific to the South Ranch.
I have that it was.
Can somebody clarify that?
Because that was my understanding.
Actually, I would ask Cara Clark.
Is that OK for Cara?
I'm happy to.
I'm sorry, sir, could you just step aside?
I'm going to have more questions of you, but I mean,
my notes indicate that it was for the South Ranch.
Is it for the whole thing?
SB 846 set aside $160 million.
10 million of that went to fund planning projects, including the one by the State Coastal Conservancy
we talked about earlier, 40 million went towards Wild Cherry Canyon and the rest, 110 million,
would be for both North and South Ranch.
Okay.
But for acquisition or for?
Acquisition.
Okay.
But they already own.
I mean, part of the deal, you don't need to stand up and sit down, but I hate to make
you do that.
I guess the point I'm making is we have to find a way to make this work
on the South Ranch.
I'm saying that as I sit here today to get the support
to get through this process and get past this commission.
And how are we going to do that?
We know that we have this $150 million of which part
is for Wild Cherry Canyon, which you've made pretty clear.
Unless I'm wrong, I don't see a mechanism for Wild Cherry Canyon.
The state has one.
I mean, they've allocated the funds that they wish to use
I mean they can negotiate with you which is essentially Eureka.
Well, no, HomeFed has the principal value as it was addressed here.
They're the lessee though, right?
But the underlying fee owner is Eureka.
Correct.
So, and then they would have to negotiate with HomeFed to buy out the lease.
Correct.
But, so there is a mechanism for Wild Cherry Canyon whether it would cost more than $10
million or whatever that would cause.
I don't know that this commission is going to make a decision about that, but I am certain
the commission is going to make a decision about the conservation easement on the south
ranch.
So you tell me, how is that going to work?
Because I feel that it's sort of a mandate from the people that we've heard from, from
my perspective on the impacts.
The impacts are just huge, you know, we're talking about billions and billions of gallons
and I don't need to tell you.
So how can it work with the money that we have that,
how can PG&E, how would it work?
You get an appraisal for the conservation easement
on the, pursuant to our,
let's say we make that decision today.
So you get an easement, I'm sorry,
you get an appraisal for the conservation easement
on the land owned by Eureka the South Ranch, right?
Okay, let's see.
I mean, my commission, my fellow commission
doesn't think it would be that much,
But I don't know, it depends on a lot of things, right?
But whatever it is, something tells me it's not gonna be,
it's gonna be somewhere within this amount that's available,
that's been made available to the Conservancy.
It's a reasonable estimate.
So what prevents that process from happening
and then using the money that's been allocated
for the Conservancy to buy the conservation easement
pursuant to our decision today,
which would then go to the PUC,
we would obviously make the pitch,
we would be their colleague,
they're another California agency.
So is there any reason why that process cannot go forward
from your perspective?
It just requires two to three subordinate discretionary
actions by the regulators.
I do think the first right refusal tool
can accomplish that, and we can agree to that today.
And that just sets the stage for the order
in which that would happen.
That's not for me personally.
I'm not going to be supportive of the first right of refusal,
because it's too speculative.
We just fought and won a climate bond.
It almost didn't get funded.
then through the legislation and the administration decided, OK,
we're going to fund.
I mean, you never know what money will be available in the future.
So now is the time, in my opinion.
Now is the moment.
Now is when the impacts are happening.
So let's just assume that now is the time it has to happen,
and the right of first refusal is not going to fly.
So let's talk that through again, how that could happen.
I don't know.
I'm going to have to think about it for a minute.
I haven't treed that out and needed to consult with my staff.
And I think that there will be time to do that today.
I think after we have this hearing.
So let me just talk to you about a couple other things.
I see that as being a mandate.
And I guess with Wild Cherry Canyon,
I need more information about how to include that.
I'm a little more confused, frankly,
about how that would work.
But I want to talk to you for a second about,
And our staff dealt with the,
I want to turn to the impacts and the potential
that has been raised.
Sorry, let me find all my notes.
About a different type of technology
for the ones through cooling specifically,
and maybe staff needs to address this more,
but you know, there's a potential reduction
of almost 40% of the entrainment.
What are your feelings about that,
that that just isn't a good approach
because more things would get captured in it?
I mean, it seems like there haven't been real advances
in the once through cooling process by PG&E.
There haven't been advances
when the once through cooling process statewide.
That's why the plants have been retired
largely because of the impacts.
The other technologies we heard may or may not require
a license amendment request, we believe they would.
And on top of that, I think the staff analysis
of the feasibility was accurate
and I'd defer to them for some of the more of their analysis.
Okay, let me turn to staff on that
Because, you know, that's a really significant reduction.
I read the addendum.
I'm familiar with the arguments, but I'm not convinced at this time.
There's been back and forth on whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would
have to approve it.
But as we sit here today, can you talk a little bit about why?
I believe it was called the mechanic.
I'm sorry, I lost my notes.
It's a different sized screen, and it has a mechanical aspect to it.
Who would be?
There are, they could install traveling screens or either one
or two millimeter mesh screens.
That was something that the regional board and other agencies
looked at a number of years ago.
Back in the early 2000s, the board
thought there would be a 9% to 39% reduction in entrainment.
more recent data suggest it would not be that great a reduction.
A large part is most of the organisms that are entrained
are smaller than the minimum mesh size that's actually
feasible to put in seawater because of the fouling issues.
At Diablo Canyon, there's ongoing maintenance and cleaning
of the existing screens, which are much larger.
And so we expect that the feasibility of using small mesh screens there would require substantially
greater maintenance to keep clear that could have operational issues.
And they are not likely to result in as much of a reduction as was originally calculated
by the board 20 years ago or so.
If I could, Vice Chair, one just small addition to that, one of the additional issues that
changing the screen size raises is that oftentimes you're just swapping entrainment, which is
the organisms passing through the screen with impingement, which means they're getting stuck
on the screen.
Yeah, I read it.
I guess the point is, once again, PG&E is not going to be required to have the expense.
The reality is PG&E, unlike San Onofre, is not going to have the expense of creating
these offshore reef systems, all of this very expensive marine restoration that goes on
for years and years and years.
To me, for PG&E, particularly with all the money that's been set aside to the state
conservation organizations like the Conservancy and State Parks, this is such a win-win.
protects you, provides all of these buffers. So I think finding a way to get
this South Ranch resolved at this time with not the right of first refusal but
get it resolved I think is the way to go for for everyone concerned. So I really
am hoping that we can do that today. I don't want to take up any more time. I'm
sure my colleagues have other questions, but I do think we're going to have to
take a few moments of however long it takes to figure out how this would work knowing
that it would have to go back to the PUC in any event.
Thanks, Chair.
Commissioner Escalante.
Thank you, Chair.
First off, I'll start off with a couple of questions
for our biologist.
I always want to say Dr. Garcia, but I
know that it's compounded me.
Karski Garcia?
Yes, Karski Garcia.
Somebody, one of the public commenters,
and I believe it was one of the tribes,
was talking about abalone restoration.
I know that mitigation is trying to avoid marine projects.
Can you just speak a little bit about abalone restoration
and why that's not in the suite of tools for mitigation?
Yeah, I can offer a little bit.
And I think Mr. Luster may be able to add a little bit more
from the historical perspective.
But my understanding is that in the past, that was considered.
And at that time, this was circa 2000.
And at that time, there was an allocation and an intent
to pursue some of that.
However, the science wasn't there yet in terms
of how to do abalone restoration.
In the time since, I think that there has been some progress,
but it is still in a very early stage.
And the techniques to do abalone restoration
are kind of in that research phase right now.
They are not ready for prime time.
Here's how you do it kind of situation.
So typically it would involve at least conceptually
bringing animals into captivity,
spawning them in captivity, doing some sort of grow out
and being able to out plant them back
into the ocean environment.
However, there are complications
in that the way that abalone respond
when grown in a lab, for example, is not necessarily preparing them
to survive in the wild.
And that transition between captivity and the wild can be problematic.
That having to do with everything from coloration to acclimation
to the field conditions, as well as when you out plant them, they're quite small.
These are very long-lived animals on the order of decades,
and they grow very slowly.
So they remain susceptible for a long time.
What about kelp restoration projects?
In this region?
Yes.
In this particular project, why was kelp restoration
not part of the suite?
I'm not aware of any opportunities that are at the ready for kelp
restoration here.
Typically, kelp restoration really focuses on addressing the predators.
And so urchin barons, for example, which you
may be familiar with more on the north coast.
A lot of time, it's about controlling that predator that's taking out
the kelp forests and allowing for the kelp to naturally reestablish.
You have to have rocky substrate, for example, and areas where that kelp can persist.
In this region, we do have good kelp forests throughout much of it.
And the kelp is where the kelp wants to be, where the oceanographic conditions are appropriate.
And so the opportunities to really add more kelp are somewhat limited here.
So you're saying that in the area that is sort of where the water quality is most impacted
by the plant, that it won't help to have kelp restoration there or kelp doesn't grow there.
Kelp does grow there.
Yes, it does grow there.
And I believe PG&E actually even has a kelp harvester that helps with clearing so that
Material isn't blocking their intakes among other things. Got it. Okay. Thank you
A question and you know, we keep talking about energy and and and I have a question about
legislation energy
So I don't know if staff maybe Cassidy we can start with you
And maybe it PG and he can help answer this SB 100, which is our state's
Goals for 100% renewable energy
Does that include me quote nuclear power from Diablo Canyon?
My understanding is that legislation refers to carbon-free electricity, which would include Diablo Canyon's generator power
So I will I think I'll just go into my comments
Immense. Thanks to everyone who spoke today and who wrote to us
I don't underestimate how high the stakes are of this consistency and permit decision and
and how complex Diablo Canyon's issues are for the state and locals.
A highlight for me today was to hear from folks from the various chambers of commerce and leaders
from inland, rural places like Alusa County and the city of Solvang. Being in such support for
clean energy and climate action, I really welcome that spirit with open arms. But I think that we
We aren't here to unilaterally litigate and decide how long Diablo Canyon keeps producing
nuclear power past the statutory timeline set by SB 846, so I think it's inappropriate
for this Commission under its authority and standard of review to make decisions on plans
further than the state's decommissioning plans are, as of now, which is 2030.
And I'm not a nuclear power absolutist, actually I hope this new crop of nuclear scientists
that testified here today can crack the nuclear fusion nut so we can fix climate change and
bring world peace.
However, today's determination and CDP has proposed, I think, the goals of the goal post
set forth by legislation and local voter initiative for the Diablo power plant, quite outside
the stadium. Breaking the conservation mitigation into phases I think depending
whether the applicant can get another extension not only rolls back what's
already been agreed to under SB 846 the County Dream Initiative and all these
budget allocations that the state has you know gone out of his way to carve
out but in addition it sets a bad precedent that mitigations already
of greed upon like this can be held hostage depending on speculative changes in legislation
and regulations. What we are here to litigate is if and or how we can ensure that there
are maximum feasible environmental and public access mitigations given the facility needs
an override of the Coastal Act policy due to its horrible open intake cooling system
impacts as well as some of its geological hazards. Although to be honest
in the back of my mind the lessons learned from its a stranded Southern
California counterpart kind of poke a hole in the reliability and
affordability argument but that's for our friends in the legislature PUC and
the Energy Commission to work out first. I am in full agreement with Senator
alert request to improve the mitigation package.
And I would be willing to support this permit
if we include all of those points in our amendments.
Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner.
Commissioner Nada.
Thank you.
First, I wanted to just thank everyone who's been here today.
I wanted to also just note the effectiveness
of the one-minute presentations.
having been on the other side of the dais for 40 years.
I know everyone struggles to collect their thoughts,
but I thought there was a couple of particularly
spot-on presentations during the one minute one,
not to take away from anyone else,
but a couple of those one minutes were very effective.
And I do wanna say that I was,
having worked on many of these energy issues for years,
I was quite relieved in 2016 when PG&E applied for decommission and came to agreement with
so many parties to decommission this plant, which has served its purpose and helped us
move into fossil-free energy here in California and to meet our climate goals.
So today we're looking at, there's state laws that we are operating under, the State Coastal
Act to be consistent with CZMA and when in 2022 the legislature decided that we need
a little longer transition and enacted SB 4846, I wasn't thrilled to see it but I was
certainly reassured that when Senator Laird and Senator Dodd and others made
sure that there was a meaningful role for the Coastal Commission in that and I
take that responsibility that the Commission has under SB 846 very
seriously. Having said and I listen very carefully to everyone's testimony I do
want to associate myself with my fellow commissioner Wilson, I thought that you
really make it very good when you write out your comments. I appreciate that very
much and I'm trying to learn from that. But I would say that certainly for me I
could not support and I wanted to be crystal clear that we are talking only
only about a coastal development permit
that operates between 25 and 2030, nothing beyond that.
That's what the legislation says.
That's what the governor signed the law into place.
That's what the CPUC has authorized,
and that's what's before us today.
So looking at that, I'll be honest and say,
I don't really understand how there's a phase two.
I think that we should be meeting our full mitigation
during phase one, which I think there's a good argument
that that will be the only phase.
In fact, that's it, it's not a phase.
So that's what I'm looking to staff to help advise us
on how do we incorporate the maximum mitigation
between now and 2030, not 2031.
So I would be interested in seeing how we do a phase.
And I guess my question is on that.
And I think that leads me to say that I would not
be supporting consistency determination beyond 2030.
A couple of other things.
I noted that in the addendum, there
was an addition to language that said approval by the CPUC
and then added and or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
And I had some questions as why that would be.
I'm particularly uncomfortable substituting
the Federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission
for the CPUC here in California.
So that's one question I had for the staff.
But overall, I would want to see the strengthening
of the conditions of the mitigation measures
to take place now in phase one
and would not be supportive of those beyond that phase.
Thank you.
Commissioner O'Malley.
Thank you, Chair.
I have a quick question
and some very brief comments, I promise.
This is mostly, I think, probably for staff.
So let's say for sake of discussion,
let's say sake of discussion,
if we, as commission were to require,
as part of the suite of mitigation,
some sort of marine ecosystem restoration,
what, if any, time or space constraints would we be under?
And then I hear you're on the Kelp and Abalone, maybe not
being immediately adjacent.
But I think about songs and some of that mediation
was in San Diego South Bay, which
is about an hour drive away.
So I mean, they're linked, but how close?
And so I'm wondering, if we looked at the suite
and said, OK, we think there needs
to be not only conservation but some of this marine ecosystem,
what are the constraints on that for us, if any?
I can take a start, and Dr. Hercobridge
may want to contribute as well.
I think the main concerns that come to my mind
is just that nexus and proportionality
and making sure that there's a connection
between the mitigation and the impacts.
And so as you noted, sometimes there's
out of kind, out of space, given feasibility, practicality.
Sometimes mitigation projects need
to be at distance from where the impacts occur.
Yeah, I appreciate that.
And especially, there's someone made comment earlier
about how just the location of this
can potentially interrupt the interchange
between marine protected areas as well.
So this is, we can say how far the nexus is.
But certainly myself, I can see a nexus
between a lot of these immediately coastal land uses
and restoration projects.
I want to, I'll be brief because most of what I was going to say
has been said very eloquently by Commissioner Wilson.
thank you, and vice chair Hart.
And I don't see a way, if we're invoking the override here,
that I would be okay with anything.
And by the way, I was very supportive
and really convinced by the Senator Laird's letter,
also supervisor, I'm sorry, Hall Gibson,
earlier he said something like,
Today, he said, we should, of the experimental 12,000 acres,
we can and we should.
And I would say we can and we must.
And we should go further as far as some sort of marine.
And because of the impacts of this,
there's something like we've never seen before.
I mean, I haven't in my time here.
So I think we have to look as great as we can, really,
to offset.
And so I guess I'm kind of lying myself
with what's been said already, that at the very minimum,
the conservation offsets, but I would look even further
for some sort of marine restoration or protection.
So with that, I'll leave it.
Thank you very much.
Commissioner Jackson.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to everybody for speaking.
Great democratic process.
You know, thoughtful, respectful, spirited discussion,
very decent mutual respect,
regardless of which side you were on.
You know, it's good to see democracy in action.
I think many outside of our great state
could learn from this model.
So thank you all for being involved.
After a couple days, I consider myself
an expert on thermal discharge.
So I've got a question in that regard.
I'm not sure who the smart person is,
but I know there's a couple in here.
As I have become an expert through, of course, Google,
I'm wondering about, you know, I've read about these cooling towers and other engineering
opportunities that some folks are using, particularly in rivers and other water effluent to cool
the water before it's discharged.
What would something like that entail?
Is that even possible?
Am I just, you know, Googling too much?
So I'll start and defer to Mr. Luster, but that was evaluated as part of the Once Through
Cooling Policy Workshops, and Diablo Canyon would require two cooling towers, approximately
700 feet.
The cost was around $12 billion and we'd have to move more earth than they did for the Panama
Canal.
So it was determined and feasible at that time.
Wow.
What year was that?
2012 through 2014, Tom, approximately.
Yeah.
Thank you.
Just to follow up, technology hasn't caught up, no?
It's the volumes of thermal mass you're
trying to dissipate, so it's large amount.
OK, it's that significant.
OK.
If you've seen Rancho Seiko and they still
have their parabolic tower in the air, it's two of those.
OK.
All right.
Thank you, Google.
Thank you.
Those who know me know I tend to be a Monday morning
quarterback every now and then, particularly when it comes
our friends in Sacramento. But credit, I think, is due to the good Senator Laird,
Assemblymember Addis, and the many others who have weighed in because I think they
got this one right. I really do. We operate in a time when environmental
protections and public trust are under unprecedented attack, and I think the
message we send today really, really matters. Not just for Diablo Canyon, but
for the future of California's open spaces.
We're talking about decades of staggering and devastating
environmental impact that demand action, not delay.
And we're looking at a possible path right now
for full conservation that I think that could begin today.
And I don't think we can treat this as business as usual.
We don't wait.
We don't need to phase, you know.
We have, we need the meaningful protection
for the more than 12,000 acres of irreplaceable coastal lands.
Not vague promises of future mitigation and uncertain outcomes.
I think from North Canyon to Wild Cherry,
from North Ranch to Wild Cherry Canyon,
these lands represents a once in a generation opportunity
to secure lasting public access.
Habitat conservation and recreation benefits.
And I think it's a modest price to offset the decades
of coastal impact.
I think this is our collective moment to turn compromise
into legacy protecting these lands now not only honor the coastal lacks
purpose, it would reaffirm the public's trust in this commission's duty to
safeguard California's coast for generations to come. Those of us who've
been in California, I've been here a minute or two, some of you longer. We
are always criticized for our inability to get anything done. We talk, we
study, we analyze. This we can do. We have a path right now. I think the
path that we are proposing that we're looking at gives us an opportunity to
get to that open space and cool full conservation that we all strive for I
think that the time is now and I think we should act accordingly thank you
madam chair thank you commissioner Lopez okay I'll concur with my colleagues I
want to come at this from just a slightly different perspective I know we
heard a lot from different communities and interested groups today and you know
I'm in one of those communities that is seen as part of the solution to a lot of what we're
facing as a state in terms of battery energy storage and we've seen that every single one
of those facilities that's been built has caught fire.
And so folks say, oh, there are solutions.
There are but they are all still trial, right?
Nobody's is perfect yet.
And I think that that's something we haven't heard enough about.
And so as we look at the suite of options that need to be considered as we look towards
solutions for the overall issue of energy creation, storage, and then
redistribution, there's going to continue to be challenges. You know, we all saw the
Moss Landing incident and we saw not long after the Park Field incident that
happened in my district as well. And it's just, it's to say that we don't know
what the landscape is going to look like in five years. And so I think keeping us
narrowly focused on what the 846 is asking us to do is important and as part
of that staying within the bandwidth of that and knowing that we have an
opportunity in front of us I'm a I'm in agreement with my colleagues up here
that we're at a moment of opportunity to really make an impact on a major issue
that has existed for a long time this is one of those tough issues where I've got
friends on all sides of the issue. As a county supervisor representing Southern Monterey County,
the transmission lines from Diablo cut right through my district. So having friends on all
sides of this issue puts me in a tough spot. But it's to say that I do think that there is
a balance that can be struck here for the people, for the environment.
It's not to say that we can undo the damage that has been done over the 40 years, but to say that
that looking forward, there's a renewed commitment
to find a real solution and balance for the residents,
for the environment, and whether aqua or terrestrial,
for life forms that we're blessed with on the Central
Coast.
So I'm in agreement with Commissioner Hart at this point
that I want to find a way to put some additional commitment
into that South piece now.
I don't know how we do that.
I think that lawyers can put their minds together
beyond that first rider refusal to find a pathway for that but I think this is
that moment and if we can do that then I think we have met our moment and can
rise to this and find a path forward. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Adoni.
Thanks. Thanks very much to everyone that spoke today. It was very educational. I'm
hearing from everyone. You know we heard from our UC Berkeley students who talked
about energy and it's really important we heard from our chambers and labor
talking about the economy and jobs which we heard from others talking about the
safety of this plant they're all really important but they're not what I'm here
to decide today the focus of 846 and the CPU to CPUC is to keep the plant open
potentially for up to another five years it's clearly their intent so the big
question today for me and really the only question that I'm considering is
does the mitigation go far enough? And you know it appears that staff and PG&E
have agreed that the mitigation does meet our standards but I for one agree
with my colleagues I don't think it does I don't think it goes far enough I don't
know if Commissioner Wilson's 20 to 1 goes far enough or not I think Senator
Loehr got it right on his letter and I really hope the commission moves to that
in that direction but I want to again thank everyone. It's been an interesting day today
for sure, long but very very very interesting and educational for me so thank you. Thank you.
Commissioner Preciado. I just want to join all of you in sharing with you that it is critical
that the phasing be reduced to phase one only. I just want to emphasize that and number two,
I want to support my colleagues who are seeking a Senator Laird style agreement for us to
be supportive.
And one last thing as I've been looking at all the graphics and the maps and potentially
the 30, 50 year cycle that it'll take to potentially establish Native people's ownership or Native
people's trusteeship of this space. I'm wondering if there's any way to condition
some initial signposting. I see the Irish Hills and I see the Pacific, the North part and the
South part and I'm just wondering as an educational requirement if some new signposting and some new
landmarking names that acknowledge that tradition can be placed. And that seems like an easy thing
to do. I'm hoping some of these things can be incorporated but I too will be supportive of a
proceeding if we find a way to incorporate Senator Lehrer's contributions and expectations.
Thank you Commissioner Eckerly.
Thank you Chair. I also want to extend my thanks to staff and everyone who has
Spoken today provided your perspectives spent many many hours with us here and before we got to the meeting
I will make this brief on behalf of the administration
I just want to remind the commission and the public that Diablo Canyon is an essential piece of Governor Newsom's energy
reliability strategy
So I urge the commission and PG&E
to find a solution that allows the Commission to feel comfortable that we are meeting the requirements of the Coastal Act and
allows for ongoing operation of Diablo Canyon through 2030. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Nada. I just wanted as we're
talking about trying to figure out how we move forward today
to get to 2030 on
South Ranch also one of the pieces that is the offer to dedicate the
access trails. There's and those right now are bifurcated between phase one and phase two and I want to
ask you to look at how we can put that into phase one. Thank you.
Great. Thank you. All right, so
to my comments, well, I'll start by
acknowledging as my colleagues have the incredible amount of work that has gone into bringing us to this point.
Certainly from our
Dedicated staff, the team at PG&E.
And over the many years prior, as we heard in public comment
today, from our legislators to the citizens,
this has been quite a journey.
And I think promises to continue to be quite a journey.
But the engagement continues to prove
and continues to be such a testament to our shared
commitment to California, and in particular,
to this stretch of the coast.
I think the case has been made today and in many prior hearings, that Diablo Canyon and
its clean baseload power is critical for the state of California.
I think that's what the state law tells us and it's what our sister agencies tasked with
assessing our energy portfolio have told us.
That said, as my colleagues have done, I am going to join with them, particularly with
the comments made by Commissioner Wilson in my belief that the mitigation package as it's
laid out before us is insufficient. The scale of the effects are significant,
their impact undeniable. We simply put, need more. I really want to get to
yes today. I do. I think what I'm saying, I think what I've heard very clearly
from my colleagues is that we are committed to getting to yes, but that we
simply need more to do so. This stretch of coast is absolutely remarkable and as
was said by a number of our colleagues and I couldn't agree more, this is a
generational opportunity to protect it. So with that said I'm going to lay out
what I've heard from colleagues, what's important to me. I really would like to
see us get to a conservation easement on the South Ranch. I do understand that
further discretionary approvals are required. I'm clear on that and I'm okay
with it. I think that it's still critical to our decision today. I also want to
highlight, and I think this is very important, that all of North Ranch be in
a conservation easement as well. And we're very focused on South Ranch, that's
important, but in those puzzle pieces, just to be clear, for me all of North
branch is important. I also want to highlight, money is necessary. The
endowment fund is critical and while I appreciate, I think it's 5.8
million that has been suggested to me, it's simply insufficient and I would
really like to see more as part of the mitigation package and that hasn't been
addressed up here much but I do think that that's important and it's an
important component of the ongoing protection of this area so with all of
these comments made what I'm going to suggest and I'm turning to staff to see
if this makes sense is that we continue this item while our partners at PG&E
assess what they've heard and perhaps work with our staff and then come back
at a certain point and and let us know where they've gotten to later this
afternoon of course. Through the chair I would I would recommend then maybe that
you continue the item until the end of the day and we can make our way through
the rest of the items that we have on the agenda in that time hopefully we can
have staff and PG&E discuss what we've heard and come back to you at the end of
the day. Okay I think that that sounds like a great plan so we will continue
this item and look forward to picking up the conversation. I would also request
request a 10-minute break?
Yes, I also, I too would request a 10-minute break.
Thank you, see you all at 4.15.
All right, thank you everyone.
We are going to start moving through the rest of our items.
So we are now on item 10, the deputy director's report
for the South Central Coast District, Mr. Hudson.
Okay, thank you.
And item 10 is the deputy director's report
for the South Central Coast.
It includes six permit extensions this month.
We're not aware of any opposition
to any of the items being reported.
And we're asking whether three or more commissioners object
to any of the items.
Today in the deputy director's report,
I am available for questions.
Thank you.
Are there any ex parte?
Seeing none, are there any members of the public
who wish to speak on this?
There are no speakers.
Great, thank you.
Do three or more commissioners object to any item
in the deputy director's report?
Seeing no objection, the commission concurs.
Thank you, Mr. Hudson.
Thank you.
And that brings us to item 11A,
which will be presented via Zoom by Denise Gonzalez,
a planning supervisor in our South Central Coast District.
We do have a PowerPoint presentation.
If we could pull that up, please.
And Denise, please take it away.
Thanks, Steve.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
Item 11A is a request by the County of Santa Barbara
to amend the land use plan
implementation plan portions of its certified LCP to rezone certain sites and amend various
sections of the IP to align with the county's housing element update. These changes include
the establishment of a new design residential zone designation with minimum and maximum densities,
the rezoning of four sites to this new designation zone, and the establishment of a ministerial
permit requirements and development standards for projects qualifying for by right processing
in accordance with state law. Next slide please.
The amendment proposes changes to the land use and zoning designations for two sites
referred to as Van Wingarden 1 and Van Wingarden 2. These sites will be modified from agricultural
to design residential allowing for a minimum of 20 and a maximum of 30 dwelling units per acre.
Additionally, the amendment seeks to up-zone a site known as the Baylor site, which consists
of two parcels from single-family residential to design residential 20, permitting 20 dwelling
units per acre. As shown here, these three sites are located within the Carpentaria Valley,
adjacent to the city limits of Carpentaria, and are surrounded by other agricultural designated
Man and residential and urban developments. Further, these sites are continuous with the
urban-wool boundary, which is outlined in yellow on this slide. The fourth site proposed for
rezoning is known as Friendship Manor, which is owned by the University of California, Santa Barbara.
This site will be rezoned from High Density Student Residential 20 to Design Residential,
allowing for a minimum of 30 and a maximum of 40 dwelling units per acre to accommodate
increased student housing on site. Friendship Manor is an infill site located within a designated
urban area in the high-density and largely developed Isla Vista region. The county is
proposing modifications to the land use and zoning designations of these four sites to meet
the requirements of its 2023-2031 Regional Housing Needs Assessment, or RINA for short.
The California Department of Housing and Community Development, along with the county's Association
of Governments, mandates that 73% of the arena must be allocated to the South Coast region of
the county. This region includes the cities of Santa Barbara, Gallia, and Carpentaria,
as well as unincorporated communities such as Summerland, Montecito, and Isla Vista.
Furthermore, the state's affirmatively furthering fair housing law required the county to identify
sites throughout the community to accommodate its arena, given that housing needs exist
across the county, particularly in the South Coast area. As a result, the county needed
to identify potential rezone sites that could be developed during the current housing element
planning period to help address the jobs to housing imbalance in the Carpentaria Valley.
Next slide, please. The county's amendment raises the issue of whether converting agricultural
lands to residential uses aligns with the coastal agricultural protection
policies of the COSO Act. The COSO Act allows the conversion of
agricultural land to non-agricultural uses only under
very limited situations. According to COSO Act section 30241
such conversions can occur around the periphery of urban areas
if the agriculture viability is severely limited
or if the conversion would complete a logical boundary that contributes to a
stable limit to urban development. Next slide please.
This slide represents an aerial view of Van Wingarden One.
Van Wingarden One is adjacent to agricultural lands to the north
and is surrounded on three sides by urban development
including commercial and multi-family development to the south and west
and a single-family residential track to the east.
Currently the site creates a gap in the continuity between the existing residential areas to the east and west.
Incorporating the site into the urban area would establish a more defined and more consistent boundary
between the agricultural land to the north and the urban development to the south.
Next slide, please.
As shown here, Van Wingerten 2 is bordered on three sides by urban development,
which includes Carpentaria High School and single-family residential areas.
To the west and south, the site is adjacent to agricultural land featuring greenhouses.
The site forms a part of a finger peninsula that extends into the urban area. Such a
configuration of the urban wool boundary has led to conflicts, including compliance with
state mandated reporting requirements and restrictions on the types of pesticides
that can be used on the site due to the proximity of ag operations to urban uses.
Incorporating this site into the urban area would eliminate much of this
finger and create a more consistent boundary
between the agricultural uses to the west and urban development to the south
and east. This change would help establish a more
stable urban rule boundary. Next slide please. Both these land use
changes would help establish a more stable urban rule boundary and
provide a clear limit to urban expansion, encouraging
residential development near existing urban areas and prevent leapfrog development into
neighboring agricultural lands. Therefore, the proposed amendment to convert two sites from
agricultural to residential uses around the periphery of urban areas would complete a
logical boundary and contribute to a stable limit to urban development. The proposed sites for
conversion are near a central public infrastructure, including water and sewer systems. The Carpentaria
Valley Water District and Carpentaria Sanitary District have confirmed that they can service
the Mann Wingerton sites and the Baylor site. Any residential development proposed on these sites
will require a CDP, which must comply with the Coastal Resource Protection policies of the
county's LCP. The county did analyze nearly 200 sites in the area with over 90 percent
zone for agriculture. Except for the Baylord site, most non-agricultural vacant parcels
were too small or face environmental constraints, preventing them from meeting the county's criteria
for land use redesignations or rezoning. Many sites were also eliminated because they did not
contribute to the completion of existing urban neighborhoods or were not contiguous with the
city of Carpentaria or designated urban area. Other factors considered include an infrastructure
distance and cultural resources. As a result, the county identified Van Wingerton 1 and 2 as the
only agriculturally designated and zoned parcels in the Carpentaria Valley that met all criteria
while still ensuring a stable urban boundary. Next slide please. To facilitate high density
residential development on the subject sites. The LUP amendment also includes redesignating
the Van Wingard Inn sites and Baylard from rural to urban areas. The Baylard site is currently
designated and zoned for residential use and is developed with four residences,
accessory structures, and approximately three acres of seasonal crops. The site is surrounded
by single and multifamily dwellings, a public park, orchards, and agricultural land.
Developers of the Baylor site have also partnered with the county's housing authority,
who have a pending application with the county for a multifamily housing project.
Adjusting the urban rule boundary to include Baylor into the urban area would enable
high-density multifamily development, intensifying the existing use without converting the use to
another. This change would maintain a stable urban rule boundary, protect the
agricultural viability of neighboring operations, and support reasonable urban growth. Next slide.
The amendment further introduces a new IP section to facilitate the development of affordable
housing on the four rezone sites. This new section allows by-right multi-family residential development
that specify densities requiring that at least 20% of units be affordable to very low and or low
income households. In coordination between commission staff, county staff, and the property
owners of the Baylor and Van Wingert Inn sites, the county and property owners have agreed to
increase the minimum percentage of affordable units from the originally proposed 20% to 32%.
The first 20% must be for very low or low-income households, while the additional 12% can include
moderately priced units, significantly increasing the overall number of affordable units.
Suggested Modification 3 memorializes the agreed upon requirement to increase the percentage of
affordable housing units to be provided at each of the housing sites. High-density residential
development will only be permitted on these sites due to the proposed rezoning and increased density.
The affordable unit component is integral to these future projects. As originally proposed,
the amendment would have required affordable units be maintained as such for a minimum of 90 years.
However, to ensure these units remain affordable for their entire lifespan,
Suggested Modification 3 further incorporates the county and the Commission staff agreed upon mandate
that a restrictive covenant that ensures that all very low, low- and moderate-income rental and
four-sale units remain affordable for the entire lifespan of the development. This requirement
allies with past Commission actions. The other suggested modifications provide necessary
clarifications to enhance the implementation of the LCP and maintain consistency.
There is an addendum for this item which addresses correspondence received since the
staff report was published. Notably, a letter from the City of Carpentaria was received
opposing the staff recommendation. The City and several public comment letters express
concerns that the amendment fails to adequately protect agricultural, scenic and coastal resources.
However, the rationale for the staff recommendation, including discussion of the concerns raised,
has been fully addressed in the staff report findings.
The city letter also claims that the agricultural viability was not analyzed per Section 30241.5
of the Coastal Act.
However, this section only applies if the rationale for converting agricultural lands
to nonagricultural uses is due to the severe limitation
of the existing agricultural uses on the site.
In this case, the county's request to convert ag lands
to residential uses is because the conversion
would complete a logical boundary
and contribute to a stable limit to urban development,
which is permitted under section 30241.
Finally, notice of the Commission's meeting
regarding this amendment was provided
more than 10 days in advance of the hearing,
meeting the legal requirements for notification.
Specifically, the notice was published
in a local newspaper due to the broad scope
of the amendment and was also mailed
to relevant agencies and planning departments.
Additionally, the staff exceeded legal requirements
by coordinating with the county
to email our hearing notice to individuals
who had expressed interest in the housing element update,
reaching over 9,000 interested parties.
In closing, staff is recommending the commission
find that the proposed LUP amendment
to change the land use designation is consistent with
and meets the requirements of the policies
of chapter three of the Coastal Act
and find the proposed IP amendment,
only if modified as suggested,
is consistent with and adequate to carry out
the applicable policies of the certified LUP as amended.
Commission staff have met with county staff
and the property owners of the Baylor and Van Wingerten sites,
and county staff and property owners have indicated
that they are supportive of the suggested modifications.
Because this is an amendment of both the LUP
and IP components of the county's LCP,
there are three separate motions
to carry out the staff recommendation,
which can be found starting on page six of the staff report,
to approve the LUP amendment as submitted
and to deny the IP amendment as submitted,
and then approve, I'm sorry,
and to deny the IP amendment as submitted
and then approve the IP amendment as modified.
That concludes the staff presentation
and staff is available for questions.
I'm not familiar with the term design residential.
Is that what you said?
Or did I miss you?
Yeah, let's save that for questions.
Thank you very much.
We'll start.
Ms. Gonzalez, your staff report's finished, correct?
Yes.
OK.
Thank you very much.
Just confirming.
Let's do ex parte first.
Commissioner Lopez.
Yeah, I'll go first on that.
So I had a meeting with Victor Avina, Paul Garini, Alex
Wingarden, Galar Macon, my chief of staff, Priscilla Ramos,
to talk about this particular project on October 30th.
There was a PowerPoint which was included
in our ex parte communication, which was sent to staff.
We talked about the primarily about the 32% affordable units
or 150 units of the project being affordable
as a key focus for myself.
Thank you.
Commissioner O'Malley.
Yes, thank you.
On 10 31 at 3pm, I received the email from Victor Vina.
To myself, it included a slide deck and email
and I sent that to executive staff, and it's on record.
Any others?
OK, I have a couple of conversations to report.
On 11-4, at approximately 5 PM via phone,
I spoke to Annie Bardock.
The substance of the conversation
was around her opposition to this action and the staff
recommendation.
I explained to her that the Coastal Commission was not
considering the sua sponte, but that the action came
from the county and that if the county
wished to pull the item, it could do so,
but that this was as a result of the county submitting this
to the Coastal Commission.
It was not something that we undertook on our own.
On that evening, also 11-4 on the plane, actually,
I had a brief conversation with Supervisor Bob Nelson,
where we spoke very, very briefly about this project.
And I asked if he had any feedback for me.
And we just generally spoke about housing policy
in the state of California in particular.
I also spoke briefly on that same flight on 11-4
to Susan Jordan on this issue, where
we spoke about a number of letters
that are in the public record and then
the bulk of our conversation around this issue centered
on focusing on the Coastal Act and always
going back to the law.
I also spoke to Wade Cooper, who is the chief of staff,
to Supervisor Roy Lee.
This was not on the flight, but was on 11.5 the next morning.
And again, the conversation was primarily
around process, not substance.
and the county being the party to pull the item
if that was so desired and just sort of talking
through process and how that evolved.
That was all of the conversations I had, thank you.
So with that, we will open the public hearing
and I think begin with the county.
Yes, we have Santa Barbara County Planning staff,
Lisa Plattman.
and this is is on. I do have a PowerPoint presentation that is getting loaded up and
if you could go to the first slide that would be great. I'm the director of planning and
development for the county of Santa Barbara. The first thing I wanted to say is I wanted
to express my appreciation to the Coastal Commission staff. They work closely with us
on this proposal. We knew that it was going to be challenging, we didn't take it lightly,
and I think we came to a place that we all felt better about in the end. And that's what's before
you with these modifications. Today I'm going to try, next slide please, I'm going to try and
go, oh I asked for 10 minutes just so you know, and the chair had granted it to me. I'm just going
to spend a little bit of time talking to you about the process that the county went through
to get adopted an approved housing element accepted by the state.
Next slide please. So I'm sure you're all aware that every jurisdiction has a mandate to produce
a housing element every eight years. There's a RINA allocation that's given to all jurisdictions
for income levels for low, moderate, and above moderate. And when you get those numbers,
you assess whether or not you have sufficient vacant land to accommodate them, and if you don't,
jurisdictions are required to rezone land to meet that shortfall. Next slide please. I think
you also are aware of the acute housing shortage in the state of California. It's estimated between
three to four million short. There's also an acute housing shortage in South County of Santa Barbara,
and it has been for decades. We've had a shortage and we haven't really built any meaningful housing
in about 40 years, particularly in the county jurisdiction. Just a few facts. 58% of the low
income renters pay over 30% on their housing. 37% decline in housing production. That's what I
talked about in terms of meaningful housing production. We have 21,000 roughly low income
renters that lack access to affordable homes and we have 31,000 roughly commuting into our county
on South County for jobs. In the Reno process the county was given a quite substantial number this
time 5,664 units. It's an eight-fold increase from our previous cycle. For the first time SB CAG
the numbers between our North County and our South County.
And that's to make sure that it was consistent with their sustainable
communities plan.
So that meant we had to accommodate 4,142 of those units in the south coast.
And the county was not alone.
All of the cities on the south coast had to take numbers.
In fact, the city of Santa Barbara took 8,000 units.
I think Carpinteria had 1,000 and the city of Gallita had 2,000.
Next slide, please.
There's the, I'm sorry, next slide.
So the county considered over a thousand potential
rezone sites county-wide, north and south.
Nearly 200 of those sites were in the Carpinteria Valley.
We applied screening criteria
that had information about urbanized areas,
utilities and services.
We considered 14 different environmental constraints
and also the constraints that state HCD was placing
on jurisdictions in making sure that they identified sites that were actually buildable
in the planning period, in the eight year planning period.
And most of the sites that we looked at did not meet those criteria.
So we really worked hard to find properties that we could identify to accommodate this
badly needed housing.
Next slide please.
So on May 3 of 2024, the County Board of Supervisors rezoned 18 privately owned sites.
We had 11 hearings and several other opportunities for people to participate in the process.
Six of those hearings were on the rezone.
We had outreach starting in 2022 about potential rezone sites.
what I want to emphasize is the bulk of these rezone sites are in the eastern Galita Valley,
and so that means thousands of units are in the eastern Galita Valley. We have attempted
to try and address the housing need across the south coast, and there is a housing need
in the carpentry area, particularly the agricultural area for the farm workers. We had four sites
in the coastal zone, as staff mentioned, one in Isla Vista and three in the carpentry Valley.
And we also also identified the board went took the step to identify county on land as
a way to reduce the burden on some of the other sites that could could potentially be
considered.
And when I wanted to note that we did make efforts to meet with the city of Carpinteria
in January 2023, we met with the with them to discuss the reasons we spoke to them about
other opportunities asked them to come up with ideas for us.
And we could not identify sites that would meet all of the criteria that we need to meet
aside from the three that we had picked in that particular area.
Next slide, please.
It's hard for you to see this on the screen.
Hopefully, you have it.
But this shows all of the sites that we looked at in that area.
As I said, it was over 200 potential rezone sites.
The green sites were the ones that were selected.
But we did spend a considerable amount of time trying to identify alternative sites.
Next slide please.
Your staff covered this, I think, quite well.
So I don't want to spend a lot of time on it, but there is the provision in the Coastal
Act that does allow for the conversion of agricultural properties under limited, very
limited circumstances.
And again, I just want to emphasize that the county did not take it lightly, but we did
feel that these sites are ideally located if you were going to convert and try and build
some housing in this area, these are the sites where you would do it. Next slide please.
And these are just the sites your staff did a very good job of identifying the urban uses
that surround these properties and the fact that there are urban services that are directly
available to these properties. It can show the next slide is the Baylor site. And we
We urge the commission to take action today.
We are willing to work with the community and the city of Carpinteria through our process
and have attempted to do so, but we would like to take this next step in the housing
element.
I'm available for any questions.
I will answer the question about design residential.
That's our zoning for multifamily housing at the county.
Yeah.
Thank you.
like to reserve the balance of your time for rebuttal please okay moving on we
have Tim Kim and John Polanski here in person turn your mic on good evening
mr. Kim can I ask you are part of the applicant team or the developer team how
much time are you requesting for your presentation I think I can do it in two
minutes in 10 seconds. I will take it. Two minutes and 30 seconds. Go crazy.
Gosh, what will I say? I have a visual aid. Great. So I'm Tim Kim with TK
Consulting and I'm representing for the Baylor site Redtail multifamily and
working closely also with the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Barbara
John Polanski here and so can't see this too well but our site is at the top of
the residential there so this is just to kind of show location and the
residential that is adjacent. Next slide or scroll down okay also hard to
see at this scale but that's the site plan laid out so why don't we just go to
the last slide there we go yeah that's probably okay where it is thank you
though. So we started this project over six years ago and from the very
beginning worked closely with coastal staff and county staff and they were
great. We've worked with them on and off over that whole six-year period. We've
received a lot of great input from the from staff both county and coastal and
we also had quite a bit of outreach with the city which I'll talk about in a
minute. As we saw in terms of location, this site is actually already zoned, has
land designation of residential, and it was originally planned for housing and
then also a school of course at one point. So as a result the infrastructure
is already sized for development, both the roads and the utilities. We've spent,
as you can see in this plan, although it's maybe not super clear there, but
we've spent a significant amount of time on this plan.
Architecture, planning, landscape architecture,
engineering, we've done a lot of engineering studies
and environmental studies.
So this project is really ready to go
and ready for submittal to the county
for our development application.
Through the process working with coastal staff,
we were requested to add some additional units
to get to that 32%.
So we have done that.
So we have just over 32% affordable.
I wanted to point out the significant amount of outreach
that we've had with the city and with the community.
We started right off requesting meetings and holding meetings
with the city, with the city manager, with high level staff.
We've gone to Planning Commission hearings, city council
hearings.
John will talk a little bit more about our MOU.
Oh, I got 30. Oh, that is 30 seconds. Wow. So what do you know? So anyway, I just want
to thank you for the time. We have worked with the city. It hasn't resulted in any kind
of reasonable request from the city, but we're hopeful that we'll be able to work with city
carpenter going forward. Thank you very much. Thank you. John Polanski. And following that
It'll be Alex Van Wingerden and Ivor Van Wingerden
and Ken Trigaro.
Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the commission.
Thank you very much.
My name's John Polanski.
I'm Director of Housing Development
with the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Barbara.
And first, I wanna add my birthday wishes to Louise.
I had an opportunity to have a very delicious cupcake.
That may be dinner.
We don't know.
My friends that may or may not wait for me for dinner.
I do want to add my thanks to the Coast Commission staff.
The commission has an incredibly diligent
and very professional team,
and working with Steve and Denise
and the folks that are the Coast Commission staff,
I was pleasantly surprised to see Steve
and some other familiar faces from 12 years ago,
my one and only other time with the Coast Commission,
when we had Pescadero Lofts in Isla Vista,
which was, I understand, the first permanent support
of housing, affordable housing project
in the coastal zone in the state.
It's been on the ground operating successfully,
housing people that were formerly not housed
for 11 years next month.
Any of you that would like to come to a little celebration,
just let me know.
I also wanna thank Lisa and her Pine Inn development team.
Really appreciate working with them as well.
Back in 2019, the Carpentaria Unified School District
kind of gave us a hint that they might surplus some property
that had been on the rolls, on everybody's maps
for about a decade as a future school site.
One of my first conversations was with the former city
manager in the city of Carpentaria,
because I understood that we were adjacent to the city
and it was going to be important to work with them,
regardless of the fact it was not in the city limits,
and it's not in their sphere of influence.
This still was important to start working with him right away.
That's six years ago.
January 1 of 2020, we ended up executing an option agreement
with the Carpenter Unified School District.
And in August of 2020, despite what was going on in 2020,
we did a pre-application to Lisa and the planning and development
department.
The city had wanted us really strongly to annex into the city
so that they could entitle the project.
It was already in the county.
We did not want to go through the extra time, the cost.
We calculated that it would have been at least $2.5 to $3
million of additional cost processing through the city
then through the county.
And it was already in the county.
Can I have another minute?
OK, thank you.
So then in November of 2020, we asked the county CEO
to start entering into tri-parting negotiations
between the county, the city, and us.
We had a meeting in November.
In April of 2021, the city council officially gave
the former city manager approval to initiate negotiations.
Six months later, they pulled out of those negotiations
and sent basically a cease and desist letter to my board
and to the board of supervisors.
We have 1,800 units spread throughout the county,
None in the Carpinteria Valley or in the city of Carpinteria,
but not for lack of trying.
We worked with a former city manager
under Creative Housing Solutions Committee.
He formed for three years.
2016 to 2019 could not find a site
similar to Lisa's experience.
One of the commitments we've made and will still keep
is there are a number of people experiencing homelessness
in the city of Carpinteria and the Carpinteria Valley
that keep coming up every year and the point in time counts.
We've made a commitment early on
to house as many of those hokes as we could.
And we'll keep that commitment.
And in conclusion, yeah, you really need to wrap up, please.
Thank you.
We have worked really closely with Coast Commission staff.
We do have a defined project with 26.5% of the units
being capital-A affordable, serving low and very low income
folks, a total of 32.1% when you include 11 moderate income,
serving 80% to 120%.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you very much.
Next speaker.
Thank you.
Alex Van Wingerden.
Good evening, Chair Hardiman and commissioners.
It's been a long day, so I'll try to make it short and sweet.
My name is Alex Van Wingerden, and I'm
here on behalf of my family, who own the Van Wingerden 1
and 2 parcels in Carpentaria.
Our family has farmed in Carpentaria Valley
for more than 50 years.
Farming is our legacy and our livelihood,
and we intend to continue farming
on our other properties in the Valley for generations to come.
And obviously, in bringing in farm worker housing for us
will really strengthen our other operations
in order to have the ability to get the people we need
to farm in perpetuity.
At the same time, there is a real housing crisis
in our community.
Roughly 80% of our employees commute from Ventura County
spending hours on the road instead of time
with their families.
Our goal is simple, to create housing
that allows farm workers, teachers, first responders,
and service employees to live where they work.
That's why we reached out to Kendra EO and People's
Self-Help and our current development team
to pursue the opportunity to develop
some of our farming operations that have been less viable
over the last 10 years.
The county's proposal for programming in 1 and 2
provides a balanced mix of housing,
including a significant and permanent affordable component
right where infrastructure already exists.
These parcels represent a rare opportunity
to provide meaningful affordable housing
within the coastal zone
while continuing our family's long-term commitment
to local agriculture.
We respectfully ask for your support
of coastal staff recommendation for approval.
The proposal will help the people
who make the Carpentry Valley run,
the workers who grow, teach, and serve here every day.
I wanna thank staff, county staff,
and the coastal commission staff
for their work and dialogue to get to the point we are.
It's been very constructive,
and we feel like we have made headway
into getting from point A to B.
My project team and I am available for any questions,
and thank you for your time and consideration.
Thank you, next.
Chris, I'm gonna jump in here.
I have to make an announcement.
I just realized that there is a possibility
that I was involved in one of the early stages
of one of the property negotiations.
So out of an abundance of caution
under Government Code Section 87100,
I do need to recuse myself.
I think that's the right thing to do
from what we're required to do.
So I unfortunately am with apologies
and I'm very disappointed in lots of different ways,
but that's what I gotta do.
So I will turn it over to Vice Chair Hart.
Thank you.
All right, our next speaker is Ivor Van Wingerden,
and I see that you're joining via phone.
You should be able to unmute now.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Thank you for your time.
My name is Ivor Van Wingerden,
one of the many Van Wingerdens in the Carpinteria Valley.
My grandfather, who was also Alex's grandfather,
came to from Holland in 1967.
We've been farming there ever since,
but I'm not directly connected to this project at all.
We have no ownership in it,
but we do still farm in Carpendria under ocean breeze.
They have over a hundred employees.
Most of which, you know, drive in every day.
It's a lot of, you know, extra time and you know,
wait on them.
And we've tried to get farm worker housing projects approved
for the last 30 years, 40 years, to little success.
So we are happy that the county is finally on board with something like this, and we
give our full support.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Now we have Ken Chigaro.
Thank you, Honorable Vice Chair and Commissioners.
Ken Chigaro.
I'm with People's Self-Help Housing, the CEO there.
We're a local, along the Central Coast, community-based, nonprofit, affordable housing developer,
owner-operator, and manager, and we're here to support the rezone of the Van Winger
And since 1970, we have developed about 3,500 units on the coast, and we're doing a lot
more along with a lot of others, but so much more is needed.
I wanted to make sure you understood the demand and the need from our perspective.
We have about over 2,000 rental existing apartments and on the wait list for those 2,000 are about
10,000.
So that's about, you know, five households waiting for every single existing affordable
housing unit that we have. We're accepting about 500 applications a quarter. Typically
we're hearing the stories are those who are doubled up, tripled up right now, are heavily
rent burdened and very often those are folks who are working locally but traveling great
distances up and down the coast to commute. So such is the case too in Carpinteria Valley.
We have four properties that we've developed in the city of Carpinteria, a community we
really love and appreciate and would like to do more.
The same level of demand there, we've got 159 units.
The household weight list is about 785.
So there's a lot of demand.
We're serving a lot of, of course, low income families, but farm workers and their families
is a big component of what we're doing.
We've worked with the Van Wigerton family years and years and we're a neighbor adjacent
to one of these parcels and we're really aligned in terms of a value.
We see them as a great partner fair in their dealings and a community, a great community
upstanding member.
So we're pretty excited if there is an opportunity to move forward to work with them on the affordable
housing on those two sites.
The other thing to mention quickly, if I could, Vice Chair?
I'm not as nice as our chair.
I can take my hand.
As you may have observed through the afternoon.
Yeah, why don't you take just a few seconds.
Super quick, because this location also,
these locations also qualify under the state's qualified
allocation plan to compete well for the resources that
are primarily available for affordable housing.
So I think that's just a plus.
We're supportive, as I say.
Thank you.
Thanks so much.
Next speaker.
Next, we have the city of Carpentaria.
We have in-person Julia Mayer, Michael Ramirez, and on Zoom,
Nick Balbrov, Mindy Foggan, Megan Musil.
All right.
Julia Mayer, Michael Ramirez.
Hello.
And thank you, commissioners, for having me.
My name is Julia Mayer, and I serve on the Carpentaria City
Council.
I'm a third-generation Carpendria resident.
My grandparents moved there in 1940
when the Carpendria Valley was primarily just lemons.
In the 40 years since, we've only
moved that urban-rural boundary one time
and with a lot of very focused attention.
And I think one of the reasons that I've
been tasked to come to speak to you
is that we are a unique piece of land, the city of Carpendria.
We are buffered by the county, and county's decisions
impact us greatly and you can remember what happened with the cannabis and
what's happened to us there. So I represent district 3 which is bordered
by our urban rural boundary on three sides. We are primarily an agricultural
community but we are also one of the last truly small beach towns on the
California coast. We are defined by the open views of the foothills, rows of
greenhouses, avocados, orchards and farmlands and the modest scale that
never competes with the beauty of the landscape but we are also a small piece
of land. We're talking about 6 miles by 4 miles which 3 of them are out in the ocean.
You can still see the stars at night, hear the ocean and recognize every building downtown
and that character is not by accident. It's the result of nearly 50 years of careful partnership
between the city, the county and the Coastal Commission.
Sound community planning is what our whole city's general plan is based on with a mission
to preserve this essential character of our small beach town with its unique visual and
natural resources and its open rural surroundings. The proposals before you would fundamentally
change that. Three high density housing sites would be placed not in our downtown or near
transit but on our agricultural valley that has always formed a living green belt between
the community and the foothills. It would bring taller, denser and more urban buildings
then our Valley has ever seen disregarding a long-held approach of
tapering development in the city's edge. Our residents are already feeling this
impact because once this... Excuse me, how much more time do you need? 30 seconds? Sure, go
ahead. Okay, once farmland is gone, it is gone forever and that is staggering to
watch land that has been carefully farmed with open-field crops eradicated
in the favor of housing and make no mistake, the Coastal Commission
Favoring condominiums to open field organic farms and density over the commitment to preserving our
Agriculture will open a door that will not shut until condos populate our orchards
Please protect our urban rural boundary and don't erode it and I respectfully ask you to at least look closer at these and look
At what the impacts that these counties decisions are having on our city, which is a small piece of land that we can protect. Thank you
Thank you. Michael. Mears Nick folk are off
Mindy fog Megan Lusol
By sure heart commissioners. My name is Michael Ramirez. I'm the city manager the new city manager in
Carpinteria I have a letter I'd like to read to you and I realized that my message may conflict with some of the other messages
That you heard and so I'm thinking about that over there and realize it's it's not so much a conflict as it is a difference
perhaps and what a clear what we mean by meaningful or respectful or clear boundaries and so
difficult decision for you all to work through. As stated in our letter that we
sent, the city appreciates the Coastal Commission's long-standing partnership
in protecting the Carpentaria Valley's agricultural heritage and coastal
resources. For nearly 50 years, this valley has stood as a model of balanced
planning and a place where growth occurs within clear limits and where
agricultural housing and the environment coexist in a stable framework. That
balance is what's at stake today. The proposed rezones before you would allow
large-scale high-density residential development just outside our city
boundary completely out of character with what's there today and on lands that
have always served as the visual and functional buffer between the community
and the rural valley. Yet these projects would rely heavily on city infrastructure,
city roads, and city services despite being outside a jurisdiction and beyond
our control. We have not been given the opportunity to coordinate on how to
serve these developments, how to manage emergency services, parking and traffic,
traffic, storm drainage, schools, parks and recreation, nor is there any mechanism for
impact mitigation once these projects are approved ministerially under state housing
law.
These developments would directly affect carpenter year residents, yet the city would have no
voice in shaping them.
Our city absolutely is not opposed to housing.
Our staff have worked hard in cooperation with your staff to accommodate new housing
within our boundaries and places that are already urbanized and where infrastructure
and public services are in place but this proposal moves the line into the rural valley
eroding the clear urban rural boundary that has defined responsible planning in the region for
decades. The city urges you to deny rezoning of the bailard and then wingerton one and two sites
there's a better path when it provides housing through coordination consistency and shared
responsibility rather than through piecemeal urban expansion. Thank you for your consideration.
Thank you. Next, Nick Bobaroff, who's on Zoom. We seem to be having trouble moving you in as
a panelist. You should be able to unmute on your device now. Hi, can you hear me okay? Yes,
we can hear you. Great, thank you. Good evening, Chair Harmon and commissioners. My name is Nick
Bobaroff and I serve as the community development director for the City of Carpinteria. For more
than 20 years, I've had the privilege of working with this commission and your staff on projects
here in Carpinteria. I've seen firsthand how consistent application of the Coastal Act has
protected our agricultural land, our scenic views, and the unique sense of place that
draws people to this part of the coast.
The proposal before you today would jeopardize that legacy.
Re-zoning three rural Carpinteria Valley sites for high density housing would push urban
development beyond the longstanding urban-rural boundary that this Commission helped establish
and has reaffirmed for many years.
This boundary has remained impressively stable with only one outward adjustment in the past
four decades, and even that occurred only after extensive coordination with the Commission
to demonstrate lack of agricultural viability and to adopt site-specific coastal resource
protection standards.
By contrast, staff's rationalization for supporting the proposed rezones reads as the solution
in search of a problem.
The existing boundary is already clear, functional, and effective.
These rezones would not stabilize it, they would destabilize it, inviting speculation
and increasing pressure for conversion of more of the productive farmland that defines
the Valley's character.
These rezones also raise a fundamental issue of consistency and fairness. At the City,
we've been working closely with your district staff on our own housing element rezones.
To address Coastal staff's concerns regarding agricultural, scenic, and habitat protection,
we divided our efforts into distinct phases, promptly receiving certification for our urban
infill sites, but ensuring that objective Coastal resource standards will be in place
before considering rezoning of the more sensitive sites in our latter phase.
We understand and respect that approach.
It's an appropriate safeguard to ensure new housing is harmonized with environmental and
coastal resource protection.
Yet this county proposal, entirely outside the urban boundary and within the coastal
zone, is being advanced without those same standards in place, approving it would set
a troubling precedent signaling that agricultural lands at the urban border are once again open
to conversion and speculation.
the city has already begun receiving inquiries to annex and rezone nearby farmlands simply
in anticipation of the suffering. Thank you. And next is a Mindy fog and then Megan moose
off and then we'll go on to the general public comments. Mindy fog. Thank you. Thank you,
Vice Chair Hart and commissioners. My name is Mindy fog, a resident and principal planner
with the city of carpentry. I've worked as a public sector land use planner for more
than 25 years across five jurisdictions on the California coast. As outlined in
our letter, the county's proposed LCP amendment does not comply with chapter
three of the Coastal Act or the county's own land use plan. The addendum released
yesterday unfortunately repeats the same circular reasoning found in the
original staff report. It again claims that these three rezonings would
complete a more stable urban-rural boundary. In truth, the boundary is and
and has long been stable.
There is no factual basis for staff's assertion.
These sites are not surrounded
by existing urban development.
The proposed amendment would destabilize the area,
extending urban edge into an intact,
highly viable agricultural landscape
that the city, county, and this commission
have worked so hard to protect.
Even more concerning, the staff report continues
to rely on the assumption
that future coastal development permits issued
the county will safeguard coastal resources. That assumption is no longer valid. These
rezones are being restructured to allow for ministerial approval under housing law. So
if certified projects on these sites would not undergo discretionary review that would
apply subjective coastal LCP policies, there would be no opportunity for site-specific
mitigation for visual, agricultural, or any cumulative impacts. Our city has faced the
same state housing mandates and has worked closely with commission staff to
ensure our own housing element rezonings include built-in coastal resource
protections. We also intend to adopt additional objective standards before
more sensitive sites are rezoned. The county has made no such effort for these
Carpinteria Valley sites. We respectfully ask the Commission to deny the
amendment as proposed. The Coastal Act requires balance between housing and
resources. We have a number of speakers on this item so we're gonna have to move
things along. Thank you. So we have 16 speakers I believe. So what we're
gonna do... Thank you Vice Chair Hart and commissioners. My name is Megan
Musoff and I'm a long-range planner for the City of Carpendria. As a recent
college grad, I've been taught that good planning starts with understanding
context, scale, and long-term sustainability. Over the past two years,
I've been working with your district staff on Carpentaria's housing element,
general plan update, and local coastal program update, planning carefully for
how the city will accommodate future housing needs, while continuing to
protect the agricultural and scenic resources that make this Valley unique.
That's why this proposed amendment raises serious questions.
The existing urban-rural boundary in Carpendria is already stable and functional.
It defines where urban growth ends and agriculture begins.
To be clear, we are not taking an anti-housing standpoint.
Instead, we are troubled by the clash between high-density up-zonings outside the city's
to focus development within established urban areas.
From a long-range planning perspective,
I don't see a physical or policy reason
to move the urban-rural boundary.
And shifting it now seems inconsistent
with the careful, coordinated approach
this commission has always asked us to take.
Thank you for considering these points.
Thank you.
And now we're in general public.
So as we move on to Zoom, it's almost 6 o'clock.
It's almost six o'clock.
What I'd like to do is try to get the speakers, we have 16 speakers, why don't we give a half
hour for comment on this, and then we'll see if we're going to reduce the time.
So we'll give two minutes per speaker for the next half hour until 6.30, or approximately
until 6.30.
Thank you.
Sounds good.
Next, we have Valerie Bents, followed by Carl Sunken, Kristi Boyd, and Carl Stuckey.
Valerie Bentz, when you're able to, okay, you declined to be moved in as a panelist.
You should be able to unmute now as an attendee.
Valerie Bentz.
What does it mean to be a panelist?
Go ahead.
Just go ahead.
Can I be seen on the screen or not?
I don't see my screen.
If you're a panelist, you can be seen, so please accept now.
Okay, I would like to be seen.
Yeah, I didn't know what that meant.
Okay.
Okay.
There you go.
Valerie, you're muted, so okay, there you go. Hello, I'm Valerie Bentz. I've been a resident
of Cambria, Carpentria for some time. I'm on the board of the Carpentria Valley Association,
and our president Mike Wandalowski has written a detailed report saying that this proposal
would violate the urban rural boundary, which is so important for maintaining the whole
character of our community. There's a very viable urban and clear urban rural boundary
we have preserved over time. It involves ten farms, sustainable farms, and it is a wonderful
backdrop for the existing community. To put dense buildings right behind that would destroy
this overall effect.
I'm just going to move to reading the summary
from Mike Wendelowski and his letter.
In conclusion, it is poor planning
to put the high density residential development
in the entire Carpentaria Valley at risk,
outside the city limit.
In fact, requiring modification
to the long established and effective urban rural boundary
to allow it. Making the proposal even worse is that it includes solely residential development,
a lack of amenities required to support it, transport employment schools. This would require
residents to drive into the city's core to access those amenities. It should be noted
that the city of Carpentaria has repeatedly and strongly opposed this rezoning. And that's
what we conclude thus Carpinteria Valley Association does not support the proposal.
Thank you.
Next, Carl Sunken, Christy Boyd, Carl Stuckey and Anna Carrillo.
Carl Sunken, can I see that you're on and unmuted?
Yes, I'm on and unmuted.
My name is Carl Sunken and I'm a new resident of the Carpinteria Casitas Village directly
across the street from what could be a huge development.
If you provide the upzoning to the Baylord Farm property, please roll the video that
I sent in.
Here it is.
Give us a moment to load up your video.
Thank you.
It's self-contained.
This is the historic Baylord Farm, and if the Coastal Commission okays a drastic zoning
increase here, acres of prime agricultural soil will be destroyed.
That's because with the zoning change, a developer will be able to cover the land with more than
140 apartments. Each apartment will technically be limited to only 1.6 cars, which will cause
more air pollution on the coast, and there will certainly be overflow issues.
Where will those extra vehicles go? Well, right across the street where large working
families often have more than one car or truck. Parking is already impacted at the
Cetus, the alternatives for those extra cars aren't great. A representative of the developer
suggested a parking lot at the Carpentaria Bluffs, but overnight parking at the environmentally
protected bluffs is prohibited by the city of Carpentaria, and all those extra cars will
affect the fragile ecosystem of the bluffs. That aside, residents parking there would
have to cross dangerous busy freeway on and off ramps and a bridge to walk nearly a mile
to their apartments. There are no traffic controls here and limited sidewalks and those
pedestrians will certainly cause traffic delays, vehicles idling and more pollution. And even
without the proposed development nighttime parking on main streets like Villa Real fill
up quickly with cars and pickup trucks from the largely working families who live at the
Casitas Village and the nearby Villa Del Mar. Same with Baylard Avenue approaching the
proposed apartments. Now there is only one road in and out of the Baylard farm right
next to a city park that will certainly be affected by the plans. And it will cause neighbors
to be circling the streets to find parking producing more air pollution.
Thank you. Next is Christy Boyd, Karl Stuckey, Anna Carrillo, Tristine Raynor...
Go ahead Christy Boyd.
Hi
Can you hear me? Oh, yes, we can hear you. Okay, great.
My name is Christy Boyd and I thank you for the opportunity to speak. It is with a strong sense of urgency that I speak to you.
I have lived in the Carpinteria Valley for over 50 years.
We have always looked to Santa Barbara County and its planning staff to be good partners with the citizenry of Carpinteria.
Our city has a small footprint of two and a half square miles
tucked into the Santa Ines Mountains
and bordered by the Pacific Ocean.
Historically, Carpentaria has been considered
an agriculturally based community.
The Carpentaria Valley is home to 10 acre ag parcels
aligned with the urban rural boundary
that delineates the open field farming
and avocado ranches from high density housing.
This urban rural boundary is critical
in maintaining urban issues away from agricultural rights.
The County of Santa Barbara, under pressure from the state,
is now hoping to realign this hugely important
urban-rural boundary.
We as citizens of Carpentaria are firmly
against this redrawing of the line.
We have over 2,500 signatures from our community
against this rezone effort.
To redraw this longstanding boundary with staff's assertion
that it will stabilize the line is counterintuitive to me.
In fact, this change would destabilize
this very important boundary and allow future arena cycles
to continue to erode it with the precedent set.
Additionally, this rezone would allow densities
and building heights never before seen in Carpentaria.
As these boundary lines directly
about the city of Carpentaria, this is unacceptable.
The city of Carpentaria has sent multiple lenticaries
to speak with you today, noting the importance
of our community's strong feelings regarding this issue.
They have noted in their detailed letter to you
the inconsistencies between the CC...
Sorry, you got muted.
Christy Boyd?
Christy, can you hear us?
Christy, all right.
We'll move on to our next speaker.
Carl Stuckey, Anna Carrillo, Tristine Rayner, Ted Rhodes.
Carl Stuckey, go ahead.
Good evening.
We've had a long day.
I'm Carl Stuckey.
I've had a farm management business and consulting
business based here in Carpinteria for the last 47 years.
During that time, I've spent 12 years
on the County Agricultural Advisory Committee
and 27 years on the board of directors
of the California Avocado Society,
past president and secretary treasurer.
There's a glaring omission
from the staff's review of this project.
And that is the conflicts between agriculture and housing.
It's bad enough with single-family residential housing,
but to put high-density housing next to agriculture
is gonna give you unlimited number of complaints.
The county agricultural commissioners in the state,
all throughout the state,
can tell you what a significant problem that can be.
Consistency with policy, I think,
is important to the commission.
and here I'm thinking that you will be consistent with your policies of
protecting agriculture. The plan as proposed by the county
certainly is not consistent with protecting agriculture
and the conflicts that they're generating between high density housing
and adjacent agricultural properties is
certainly not consistent. I appreciate the time and effort that the staff and
commissioners have put into their work guiding policy and protecting the coast of California
and I hope in this case you'll be consistent with your policies of protecting agriculture.
Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry but all the speakers keep declining being promoted to
panelists. Could you please accept being promoted to panelists so you can speak?
next is Anna Carrillo, Tristine Rayner, Ted Rhodes, Betty Jepsen. Anna Carrillo.
Okay, sorry, okay, I'm Anna Carrillo and a 50-year resident of Carpentaria Valley.
I'm very much opposed to this rezoning. I really, I mean, I've looked carefully at the map,
and just adding these pieces, it still will be a very big jigsaw, because each of these pieces
are next to pieces that could very easily be wanting to be converted also. In fact Van
Wingarden, Van Wingarden 1 is right next to a five acre parcel that's already submitting,
it's an ag parcel, it's already submitting 40 condominiums to be built on their ag land.
So once you start moving, this is like a jigsaw, so once you start moving, you know, the line,
just going to keep moving and moving and moving. So I really want you to think about how we need
to protect the agriculture. And remember the farmers have a right to farm and that's the whole
purpose of this whole urban rural boundary. And then so the baler property is perfect as a buffer
the way it is right now as a buffer because you've got cannabis and avocados right near
where the baler's want where the baler property wants to be up zoned and putting in three stories
is would be a prevent the view corridor from being seen as it is right now and you saw from
the movie about the problem with the parking. Foothill Road where the one is then wingered in
two by the high school has an ag piece separating it from the residents is in a house has a whole
10-acre cannabis farm right there. So by doing this piece trying to piecemeal and change the
urban-rural boundary we're just looking for the destruction of carpentry as we as we know it now
and we really need to preserve. Carpentry already has 908 units they have to provide the city and
we're adding probably another thousand um to it. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you.
next Christine Rainer, Ted Rhodes, Betty Jepsen, Cagney Miller. Christine Rainer.
I want to question the assumptions that this will accomplish an improvement
in housing for low-income people in our area. I can only speak about Baylor. I live
at the Casitas Village which immediately adjoins it. This is a primarily Hispanic community.
They are working people. Therefore, we have small units now here which are 842 square feet.
The rent market rate now is about 3,500. If market rate for the much larger units that will be built
will rent for much more and the majority will be market rate apartments.
They are only allowing 1.6 maximum car spaces there for all of their people. We have two,
as it is because it's mostly working people here. I invite anybody to come at night and find a parking
place. I drove around the other night looking on VIA Rail and bought Ballard. There was one
available parking space. If you add at least 400 more people hunting for a place to park at night
to the working people who are getting home and searching as it is now and circling for a place
to park, you are going to be increasing pollution here, not eliminating it. There is no place,
there's no, uh, uh, marketing, there is no work, there is nothing in this area. Everybody
has to commute. Thank you. Next, Ted Rhodes, Betty Jepsen, Keckney Miller, Susie Anderson.
Ted Rhodes. Yeah, it's not letting me unlock the video, but I guess I'll just go ahead
speak. Can you hear me okay? Yes, go ahead, we can hear you. Okay, I'll just go. Good evening,
my name is Ted Rhodes. As a longtime resident of Carpendria, I'm asking you to deny Santa Barbara
County's request to amend its local coastal plan to rezone these three rural agricultural sites
within the Carpendria Valley. We do need housing for our farm workers, absolutely, but there are
other sites more appropriate for low-income housing within the boundaries of our city,
rather than these proposed sites. As the City of Carpendria points out in its letter to you,
approval of the county's amendment will undermine Coastal Act policies and decades
of coordinated planning between the City, County, and Commission that have protected our urban-rural
boundaries in Carpendria, something I've been working on for many years as well. We must not
let any state mandates undo years of careful planning. Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors
ignored their recommendations of its own planning commission and that planning commission's
reasoning to exclude these properties from the county rezoning plan. This amendment would
destroy this important buffer between urban and agricultural uses when that we have protected for
years. Please reject this ill-advised plan by Santa Barbara County to rezone these properties.
Thank you. Thank you. Next Betty Jepsen, Cagney Miller, Susie Anderson, Jessica Chavez. Betty
Good evening, Vice Chair Hart and commissioners. My name is Betty Jeppesen. I'm speaking in opposition
to the proposed rezoning of the land by Baylord Avenue and Carpentaria. The entire south boundary
of the proposed Baylord rezone borders the Casitas Village HOA land. There is no roadway
there. This is not a private, this will not provide a stable urban rule boundary since
it is immediately adjacent to privately-owned land that is already fully developed. The proposed
three-story development does not provide its own access route. The would-be developer has
untruthfully stated they have three exit routes without identifying in their proposal where
these exit routes are supposed to be. Does anyone check these statements by these out-of-town
developers for the truth? The would-be developer has threatened to take Cassita's village private
alley as an emergency exit. This is not a public street. This is the only way out of
the residential driveways of the owners of the condos located on Birch Avenue. The developer
stated today that the infrastructure is already in place. It is not. Since the proposal does
not have a street or way out, it is simply a complete dense development immediately up
to the boundary of Casitas Village HOA. The proposed development would severely impact
negatively the residents ability to escape a fire since there is only one way out, Bailord
Avenue. Also the parking is at a premium. There are no additional places on the street.
The people who live at Casitas are farm workers and low income people and they have cars to
to get to and from their work who needs spaces to park.
The city of Carpentaria is overwhelmingly opposed
to this rezone and proposed development.
Please listen to them and consider their views
in denying this rezone, thank you.
Thank you, we have five more speakers,
Cagney Miller, Susie Anderson and Jessica Chavez are next.
Cagney Miller.
Good evening, vice chair and commissioners.
I am a manager at Moby's Nursery in Carpentaria.
We are a cut flower grower and a bouquet maker with about 100 current employees.
Roughly 80% of our workforce currently commutes from Ventura County due to the high cost and
limited availability of housing here.
Factors like time spent commuting to and from work and the cost of fuel make employee retention
extremely difficult.
We need a more stable, dependable workforce which this housing can provide by giving our
farm workers quality of life.
In addition, affordable, safe
local housing improves physical
and mental health and well-being
leading to more productive and
focused employees reducing
workplace injuries and errors.
Less time on the roads would give
them more quality time with
family and friends.
Affordable housing and reduced
fuel costs would help devote
more resources to essential
needs like food, clothing, and
health care.
Despite what the opposers have
said, this project will actually
benefit the city of Carpentaria.
the number of overcrowded homes we have here in Carpentaria, enhancing the overall quality
and appearance of our neighborhoods. Local farm workers would help boost the economy,
helping struggling stores like our smart and final. Most locals prefer the Albertsons Shopping
Center, where traffic is a nightmare as it's located right next to the 101 freeway entrance,
which most of the town's workforces uses to commute. This housing would allow workers to
be home in a matter of minutes, drastically cutting down traffic, reducing the burden on
and other travelers, tourists and locals.
Fun fact, many of our local farm workers
actually choose to ride their bikes to work,
not drive their cars.
The housing would blend in nicely
with the areas surrounding homes in high school.
It would boost the morale of so many people
with very little intrusion on the rest of the community.
So this evening, I ask for your support
by voting in favor of the rezoning.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Next is Susie Anderson.
We lost Jessica Chavez from the meeting.
Lorraine McIntyre, and then Jill Stassinos.
Susie Anderson.
Chair and honorable commissioners,
thank you for this opportunity.
This is the Baylor property in Carpinteria,
farmed by the Baylor family for 155 years.
And for the past 15 years,
an organic row crop farm feeding our local communities.
Next slide.
It is our buffer zone.
It protects the residents of Casitas Village
from the odors, dust, pesticides,
noise of large-scale agriculture and it protects the farmers who have a legal right to farm.
Next slide.
Based on aerial imagery and soil data, the Ballard parcels have been officially classified
as prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance.
Next slide.
In January, KEYT News featured the Ballard farmer for his partnership with the USDA and
Santa Barbara food bank for providing 7,000 pounds of fresh organic produce
every week to local schools and families in need. Next slide. The Baylor property
forms our urban rural boundary. It is our designated buffer zone and despite
parcel designations or zoning it is proven to be extremely valuable,
productive organic farmland. Please do not allow this land to be rezoned and
paved. Multifamily housing should be located near existing city services not
on land that has a history of providing food to our community. Thank you. Thank
you. Next Jessica Chavez came back into the meeting. Jessica Chavez next and
Lorraine McIntyre, Jill Stasinos. Jessica Chavez, go ahead. Thank you. Good evening Coastal
commissioners. My name is Jessica Chavez and I am the operations manager at MOBIZ, a cut
flower operation located in Carpinteria, California. I'm here to express my
strong support for the Van Wingerden 1 and Van Wingerden 2 housing projects.
Throughout my career I have had the privilege of working, advocating for, and
providing essential services to farm workers and their families. Today in my
role with an HR operations management in the agricultural industry, I am able to
continue that commitment by working directly with our farm workers. This
This position allows me to build meaningful relationships, gain a deeper understanding
of their challenges, and now help address their critical housing needs.
Within this role, I am directly responsible for overseeing the hiring of team members.
It has grown to be extremely challenging to fill these roles.
The positions we have had to fill range from bouquet makers, harvesters, support staff
to key management positions.
We have experienced a lack of local applicants wanting to work in our industry, presenting
an added challenge in an already complex industry.
Even after hiring, our employees experience commute burnout or are first to make the decision
to leave as they report their quality of life declines.
Employees have expressed themselves having less hours at home with their children, missing
school events, and having increased travel expenses.
Despite efforts to move carp and area, they are unable to find affordable housing, leading
to low employee retention rates largely attributed to the housing shortage.
As noted earlier, the cut flower industry is extremely complex.
Requests for higher wages often stem from the need to offset the costs associated with
with long commutes or the challenge
of finding accessible, affordable housing.
Although we understand the demands
and the need to try and help cover their costs,
in an already challenging industry,
it is often not feasible.
Our farmer workers have an integral role
in sustaining our local economy,
and it is imperative we act on the need for housing.
Thank you in advance for your time and consideration.
I hope you are compelled to vote
for a much needed change in our community.
As previously stated by others,
Carpin area is a key farming community,
and our hope is that with the challenge
of the passage of this project,
Farm workers and others who already contribute
to the local economy will also have the opportunity
to plant their roots and call it home.
This will allow essential workers to become
more connected to the community
and have a stake to keep the city thriving.
Thank you.
Next Lorraine McIntyre, Jill Stasinos
and then we found two more,
Lori Lara and Eric Edwards.
Lorraine McIntyre.
Hello commissioners.
Thank you so much for taking the time
to take all these calls over staying so late.
I did send in a letter which I explained three bullet points.
One being that you've carefully crafted these protections
for the Coastal Commission over years and years
of labored intentional planning.
And it just feels like you're willing to throw them out
so quickly to meet this housing mandate.
So the second thing I wanted to point out
is the developer's plan.
And I'm speaking specifically for the Baylor property
doesn't really include plans for all the other items
that other speakers before me had mentioned.
The egress and ingress, the parking, the amenities,
they're gonna be butting up against three sides
of avocado ranches.
Like you can almost reach over the fence
and pick an avocado for lunch.
I mean, that's how close they're gonna be.
There's no buffer.
There's no protection.
The pollutant, the cross-contamination
between the crops which are supposed to be organic
and the people living right across the fence.
And thirdly, you've got a lot of overcrowding here
and it's not because necessarily
that the housing is a crunch,
it's the pricing is so expensive.
And I just don't see how additional housing
is going to create an opportunity for people to move in here
and feel like they're gonna pay less.
because if 80% of the workforce is community from Ventura
and our housing already is overcrowded,
who's gonna move in there first,
the people that are already living here
or the people that are commuting from Ventura?
Hence, you're just gonna create more overcrowding.
And this is just a bad area for this development
because if you were to drive here and look at it,
you've seen the pictures,
you've seen the video that Carl made.
It butts up against a park where they play soccer,
little league, there's a playground, there's a dog park,
three corners of avocado ranches.
It's just a bad area for the development.
Please deny it.
Next, our final three speakers, Jill Stasinos,
Lori Lar and Eric Edwards, Jill Stasinos.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you, go ahead.
I'm a concerned carpenterian who's reading a letter
from Yana Zimmer.
I write in strong support of the city of Carpentria's position
opposing the conversion of the Van Wingerton properties
from agriculture to housing.
I am not aware of any case where the Coastal Commission
authorized a rezone or conversion solely
because of the individual landowners'
potential economic gain or need, as seems to be the case here.
Because of the unusual recent history
of the failed conversion of agriculture
to cannabis cultivation in the Carpentria Valley,
I urge the Commission to at least require a full study
of the feasibility of any continued agricultural production
on these properties prior to redesignating
or rezoning them for urban uses.
I would suggest that the Commission compare analysis
of any other case if one exists where the conversion
of agriculture was approved only because it made
for quote neater boundary lines and without regard
continued feasibility of agriculture on the affected site. More importantly, there are unusual
circumstances in the Carpentry Valley which allowed for the wholesale conversion of agricultural lands
to cannabis production, which has not brought the economic gains that were anticipated by the owners
and by the county. There was never any study required for wholesale conversion of traditional
agriculture to the cannabis product. Now the cannabis production has failed to produce the
revenues either for the county or for the land owners that were anticipated
the commission should insist at a minimum for convincing evidence that
there is no form of agriculture that would be viable going forward
prior to allowing conversion of any agricultural lands to urban uses.
It seems to me that if this rezone is approved any owner of agricultural
land in Carpentaria with a failed or failing
cannabis property could apply for rezoning to housing.
Thus the predictions that an urban rural boundary was intended to provide would simply evaporate.
Yana Zimmer. Thank you. Thank you. Lori Lara and then Eric Edwards.
Good afternoon commissioners. My name is Lori Lara and I'm the Director of Human Resources
at Westland Floral Company. I'm here today to speak in strong support of the proposed rezoning
project of the county housing element. As someone who leads recruitment for our company, I can tell
you firsthand how challenging it is to source qualified candidates for our workforce. Carpentaria
simply doesn't have enough affordable housing to offer to the people who want to work and live
here. It's particularly hard for families who have young children or other obligations. They need to
be close to home, not an hour or more away. The traffic is overwhelming and many of our employees
spend hours a day commuting just to be here. The reality is that there is no work-life balance for
people who have to drive long distances, and the rising cost of labor makes it even harder for us
to compete and find talent that is needed. But the lack of affordable housing is a huge barrier.
On a personal level, I understand this struggle. I've been commuting from Ventura County for 14
years. About two hours each day that I spend away from my family and my child, I often miss dinner,
school events, and important moments in her life. If something were to happen to her, I'd be about
40 to 60 minutes away, unable to get to her quickly, and many of our employees do face that same
challenge. This rezoning proposal is an opportunity to help people like myself and co-workers,
people who do want to be part of the community and are currently forced to live elsewhere because
of the high cost of housing. I urge you to approve this project and give us a chance to live and work
in the place that we love. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. And then our
final speaker, Eric Edwards. Good evening commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity
to comment. My name is Eric Edwards and I'm here to express my strong support for the Van Winger
in one and then weird in two projects that would bring affordable farm working housing
to the Carpentaria Valley. For nearly a decade, I've worked in Carpentaria. And for nearly
that long, I've spent about three hours every day commuting to and from work. Like so many
of my colleagues, I've tried to move closer, but there simply isn't attainable housing
options here. The result is what you'd expect. More traffic, more emissions, and a workforce
that's exhausted before the work day even starts. I understand and deeply respect Carpentaria's
agricultural and coastal character. It's what makes this community so special, but providing
affordable and workforce housing within the Coastal Zone actually helps protect that character.
It allows the people who sustain local agriculture, schools, and small businesses to live in the
community they serve. This project supports the Coastal Act's goals of equitable access,
sustainable communities, and climate resilience by reducing long commutes and creating local
we have to make sure that we
work hard and it delivers real
environmental and social
benefits.
After nearly a decade of working
in Carpinteria it feels like
home.
I only wish it could be.
For me and so many others who
help make this community
thrive.
Thank you for your time and
consideration.
All right.
Thank you so much.
I'm going to come back to the
county.
I believe that you have reserved
three minutes.
Madam Chair, I will not take
I just want to I want to respond to a couple of the comments I heard and I just want to
reiterate that the South Coast housing market is one of the most expensive markets in the
country.
And the housing need is very real and it's real for a range of employees that are low
income employees, very low income employees, moderate, upper moderate, up to 200% of AMI.
So it's badly needed.
We have people commuting in and out of our county.
As I said, 31,000 people commute in to our county
because we have exported our housing demand for decades.
If these sites are not rezoned,
those units have to go someplace else in the county.
And other areas of the South Coast
have taken the greatest burden on.
And so the county did a lot of hard work
to try and spread as many units out
we have employees across the South Coast that need that housing. I want to
emphasize that the county has a history of working with jurisdictions where
projects in the county have impacts. Just recently we had a project near the city
of Galita, we required that developer to put in a signal within that city
jurisdiction so we're open to working with the jurisdictions. I heard a
concern that there would be no mitigations. That's not true. We have several mitigation
measures that came out of our programmatic EIR that do get applied to these by right
housing developments. And in this case, these projects would be required to get a coastal
development permit. And then just lastly, with the modifications, these sites will generate
more affordable housing than the other sites that are by right in our county because the
had a mandate of 20% affordable but we've managed to work it out with staff
and with the property owners to do 32% so that's a huge bonus for our community
in the County of Santa Barbara and I think that covers it thank you very much
I'm happy to answer any questions. Okay I appreciate it very much I'll close the
public hearing and bring it back to staff. Mr. Edson? Okay thank you and I'm
gonna ask Ms. Gonzalez to just start the brief staff response and then I'd like to
to add a few just overarching comments after that.
Thanks, Steve.
To just briefly add to Lisa Plowman's response
regarding the design residential,
that's a design district that provides for areas
for residential development in a wide range of densities,
housing types and design regarding the comments made
by the city of Carpinteria.
Any residential development proposed on the sites
would still be required to obtain a CDP,
which would need to be found consistent
with the coastal resource policies,
which include visual resources,
as well as agricultural protection policies
of the county's LCP.
The only site that will have an increase
to the maximum building height will be the Ballard site,
which will go from 25 feet,
which is currently the maximum
for single family residential up to 35 feet,
which is what's allowed
under the Design Residential Zoning District.
The other three sites will continue
their existing height limitations up 35 feet,
as well as concerns regarding driveways
and emergency access routes.
Again, those concerns would be addressed by the county
as part of their CDP process,
which we'd like to just reiterate
that those specific development housing projects
and not before us today,
and they're not a part of the LCP amendment.
And lastly to respond to the speakers who stated
that the Baylor site would result
in the loss of existing agriculture,
staff would reiterate that that lot
is already zoned residential
and is not one of the lots that are proposed
to go from ag to residential uses.
And now I'll pass it over to Steve
to add any additional comments.
Thank you, Denise.
I'd just like to add a few brief overarching comments.
And first, I'd like to thank all the speakers, the city,
and the many members of the public that spoke.
Note that those were all excellent comments.
Our staff is not in disagreement with the concerns
or the issues that were raised.
In fact, our staff shared those same concerns.
Those were our concerns.
And that's what we worked with the county
and the applicants to really address.
the conversion of agriculture, we do not allow lightly.
And the test is the Coastal Act.
It's section 30241.
We do believe that these limited conversions
for these two parcels is allowable under 30241.
There's two provisions.
One, it's the viability analysis
that we heard from some speakers.
The second was if it allows for the
this rational indefensible boundary,
or a more defensible boundary.
And we believe that, in this case, that test is met.
But there is more to this story.
And that's what I wanted to mention,
is there are two laws that the county is
trying to comply with.
One is the regional housing needs assessment
that's required under state law.
The second is the Coastal Act.
And although that's our standard of review,
we acknowledge that the county is doing their best
to conform to both laws.
And in this case, the question for us was,
is there any other way to accomplish this
to minimize the impacts to agriculture?
Was there any feasible alternative?
And that's what we worked with the county.
And I'd like to thank the county and the property owners.
We focused on that.
And as the county had mentioned,
they did do an exhaustive alternatives analysis.
And by nature, counties are more rural.
I'd also like to thank the city, because as the city noted,
we worked with the city on their similar LCP amendment,
and we worked really hard to avoid
the loss of agricultural lands.
And the city was able to modify their amendment.
The difference here, unfortunately,
is that in the county, there was no feasible alternative.
There was no parcel of land that was available,
the right size that wasn't already designated for agriculture.
Other than the possibilities of up-zoning
existing residential areas that are already developed with single family,
the problem with that is one,
that wasn't what the county was willing to do,
but the more pragmatic reason is that if we designate
these existing residential areas, they're already developed,
and that means that that land has to be purchased in order to be
redeveloped and that would drive up the costs and make
these affordable housing projects simply infeasible,
and they just wouldn't happen.
There's trade-offs in this,
and I would have to say,
is this a perfect solution?
No, but we do believe that this is the best solution,
and to that end, we strove to work with the county
and with the land owners to make it better.
That's why we worked with them to increase
that the amount of affordable units to change that from the 20% that was proposed by the
county to increase that to 32%.
And there was a second significant change in the modifications.
I just wanted to reiterate that because it's important in my mind, it's very important,
which is there was a limited term for how long these houses, these affordable housing
would be preserved for affordable housing.
It was 90 years, which is longer than many local governments,
but these houses could still last longer than that.
And so our modification changes it
to for the life of the development, which essentially
is in perpetuity for the life of the structure.
And so we think with that analysis and these changes,
we recognize that this is a complex and really difficult
amendment.
But we think that we've found the right balance in this case.
And so with that, I'm just going to close our staff
comments note that we're here for any questions and we leave this to your good
judgment. Thanks so much. Mr. Hudson I want to thank staff, the County of Santa
Barbara, City of Carpinteria and all of our public commenters thank you so much.
All right at this time we bring it back to the Commission beginning with
Commissioner Jackson. Thank you Madam Vice Chair, thank you staff, thank you
Carpinteria, thank you County folks for being here. I feel your pain. I feel your
pain. I'm elected in a small beach community, 1.4 square miles with 20,000
people, with arena-esque of 558. We have no land, so we have to go up. We have to
up zone. So I feel your pain. I wish we had property. I mean, I'm looking at this
and I'm a little envious. I also feel your pain with the county. You know, no
someone likes, you know, big county coming in and trying to flex, you know,
because we're all about local control, right?
You want to control your city and you've got to deal with county and,
and I deal with LA County. So believe me, I, I understand.
It's hard. It's challenging. You know,
we talked about there obviously there was a lot of collaboration between staff
and the county and I wasn't sure if there was that much collaboration between
city and the county and the city manager mentioned something. I'm gonna put you on
the spot here. You said that there was a better path. What's the better path and
I don't mean to put you on the spot but I'd mean to put you on the spot because
you made the comment. So you know because I get it. I understand the passion of
your residents. Nobody likes to change. It's hard particularly when you're a
small beach community and all of a sudden you're being told by the folks up
in Sacramento that you need to be denser.
We need more housing.
And I get it.
And then the county is saying, all right,
let's try to figure out how to make this work.
We have to spread the love amongst all the communities
within the county.
And so if there's a better way, then I
think that's something that you can figure out.
I mean, if there isn't a better way,
and if this is the best of the worst solutions,
then, you know, I think it's one of those things that we just need to lock arms and, and, you know, make it happen, you know, fight the bullet, so to speak. But if there is a better way, I think those conversations need to take place, because no one knows your community better than you.
And obviously, you don't like the county coming in and sort of flexing.
So, I just had a couple questions with, you know, we heard about parking and height limits,
and I sort of got this is what I deal with all the time too, right?
There's never enough parking.
Well, when you live in a small beach community and people want to visit and you're always going
to have the parking challenges.
But what are the parking minimums for the 416 units?
And let me say, bravo, 32% affordable?
My God, so kudos to all of you for making that happen.
property owner, the developers in the county, that is that's gonna resonate up
here in Sacramento and make people very happy in HCD. So with that being said
there's always concern about parking. 416 units, small town, where are all these
folks gonna park? Okay so if the county comes up I of course I do just want to
make one point and that is that we're at the point right now of addressing a
change in land use so before the development would occur with staff on
this the specifics of the development that would identify parking challenges
and height limits and all this stuff would come back as a CDP is that request
is that correct yes that is correct it will come back as a CDP I would just add
that we can respond to the height there is an allowed change in height on the
baler parcel. It's an increase of 10 feet. So that's an allowed change.
Okay. All right. Well, I will table those specifics.
Whatever you'd like, Commissioner.
That's fine. No, I understand. I understand it. But I, you know, from a, from a residential
municipal standpoint, I understand completely, you know, we're, we are all wrestling with
this, this mandate. The fact that you have that many affordable is pretty impressive.
I think you should be commended for making that happen.
And we all have to figure out how to make it happen
and bite the bullet, so to speak.
So kudos to the property owner.
I applaud you for being a part of the solution, the city,
the county, and staff, because at the end of the day,
that's what we have to figure out,
how to be a part of the solution.
And we can push back as much as we like.
I think Sacramento is undefeated so far.
So with that, thank you, Madam Vice Chair.
Thank you, Commissioner.
Commissioner Lopez.
Yeah, I just want to state I'll be supporting
this project today and I want to be clear why.
30241 allows us, requires us to really look at
the parcels that we're going to be taking from agriculture
if we're going to be making that decision
and analyze them for certain reasons.
And one of those is if it creates a boundary.
And two of the key projects here, and actually all three,
have multiple sites of the parcels touching developed
areas.
And I can tell you what.
The communities I represent, the communities
that I, every single day, show up for in the Salinas Valley,
have these very same issues.
I have schools built in the middle of strawberry fields.
And if you don't know, strawberries
are some of the most intensive crops that exist.
And yet, it's also some of the cheapest land.
So schools go out, they buy these lots,
then they put it in the middle and they keep the strawberry going, because the strawberries
pay great rent, and you end up in these positions of conflict.
And we're sitting here, and I get that folks like the idea of organic, right?
The word organic, but organic also takes pesticides, also takes nitrates, also takes all of these
additives to produce.
A lot of people don't like to think about that, but organic does not mean there is no
additives.
There is still potential conflict there.
And what I'm seeing here is this desire to keep a community in agriculture.
And trust me, that is my lifeblood.
It's what I know.
It's what I live and breathe every single day.
And in this moment, I know that that is not possible without people.
And if you were not supporting the people who are going to go out and work that land,
then you were not supporting agriculture.
And that is what we're looking at today.
These infill projects with 32% low-income housing inclusion, that is real.
That is impact on community.
That allows agriculture to stay alive in this valley.
That is what makes it happen.
And so I'm looking at this project, ready to support it with the allowances under 30241,
knowing that this is going to extend the lifeline of agriculture in this community to allow
us to continue to look out and see that beauty that we all want to see and support and continue
to allow to thrive on the California coast.
Thank you, Madam.
Commissioner, Commissioner not off. Thank you and I appreciate everyone's
patience today. I want to just say that you know amending an urban rural boundary
is a big deal. The maintenance of the urban rural boundaries in the California
coastal zone have really allowed us to have the coast that we have today over
the last 50 years. The hard work that the locals and the have worked with the
Commission to maintain those urban rural boundaries
is the key to having the coastal zone
look like the coastal zone does.
And I want to also acknowledge that the Rina numbers
for counties are really tough because counties
by their nature are not urban.
Within the urban rural boundaries
is mostly municipalities, not counties.
So it's tough for the counties to meet these RINA numbers.
And, you know, I take very seriously the comments
from many folks that we heard from today,
many who I've very much respect for
and worked with over the years.
But I will say that with the,
given the situation with housing in this area,
I mean, the climate impacts of driving two hours,
three hours a day into these coastal communities.
I think that's probably the biggest thing that,
I don't think that the coast on its own
can solve our housing crisis in California,
but there are some incremental pieces that we can do
that will help house the people who work
in the coastal zone and that will help them
in their daily lives so that they can reduce their commute,
spend more time with their family,
and do the jobs that exist in the coastal zone.
So in this specific case,
I think the staff has done a very good job
of distinguishing this case from every other case.
And I think we'll look at everything,
look at these things on a case by case basis.
But I do think that in this specific case, it makes sense.
I regret that the city and the county
have not been able to come to agreement.
And I hope that as the process goes forward,
that there will be able to come to some mutual agreements.
But I too would be supporting staff recommendation.
Thank you.
Great, thanks so much.
All right, Commissioner Wilson, did you
want to speak because Commissioner Lippitz
was going to make the motion?
Yeah, just really briefly.
I just want to say this reflects a sort of misnomer
in what we call RINA numbers, which is Regional Housing
Needs Allocation.
I like to call them GINA numbers, Jurisdictional Housing Needs
allocations, because that we aren't looking at it strategically from a regional perspective,
and this is a man of this, this sort of clash we're seeing right here is a manifestation
of that inability to really be regional in how we look at this.
Thank you.
Commissioner Prossiano.
Thank you, Vice Chair Hart.
A couple of things that I wanted to share.
When my family came to this country in 1976, we ended up in a little place called Wesley
California. Wesley California is for your, for those of you who have never been there,
it's near Patterson. It's right next to the San Joaquin River. And one of the things that
that I found particularly amusing is that just like my house in Mexico, my school was just a
block over. I was able to be in the neighborhood and be included in everything that we did because
it was the school was the center and the heart of everything we did. When I moved back to,
that was three years of my life up there near Modesto, the Modesto area. That's where I learned,
I went out to fish with carp. My parents were agricultural workers and we lived right next door
to where we worked. And when we moved to San Diego, the availability of housing and employment
changed. But still, I was able to live in the neighborhood. The school that I went to is two
blocks away. And so, again, in the early 80s and early 90s, housing was available to working
families like mine in the neighborhoods we lived in. And I must tell you that now in
places like San Diego County we have families that are commuting for an hour. They go out
all the way north to Temecula, to former agricultural areas where housing is more economical. My
My city used to be known as the lemon capital of the world.
I laugh because there's a city called M and Grove, which I think wants to be known as
that as well.
One of the things that we're dealing with now, my city is 52 square miles.
We have almost 300,000 residents and we're building 12,000 more homes.
We are part of the arena solutions that the state has identified for our area because
we're short 150,000 homes in our county.
We are short 150,000 homes in our county.
Our rural areas are really no longer available to us anymore because that's where the fires
are.
And so when we have the chance to do infill development, we reprise it, we evaluate it,
and we take care of it.
I'm very supportive of this program, of this proposal.
I'm very happy that families will get to live in the community where they work.
And I'm hoping that all of us have that opportunity to offer.
I don't have children myself, but I know some of you have kids, some of you have grandkids.
And this is the kind of life that California boards us if we're able to keep it and I will
support this proposal.
I haven't heard of, I don't have affordable housing of 32 percent.
I wish I had landowners and this kind of opportunity in our area.
I appreciate very much the staff.
I appreciate very much the county that planned in their jurisdiction.
And I'm really hoping that as we move forward, Carpinteria and the county are able to find
their way, a best way or a better way.
This is an excellent opportunity for us to move forward, and I hope we take it.
Thank you very much.
Thank you so much, Commissioner.
All right.
Okay.
Commissioner Escalante.
Thank you.
quick comment and I associate myself with you know Commissioner Lopez and
Wilson and not have comments on this but just kind of wanted to recognize the
community development you know services from County and from any municipality I
am a product of that I grew up in a what was a sundown town maybe 20 years
before I moved there and I would have never been able to maybe get to this
place and get the education I got and participated in the school and lived in
a neighborhood even though maybe half of my neighbors wanted me gone but I still
and I lived next to a super fun side but still I was able to in my family was
able to work next to the factory were able to live next to the factory where
they worked so I appreciate it so much that this is 32% don't threaten us with a
good time with those kinds of numbers I think is then you're gonna build some
some high expectations here moving forward, but I do think that we have made the case
that this special case is worthwhile and moving forward. So thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner. And I want to associate myself with all of the excellent comments
by my colleagues. It's a very difficult situation that we find ourselves in in California with
the extreme demand for affordable housing, and I just hope that the solution ends up
working out for both communities.
And I'm hoping, like my colleagues said,
that they find a way to work together.
I grew up in the area and I'm very familiar with it,
and I know how valuable those agricultural areas are
in the viewscape, the beaches,
carbon dory is such a beautiful town.
I really hope that this ends up
being a win-win for everyone.
All right, so at this time,
I'm going to turn to Commissioner Lopez
for the series of motions beginning with motion one.
so madam vice chair i move that the commission reject county center barbara
implementation plan coastal zoning ordinance number excuse me sorry that's
the second motion is it was the first page sorry page six thanks all right I
wouldn't move the commission certified land use plan amendment number lcp dash
four stb dash twenty four dash zero zero two eight dash one heartbeat as
submitted that correct all right and you're requesting and I'm requesting a
yes vote. All right we have a second? Commissioner Jackson. All right so we
have a motion by Commissioner Lopez seconded by Commissioner Jackson. I'm
asked for a roll call vote and I don't know who's doing that. Great thanks
Vanessa. Commissioner Jackson. Aye. Jackson yes. Commissioner Rodoni. Yes.
Yes.
Adoni?
Yes.
Commissioner Lopez?
Yes.
Lopez, yes.
Commissioner Lowenberg?
Yes.
Lowenberg, yes.
Commissioner Nada?
Aye.
Nada, yes.
Commissioner Presiado?
Aye.
Presiado, yes.
Commissioner Wilson?
Yes.
Wilson, yes.
Commissioner O'Malley?
Yes.
O'Malley, yes.
Commissioner Escalante?
Yes.
Escalante, yes.
Vice Chair Hart?
Yes.
Thank you.
move on to the next motion the vote is unanimous excuse me sorry all right so
now I'm gonna look at council hearings and start with I move that the Coastal
Commission that this Commission reject County of Santa Barbara implementation
plan coastal zoning ordinance amendment number LCP dash 4 dash STB dash 24 dash
0028 dash 1 part B as submitted I got an odd for a and I'm asking for a yes vote
Okay do we have a second? All right we have a motion by Commissioner Lopez
seconded by Commissioner Jackson roll call vote please. Commissioner Radoni
aye. Radoni yes. Commissioner Lopez aye. Lopez yes. Commissioner Lowenberg yes.
Lowenberg yes. Commissioner Nottle aye. Nottle yes. Commissioner Preciado aye.
Yes, commissioner Wilson. Yes, Wilson. Yes, Commissioner O'Malley. Yes, O'Malley. Yes, commissioner Escalante. Yes, Escalante. Yes, Commissioner Jackson Jackson. Yes, vice chair heart. Yes, heart. Yes, the vote is unanimous.
So then to wrap us up I would move that the Coastal Commission Certified County
of Santa Barbara implementation plan coastal zoning ordinance amendment
number LCP dash 4 dash STB dash 24 dash 0028 dash 1 part B if it is modified as
suggested in this staff report and I ask for a yes vote. And second. Second.
All right motion by Commissioner Lopez seconded by Commissioner Jackson and
And we'll need a roll call vote, please.
Commissioner Lopez.
Yes.
Lopez, yes.
Commissioner Lowenberg.
Yes.
Lowenberg, yes.
Commissioner Nottle.
Aye.
Nottle, yes.
Commissioner Presiado.
Aye.
Presiado, yes.
Commissioner Wilson.
Yes.
Wilson, yes.
Commissioner O'Malley.
Yes.
O'Malley, yes.
Commissioner Escalante.
Yes.
Escalante, yes.
Commissioner Jackson.
Aye.
Jackson, yes.
Commissioner Rodoni.
Aye.
Redoni, yes.
Vice Chair Hart.
Yes.
Hart, yes.
The vote is unanimous.
All right, thank you.
That concludes that matter.
I see our chair has now returned with her agreement.
I'm going to recommend we take a brief bio break,
maybe come back at five after seven,
if that's enough time.
If I could make one suggestion,
we only have a very short deputy director's report,
and that's the final item
before we can go back to the big item.
so she'll be deciding that I can't say thank you that does bring us to brings
us to item 14 the deputy directors report for the South Coast District we
have eight waivers and one minute immaterial permit amendment being reported
we're not aware of any opposition to these items and we're asking whether
three or more commissioners object to any any of these items in the deputy
directors report I'm available for questions thank you any ex parte none
Any public speakers no speakers, okay. Thank you. Do three or more commissioners object to any item in the deputy director's report
Being no objection to the Commission concurs now, we'll take a I would actually recommend maybe we don't
because
We have the last item in front of you, which is the we continue the item for PG ne
Diablo Canyon and we just did not have enough time to work out
I just did have full discussions. So I'm going to recommend that we continue this item until next month and give us a little bit more time
to talk with PG&E through
the mitigation package. Okay. Thank you. We concur.
We'll continue that. No, no, you have to vote on it. Oh, we have to vote. Okay.
I'll entertain a motion. I move that we continue.
Yeah, sorry. Go ahead. It's okay. So do I have to name the item? How do I give me the number?
I don't have it in front of me.
I just want to be quick about it.
Yeah.
Hold on.
Give it to me.
And it's two items, right?
All right.
I move that we continue application number 9-25-0739
until next month.
Go ahead.
Second.
Oh, and do I have to do the other one as well?
Yeah, maybe vote on the first one,
and then we can vote on the second one.
So there's a motion by Commissioner Wilson,
second by Commissioner Jackson. May we have a roll call vote please. Commissioner
Lowenberg? No. Lowenberg no. Commissioner Nodoff? Aye. Nodoff yes. Commissioner
Preciado? Aye. Preciado yes. Commissioner Wilson? Yes. Wilson yes.
Commissioner O'Malley? Yes. O'Malley yes. Commissioner Escalante? Yeah. Escalante
Yes. Commissioner Hart. Yes. Hart, yes. Commissioner Jackson. Aye. Jackson, yes.
Commissioner Rodoni. Aye. Rodoni, yes. Commissioner Lopez. Lopez, yes. Chair Harmon.
Yes. Harmon, yes. The vote is ten yes, one no. Thank you. Commissioner Wilson. Okay, I will
We'll move that we continue consistency certification number CC-0003-23, and we move that to, or
continue that to next month.
I'll second.
A motion by Commissioner Wilson, a second by Commissioner Jackson.
May we have a roll call vote, please, Ms. Miller.
Commissioner Notoff?
Aye.
Notoff, yes.
Commissioner Presiado?
Aye.
Presiado, yes.
yes Commissioner Wilson yes Wilson yes Commissioner O'Malley yes O'Malley yes
Commissioner Escalante yes Escalante yes Commissioner Hart yes Hart yes
Commissioner Jackson aye Jackson yes Commissioner Redoni aye Redoni yes
Commissioner Lopez Lopez yes Commissioner Lowenberg no Lowenberg no
Chair Harmon? Yes. Harmon, yes. The vote is 10 yes, 1 no. Okay. We will continue this
item until the December hearing and we are done for the day. Thank you.