Okay, good morning everyone
Welcome to the Thursday session of the California Coastal Commission. We'll begin with a roll call, please miss Miller
Commissioner O'Malley present commissioner Eckerly
Here Commissioner Escalante here Commissioner Hart here Commissioner Jackson. Oh ho here
Commissioner Kelly
Commissioner Kelly here
Commissioner Larson here Commissioner Lee here
Commissioner Lowenberg here
Commissioner not off here Commissioner presciado here Commissioner Williams
Here Commissioner Wilson present chair Harmon here. You have a quorum. Great. Thank you very much
Now we'll move to the virtual meeting procedures, please
Good morning. This coastal Commission meeting is incurring 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 wish to watch or listen to the meeting only and not speak
on an item, we recommend you use the Cal-Span website. For those who wish to address the
Commission today can do so in person through the Zoom platform or by phone. The speaking
The request form may be found on the Commission's webpage.
Paper forms and a scannable QR code for paperless submittals 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 agenda's
webpage, which is a guide on providing comments via Zoom or by phone.
Members of the public speaking during general public comments 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
9am 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 the agenda item that is not general public comments are typically
allowed two to three minutes to speak at the discretion of the chair.
You 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 562-477-9089.
Again, that number is 562-477-9089.
Staff will provide you with a telephone calling number and instructions for how to participate
and provide testimony by phone.
We will manage speakers coming in and out of the meeting through the meeting organizer.
When it is your time to address the commission, the organizer will invite you to turn on your
video and microphone or provide instructions on how to unmute the phone.
Madam Chair, that concludes the virtual hearing procedure.
Thank you very much.
Apologies.
That's okay.
Now we will move to the agenda changes.
Thank you, Chair Harmon, and good morning.
We have five changes to the agenda noted on the agenda changes memo posted to the online
agenda, all proposed for the consent calendar as follows.
First, item 12A has been moved to consent, which is an LCP amendment for Humboldt County.
Next, item 13A has been moved to consent, a CDP application by Harris, also in Humboldt
County.
Next, item 15A has been moved to consent for a time extension for a San Mateo County LCP
amendment.
Next, 17A has been moved to consent for a City of Grover Beach LCP amendment.
And finally, item 17B has been moved to consent for a City of Carmel by the CLCP amendment.
That concludes the changes to today's agenda, and that brings us to item 4, general public
comment.
With that, I'll turn the mic back over to you, Chair.
Great.
Thank you, Mr. Toyful.
Okay.
Thank you, Simone.
Let's move to public comment, please.
For the members of the public, I will be announcing the names of the upcoming speakers and invite
you to speak when it's your turn.
speaker will be allowed 2 minutes during general public comments at the
discretion of the chair. In order to allow for live video testimony on zoom
we will be bringing you in as a panelist as we bring you in your zoom will
reload. 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 we will move back we will you will be
move back to the attendee mode. For the for members of the public present in the room,
I will call your names in the order that they appear on our sign up list. When you hear your
name, please line up behind the podium and introduce yourself when you approach to speak.
There is a raise 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 nine.
If you are participating by Zoom, you should see a button on your Zoom screen.
If you have signed up to speak for this item and are able to do so, please raise your hand now.
When it is your time to speak, we will invite you to unmute and turn on your camera.
You can unmute yourself on your phone by dialing star six.
First we have Janet Rogers, Susan Simon, followed by Julia Cheneher, followed by Peter Anderson.
Please come up to the podium. Push the button on the base of the mic. There's a button on
the base. Okay. Is that on? Okay, I'm still waiting for my slideshow. That's not the beginning.
Good morning. I'm Janet Rogers, co-chair of the Embarcadero Coalition. We're reclaiming
or public access from the Port of San Diego
and its leaseholders and highlighting problems
with the allowable land designation in the PMPU.
Next slide.
The port and leaseholders practice a pattern of deceit
toward public access in the Embarcadero.
Coastal-permitted public access spaces are converted
to commercial spaces like Ketch, Toppas, and Grille.
Public trust doctrine is violated
with an expensive private exclusionary club,
the Reading Club and the Intercontinental.
They abandon public space they can't monetize
like the Hilton Bayfront public pier.
Next slide.
These spaces are part of leases and coastal permits.
They know them for what they do, not for what they say.
The port preaches that they are working for all Californians,
but actions suggest they are working
for developers and corporations.
We should not have to fight
for our legally allocated public spaces.
This is how they treat the public owners of the land.
Believe us at Seaport and the PMPU
are excessive development schemes
to make money for the port developers and corporations.
Next slide.
The Coastal Commission staff is regaining
our permitted public spaces from the port and leaseholders.
They kicked Catch out and created 3,700 square foot
public viewing deck at port side pier.
Thank you.
Next slide.
The staff is making them finish
the Hilton Bay Front public pier. Hilton built the concrete slab then stopped and
the port erected a fence that says keep out no public access. The pier will open
for the public next year. We'll keep you posted on the numerous other public
access problems in the Embarcadero. Taking our public spaces is indicative
of the port's attitude to public access please stop them. Next slide. Good morning
Coastal Commissioners staff and attendees my name is Susan Simon co-chair
the Embarcadero Coalition. I'm continuing with concerns regarding the
Port of San Diego creating their own land use definitions for recreation and
their Port Master Plan update that are not consistent with the public trust
doctrine. I turn your attention to this slide. First let me highlight that of all
the various definitions the Port uses only one activity, boat rentals, are
designated as coastal related. Where are the public parks, plazas, and museums that
have always been coastal related but are now devalued and relegated to be only
coastal enhancing. Aren't the Midway and Star of India museums coastal dependent
rather than enhancing? If they're not coastal dependent, get them out of the
water and further inland as they block major enjoyment of the water from the
water's edge. Most concerning, the coastal dependent bayside promenade has
disappeared entirely. The port is destroying the definition of what is
actually coastal related by referring to land-based public activities as coastal
enhancing, a definition that does not exist in the public trust doctrine. Will
Will members only, will member only tennis clubs and the private reading club be considered
attractions and enhancing?
How about one-armed bandits at the convention center balcony, continuing the port's logic
that if you can see the water from the activity, it is coastal enhancing?
Even the grandfathered in golf course on Coronado is listed as coastal enhancing, even though
it is a non-coastal related activity.
What makes this example even worse is that the port is claiming the large golf course
acreage in its recreation open space calculations when it is neither free nor open to the public
to picnic or lounge upon its turf. Gulf is an expensive commercial recreation
use and is not a primary use on tide lands. Police stop the port's abuse of
the public trust doctrine and the inherent loss of public access recreation
under land-based coastal dependent and coastal related activities. Thank you.
Good morning. I'm Julia Chen here with the California Coastal Protection Network
and as you know the federal administration has proposed to open the
entire coast of California in federal waters to oil and gas leases for the
the next five years with comments due January 23rd.
I want to echo the comments made by SurFighter yesterday.
I wanted to make sure that you understand
that there's really wide public opposition to this proposal.
In fact, CCPN, SurFighter, Wild Coast and Oceana
hosted a people's meeting last week in Encinitas.
Over 200 people attended on a December night.
It was standing room only.
We were providing information on what was proposed
and what people could do about it.
So we hope that you will take a strong stance
on this proposal.
We thank you for your willingness to submit comments as I heard yesterday and we at CCPN
look forward to continuing to work with you to safeguard our codes from these polluting
industries that are just not worth the risk.
Thank you.
Peter Anderson.
I was designated as a speaker in this session.
I was actually commenting on Diablo Canyon.
They've corrected it on the computer so I'm going to pass at this point.
Thank you sir.
Okay thank you.
So we'll go to zoom now.
So next is Lucia Cassela Nuevo, Tim Sadikal, and then Martin Busser.
Lucia, if you can unmute yourself.
Hello, everyone.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Go ahead and speak, please.
Good morning, everyone.
I'm here to speak for the Oceano Beach Community Association Sierra Club Center for Biological
for diversity, defenders of wildlife,
two national tribal council,
and concerned citizens for clean air.
We are here to remind you that in 2021,
you unanimously banned OHVUs
on the Oceano Beach and Dunes.
However, the courts ruled that you had exceeded
your authority and that only San Luis Obispo County
can amend its LCP to regulate OHVUs.
Now also recently a U.S. district court found that state parks at the ODSVRA violate the
Federal Endangered Species Act. Therefore we wrote our board, the slow county board
to request a review and an amendment of our LCP so that it conforms with your ruling and
with the Coastal Act and the Endangered Species Act.
So now we need you to please submit and suggest
to San Luis Obispo County that it review
and amend its LCP so that our county may review the LCP,
amend it and phase out OHV.
In the meantime, our county could impose a moratorium
while the things are being worked out.
So after the decision in 2021, which was a wonderful decision for which I honor you and
I appreciate you. We just came to see Devin do nothing. Please follow up and write to our county
so the LCP is modified and environment is protected at Washana Beach and Dunza. And we thank you very
much for listening. Thank you. Next is TimSudekow followed by Martin Busser followed by Angelina
Nigla Nigla Nigla. Oh. Tim I've unmuted you. Looks like you're on the phone. To unmute
do star six. Tim you star six to unmute. Okay we'll come back to Tim. Let's go ahead to
Martin busser hello yes can you hear me yes we can hear you I have a video can
you I mean I have zoom well we try to move you over you kept declining yet so
let's promote you to panelists this time don't decline you can you hear me now
yes go ahead mr. Martin okay well good morning and thank you for this
opportunity to speak, my name is Martin Bueser, and I'm a resident of San Diego County.
Today I'd like to comment on the approved development at 501 Sandpoint Road,
right at the mouth of the Carpentaria salt marsh wetland. My concern is I have deep concerns about
this and significant questions about this project. First of all, though, I'd like to thank all of you
for your service on the Coastal Commission. You play a vital role in protecting California's
delicate balance between wetland protection and the need for land development. The center actor
in this case is a vital state protected wetland that may be placed at risk. As you know, wetlands
act as nature's filter system, making them essential for both ecological balance and
human well-being. So tampering with them is one of the most sensitive areas you will deal with.
My concern is did you check all the boxes before approving this project such as a thorough
exhaustive evaluation of its impact, an approval containing comprehensive and stringent conditions
to ensure the protection of the wetlands, three, adherence to the law set forth in the Coastal Act
and CEQA.
Four, sufficient public and scientific input.
And five, and probably most important,
review of the legal precedents
that are being set by this case
that have dangerous long-term ramifications.
If so, then you can stand by your decision to approve.
If not, then further analysis should be conducted.
As my mom used to tell me,
is never the wrong time to make the right decision.
Thank you very much for your time.
Thank you.
Next is Angelina Neglia.
Angelina, if you can unmute yourself.
Unmute there.
Hello, everyone.
Can everyone hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Did you receive my couple of photos that I had sent?
No.
If not, don't worry about it.
No, we didn't.
You'll find them in your inboxes.
I'm Angelina Negli, the lead of the Coalition for Safer Trains, based out of Delmar, but
we represent cities from Oceanside down in Serrano Valley.
And really, we're representing the short list of the Northern Yellow Line that is now currently
being accepted and in the Notice of Preparation in the EIR right now, being studied by SANDAG.
But I'm seeing my concerns, and that's what I'm bringing them to you regarding.
Terry Gaslin talked yesterday, I believe, regarding the beach access, public access,
the shock of the massive moat that's at the bottom of 11th Street in Del Mar, which is
preventing beach access or very dangerous beach access.
And it's basically a huge moat at this point where the finished product doesn't really
look like the design drawings.
And my concern is if any of the alignments that SANDAG is proposing in Del Mar will be
the same way, you know, design drawings are very different to reality.
And that's our huge concern if they're going to be,
for Camino Del Mar and Cress Canyon alignments,
they are proposing to demolish 35 to 50 homes
in the north end of Del Mar
and 50 homes in the south end of Del Mar for portals,
sitting in floodplains, sea level rise,
the portals would have flood walls, floodgates.
And we already see the sand building up a dog beach
at the home that's in the southern end
of the Sandagito River sitting on the south side of the river,
where the sand, you know, they'll do mitigation.
There's a lot of things that I want you guys
to really be on top of in terms of the Sandag project,
which every alignment is chosen,
because it doesn't represent the drawings
that we're going to see the devastation in reality,
like the north and south end of Del Mar,
when they just say a portal.
Well, there's going to be eminent domain
of homes and businesses.
So I really ask you to be on top of watching this project
And being forceful in asking for design and engineering drawings because Del Mar can't be the lead agency, even though there'll be decisions and permits made within Del Mar, which we're very concerned of. I appreciate your support. Thank you.
Thank you. Next is Leslie Purcell followed by Tim Sudekal. We're going to try you guys again. Please do not decline if we promote you to panelists.
So Leslie Purcell. Leslie, if you can unmute yourself.
Good morning coast of commission.
I'm Leslie Purcell, I'm in Ventura,
and I would like to also acknowledge Vanessa's service
and her friendliness and helpfulness over the years
at the coast of commission hearings.
I'm calling in regards to the fireworks,
and I know there were people speaking about this yesterday,
and there have been in previous meetings.
In Ventura, we have what is usually a delightful
Harbor holiday boat parade and it happens on Friday and Saturday this week and they also shoot
off fireworks after the after the boats have paraded around with their lights and music and so on.
And last year I was down by the harbor and the noise from the fireworks was very very loud and
excessive and frightening to people that were there with their little kids and dogs and there's
actually a residential community down there now that is impacted by this. So I'm wondering,
do they need a coastal development permit for two nights of fireworks? And if not, why not?
because it is very disturbing. There are parents that nest down by the harbor, there are harbor
seals and other wildlife as well. So I'm just raising this issue in regard to fireworks and
permitting because it is a recurring issue here and there are quiet fireworks available.
I believe Costa Mesa has been using them for several years so you can still have light
without the explosions and also drone shows are being favored in some places and we need
to move towards that direction so as not to thank you thank you next is tim pseudocall i'm going to
try you i see another name just tim we're going to try to promote that to panelists hopefully that's
you and then we're also going to try a phone number if you're on the phone
number Tim please use star six to unmute yourself hello hello this is Tim hi Tim
we can hear you but we're getting a feedback we're getting feedback okay can
We are going to have to mute the other device you have Tim.
You're going to have to mute.
I'm sorry.
Go ahead.
No, you go ahead.
We hear you.
OK.
Good morning, coastal commissioners.
My name is Tim Studio Call.
I'm a resident of Grover Beach for 20 plus years.
I, as well as many other residents,
are concerned that the city of Grover Beach
is not in conformity with the public protection
of our coastal view and character of our beach town
under California Coastal Act section 30251 and 30253.
We understand and support the progressive growth
and state mandates for more housing,
but consideration must be made to protect our beautiful
coastal public views for all construction
in our coastal zone.
There are many multi-level and mixed use projects
being considered or under current construction
in Grover Beach that are 40 feet or higher
that will impact the aforementioned protections
under the California Coastal Act.
I had some pictures sent in, but obviously,
they weren't accepted because they weren't in PDF,
but I was hoping that the pictures would depict
the obstruction from our public roadway
of our public coastal view
and the change in character of our neighborhood.
Excuse me, sir.
I'm sorry to interrupt you.
I believe you're speaking on an item
that is on our agenda.
It was put on the consent calendar in Grover Beach.
So I think can we-
No, this is just general.
It's general, okay.
All right, please continue.
Yeah.
Yeah, this is other projects that are involved.
It's not on the proposed amendment, but.
So the heightened bulk of the proposing current construction
of mixed these buildings intrude and will intrude
into the public view corridors of the ocean dunes
shorelines from our public roadways. We believe these projects are not in conformity with
protections of the California Coast Act and Grower Beach's mandatory policy under their
local coastal program and land use. We respectfully request the coastal commission staff and
commissioners to take the time to review the findings and recommendations of our planning
commission and all development requests within our coastal zone with great caution. Once
public views are taken away, it cannot be undone. The California Coastal Act
allows the Coastal Commission to require height reductions, setbacks, massing and
siding changes, view corridor preservation, and landscaping adjustments.
And I'm sorry that pictures didn't, we weren't able to view the pictures, but if I
can still send them in. Thank you. Thank you. So we have a couple of people that
are not showing up on Zoom so I'm gonna call your name in Andy Patrick, McGregor
Lane, Kelvin Kovduk, Stephanie Tarkington, Diane Wolk, and Winnie
Thompson. If you're, if you heard me speak your name please use the raise hand
function. If you're doing it by phone you can do star 9. Okay, looks like none of
them are here so the floor is yours. Great, thank you so much. Thank you. Okay, I will turn
back to the Commission, see if there are any questions or comments. Commissioner O'Malley.
Thank you. Really quick, I wanted to ask about when the speakers mentioned a court
case about the OTV and the endangered species. Louise, do we know anything about that? I don't...
Yes, we were not a party to that litigation. It was a Center for Biological Diversity that
brought that case. All right thank you. Okay Commissioner Escalante. This Ventura
issue about the fireworks. Any response to that? Only to say I think we're
hearing a lot of public comment about concerns related to fireworks. I'm not
pretty I'm not I don't know the specific information related to Ventura and status
of any actions there but again I think in line with where the Commission has
been in the past, anything that we're aware of that we have a chance to work with local
governments to explore drone shows or other options we've been working towards, I just
don't know the specific status of Ventura.
Maybe perhaps, especially since Cassidy's at the table, I'm going to look at him and
just to, in case they, you know, to answer that question of whether that activity, what
they're doing two-day firework activity requires a CDP I think it might be
helpful for us to know. We can check in too with our Ventura staff and and Steve
will probably to be the best person to understand at least the status and
whether we have done a CDP or not. Okay okay thank you very much and thank you
as always to the public for your testimony. Hey now we will move on to the
consent calendar Mr. Teufel. Thank you just for those tracking the agenda we
don't have any items agendized on the consent calendar under item 5 so we will
move to item 6 items move to the consent calendar so item 6 as I said is for items
to be moved from the regular to the consent calendar for all districts on
the agenda today as mentioned during the agenda changes earlier this morning
there are five items that staff recommends be moved to the consent
calendar and those are item 12 a for an LCP amendment in Humboldt County item
13 a for a CDP application by Harris and Humboldt County item 15 a a time
extension for San Mateo County LCP amendment item 17 a for a city of Grover
Beach LCP amendment and item 17 B for a city of Carmel by the CLCP amendment
I'd note that we received a few objections to item 17 a which is the
city of Grover Beach's implementation plan cleanup amendment with a focus on
updating the LCP to be consistent with recent changes in state ADU and housing
law. These objections suggest that the city did not have an adequate local
process and that the Commission should continue the matter to allow for more
public engagement. One objection also suggests that the LCP amendment will have
serious coastal resource impacts. However the city went through several local
Processes for the amendments last year then worked with HCD to make changes that HCD wanted
Then this year they took it through the Planning Commission hearing and two City Council hearings
In other words the city did a normal LCP amendment process and the interested public has had ample time and process to contribute their thoughts
We don't see the need for the Commission to continue this matter
As to a claim that this amendment will lead to undo coastal resource impacts
Central Coast District staff have considered the concerns and simply do not agree all of the LCP's coastal resource protection provisions
Remain as strong after this amendment as before and we don't see a scenario where the changes could be used to lead to some
Sort of significant resource impacts
I'd also note that the city responded to these comments and their own correspondence on this item and we concur with those comments as well
So we continue to believe that the amendment should be approved as submitted on the consent calendar
Staff is not aware of any opposition to the other projects moved to the consent calendar and the applicants are in agreement with the staff recommendations
We're therefore recommending that the Commission vote and approve this item
Thank you very much. Are there any ex partes?
Okay, seeing none. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on any of these items?
Yes, it looks like we have a total of four, but I'm only seeing two right now, so we'll go with
Debbie Peterson
If you can go ahead and unmute yourself and then we'll go to Brenda our after that
For 17 a sorry, he's 17 a
Debbie Peterson
Okay, let's try. Let's just try to unmute you Debbie
Debbie, can you unmute yourself? Okay, she declined so
Well, let's try Brenda
When if you can unmute yourself
Good morning, we're in the hour here. Can you hear me? All right? Yes, we can. I
I am a local resident of Grover Beach of well over 25 years. I'm also a local real estate broker
and I want to plead upon the commission. Please before you make any changes to our plan through
the coastal commission please come and visit us. Your next meeting is in the spring. Come and see
us. See what they're doing to our town. We're a very small community. Our population doesn't
don't go up, it's been going down. We're only close to 14,000 population. Our median income
for a family of two is $81,000. Our coastal public views, public views are being taken
away to build condos. A one-bedroom condo ranges anywhere from five to a million dollars.
you. Three bedrooms can range
up to two million. That's not
for the common worker when they
say they're changing things in
Grover. For the workers here.
That's not true. Please come
and visit our little town and
see for yourself before you
assist the builders in changing
everything we've worked for in
this small little beach
Thank you for your time and your consideration.
Thank you.
Debbie Peterson, I'm going to try to promote you to panelists again.
Can you please not decline so we can hear what you have to say.
And then we also have Megan Martin and Pamela Storton.
We don't see you on Zoom.
If you are on Zoom or by phone, please dial star six, I mean,
excuse me, star nine to raise your hand.
If you're by phone or on Zoom, just please.
Okay.
Oh, I'm not ready.
Debbie, oh, she's not.
Okay, we can go to somebody else.
Let me see real quick, since you're not ready.
Okay, I see a hand for Megan Elovitch.
I'm assuming that might be her maiden name.
I'm assuming you're Megan Martin.
So, let's try that real quick.
Megan Elovitch, are you Megan Martin?
Yes, that is me.
That's my maiden name.
Got you.
Okay, go ahead and speak.
Thank you so much.
Good morning, my name is Megan Martin.
the City of Grover Beach. As a representative of the City, I'm here to provide public comment
and make myself available to answer any questions you may have on the LCP application item TH17A.
As I mentioned in my correspondence, I want to begin and express just the City's appreciation
for Federal First Division staff's time, collaboration, and detailed review throughout
this process. Their assistance has been absolutely invaluable. This LCP amendment is the product
of nearly two years of effort. Following the previous code update in 2022, the city committed
to regularly auditing our code and implementation plan. These amendments reflect that effort and
city staff's experience with development review, incorporating best practices, improving transparency
and procedural requirements for both coastal and non-coastal permitting, and responding to guidance
from Coastal Commission staff and the Housing and Community Development Department staff for our
our AV ordinance. Many updates ensure compliance with state housing mandates
while others streamline the code by removing barriers and improving clarity
and consistency. Thank you so much for your consideration today and for yours
and your staff's ongoing partnership in supporting responsible coastal planning
in Grover Beach. I ask for your approval of the LCP amendments and I'm available
to answer any questions you may have. Thank You Megan. Pamela Storton, if you
and if you are online again, please raise your hand.
If not, Debbie Peterson, I hope you're ready.
Hello, this is Debbie Peterson and Pam Storton is with me.
So if she could just continue after I'm done,
we were expecting this to come up a lot later this afternoon,
but so we're not really prepared to speak.
However, there is a lot of concern locally
about the fact that all these amendments
have been piecemealed.
They've come through to the community at various times
the community hasn't had an opportunity to review the whole thing. So what we were hoping could
happen is that this item could be heard not now but that you would extend it so that it could be
heard when you're closer and we don't have to travel to the southern border from the central coast.
So that's our main request and also one of our other concerns of the community is that lip service
is given to all of the protected views from our streets, from our community. However,
every single one of those is being decimated and our local coastal program is not being followed.
I have the authority to say so because I was the mayor in 2014 when the Coastal
Commission approved our local coastal program. So we are reliant on you as a Coastal Commission
to make sure that we fulfill the voter mandate, which is to protect the the precious irreplaceable
views from our streets in Grover Beach. And I'm going to have Pam join right now.
Okay, just so you understand, you still have 50 seconds left to finish whatever you need to say.
And then Debbie's going to go ahead. Or Pamela.
I think Debbie's finished. I'm Pamela Storton.
Okay, your two minutes starts now.
Thank you. I'd also like to speak on the protection of the coastal areas. Your job as the Coastal
Commission since pre-1975, I believe, has been to protect the coast and protect the views of the
public views and protect the people. That is not happening. The City of Grover Beach and staff
have refused to do so and listened to the people who had a visioning plan early on in the coastal
areas. That's been sidestepped for a massive development that is not has not met the coastal
the the intent and the spirit of the local coastal plan and the protection of our views.
The also I'd like to mention that there has been some manipulation by staff
to put visitor serving areas on second stories, very minimal visitor serving for the coastal
district, the coastal zone, and putting residential on those ground floors that were intended to
be visitor serving services. These are taking away the rights of the public, the people who do not
live in the area to have services that serve them when they visit the coast both at Grover
Beach ramp and Oceana on to the state beach and along Grand Avenue by taking away and
shortening or lessening the visitor serving and putting those on second or third stories
aware of it might be has taken away the people's right to visit. And my concern is when every
coastal town starts to look the same with the Lego Minecraft buildings that there is no need
for people to come to the coast when you've lost the character and the charm and the views and all
all the coast has to offer.
Thank you.
Thank you.
That completes all of our public comments.
Great, thank you very much.
I'll return to staff if they have any responses.
Dr. Halkenbridge.
Yeah, I'd just like to ask some of our central coast staff
to respond to some of the commenters today.
They're online.
Yes, just briefly, the proposed LCP amendments
in regard to item 17A,
The proposed LCP amendments do not modify height limits or impact public protected views
and staff believes that any potential coastal resource issues can largely be addressed appropriately
by the existing LCP policies and any of those existing requirements for any proposed development.
Okay, thank you very much.
I'll return to the commission.
Any questions?
Commissioner Wilson.
Just to confirm with staff, the ADUs have now been exempted from our appeal process.
What I'm understanding is that part of this, and so should ... I mean, what I'm getting
at is it's really going to be up to local staff to make those determinations.
As we had mentioned before, it's like typically ADU appeals are neighbor on neighbor.
They tend to be fairly resourced, and now the burden is going to be on local jurisdictions
to deal with this directly, those potential legal pitfalls, and then where this commission
used to review those through our very good, I mean, our very competent legal staff and
get the sort of stamp of approval from the state attorney general's office, the property
owners now don't have that process, that due process anymore. It's just strictly at the
local level and that the local jurisdiction is now going to carry the legal burden of
these determinations. Do I have that correct?
There is a lot there, but there is a recent legislation that does remove the Commission's
appellate jurisdiction overeat.
Okay, all in the name of reducing red tape, but I but what what's now
So and I would say that I think what was also sort of hit on is like and again as everyone knows I am a big
staunch
Housing advocate 100% and I love 80 use I think they're great, but the pressure
Financially to
In terms of what we call the mansion expansion exemption
which means that people are adding ADUs,
and we're seeing this in local jurisdictions,
where there's high pressure from external, financial,
just basically the pressure on these local communities
is external, it's not from there.
And so what we're hearing from local communities
is that people are building ADUs,
and then six months later, they just kind of move,
they just become part of the house under those exemptions.
We don't have a way to now really monitor that
or account for that.
But also just the pressure to that box
that the person was speaking to, the pressure
to maximize the square footage, because these
are financial investments, not necessarily housing.
And so this is a problem, is all I'm getting at.
I don't know if we can solve that here today,
but I want to recognize that the closer you get to the water,
the less likely it is this will be someone's housing
unless there is legal ways to make it housing
or ways to monitor that.
Nonetheless, I think that's just a part
of what is overall a good concept,
which is get more ADUs on the landscape of California.
I just think in these very narrow spaces,
there are other considerations, I guess you'd say,
that that we need to consider at some point but that's not gonna be today I
just wanted to point out that we are under a lot of pressure to build more
housing I'm just hoping that when things are built people actually live in the
boxes that are built thanks okay thank you commissioner do any members of this
mission excuse me mr. not off I was prepared to make a motion okay please
Move approval of the consent calendar removed from the regular calendar
Yeah, and I just one final note, which is that when you build these sorts of developments they don't
reduce the cost of housing because what happens is you actually
Make communities have higher value properties, which actually makes everything else more expensive. So
And I wanted to also just thank the
member of the public for inviting us to Grover Beach, but I would say that a number of us we were we met in
Pismo recently and a lot and several of us
Were able to visit Grover and Oceana dunes
It's beautiful
Thank you. All right. That's a motion by Commissioner not office second by Vice Chair Hart. May we have a roll call vote, please
Commissioner O'Malley. Yes. O'Malley. Yes. Commissioner Escalante. Yes. Escalante yes. Commissioner Hart. Yes. Hart yes. Commissioner Jackson. Aye. Jackson yes. Commissioner Kelly. Yes. Kelly yes. Commissioner Lee. Yes. Lee yes. Commissioner Nodov. Aye. Nodov yes. Commissioner Lowenberg. Yes. Lowenberg yes. Commissioner Presiado. Yes. Presiado.
Yes. Commissioner Wilson. Yep. Wilson. Yes. Chair Herman. Yes. Herman. Yes. The vote is unanimous. Thank you very much. The consent calendar is adopted. Now I will return to Mr. Toyful for the DDR.
Thank you, Chair. That brings us to item seven and the deputy director report for the energy, ocean resources and federal consistency division.
We have one waiver for your consideration today and two negative determinations to report. I don't believe we have any speakers signed up on this item.
So would therefore ask whether three or more commissioners object to the waiver in the DDR.
Are there any ex partes? Any speakers? None. Okay, thank you. Do three or more
commissioners object to any items reported in the deputy director's report? Seeing no
objection, the commission can curse. Okay, thank you. And to you again, Mr. Toy.
Thank you. So our next item is item 8a, a CDP application for a pilot desalination
project in the City of Fort Bragg. I'd like to congratulate the Commission's Sea Grant
fellow, Sydney Schmeter, for the excellent work on this item and invite her to provide
the staff presentation.
Good morning, Chair Harmon and Commissioners. This is item 8A. The City of Fort Bragg proposes
to deploy a floating, wave-powered desalination buoy produced by Oneka Technologies, also
known as the Icebergblee, about half a mile offshore from the City's wastewater treatment
This pilot project would test a technology that uses wave power to generate fresh water without onshore electricity.
As part of the test, the buoy would produce up to 13,200 gallons of desalinated water per day,
which would be conveyed from the buoy via a seafloor pipeline to the city's wastewater treatment plant for analysis.
That analysis would determine whether the desalinated water meets drinking water standards,
and after testing, the water would be discharged through the city's existing outfall.
The primary purpose of the project is to gather 12 months of operational data to evaluate whether
this technology could support a future, larger scale deployment of desalination buoys. Next slide,
please. Installation of the desalination buoy would be completed by divers and support vessels
and involves setting a primary and secondary mooring system to anchor the buoy in place.
A pipeline would then be connected to the base of the buoy and laid along the seafloor to connect
to the wastewater treatment plant at the top of the bluff. Next slide please. The buoy would be
located within a biologically rich area in the vicinity of two state marine protected areas.
Given this context, staff focused its review on three main marine resource issues. The first
being impacts to marine impacts to marine life from seawater entrainment and brine discharge.
the second being impacts to hard substrate habitat and sensitive species,
and the third being entanglement risk to marine wildlife. Next slide please.
The buoy system would draw in seawater and discharge brine, which can affect marine life
and local water quality. Intake operations could entrain small organisms like plankton,
fish eggs, and larvae, or impinge larger organisms like fish against the intake screens. Brine
discharge can also alter salinity and temperature in the immediate area, potentially impacting
sensitive species. To minimize these effects, the buoy is designed with a 60 micron mesh intake
screen that excludes all but the smallest plankton. This type of screen can be used due to the very
low intake volume and velocity of buoy. Its low intake velocity also reduces the risk of impingement
and the small scale and short duration of the pilot project would ensure that the total
volume of seawater intake would be small and the resulting impacts minor. Nevertheless,
the city has also proposed voluntary mitigation to help offset the project's effects. We are also
recommending a special condition requiring plankton monitoring and reporting to confirm the
project's effects are minor. For brine discharge, the buoy passively releases concentrated seawater
through the same structure used for intake. A dilution study demonstrated that salinity
would return to near ambient levels within 12 horizontal inches of the discharge point,
consistent with California ocean plan standards. Next slide please. Two sensitive species may be
affected by the project which are red abalone and sunflower sea star. Red abalone have been
important for recreational and commercial fisheries in the past and are culturally significant for
tribes as well. This species is the focus of a recovery plan currently under development by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sunflower sea stars are keystone predators essential for
controlling purple urchin populations and maintaining healthy kelp forest ecosystems.
Following widespread mortality from sea star wasting syndrome, sunflower sea stars are
currently proposed for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act.
Although very rare, there is a chance that these species could be present within the project
footprint and therefore have the potential to be disturbed during installation of the
buoy's mooring system and pipeline and later during decommissioning. To mitigate this risk,
Special Condition 4 requires a red abalone and sunflower sea star survey and relocation plan
prior to construction. These protocols were developed in coordination with the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife and the National Marine Fishery Service. All relocation must be
conducted by a qualified diver and construction cannot begin until both species are confirmed
absent from the work area. While the majority of the project's pipeline would be installed on soft
if a soft bottom habitat, approximately 400 to 700 feet
would cross an area of Rocky Reef.
To address this, special condition five
requires the city to contribute funding
to support local kelp restoration efforts.
Mitigation funds would be used to support kelp out planting
and urchin removal to help address ongoing local challenges
and to aid in the recovery of kelp forest habitat.
Next slide, please.
The buoy would be located in an area
frequented by migrating and foraging whales,
interpedes, sea turtles, and large fish, and project components such as mooring lines
and a suspended segment of the pipeline could present a risk of entanglement for these species.
To minimize this risk, the City has developed an entanglement plan, which implements tight
mooring lines to avoid slack loops from forming, encasing accessory lines with semi-rigid piping,
scheduled inspections, rapid response protocols, and coordination with the National Marine
Fishery Service and local stranding networks.
Special condition 6 would also require additional measures to minimize entanglement risks, including
more specific inspection criteria, a higher inspection frequency, and expanded reporting.
Next slide, please.
With the proposed special conditions and avoidance and minimization measures, staff recommends
that the Commission find that the project complies with Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal
Act.
The motion and resolution are on page 4 of the staff report.
are available for questions along with John Smith from the city of Fort Bragg,
Eric Miller from Miller Marine Sciences, Timothy Hogan from TWB Environmental Research and
Consulting, and Ricky Watkins from Onika Technologies. Thank you, that concludes staff's
presentation. Great, thank you very much. Are there any ex partes to report? Okay, seeing none,
I will turn it over to Simone and Chris. Any public comments? Yes, so we have Eric Miller,
he should be here and Ricky Watson's on zoom the applicant the representative
Eric Miller push the button on the base how to PowerPoint I was hoping you could
bring up there Ricky and I will present how much time did you need I think we
had asked for about eight minutes okay so eight minutes and then we're also
promoting Ricky Watson as well to panelists thank you again Eric Miller
millimeter in science and consulting and we have John Smith on the phone he is
with the city of Fort Bragg as well as Ricky Watkins from Onika Technologies
thank you staff for a great staff report we really appreciate it working with you
it's been a fantastic project to work on trying to bring new technologies to the
city the state of California this is the first attempt to bring some of the
emerging technologies for desalination to the state to try and see how well
they work, and also assess whether or not they will,
what sort of impact they'll have on the marine environment
and bring water to the California coast.
Next slide, please.
So obviously the city of Fort Bragg,
it's revitalizing its local economy
with a transition to a blue economy,
and this is a key element of that.
Over years, there has been inactive logging infrastructure
that is gradually being repurposed by the city
to generate a sustainable environmentally friendly economy
within the cities and maintain the city's existing culture.
Like most of California, one of their primary challenges
is the lack of a drought-proof local water supply.
Next slide, please.
Recent emergency actions that have occurred since 2020,
they have had to install a containerized desalination unit
to treat brackish water during the years
when the Noyo River was not flowing well enough
due to the drought and seawater intrusion
was moving up the river.
So they needed to install this bracket desalination unit
to maintain their local supply.
The city, as a result of all of this,
the city identified Onika Water Desalination Buoy
as a potential long-term solution
because it did not require extra power
and it could deliver water on a reliable basis
without the need for any rainfall.
This pilot study is designed to investigate
the buoy's operation and performance
while collecting data for a potential
full utility scale installation here in California.
Next slide please. As part of our ongoing efforts the Department of Water Resources,
California Department of Water Resources awarded a grant to the project for 1.49 million dollars
to help offset some of the costs and these funds are contingent upon the successful permitting of
the project. To date, just to update everyone, we have gone through CEQA, a mitigating negative
declaration was approved by the City on May 28th of this year. California State lands
the National Defense Commission issued a lease on August 21st. The North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board enrolled this project in the Low Threat Discharge General Permit on August 29th. And the California Coastal Commission, we are here today for the Coastal Development Permit, and we will soon hopefully be receiving the Army Corps of Engineers Permit. I think it's nationwide five is what we're looking for. And we'll also have to coordinate with the United States Coast Guard because it is a buoy that's going to be moored offshore for 12 months. Next slide.
slide. I believe now I'm going to transition over to Ricky to present these next slides.
Hi, everybody. My name is Ricky Watkins. I'm the Director of Operations for Onika Technologies.
We're super excited to do this pilot study. And I'm going to present to you a bit about our
technology and what we do. So we developed water desalination buoys. These buoys, as you can see
in this image are moored offshore, anchored with a central anchor and a secondary mooring
spread like Sydney showed, and we generate permeate water, which is pumped to the shore
and then distributed locally. The advantages of our tech is that it's zero greenhouse gas
emission producing using the renewable source of waves to create power. We don't use any
land use for desalination compared to conventional desalination. And our brine discharge is low
in salinity and dilutes really quickly like Sydney explained, as well as our sea water
intake is safe for most marine life. The solution is also grid independent and decentralized
making it great for remote communities and to not make any sort of a strain on local
infrastructure. And as a part of it, it's portable, making it installable virtually anywhere on the
coast. Next slide, please. So here, explaining a bit how our technology works. As I mentioned,
the buoy is anchored via a dead weight that sits on the sea floor, and then it's held down with
specialized cord. As the buoy moves up and down waves, it kind of acts like a
bike pump where as it moves up in the wave it draws in water using that cord.
And then as it moves down the wave, it pressurizes the water within that pump
chamber pushing it through our reverse osmosis process plant and on one side
puts our low salinity brine and on the other side our permeate water which is
and then pumped to shore. Next slide, please. These images illustrate the iceberg glass buoy, which we'd like to install off the city of Fort Bragg. It is entirely on buoy in terms of the process plant, all types of sensors and communication too short to understand what's going on on the buoy. It's moored offshore and then would pump fresh water to the shore, which you can kind of see.
which you can kind of see in the background there.
Next slide, please.
So to put this back in the context which Eric mentioned,
the pilot project and our technology,
it represents a transition for coastal communities
like Fort Bragg to improve drought resistance
as well as align them with blue economy initiatives
like Fort Bragg is trying to undertake.
and as well to wrap it all up, increase resiliency to climate change providing fresh water from
renewable sources. Thank you very much. Thank you Ricky. So we will be here to answer any questions
you may have but we really want to thank the commission and we want to thank your great
staff for all the great work that they've done on this project. We're very excited to bring this
technology to the state and really see how well it works and help add to our toolbox.
So thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, so next we have on Zoom Heidi Harmon, former Mayor of San
Louis, Obispo. Heidi, we just want to make sure that you wanted to speak on this item and not 8b 9a.
Yes, I am here for the next item. I apologize. Okay, no problem. Thank you. Thank you. Yes.
Okay, so we have Keynan Murray, she'll be in person, come up to the podium, and then
Amber Perrin, you're also having for attending and on Zoom. So we're just trying to make sure
so if you guys can raise your hand, just need clarification on. Amber's on Zoom, Amber Perrin's
on Zoom, Keynan Murray. Okay, we see Zoom user. Let me go ahead and allow this. Okay,
Keenan Moray, is that you? We've unmuted you. Yes, I am here. Okay, perfect. Go ahead and speak.
Great, thank you. Good morning commissioners. Thank you for being here. As I said, my name is
Keenan. I'm a graduate student at Scripps Institution of Oceanography. If this project
continues, I ask that the weekly and ideally more frequent entanglement monitoring continue for the
Project's term. According to the 2024 NOAA Entanglement Report, last year saw a record
number of whale entanglements at 95, and a quarter of those were in California waters,
with humpback whales being the most frequent. The most common entanglement gear involved
is vertical lines in the water column, such as mooring lines. Fourteen humpback whale
discrete population segments or DPSs are recognized under the Endangered Species Act.
While 10 of these are no longer threatened, the two that frequent the California coast
remain listed, the Mexican DPS is threatened, and the Central American DPS is endangered.
Ultimately, let's avoid more vertical lines in the water column and contribute to delisting
these two DPSs. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next is Amber Herron and unmute yourself.
Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. I am also a graduate student at Scripps Institution
of Oceanography and I would just like to tell the commissioners that I support special condition
six of the entanglement plan which requires the increased inspection frequency for entanglements
of marine wildlife. I feel this requirement is especially important during migration seasons.
Thank you. Okay, thank you. So next we have Madison Schroeder, followed by Jill Zamek,
followed by Jack Nief and Timothy Hogan, and then three that we don't see, Eileen Boken,
Sophia Marquis, and Leila Cabugas. So if you guys are available, please raise your hand,
feature on the Zoom. Madison Schroeder, if you can unmute yourself. Hi, I am so sorry.
I think I meant to sign up for AB 9A. Is that still possible? The Diablo Canyon.
Yes, we'll move you over, okay? Just thank you so much. So sorry.
That's okay. Thank you. So next we'll do Jill. I'm going to promote you to panelists.
And then Jack Nief will be promoting you to panelists as well after Jill speaks.
I also signed up for the Diablo Canyon issue.
Okay, Jack, did you also sign up for the wrong one too?
Jack, if you can accept, Jack, me?
Okay, let's try to unmute Jack.
Jack, if you can unmute yourself, please.
Okay, nothing from Jack.
Let's try Timothy Hogan.
We're going to promote you to panelists.
If you can unmute yourself, please.
I see you're promoted.
Hi, can you hear me all right?
Thank you. I'm really just here and filled out the speaker card to make myself available for questions. Should they pop up? That was part of the environmental team working with Eric at Mille marine science on this one.
Okay. Perfect. I don't think they have any questions right now. Thank you.
Okay, so that concludes I'm again, we'll try Jack Neve Neve if you want to get on or Eileen Boakins Sophie
Marquise and Layla caboogues if you guys available, please raise your hand one more time. I
See one that's iPhone. Let's allow you guys allow you to talk
Can you please state your name?
Layla caboogues, but I also signed up for the Diablo item. I'm sorry
Okay, so we'll switch you over for that as well. Okay
All right, that concludes our comments
Thank you very much. Simone. I'm looking at our staff to see if they have any closing comments. No, okay
Thank you very much. We'll all return to the Commission and I'll begin with Commissioner O'Malley, please
Yeah, thank you
Quick question. This is pretty amazing. I've been fairly sort of
Involved in desal technology, especially down here in San Diego
Just a more technical question, I imagine that the eventual project is trying to provide potable water to parts of California.
And my question is, I see that it takes in within about 66,000 gallons, but would produce 13,000 gallons of Desalenay water.
And I'm just curious about the loss there,
like the difference in the delta
in what's taken in and what's produced.
And then I guess my second question while I'm at it is,
it's going to the wastewater system.
I get this as a pilot project,
but is there any way that that could be
beneficially reused even during this 12 months?
And that's, yeah, so thanks, appreciate it.
Sure, let me, I'll take a first hack at those.
So yeah, so the delta between the intake
in the permeate production, that's partly on purpose
because that keeps our brine at a fairly low concentration.
So it dilutes very rapidly.
And that's one of our key features of this project.
We can, as time evolves and the technology continues
to improve, we can ramp up that recovery rate over time.
But for this pilot study, we wanted to make sure
we were doing it as benign as possible
and just test the technology and test everything
and figure out what the environmental impact would be
of the project so that we can then use that
when we go forward for any utility scale installations.
So it's all on purpose, low recovery, less dense brine,
that makes it a lot easier,
it has far less effect on the environment.
As was pointed out, we're within a couple feet
of the discharge point where we reach ambient salinity.
So and then beneficial reuse.
Well, honestly, I would have to punt that back to the North Coast Water Board.
As part of our, it's not potable water just simply because it has not gone through the
testing phases to be demonstrated as potable and meet drinking water standards yet.
That's part of the purpose of this study is to collect those samples and make those tests
and demonstrate that.
We have let the city know, I mean, it's going to come into city property at the wastewater
treatment plant if they want to use it to water plants or any on-plant activities that
they would usually use potable water for, you know, it's fully within their ability
to use this.
Got you.
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
Thank you.
Vice Chair Hart, please.
Thanks.
Okay.
My questions are going to be of staff to begin with, so this will go to Sydney.
I want to start out by asking whether this technology is used anywhere else that we know
of? Yeah, feel free to correct me, Ricky and Eric, but I believe you have buoys in Florida
and Chile. Feel free to expand. I don't know if that's the exact iceberg model. Yeah,
that's correct. We currently have an iceberg class buoy off the coast off the Atlantic coast
in Florida. And last year we had our smaller previous generation of buoy in Chile installed
than operating. And have there been any issues whether it's entanglement or any
other issues with those projects? You know? No we have not encountered any
entanglement issues in either locations. Okay great. How far out from shore is it?
That would be I guess that could be to you or Sydney or whoever would like to
respond. I can take it. It's a half mile offshore from the Fort Bragg wastewater
of the
rarction implants.
And I would note it's within Mill Bay, so we are actually inside of a headland to help
not eliminate the potential for whale entanglements or marine mammal entanglements, but it does kind of pull us outside of the normal
migratory routes or at least for the great whales.
So it's visible from that shoreline though. Yes, it will be. Yeah
It'll still it'll look fairly small, but it kind of like a boat. Yes. Yeah, okay
What I really wanted to talk, first of all, I just want to indicate my support for the
entanglement monitoring.
I agree with the Scripps students and the report.
I think that's really important, even at a half mile, such an active, important area
ecologically.
I want to talk about the wastewater treatment plant and its link to, there's a pool there
that has been identified as a toxic area leftover from the Georgia Pacific
activities and I believe that the wastewater treatment plant I'm sorry I
have a gap in my knowledge but it's somehow related to that could you talk
about that how how the water if it goes to the wastewater treatment plant and
goes to the outfall would it then go into that pond because I know there's
issues regarding concerns regarding that material going into the ocean if it
were you know too much goes into that pond so could you just talk about that
yeah sure I'll take the first cut and I don't know if John Smith is still
available from the city there's no plans right now to put it into that pond it
would either be essentially garden hose connection there inside the plant and it
would either be directly routed to the outfall without entering any pools
inside or we would have a tank that we would put on site there that the what
would receive the water there so we can have a steady supply for testing and all the other
factors. But it would be kept separate from any of those sorts of contaminated sources
within the site.
So it's not integrated into the treatment plant in any way. It's just going to that
area?
It's going into the treatment plant confines. It's going within the fence line of the other
treatment plant just as a location for a secured setup for all of our testing equipment to
to collect water and conduct those sorts of tests,
but it will not be mixed in-plant with anything.
It may be directly routed to the wastewater outfall.
Okay.
And then on the issue of the fish being stuck
and potentially stuck to the screen,
I didn't hear how that was being dealt with?
Well, so it's kind of two phases.
So the first phase is we are using
an extremely fine mesh screen.
So it's 60 microns, which I believe is 0.06 millimeters.
And as you may know, the state standard right now
under the Ocean Plan Amendment is
one millimeter for conventional desalination plants.
So we're significantly smaller in terms
of the pore size of water that can
go through, which will exclude a large amount.
And then as far as the impingement side of things
where animals being stuck onto the screen,
we are using very low through-screen velocity.
So we're assuming most everything
is going to be able to evade the intake.
That's also part to Commissioner Malley's question
about the water that's coming in.
That's part of our idea of testing all of that stuff
is figuring out how much entrainment
is actually going to occur.
So we do have a fairly robust, for that area,
plankton sampling program that we've proposed
to try and look at how much plankton
actually comes through the screen
versus what would be a conventional intake structure
So we can kind of gauge how much protection it is affording in the marine life.
And on the impingement side, thanks for providing me with that term, will you be monitoring
that as well?
That one we will be visually inspecting because they will have to go out and clean that roto
flush screen that you saw.
That's what the terminology is for it.
That screen has to be manually inspected and cleaned periodically and we will be able to
see if it's got any impinged organisms on it and if they are, we will document that.
And so how often does that happen?
I'll turn to you on the maintenance of the roto flush. It's dependent a bit on
the environment that it's in but in California we predict probably it'll
take once a month to clean the screen. And not to belabor this but how often so
one month to determine impingement and how about on the entanglement how do you
determine that and how's that how often is the monitoring for that? Ricky do you
Do you remember the entanglement frequent?
Well, I know it's being augmented
in the staff recommended an augmentation to that.
It is being augmented,
but currently in the project description,
it's phrased as every two weeks,
we do an inspection of mooring lines and pipeline.
Yeah, and we will be monitoring the,
I know the energy commission recently awarded
some grants for people to start developing devices
to detect entanglement.
I doubt any of that technology
is gonna be commercially available for us,
but it is something we will be monitoring
to see if anything on that front becomes available
that we could possibly deploy here.
I don't anticipate it because it is an early R&D stage,
but it's something we're keeping our eyes on.
Yeah, I mean, that's a concern,
and I think that's something that we should be looking for
as you move from pilot to regular project
because just checking to see,
I mean, by the time whatever's been entangled
and has taken off with, you know,
it's a little late in the game, it seems like.
No, and we will be able to determine,
there's lots of sensors on the buoy itself
monitor motion. So if, God forbid, something does get into it and pulls
away a mooring line, we should be able to detect if it's a large enough movement
of the buoy, we should be able to detect it and that would trigger, you know, our
send somebody out at least to take a look and figure out why did it move and
then obviously if we see something trigger the response, the response plan
that we've developed. So the buoy monitoring is ongoing and... Yeah, we want
Yeah, we want to make sure that illustration, it has to stay vertical over that dead weight
on the one main line.
So if it deviates too much, the whole system kind of breaks down, so we need to keep it
vertical on that main line.
That's why the secondary system is there as well in case for some reason that main line
breaks and it drifts.
Oops, sorry.
We'll be able to detect that and be like, okay, we got to do something.
Okay.
And my final question is for Bragg, is there, is this the amount of water that would be
produced or is produced in the pilot and projected to be produced. Is that
going to stay consistent and is that to address current demand or projected
demand? The 13,000 gallons per day is purely R&D number and the goal is to
maintain that on a steady 365, 24, 7 basis with some
likely downtime for routine maintenance that will occur but the goal is to have
when the buoy is working hopefully we're generating 13,000 gallons per day and
that's part of the testing is to see how well we're able to maintain that flow.
It will not satisfy the city's, it will really factor into the city's needs
right now because it won't be entering the water system and I wouldn't speak
for John but I know the need is probably significantly higher than 13,000.
Okay so current demand would be accurate then in terms of current for you know
down the road when it's actually being produced it would meet current demand
not based on some future projected increase or we development or we haven't
looked at pairing production to demand at this point in time because this 13,000
we know it's far below what they get what they do need and right now it's not
going to be routed to the water system it's gonna be routed right back into the
wastewater 13,000 the maximum that it can produce no it can go a lot higher
the wave regime. Um. I'm not a
Dr. Hart, I will say we are keeping it at the 13,000 too because that is also part
of the criteria too for the low-threat discharge permit option, permit package
that we received from the North Coast Water District. If we exceeded that number
then we would go through a different permitting pathway for that and we wanted
to keep this pilot R&D simple. That was my next question. Back to staff. If
there's an increase in the amount of intake and the amount of potable water
to produce. Would that come back to the commission or at least to you or?
So this is just a pilot project. So we're only authorizing one year of this
particular technology and just want to make a finer point on that. I think this
is exactly what we do want to see as we are testing out new technologies and
trying to determine whether there is viability both on the technical side but
then also really dig into what the potential impacts would be should we
continue forward as the state or as a local community in Fort Bragg to want to
expand this or even continue it at its at this scale. So yeah, this is for one
year only. It wouldn't go beyond the amount of water that's being proposed
but if it's successful we may see a larger project or something else in
the future and again appreciate the the approach of doing it as a pilot because
it does allow us to dig into the science and understand for example is there is
Is there an entanglement concern?
Does that come up at all?
How does the pumping work?
There's so many good technical questions we'll be able to have a better sense of if and when
we decide to move forward with a larger project in the future.
Right.
So I'm just confirming it would come back before the commission, before they're correct.
Correct.
Okay.
That's one of my questions.
Thanks.
I'm sorry, sir.
And we fully expect a utility scale to go through the full permitting process, EIR,
et cetera, et cetera, after this project is completed.
If we do want to go to utility scale.
Great.
Thanks so much.
That's all my questions.
Thanks, Joe.
Thank you.
Commissioner Wilson.
Well, I think this is great.
I'm very impressed and excited to see this moving forward.
This is the type of innovation we need to see.
And I have to say, Fort Bragg's leading the way on the coast.
I want to thank the Fort Bragg city staff
and the Noyo Harbor staff and the Noyo Center
and all the community members
that have been doing so much work.
You're kind of talking about a smaller bit
of this broader Blue Economy effort
that they've been working on,
and I want to encourage them to keep doing that.
It's the kind of economic development
that we need on our coast,
and it's innovative and it's multi-benefit.
And I want to encourage,
and I do know this location
in terms of the wastewater treatment plant and the land uses that are being proposed
by the city of Fort Bragg and their innovation zones around restoration aquaculture, which
I think this will play into, and the sustainable fisheries. So I do also know that in the future
there are considerations and discussions about small scale seawater intake to actually expand
on these efforts, and I just want to encourage those folks in Fort Bragg and everybody to
just keep hard charging on this, because this is really the future is uncertain, and we
need as much information and resiliency as possible, and so I just want to thank you
guys, and I am happy to make the motion when that time comes.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Commissioner Nada.
Thank you.
I just wanted to, as you noted, this is in a sensitive resource area.
There's a few marine protected areas.
McCarricker, North Jughandle, and Point Cabrillo
are all in that area.
But this project is near those,
but not in any marine protected areas.
I just wanted to confirm that.
That is correct.
I think our closest location, I think,
is about 500 feet away from the southern end,
I believe, of McCarracher.
It's pretty close.
It is close, but yeah.
And so would you think, I mean, that's one thing I'd like you to look at to see, because
we do have those, you know, those are replenishment areas for marine life.
So I want to take a careful look.
And I think that the conditions that you've worked, that staff's worked out will allow
us to get more information about that.
But I wanted to confirm that it's not in a marine protected area.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Commissioner Preciado.
I just wanted a comment that in the in the water world this appears to be a very promising
use of technology. I was part of the implementation and development of the Carlsbad D-cell plan from
the County Water Authority point of view. It generates 54 million gallons a day,
But it is the highest energy user of all of our services that are, and it consumes
really high amounts of energy. And I'm very excited to see this project move forward so
that it does appear to be a more sustainable technology. And I look forward to seeing it
see if it can be successful at this scale and see if it can be successful
in a scaled environment for utility, a utility approach. I think this is an important
project to examine and to continue to monitor. I look forward to seeing more of these
innovative practices in generating more potable water for California citizenry. Thank you.
thank you commissioner kelly i just had a question about the other pilots that are happening
the one off florida specifically what is the distance to shore for those similar or different
the one in florida is uh further i believe it's about 2000 feet and the one in chile is
about the same as Fort Bragg.
OK, great.
And I just want to align myself with the comments
of my colleagues here, specifically Commissioner
Wilson and Hart.
We know so much about the community in Fort Bragg
and the challenges they've had around drinking water,
and especially during times of drought,
the lengths that this community has
had to go to to just produce enough potable water
for residential use has been dramatic.
And in the region it's front page headlines every single day
when we're in a drought as to them trucking
in trucks of potable water because there is not
drinking water for their residential use.
And so this is really a crisis that we
are allowing innovation to help kind of meet the moment.
And I'm excited to see the outcome of this pilot
and really get a better understanding of what
the options are and if it's able to scale and those things and I apologize
for in terms of the use of the water as it goes to the wastewater facility for
testing other purposes what is the intended use of that water during this
pilot phase it's just purely for test excuse me purely for testing and non
portable uses that the city may find for it while it's there nothing has really
been outlined in terms of a specific non-potable use. So right now we're planning to just either
grab some for testing or route it straight to the wastewater outfall and put it back out.
And does the city utilize like a purple pipe program or anything like that in terms of putting
out your treated water for non-potable uses for irrigation or other types of things?
I don't know if John is still on the phone but, or maybe Sarah, but those, those aspects
have not been really looked at just because those do require additional permitting activities
and we really wanted to just focus on the R&D of the buoy itself.
Understood.
Okay, thank you.
Hi guys, we have John on Zoom, sorry, John Smith is on Zoom, we're going to promote him
to panelists, if he can accept it this time and we'll have him speak because his partner
keeps asking him to hop on.
yeah so specifically just the question of as you're doing this pilot what is
the plan for the water and can you do anything with it or is it really just
testing and then putting it right back out in your wastewater mr. Smith oh
you're on mute sir sorry I always do that yeah so we we expect to probably
use some of it some of it depends on what the constituents are and things
like that, just to be careful, because obviously we
don't want to discharge anything that's not acceptable
for any reason.
So after we get those initial samples and check those out,
we'll see how things progress.
But there's not too much grass at that facility.
So use is minimal.
But we'll try our best to find something to use it for.
Great, thank you.
And I just want to thank the community members
and stakeholders who've been a part of this process.
It's really exciting to see people come together around it.
We know that this is a pilot and there's a lot yet to learn,
but certainly the right time and I think the right place
to be doing this type of work, so thank you.
Thank you.
Just one question from my end and it's for staff.
Thank you, I apologize if I missed this in the report.
But in terms of our learnings from this pilot,
particularly interested as it pertains to entrainment
and impingement and how that compares
to traditional desalination.
What's the reporting back on the results gonna look like?
I assume probably at the end of the pilot,
but is there any interim conversations
that are gonna be having, you're gonna be having?
I'll turn that to my colleagues online
to respond to, thanks.
Yes, the city will be conducting water quality monitoring
around the buoy and they will also be doing
plankton monitoring.
And after the end of the operation of the buoy,
we are requiring them to report back with all of their data.
Okay, I would love, I mean,
I don't think I'll be on this commission at that time,
but I would love to watch the results
from the comfort of my own couch.
So I'm very much hopeful that there's a hearing on that
because I'll just make my comments very briefly.
I'm so excited that we are doing this.
And I want to specifically thank the developer,
the city of Fort Bragg, and our staff
for putting this together and moving it forward.
In my professional life, I do a lot of work
around emerging technologies.
And one of the sort of complaints I get,
just as a Californian, I guess people like to complain to me.
They say, we cannot bring this technology
to California because there's too many complications,
there's too many challenges, there's too many rules.
What we have here is just so illustrative of us
all working together for the benefit of the state.
And I also just wanna say the Coastal Act
makes these things better.
And that's what we're seeing.
It is more protective of our shared resource
and it's gonna be for the benefit of all of us.
And I'm so grateful both that this happened,
that we had this hearing.
So now I'm going to specifically point folks to this item
and say, this is what happens when we all come to the table
and are willing and have a willing partner, really.
So thank you, and thank you to our staff and to the city
for bringing this forward.
So I'll now turn to Commissioner Wilson for his motion.
I'm hoping to be as hopeful as you.
I'm very hopeful today.
All right.
Mr. Harmon, Commissioner Lopez is on as well.
Oh, I don't, I didn't see your hand. I apologize. Commissioner Lopez.
No worries. Thank you. Yeah, I just want to make brief comments here before the motion
and acknowledge, like everyone else has the importance of a project like this, especially
around the context that we're living under here in California with the groundwater sustainability
agency requirements. We haven't really experienced those yet, but they are coming in the next
48 months in California water is gonna get,
if it was possible, even more political.
And I think solutions like the one being proposed today,
if it is able to pan out are gonna be a big part
of offsetting the impact to our aquifers inland
and in terms of addressing saltwater intrusion
in regions like mine.
And so as I look at the number of the 13,000,
I just wanted to share context in that
it takes 325,000 gallons to make an acre foot.
average home uses an acre foot a year. So if this project was successful and ran for 365 days,
it would only produce enough water under this pilot model for 14 and a half homes in a whole
year. So know that that's the scale we're talking about. I hear some of the fear around, you know,
is this going to induce growth? But the reality that we're facing is that we need to offset some
of our current use and build the resilience. So for those reasons, I'm willing to support
this and ready to see this hopefully be successful in a way that brings long-term change to not
just the North Coast, but all of California in a way that is reducing our energy consumption
and producing solutions for those groundwater sustainability act challenges that we have
coming on the forefront. So thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity and forward to
supporting this. Thank you, Commissioner Lopez. Commissioner Wilson. Thanks, and I think the
Community Fort Bragg should be proud of themselves all working together. I just want to
Point out there's just so many people in that community just doing it
So I move that the Commission approved coastal development permit number nine dash two five dash zero five one two pursuant to the staff
Recommendation and I recommend a yes vote
There's a second. Thank you. It's a motion by Commissioner Wilson a second by Commissioner Kelly
They're asking for a yes vote and we have a roll call, please miss Miller
Commissioner Escalante
have to abstain abstain I'm the beginning of the presentations commissioner
heart yes heart yes commissioner Jackson Jackson yes commissioner Kelly
hi Kelly yes commissioner Lee yes Lee yes commissioner Lopez yes Lopez yes
commissioner Lowenberg yes Lowenberg yes commissioner not off I not off yes
Commissioner Presiato. Aye.
Presiato, yes. Commissioner Wilson. Yes.
Wilson, yes. Commissioner O'Malley. Yes.
O'Malley, yes. Chair Harmon. Yes.
Harmon, yes. The vote is 11 yes with one abstention.
Great, thank you.
The motion carries. Congratulations.
Okay, we're gonna take a 10-minute break, please.
Everyone be back at five minutes to 11, thank you.
Okay, thank you everyone.
Appreciate it now that brings us to item 8B and 9A. Mr. Twifle. Thank you
Chair Harmon. Items 8B and 9A are for a consistency certification and a CDP
application by Pacific Gas and Electric for extended operation of Diablo Canon
nuclear power plant. Because this item was continued from last month we'll be
providing an abbreviated presentation rather than covering all of the same
content again. Our main focus will be on the changes made over the last several weeks to
the project's proposed mitigation package. If we could have the staff presentation brought
up too, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. I also want to note that two addenda were posted
for this item on Friday of last week and Tuesday of this week to reflect in addition to PG&E's
mitigation proposal and to provide further refinement of the staff recommendation and
responses to written comments that we received. Those comments are provided in
three correspondence files posted to the online agenda, including one posted
yesterday that includes comments submitted after last week's deadline.
Next slide please. Finally, before we begin, I also wanted to note that we have
one further small addition to the staff recommendation requested by the attorney
for home fed LLC, the lease holder for the Wild Cherry Canyon properties. This
addition is to the end of recommended special condition 2.3F and emphasizes
the rights provided through that lease. Next slide please. With that I'd like to
orient everyone again to the focus of this proposed project the Diablo Canyon
Power Plant located in coastal San Luis Obispo County between the communities of
Los Osos and Avila Beach and directly adjacent to Montaña de Oro State Park.
The plant is located within a landscape of more than 12,000 acres owned or
controlled by PG&E and its subsidiary, Eureka Energy Company. These lands are
shown on this slide and are comprised of four main areas. The roughly 700 acre
parcel pea on which the plant and its ancillary facilities are located, the
roughly 4,600 acre North Ranch property owned by PG&E, the roughly 5,000 acre
acre South Ranch property owned by Eureka Energy and the approximately 2,400 acre Wild
Cherry Canyon property owned by Eureka and leased by a third party, OMFED LLC.
The coastal zone boundary is shown in this slide by the blue line.
Next slide, please.
The proposed project includes the extended operations of the two units of the power plant,
which involves continued use of up to 2.5 billion gallons per day of seawater in a once-through
cooling system as well as associated activities including inspections, testing and maintenance
work.
Next slide please.
Because Diablo Canyon is a nuclear power plant, the radiological safety aspects of its operations
and those associated with onsite storage of spent fuel fall within the exclusive jurisdiction
of the Federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission or NRC.
The state and commission is therefore precluded from imposing regulatory requirements concerning
radiation hazards and nuclear safety. The Commission may however analyze
concerns related to conformity of the project with the applicable policies of
the Coastal Act such as seismic risks from a structural
integrity standpoint which is discussed in the staff report. Next slide please.
This slide provides a brief overview of operations at the plant. The two
reactor units began operating in the mid-1980s and were originally licensed to
operate by the NRC until 2024 and 2025. In 2016 PG&E announced a proposal to cease
operations of the plant but in 2022 during the planning process for
decommissioning Senate Bill 846 was enacted calling for extension of the
plants operations for up to five years beyond the current license terms or until
2029 and 2030. The California Public Utilities Commission provided its
conditional approval of that five-year extension in 2023 and it's the focus of
the Coastal Development Permit before you today. However, the plant also needs
licenses from NRC, which are subject to federal consistency review by this
Commission. PG&E's license renewal request to the NRC is for 20 years, the
standard term for such licenses, or until 2024 and 2025. This is why the Coastal
Commission is also being asked to consider PG&E's consistency certification for 20
more years of operations. Concurrence with that consistency certification
would allow the NRC to approve PG&E's license renewal applications. However,
before the plant could operate beyond the five additional years approved by
the state legislature and CPUC, further legislative and state regulatory action
would be needed. Another bill would need to be passed by the legislature and
and signed by the governor and the PUC Coastal Commission, State Lands Commission,
and Regional Water Quality Control Board would need to approve, would need to provide approvals.
Next slide please. As noted earlier, the power plant's cooling system uses up to about 2.5
billion gallons of seawater per day. This represents the single most significant coastal
resource impact of the proposed project because along with the seawater, billions of the small
marine organisms larvae and eggs that make up the base of the ocean's food web
are also entrained. Over a year, this loss of marine productivity is roughly
equal to that produced by all the organisms within about 14 miles 14
square miles or 93,660 acres of ocean habitat. Next slide please. Commission
staff calculated this scale of impact using the methods currently used by
state agencies and considered best available science. Commissioned staff also shared these
methods and results with technical experts in the field who found that this estimate
was reasonable. It is not feasible for the plant to avoid or reduce this impact by using
a different cooling method, so the impact must be mitigated. Most mitigation for other
entrainment projects in California has involved doing various forms of marine or estuarine
habitat creation, or restoration. However, these methods are unavailable or impractical
to use for this project, especially at the large scale that would be needed. Instead,
PG&E has proposed a different mitigation approach, which would be out of kind and require significant
time to fully realize, but would nonetheless offset the project's effects and benefit the
nearby ocean, waters, and species. Next slide, please.
This last month's commission meeting, elected officials, Native American tribes, various organizations, members of the public, and coastal commissioners, expressed concerns that the mitigation proposed by PG&E that PG&E had put forward at that time would not sufficiently offset the project's adverse impacts to coastal resources.
The Commission then voted to continue its consideration of the project to this meeting
in order to provide time for Commission staff and PG&E to reevaluate what mitigation could
feasibly be provided.
Commission staff have held multiple meetings with PG&E over the past few weeks and in response
PG&E significantly revised and augmented its mitigation proposal.
Based on the conversations we've had with them we can say that PG&E took seriously the
feedback provided by the Commission last month, and developed creative means of expanding
its proposed mitigation and overcoming a range of feasibility constraints, particularly those
related to ownership of the South Ranch and Wild Cherry Canyon properties, resting not
with PG&E directly, but with its subsidiary.
For the five-year operations, it would be covered by the Coastal Development Permit.
PG&E proposes the following.
First, establishment of a conservation easement over 4,500 acres of PG&E's North Ranch properties,
which is all over the North Ranch with the exception of approximately 100 acres that
PG&E would retain to facilitate plant operations.
Second, PG&E would make efforts to dedicate fee title ownership of those North Ranch properties
to a public agency.
Third, establishment of easements for all 25 miles of proposed multi-use public access
trails across the property including trails that would connect Montana-Dorro
State Park to Port San Luis. Fourth, a ten million dollar endowment for design,
planning, construction, and maintenance of those trails. Fifth, a sale option for
fee title to the Wild Cherry Canyon properties by a state agency or
nonprofit land conservation organization that is also able to obtain
an agreement to secure the leasehold interest in those properties from home
and 6th a prohibition on the sale of the South Ranch properties until 2035
other than for conservation purposes. These six elements would provide a
pathway to the permanent conservation of nearly all of the 12,000 acres of the
Diablo Canyon lands in order to offset the project's effects on marine life. It
would also provide 25 miles of easements for public access trails and ten million
dollars in funding to offset adverse impacts
on coastal access and recreation associated
with the continuation of the planned security zone.
I also wanted to note that one of the concerns raised
during last month's meeting that commission staff heavily
considered when discussing the need for the expanded
mitigation proposal with PG&E was that the prior proposal
relied too heavily on the right of first refusal approach
rather than direct conservation.
This is a major reason PG&E has increased the conservation
proposed for North Ranch from the 1100 acres originally put forward to now
cover 4,500 acres. This is the full area of PG&E owned
Diablo Canyon lands that is not used for operation of the power plant. This is a
significant change and then it provides nearly four times more land that would
be immediately and directly protected in perpetuity. Next slide please. If the
state legislature acts to allow the power plant to operate beyond October of
2030 and the PUC approves its authorization, this pathway would become more secure.
PG&E would expand an existing deed restriction on South Ranch to cover fully half of that
5,000 acre property and would implement a right of first refusal for the South Ranch and Wild
Cherry Canyon properties if they have not already been acquired and conserved by public agencies
or non-profit land conservation organizations, including those of California Native American
tribes. For South Ranch, the right of first refusal would be offered first to a government
agency and if no agency exercises it, then to land conservation organizations, including
those of California Native American tribes. As I noted earlier, one of the major changes
to PG&E's mitigation proposal was the expanded use of direct conservation through a conservation
easement rather than a right of first refusal approach. However, the right of first refusal
approach remains an important component of the proposal for the lands that are
not owned by PG&E, but rather by its affiliate Eureka Energy. A key
consideration for PG&E's continued and expanded use of the right of first
refusal approach was that it is a way to ensure that potential costs to rate
payers are minimized. As we heard last month PG&E would need to compensate
Eureka Energy for conservation of its South Ranch and Wild Cherry Canyon
properties. The right of first refusal for these properties would allow Eureka to
receive full market value for the title to the properties and thus minimize the
compensation PG&E would have to provide to Eureka. However, to help maximize the
conservation outcome of this right of first refusal tool, the condition staff
is recommending to implement it on South Ranch includes a provision that if
there is an exercise of the right of first refusal, a conservation easement
would be required as part of the purchase.
We believe this approach appropriately balances
conservation needs with potential cost rate payers.
As a final point on PG&E's mitigation proposal,
I also wanted to note that the phase two provisions
are included in the consistency certification
under consideration today for the 20-year NRC license term.
But PG&E would also be required to seek an amendment
to its coastal development permit if one is approved today,
since that CDP is only proposed to cover operations
through October of 2030.
Next slide, please.
The Diablo Canyon area is the ancestral home
of the Chumash people.
The Chumash were one of the most populous
and socially complex indigenous groups in California.
The evidence of the history of Chumash habitation
on the Diablo Canyon lands has been found
at several sites on the lands,
including near the power plant and on areas of South Ranch.
Although operations of the plant would continue
use existing facilities and no new construction involving ground disturbance or excavation
is proposed.
Commissioned staff was provided with a list of tribes with potential cultural connection
to the project area by the Native American Heritage Commission and implemented the Commission's
tribal consultation policy as part of its review of the project.
This involves sending out invitations to consult on four occasions over the past 18 months
as well as five formal consultations with three tribes.
coastal ban of the Chumash Nation, the Yachtichu Tichu Yachtahini, and the Northern Chumash
Tribal Council.
Summaries of those consultations were prepared and provided to the tribes for review and
approval and are included in the staff report and addendum posted earlier this week.
Although we were not able to implement all of the requests made during these consultations,
we're deeply thankful for the time and knowledge each of these tribes shared with us, and we
We included a range of provisions in the recommended special conditions as a direct result.
These provisions include specific requirements for tribal access to the properties proposed
to be covered by conservation easements and deed restrictions in order to ensure that
tribal members can use the lands for tribal gatherings, ceremonies, and traditional uses.
Additionally, tribal organizations are also provided with opportunities to acquire the
conservation easement on North Ranch and title to South Ranch through the proposed right
first refusal and conservation easement conditions. Further, the permanent protection of the Diablo
Canyon lands that would be facilitated through the proposed mitigation would have the added
benefit of prohibiting development on Diablo Canyon lands that could adversely affect
tribal cultural resources. Next slide please. The Diablo Canyon power plant is considered
coastal dependent due to its reliance on seawater for cooling and its operations require that it be
sighted on or adjacent to the coast in order to function. The proposed
relicensing would allow for continued operation of this coastal dependent
industrial facility at an existing disturbed location. As discussed in
Section D of the staff report, it is infeasible for PG&E to avoid or
minimize impacts from rain resources through use of alternative cooling
methods. So approval of the proposed relicensing would involve continued use
of the seawater cooling system. However, the ongoing use of that system does not
allow the plant to quote maintain unquote biological resources or quote
sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters unquote as is required by
Coastal Act section 30230. Neither does its use of seawater conform to the
requirements that the adverse effects of entrainment be minimized as is required
by Coastal Act section 30231. Nevertheless because the plant is a
coastal dependent industrial facility, the Commission may apply section 30260
to quote-unquote override these inconsistencies and approve the project
provided it meets the four tests of section 30260 shown on this slide. As
discussion section E of the staff report, staff believes that the project as
conditioned meets these tests. These conditions include special
condition 18 to help address the timing disconnect between the 20-year operating term under consideration
by the NRC and the five-year term approved by the CPUC, special conditions one through
three to memorialize and implement PG&E's mitigation proposal and ensure conservation
of the Diablo Canyon lands, and the remaining special conditions meant to allow PG&E's proposed
development to conform to other coastal act policies regarding coastal access, water quality
and protection of biological resources.
With these conditions, staff recommends
the Commission approve the requested coastal development
permit and concur with PG&E's consistency certification.
The motion resolution can be found starting
on page 14 of the staff report.
And I'd also like to note that an array of the Commission's
technical staff contributed to the review of this project,
as you saw last month.
These staff include senior staff attorney Sarah Smiley,
our engineering geologist Philip Johnson, supervising
ecologist Dr. Lauren Garsky Garcia and senior environmental scientist Wesley
Horn and Tom Lester. We have these staff online and in person today and
available for questions. That concludes the staff presentation. Thank you very
much. Okay now I will ask my fellow commissioners to report their ex partes.
We'd like to begin. Commissioner Nada. Yes I filed on, it's on file the two ex partes
I had I met with I had a phone call with Senator Laird on Monday of this week and I
also was on the phone with assembly member Addis yesterday both were
reiterating the points that are made in the letters that they've written to the
Commission that are on file and then yesterday when Senator Laird arrived in
Imperial Beach. I spoke to him then as well again around the issues that are
articulated in his letter on file. Thank you. Commissioner Lopez. Thank you, Madam
Chair. Yeah, I've got a couple to report. I met with Supervisor Bruce Gibson of San
Luis Obispo on the 11th in San Jose at the Convention Center while we were
both at the CSAC conference. We mainly spoke about Senator Layers' letter and
and some of the movement that was happening
around that particular letter and some of its impacts.
And then I also had the opportunity on the 11th
at 2.30 p.m. to meet with Tyson Smith,
Tom Jones and Josh Harmon of PG&E by Zoom.
Also on that call was my staff Priscilla Barba.
And then yesterday I've not yet had a chance
to submit this one, but last night at about 5.30 p.m.
I had an opportunity to have a conversation
with Assemblywoman Dawn Addis via phone
where she reiterated her support
for the request within the layered letter
and also pointed out that her own communications
had some slightly different requests,
but very much in line.
And with that, that concludes my ex parte.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you.
Commissioner Preciado.
Madam Chair, I just need to report
that I had multiple communications
attempting to schedule a meeting with PG&E representatives.
Those were all canceled as a result of my mobility challenge.
Thank you, sir.
Commissioner Escalante.
Thank you chair and I had a very short maybe five seven seven minutes long phone
call with Bruce supervisor Bruce Gibson on the 14th of last month at 4 p.m.
he just he was grateful for sort of a consideration of their concerns last
month and was looking forward to our discussion this month and the work in
between. So he just made himself available if I had any questions as we
got closer to the date. We haven't spoken aside from hello today since.
On the 8th at 11 a.m. I had a zoom for 15 minutes with Mr. Tom Jones, senior
Director of PG&A, Tyson Smith, Managing Counsel, and Josh Harmon. He's State
Agency rep and they said that they had good conversations with staff regarding
mitigations that they had aligned goals to preserve that part of the California
coast. They went through some of the details in their letter about their new
proposal of how to front load 4,500 acres talking about doubling amount of
money that they have been also were having very productive conversations
with Senator Laird and his staff. I said they were very supportive of you know
the staff and recommendation and they're very excited about this outcome. And this
morning I also had a short 15 minute in-person meeting with Jeremy Frankel
Staff Attorney for Environmental Defense Center also representing Mothers for
Peace he said there's no need for he doesn't well they don't think there's a
need for a five or 20-year extension but this plan saying that you know we're
now working on a 20-year time frame timeline it's he finds that quite
problematic and they said they were also had been having conversations with
some of the other stakeholders but they also disagree that mitigation proposals
should be in two phases they would like to for all of it to be at once they
consider that there's legal obligation to do the most feasible mitigations now
that this is a unique generational opportunity to preserve the north-south
Range and Wild Chair Canyon, so they urge us to seize this opportunity and
require all the mitigation now. That's it. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Kelly.
Earlier this year when we were at our meeting in Pismo Beach, I toured the
Diablo Canyon power plant with Tom Jones, representative of PG&E and no
ex partes other than that. Thank you. And we did not discuss specifically this at
was just a tour of the facility to get a better understanding of the geography and different
boundary lines and the different components of the facility.
Thank you. Commissioner Jackson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have to report
I had a conversation with Bruce Gibson on the 2nd of December who expressed his support for Senator Laird's proposal and
I also received note this morning from Jason Lyles who also expressed his support for
Senator Laird's proposal. Thank you. Commissioner Wilson. As I mentioned last month, I was on that
tour with Commissioner Kelly. Okay, Commissioner Lowenberg. I had a conversation with Senator
Laird about two weeks ago. And that's all. Thank you. Commissioner Presiado, do you have additional
Expartes? No, okay. No, I apologize that I forgot to lower my hand. Thank you. Vice Chair Hart.
All right. I have an on file description of my communication on Microsoft Teams on December 4,
2025 with Josh Harmon, State Agency Representative PG&E, Tyson Smith, Managing Counsel, and Thomas
John Senior Director. As I said that's on file. I also had additional telephone
call with Tom Jones on Tuesday, December 9th. I also had a text exchange with him
as well as a text exchange with Senator Laird on Tuesday, December 9th, Wednesday
December 10th. I had further text communications with Tom Jones as well as
Senator Laird and in addition I had a meeting with Senator Laird in person
last night and all of those conversations are very similar to what
is reflected in my attached descriptive narrative of the ex parte. Thank you.
Thank you, Vice Chair. Okay, I'll go through my ex partes. On December 4th
I had a brief meeting with PG&E team, Josh Harmon, Tyson Smith, Tom Jones, where they
just described to me the changes as a result of our last hearing.
I then, also on December 4th, had a brief meeting with Linda Crop and Jeremy Frankel
of EDC representing Mothers for Peace, where they spoke to me about their continued belief
that this, the ongoing operation of the plan
is not necessary at all, and then specifically,
that the consistency determination
should not be approved.
I spoke in person with Senator Laird last night
regarding his letter and his view
on how these revisions have evolved this morning.
I spoke with Tom Jones via phone, again, just similar to all the other communications that
have been reported discussing the updates to the proposal this morning.
I also spoke in person with Supervisor Bruce Gibson very briefly where he indicated his
just continued concern around
the South Ranch piece in particular,
but also gratitude that things have moved forward
in so many other ways.
And then finally, I received a text message,
I think this morning or last night
from Supervisor Don Ortiz-Legge,
indicating her support for the staff recommendation.
Okay, that's it, seeing no other ex partes,
I'll turn it over to Chris.
Alright, so starting off we have the applicant Tom Jones and their presentation from PG&E.
Good morning Chairman Harmon, members of the Commission, Tom Jones representing PG&E.
I'm the Senior Director of Regulatory and Environmental Matters for our nuclear assets.
With me today, I have members of my environmental team and legal team, should questions go to that level of detail.
But I'm really proud to be here today and report on the significant collaboration that has occurred in the last 30 days.
with Senator Laird, with many other stakeholders,
including the Port San Luis Harbor District,
the County of San Luis Obispo,
the Lighthouse Keepers, the YTT.
You're gonna hear from all of them today.
And that collaboration that resulted
in this refined, enhanced mitigation package,
I wanna assure you it doesn't stop today.
As a utility, we're really good at projects,
and once we have direction from the commission,
we're gonna execute those projects really quickly.
So I really want you to understand our commitment
to that collaboration and that process
doesn't end at the dais today but continues throughout the life of this
project. And speaking of Senator Laird that collaboration has led to three
additional items that I'd like to bring to folks attention today. One is an
enhancement of condition 1.1 on the North Ranch. He's going to talk about it
in more detail but that would be to add tribal interest and conservation groups
to that condition as well that currently is silent on that. And then we want to
to modify condition 2.1b, which currently has the first rider
refusal periods at about 180 days.
We want to extend that to 18 months,
so that it gives the state agencies two budget cycles
to act.
180 days would be pretty quick for the agencies
to move ahead.
So we think that's a more appropriate alignment of time.
And the second component of that had the same 180-day provisions
for NGOs.
We suggest they be mirrored, and that be also 18 months.
So it gives them more of a three-year window there.
And then finally, there's a durable provision that I want to talk about in more detail in
a few slides, which is the no sale provision.
And we think modifying that date from 2035 to 2040 in condition 21A gives the executive
director and the commission more time to make these conditions effective.
And I'll talk about that in the next slide or two.
So background, we went into great detail on the background last time, but the two issues
before us the consistency determination is for 20 years before this Commission
that's the NRC's process and reflects what's in our license application
before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and then of course staff report was
quite accurate on the CDP before you and just a reminder that we're here because
the state needed the energy and the legislature and Governor Bill Pined on
this. I've had several subsequent Commission's the Public Utilities
Commission, the California Energy Commission, that Diablo Canyon is needed.
So with that, we have the mitigation that is now in scale, but we heard your feedback
loud and clear, and it's significantly front-loaded and different, and I'm going to graphically
show that to you in just a second, though I do think the staff report does quite a good
job of going over it.
It's also helpful I go the right way with the PowerPoint.
I wanted to show you this.
So this slide looks very similar to the staff's, but it's different.
action for the same impacts had been before this Commission once before and
it was on the steam generator replacement and that was for 11 years of
operations at that time license renewal wasn't yet contemplated and so when you
look at the acreage for conservation the public access in the funding and then
you look at it on an annual basis this is about eight times larger than the
previous mitigation required from the Commission for the same impact for the
operation at the same facility at the same location. So we think it's
significant. And when you look at it, it's really monumental the
opportunities before the Commission today. This collaboration has led to the
chance to preserve these 14 miles of coastline. And if you give me the grace
of about 500 yards, it's the same distance from this conference room to
the San Diego Airport. I mean it's a tremendous amount of property and the
opportunity before us to have that conservation go forward. So everything
to the north, we made it really simple. The dark green is all in phase one. That's
the 4,500 acres and staff discussed there's a hundred acres that isn't in
North Ranch. We don't consider that North Ranch. Here's the issue. There's a
strangely shaped parcel. It looks like a bag of pipe or a hot water bottle. Part
of it is in the license boundary for the facility regulated by the intersea. The
bulk of it is not that's that hundred acre delta that staff had referenced so
what you see on this map in the purple shaded area that is the part 50 license
boundary and for public access that I'll get to on the next slide there are a
couple areas that would be of security concern for us adjacent to some
sensitive equipment and we don't talk much more about it those areas will be
conserved but we're requesting that public access not go there because it
create some operational and security concerns for us that the NRC could be
difficult for us on a license amendment request to enable these conditions to
move forward. The second part and new to this agreement and I also wanted to
thank and I might have left them out of my opening remarks and I apologize Bob
if I did, is HomeFed's cooperation. The lawsuit has been resigned and that is
settled. They have the surface rights for the next 140 years. They have expressed
to us a willingness for a fair market value for the conservation on their
least interests which is the bulk of the value of the property and we support a
contemporaneous fee title transfer to a conservation group. So we weren't there
last time because of the ongoing litigation but the parties have got
together so as long as their lights are recognized and we support staff's
recommendation for that sentence add today to condition 2.3 that's an
appropriate way to keep the collaboration moving forward in the
productive way to try to conserve wild cherry Canyon that wasn't on the table
before and it wasn't tenable before because of other things that have
subsequently curtailed most notably the litigation. Here's the public access.
It's all in phase one now. Depending on the alignment it's between 23 and 25
miles of new trails with new loop systems on north and south which is how
we anticipate the bulk of folks to enjoy the properties. However, the trans
Diablo Lands Trail is over 20 miles length on the proposed alignments and so
there is a proposed campground, a primitive campground in the middle of
that. It's outside of the coastal zone but it has magnificent coastal views down
this canyon and we think we modeled it after that the Catalina Trail system is
an appropriate and effective and durable model system. There's going to be change
management required with that and the south is more complex than the north.
We've had state parks out on the land several times since this has been discussed, and they're
moving forward with their evaluation of that.
On the south, there's just more visiting parking demands.
So the close collaboration with the Port Harbor District, and I think you've heard from them,
is going to be essential to make that successful.
There is a notion later on to realign the trailhead.
We can operate the trail with the current trailhead, but it would be an enhancement to
to reduce passenger-hiker conflict on a one-lane road
out to the lighthouse,
since they're doing a lot more events.
But that, could the conditions take care of that?
We'll be sure to,
and the executive director has the ultimate authority.
But we've been very successful in running these trails
for over 30 years and will continue to do so.
So in summary, the enhanced mitigation package
is significant.
I want to again thank Senator Laird for his leadership
in bringing parties together.
It frontloads land conservation.
It adds Wild Cherry Cannon to the mitigation package.
I won't train the slide, but it also doubles
those conservation and access funding immediately.
So I think we have the path ahead.
Happy to answer your questions that commissioners might have.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Thank you, and we'll reserve the rest of your time.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right, thank you.
Next, we have elected officials and tribal speakers.
We'll start with Senator John Laird, who is here in person.
following that will be Assemblymember Don Addis,
and then Chair Mona Alivas Tucker of the Yacht-Tutututu,
Yacht-Tilhini.
John Laird, go ahead.
Great, thank you very much.
And I'm hoping to go just a couple minutes
over the two minutes to be able to frame this entire issue.
And I wanna thank you for the opportunity
to be able to say a few words,
and you know a lot already,
But Senate Bill 846 basically extended the life
of Diablo Canyon's plant for five years.
But it had a number of other conditions.
And two of them were making sure
that the right of the Coastal Commission
regulatory was not overridden in this process.
There was a six month timeframe put on it
after completed application.
But the second item of relevance was
is that it prioritized the conservation
of the 12,000 acres of land surrounding it.
At your November meeting, every commissioner
seemed to signal support
for a comprehensive mitigation package,
and I really appreciate that,
and that pushed us to be able to have major conversations
on a different package that is in front of you today,
and it is the mitigation package.
I want to thank the staff and PG&E and everyone else that engaged in the conversations that
led to this major movement.
And as has been described, the mitigation issues really fall into five different subjects.
The first one is North Ranch, which you heard.
I strongly support the recommendation.
I think the 100 acre buffer, which would be necessary
for decommissioning of the plant and related activities
is appropriate and I hope there's a tweak,
this is the one place, I hope there's a tweak
that recognizes tribal entities among the recipient groups
for the North Ranch.
The second issue is the amount of trail land
which was increased from roughly 10 miles to 25 miles.
I think that's a great addition, I support that.
The third one is the amount of money
set aside for the trail development nearly doubled.
It is $10 million.
I strongly support that.
And the fourth issue is Wild Cherry Canyon.
And it is hard for a layperson to understand this,
but there's a leasehold interest
and the leasehold interest and a path for conservation
on that was clearly in your recommendation.
But the revision is that the underlying land
was not necessarily the ability to conserve that
or come to that, didn't line up
with buying out the leasehold interest.
And if you're a state agency
that might want to invest in this,
you would want to know the underlying land
is under control as well as the leasehold interest.
And the language that's in front of you
merges those two interests and aligns them
so that you could move together.
And I strongly support that.
The fifth issue is the one on South Ranch
that is difficult.
Of the roughly 5,000 acres there,
1200 has already been conserved
based on the mitigation for the steam generator
and that easement has been recorded.
This is about the remaining land in the South Ranch.
And the proposal is really, and you heard an amendment
to the proposal in the PG&E presentation,
the proposal is really to keep this land
from being sold for 10 years or maybe 15
and allowing for enough time to raise the money
to do the purchase.
My letter laid out a different proposal for this
and a more direct level of conservation.
I still obviously would prefer that.
I do not think PG&E would agree to it.
I think that's just where we are at this point.
And I could joke because they did say that to me.
They wouldn't agree to two previous things
that they later agreed to.
But I think in this instance, it's real.
I think we have finally reached the point
where they wouldn't agree.
So having said that, if there is 10 years or 15 years
and an additional up to three years to gather the money,
it basically gives me and other advocates the time
to figure out how we are going to conserve
this land in perpetuity.
And so that would be my goal.
And then, lastly, I wanna talk about three issues
that are sort of related that will come up
and give you the context.
And the first one is, is that PG&E has paid a unitary tax
on the 40 years, and it's basically a revenue source
that goes to the local school districts,
local jurisdictions to compensate
for various impacts and other things,
and that will be severely downsized
because it was tied, this year,
because it was tied to the 40 years
for which it was licensed.
This will come up probably in testimony
because some people are very concerned about it.
I am committed to finding a legislative fix
and introducing it this year to address that issue.
And I don't have the path yet,
but I've been working with the Board of Equalization
and the governor's office and we're talking to PG
and other people, we hope to do it.
Secondly, it was mentioned that there's $40 million
available for Wild Cherry Canyon.
That is in the budget.
It has been in the budget for two years
and there was a commitment for I think it was 155 million.
That was part of Senate Bill 846.
And so some of it has already gone for planning on parcel P
and the coastal conservancy planning.
40 million has been appropriated for Wild Cherry Canyon,
and 110 million then is remaining.
So some people express concern about a south ranch
and the cost saying this could fall on the ratepayers.
There's actually money available,
and that's another reason why it pressures the timeliness.
This will not be there forever.
The Wild Cherry money, I think, is there till 2029.
The 110 is not forever.
And so this will not fall to the rate payers,
but this is something that we have to get deals together
to exercise and be able to spend.
And then lastly, I just wanna reiterate
that Senate Bill 846 authorized from the state level
the extension for five years.
There has been no state action
to extend it past five years.
If there is a desire on anybody's part,
PG&E, the governor, legislators to extend it,
it still requires legislative action
and the governor's signature and that has not happened yet.
And I wanna just make sure that that is understood
and it's an important nuance given the fact
that some things have been recommended
for different time frames in this package.
So I really appreciate your consideration.
I appreciate the attention to this.
I appreciate the willingness of people to talk about this.
I appreciate the movement that came
from the first proposal that is substantial.
And if what comes out of this is a preservation
or path to preservation for 8,000 acres of land,
that is a monumental victory.
And while I'm committed to getting the rest of it done,
whenever the appropriate point is,
this is remarkable progress.
And I think generations of people will thank us
for the action that I hope you take later today.
So I appreciate, so I will be here
in case there's any other way I can help.
I appreciate the opportunity to address you.
Thank you very much, Senator.
Thank you.
Next assembly member, Dawn Addis.
Well, good morning.
It's still morning still, I'd say,
but number one, let me just say good morning,
Chair Harmon and commissioners.
And I want to say a deep heartfelt thank you to staff,
as well as PG&E and Senator Laird,
who I know was just here in San Luis Obispo
and drove a great distance to get down to you,
as well as a number of local people who are speaking up.
Most importantly to each of you,
I know you've put a lot of time and effort into this.
I'll repeat a little bit of what I said at your last meeting
and then share some new information.
So as you know, I represent 200 miles of California's
most pristine coastline along the central coast.
Within that are the lands of Diablo Canyon,
nuclear power plant, otherwise known as the Diablo lands.
And for close to 25 years, I've lived in Morro Bay.
I'm the only current state legislator
that lives within one of the 12 zones
that would be evacuated should there be a major emergency
at Diablo Canyon.
I'm a former government elected here in Morro Bay
and So County, and I'm also a teacher and a mom.
And so I've had a very up close and personal view
to the operations of Diablo Canyon over the years.
And I'd say I have a very boots on the ground perspective
around the challenges as well as the benefits
of living near an operational nuclear power plant.
And I wanna be clear, I wasn't in the legislature
for 846 and I don't wanna be perceived
as what some would call Monday morning quarterbacking
or criticizing a deal that was done
before I was able to be part of it.
But what I will say is that under 846,
many people feared that local communities
would lose out on full and fair mitigation
that they deserve.
And so I think today is a real opportunity
to restore accountability and to restore trust
when it comes to potential continued operations
of the nuclear power plant.
And it is my hope that that mitigation,
it continues to be my hope that that mitigation
will align with what SLO county voters asked for
overwhelmingly, which is the 12,000 acres
of untouched coastal lands.
And Senator Laird mentioned this 40 million,
we successfully fought for that to be allocated
during hard budget times.
I wanna compliment PG&E and staff
for being able to come to a good place on Wild Cherry Canyon.
That was critically important
and that funding will run out.
So I wanna say thank you for that.
On the North Ranch I'll speak to,
I wanna say thank you for the updated enhanced mitigation
that we just heard about from Tom Jones,
as well as the publicly accessible trails and funding
for long-term management.
Again, a thank you for me for the enhanced mitigation.
I wanna talk a little bit about South Ranch though,
because I would say I probably differ
from many people in the room
in terms of thinking this is the best we can do
on south ranch. I am here today to continue to urge protection of the entire south ranch
immediately prior to any kind of negotiation prior to going past 2030 because I don't believe
that SB 846 mitigation should be contingent on future decisions regarding the plants operation.
I believe what was said at the last meeting is that assertions around devaluing the property
are conjecture, and we should treat them as conjecture, not make these kinds of decisions
based on conjecture. I also don't believe that review by the CPUC should be a disqualifier for
mitigation today. And I'll say this when we talk about affordability. With the extension to 2030,
We need to remember that PG&E will be operating the power plant for five years tax-free. That's
the way it stands today. That's the information that you have today as you make your decision.
On top of that, PG&E has a $1.4 billion forgivable loan. They were just allotted up to close to
$800 million for continued operation from the CPUC, and we've had numerous rate increases
over the past number of years. And then Senator Laird mentioned the 846, the 110 million that
still remains for the goals of full conservation. So I would suggest that given the way Californians
have already paid more than their fair share to support PG&E and the operations of Diablo,
there's no real reason that PG&E should be leveraging today's mitigation to further burden
California ratepayers or to put a pause on conserving the full 12,000 acres. So I would
suggest that the commission is at some body. You don't have to do exactly what they say.
I know you know that and I just appreciate it and would ask that you push harder on the
South Ranch. I believe the time really is now for the immediate full conservation of the 12,000 lands
and to bring accountability and trust back for the voters of San Luis Obispo County. So
thank you so much and I appreciate the extra time on the clock.
Thank you. Next will be Mona Elizabeth Tucker followed by representatives from the coastal
band of the Chumash Nation and then we'll head over to supervisors council members and mayors.
So next chair, Mona Olivas Tucker.
Good morning, commission and staff.
My name is Mona Olivas Tucker, Tribal Chair of Yak-Tichu-Tichu,
Yak-Talhini, Northern Chemish Tribe, San Luis Obispo County.
We're also referred to as YTT.
I want to express our tribe's opposition
to both the process and substance of the staff
recommendations before this commission today.
YTT has been definitively established
as the indigenous people of this territory.
We have family stories, archaeological, genealogical,
and anthropological evidence to substantiate our claim.
At the last meeting, a speaker claimed it was,
and I quote, deeply disrespectful for outsiders
to scrutinize our lineage, end of quote.
I disagree entirely and instead I welcome scrutiny
of by lineage.
For this commission and state agencies,
especially in matters involving tribal land return,
asking these questions is not only appropriate,
it's necessary.
Myself and my entire tribe,
we're proud and grateful to our ancestors
and we have no reason to hide their identities.
Despite our unique connection to the Pedro Coast,
this commission has engaged
in inadequate tribal consultation with YTT.
We were given no opportunity to consult
on the appropriate mitigation
for the coastal development permit.
We found out about the CDP mitigation
through word of mouth the day
before the November staff report was released.
But before I go further, I also want to say
that commission staff has been generous in their time
in speaking with us.
We haven't come to agreement on many things,
but they have been willing to meet with us
on several occasions.
When YTT attempted to provide input,
including the direct right of first refusal
for South Ranch to the lineal descendant tribe,
which is YTT, and to remove barriers
to our land acquisition,
commission staff refused to incorporate these edits
and chose to prioritize other stakeholder interests.
This violates your own tribal consultation policy.
The substance of the proposed mitigation is also flawed.
The proposed mitigation violates SB846 language
and infringes on duties that the legislation
gave to another agency.
SB846 tasked the Public Utilities Commission
with determining the disposition
of the Diablo Canyon power plant real property
in consultation with appropriate
California Native American tribes.
Yet this commission's proposed mitigation attempts
to undo this authority and additionally,
they've no mention whatsoever
of the CPUC tribal land transfer policy
that applies to North Ranch.
The proposed mitigation fails
to prioritize tribal land back efforts
and instead places barriers between YTT and Diablo lands.
As our tribe has previously proposed,
YTT should be allowed to acquire fee title to the land
and work with our partners,
the Land Conservancy of Salemas Obispo County
to create an appropriate conservation easement
that protects the environment, the cultural resources,
and provides for managed public access.
There can be no greater conservator than the YTT tribe.
We request that you reject staff's proposed mitigations,
ensure that all Diablo land disposition decisions
are left to the public utilities commission
and that as the legislature intended,
And we then require staff to develop new mitigation
in full consultation with YTT Tribe.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next, we have representatives
from the Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation.
We had four signups.
Matiwaya, Michael Cusarate,
Deanna Dart, and Teresa Romero.
Matiwaya and Teresa Romero,
we're not seeing them in the Zoom meeting.
If you are there,
please raise your hands so we can find you.
We do have Michael Coos-Zoratay and Deanna Dart on Zoom.
So Michael, go ahead.
Can we ask Chris for them to indicate
how long they need as a group?
So we can just...
Yes, Mike.
At this point, I would say that, you know,
about four minutes each would be appreciated.
Director Hackelbridge, are you gonna...
I was gonna suggest three minutes a person
if that's doable for you.
do the best I can. Thank you very much. My name is Michael Kuss, elected vice chair of the Coastal
Bands for my nation. You know, I want to learn more about our tribe. I encourage the commission
to go to acocoband.org to learn more about us. Thank you staff and commissioners for providing
the time from some of my tribal leadership to speak here today. Thank you for all of your hard
work and your efforts to conserve the Diablo lands and coastal waters. Last month during the public
comment I told you that Coastal Bend are the people and the only tribe that were Diablo
Canyon to protect our buried ancestors as they were removed from their graves to make room for
the construction of the nuclear power plant. Later, over a four-year period, I led solstice
solstice ceremonies with our people in the shadow of the nuclear containment structures,
praying that there would be no nuclear accidents and that someday that place would be returned to
its natural state of peace and beauty once the plant was gone. Allow me to add that my tribe
includes people from throughout our traditional territory, including the Tri-Counties of the
Central Coast. Not just a single village or locale, not just a single extended family.
Using myself as an example of our membership, the Chumash side of my family is fully documented
from San Luis Obispo. My family was part of a community of Chumash people who lived in Lopez
Canyon, now Lopez Lake, in the remote Upper Arroyo Grande Valley, one of the only places
where indigenous people could homestead and sell in Smithville County in the late 1800s.
I point this out because all of what I said proves that my tribe's ancient, historical,
cultural affiliation of lands and waters around Diablo Canyon, which means that you have a legal
responsibility to include my tribe and our ancestors or our members in the terms, conditions,
and mitigations you will take, make, concerning the disposition of the properties of Diablo.
But you also have moral responsibility to all the Shimesh people in these decisions.
Over 90% of the original population of Native California people died during the colonial period.
We were floating in the sea after a ship sinks, with families and isolated individuals trying to find ways to survive in a hostile environment, and we did, though it was invisible and underground, largely speaking.
Think about this. It wasn't even until the 1970s that your textbook stopped saying that the shamash were extinct.
Prejudice, discrimination, and racism made it dangerous and openly identifies indigenous
and sound of Biscayne County. Commissioners, it's not just a legally corrected decision
to ensure that all Chumash people are included in your decisions, but it is the just and moral thing
to do. If you wish to aid all of the Chumash people, all of the families, and all of the tribes
in their ongoing struggles to recover and rebuild, now with the tribes present today, but also for
for those that might form in the future,
then you must be as inclusive and expansive as possible.
You must place terms, conditions, and mitigations
that will allow all of our people to, you know,
engage in ongoing struggle
and be successful to reestablish our communities.
Finally, Coastal Ban is opposed
to the five-year extension for operating
a miniature power plant.
But should the five-year extension be approved,
we support staff's recommendations
for conservation and mitigations on the Diablo lands.
We do not believe that the staff's recommendations
are adequate to ensure conservation and restoration
of the marine resources that have been severely impacted
during the operation of the plant.
So we encourage that staff and the commission
to address that, especially the marine resources offshore.
That concludes my statement.
And again, thank you very much, COVID commission,
for offering me a chance to speak today.
Thank you. Next will be Deanna Dart.
Hakuhakuh. Shmawish. Tippish. Shmawish. I'm Dr. Deanna Dart.
Um, legally is on political demand of the Chumash Nation.
I, um, I appreciate having time to speak today.
Um, I, um, I want to applaud the, um, the tribal folks who have gone before me
in their professional way that they've, um, presented themselves.
I'm struck by the irony in which we're conducting this business that relates to the
devastation of this particular place and the colonial impacts that we're sort of reeling from.
And so I just want to invite everyone here to just recognize in this moment the sort of scraps
that we are having to fight for. Having a say in these lands that have already been so disturbed
and devastated by not only colonial impacts but then extractive industry and our relatives
in the ocean that have suffered at the hands of this work, this energy work. We're here really
to advocate for the land, but also to advocate for a place, a healthier balanced place to
raise our children and to be able to be close to the land and continue our cultural practices.
There shouldn't be a recommendation at all on the table to limit the number or the particular
people of Chumash descent that should have access to this place, and I'll echo my cousin Michael's
comments that, you know, to do so would continue this colonial legacy, right? And all Chumash people
should have access to whatever recommendations the Coastal Commission is putting forward to
garner access to too much people should be granted to all too much people. And to do something other
than that would just be to further a colonial agenda that doesn't serve us in the long run.
I've just been reviewing the UNDRIP, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
peoples and you know we have the right to assert ourselves and our indigeneity however we see fit
but to Michael's point we have you know a huge part of our membership have indigenous ties to
that area and we were the first people and Michael and I spoke this morning about the first people who
were involved in mitigation, you know, 35, 40 years ago, and the Coastal Band was really the first
active group of Native people to protect and preserve sacred sites and cemeteries along the
coast, and many of the tribes that existed now branched off from the Coastal Band, so it's just
important and this is my number one assertion for recommendations. I, you know, I just wanted to
say too, and I'll wrap up, is that the assembly members and senators that spoke today, you know,
bless them for their good recommendations, but I would also say that those folks have authority
to represent the voters of California, and there's no one officially representing us
except us. So just giving voice to the irony of the power differential here and saying that
with every decision that is made, consultation with all of the tribes that are associated to
to that place is key and necessary.
And I'll make room for our tribal chairman, Monty Wai.
Thank you so much, for all of the work
that Coastal Mission Commission does
as advocates for our work.
Thank you, Monty Wai.
I believe you're still muted.
Okay, sorry, thank you about that.
My name is Monty Wai,
a tribal chair of Coastal Band of Shumesh Nation.
Thank you, commissioners, Chair Harmon, for your time today
to hear this very important project,
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.
Something to be said about Diablo and nuclear.
Coastal Band of Shumash Nation monitored this project
when it was being built, and the removal of burials
and artifacts was very disturbing and painful.
A week ago, we re-interred 500 burials.
It's almost like the Jewish Holocaust.
very disturbing.
We honor the villages where our sacred fires
kept our ancient relatives safe,
healthy, abundant, and providing sustainable life way.
The Spaniards called us devil worshipers,
thus the name Diablo Canyon.
The English language is like sorcery.
You can manipulate these ways of interpretation
and make a lie sound like a truth
or the equation of these numerical
percentages of opportunity to approve is brought on by experts that provide this information.
Coastal Band of Shumash Nation opposes this project but supports the conservation and
the recovery of natural cultural resources.
As you can hear, our community has splintered and shattered.
It's like scientific racism or political genocides.
This is unceded land, and when you look through the eyes of the ancestors, what we're talking
about of a maritime people, and you find this competitive nature where archaeologists and
anthropologists, institutions, and university has made a living off of digging our people
up and becoming the experts of when we died, how we lived, and who we are.
This country was born of violence.
This is an opportunity for leadership to bring back the health of this land, the medicine,
for healing for society.
It's very disturbing to have to represent your people.
You become a target.
I'm also the executive director of the Wushtoyo Foundation, and we've won many lawsuits fighting
to preserve and protect the maritime life.
talking about 2.5 billion gallons of water that are killing the embryo of a maritime habitat.
14 miles. You have the opportunity to find a way of clean energy of wind, water, and sun,
and get away from these fossil fuels and hazardous, dangerous nuclear substance that are destroying
our planet. When you hold the hands of your ancestors, your elders, the wisdom and the
knowledge of a song or a dance, or the natural cultural resources that sustain you, we've lost
connection to learn how to live with the land. This is not about Indian politics. We're not even
Indians are in India. We're indigenous people of this land. 13,000 years. Our families come
from this area. We continue to try to prove our existence by the genealogies. We have
them. My second great grandma comes from San Luis Obispo. At a dark age and time when California
have paid to kill our family and sell our children.
Look it up in the 1800s.
My family goes back to the 1700s.
And we get challenged all the time
because we've learned that colonial divide
to hurt one another, to compete with one another.
I'm asking you to really dig down deep into your soul.
Think of the children unborn.
think of the future of the generation of mothers and fathers of tomorrow give them an opportunity
to have a chance their birthright for a healthier planet we can do all the equations and numericals
and be able to provide truth or reason why to restart or to continue this process
let's make good choices and I thank you for your time today. Commissioners, Chair Harmon,
for your very important and needed work. Thank you. Thank you. We aren't seeing Teresa Romero
in Zoom. Teresa, if you are in the meeting please raise your hand. And then after that
we'll be District 2 Supervisor Bruce Gibson followed by District 3 Supervisor Don Ortiz-Leg,
Solvang City Councilmember Mark Infanti, Mayor of Santa Maria, Alice Patino, and Mayor Paso Robles John Hammond.
Bruce Gibson, go ahead. Okay. Thank you. I did not see on zoom. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Commission
I want to especially thank the Commission for the crystal clear vision of proper mitigation that you laid out at our November at your November meeting and
And state that I greatly appreciate the progress that has been made in recent weeks toward
that vision.
I thank all involved, Senator Laird, PG&E, your staff, everyone who has contributed to
the progress made.
I would note there that solutions have been found to issues that were considered infeasible,
once thought to be infeasible.
I am here today to urge you to take one further step toward accomplishing that vision that
you so clearly spoke of in November and fully achieve it.
I am here in strong support of Senator Laird's proposal on the South Ranch. I believe that
the right of first refusal moved into the first phase for extension to 2030 is a minor
but significantly impactful step that you can take. A lot of the details are in Senator
Mayor Laird's letter, and I want to speak to a couple just to reinforce things that
you have already heard.
First of all, that right of first refusal in Phase 1 produces a much stronger and meaningful
pathway for the inclusion of tribal-represented tentatives in the preservation of that south
ranch that is so particularly sacred to them.
Second, I align myself with a comment of Assemblymember Addis that the discussion of the impacts
on ratepayers is conjecture. It has not been documented whatsoever. And as Senator Laird
indicated in his comments, there is $110 million produced in SB 846 in order that would directly
affect those land values. So again, I don't see the case that ratepayers are going to
be affected if this conservation is done as envisioned.
And finally, I've heard discussion that PG&E may be resistant to that because they fear
that should the plant be approved for extension beyond 2030, that mitigation opportunities
may dry up. And I want to counter that. Having worked for just over 30 years on land conservation
in San Luis Obispo County, I can assure your commission that there are numerous opportunities
to improve stewardship, to restore habitat, to conserve further lands that have a very
clear and direct geographical nexus and functional nexus.
So I would suggest that the application of funding
from PG&E for future mitigations could accomplish a great deal
that would be appropriate for their extension past 2030.
I thank you for the time.
Thank you.
Next, Don Ortiz-Legg.
Good day.
Hello, commissioners.
Chairwoman Harmon, nice to see everybody.
Thanks for all of your efforts.
My comments today are in line with the board
of supervisors majority here in San Luis Obispo County.
I am Dawn Ortiz-Leg.
I am the board chair currently
and I represent district three.
District three is in the picture behind me.
So when I speak today, these are the positions
that the majority has made.
One, we wanna thank staff.
We want to thank all of your staff.
This has been a very arduous and complex negotiation.
We want to thank Senator Laird for his leadership.
We want to thank PG&E for their working together
on all this.
You know, we supported staff's recommendations initially.
We've continued to support staff's efforts today.
The land conservation leading
to the mitigation is necessary for plan extension.
We support plan extension.
We support these mitigation.
We look forward to ecotourism.
We look forward to working with our tribal communities,
particularly the YTT, the San Luis Obispo County
has recognized the YTT as original descendants
of the Pecho Coast.
And we just wanna say we support all of these efforts
and we wanna thank you for taking the time.
You know, the Board of Supervisors is very proud
of Diablo Canyon.
We're proud of it for being the largest clean,
carbon-free energy generator in the state,
we're proud for it being the largest private employer
in the county of San Luis Obispo.
We're proud for what it does to stabilize the grid
in the state of California.
And all of these things come together
with your votes today in support of staff.
And so with that, I'll let you have your time back
and thank you very much for allowing me to make comment.
Good day.
Thank you.
Next, we'll be Solvang City Councilmember Mark Infanti.
Hi, thank you very much for the opportunity.
As a city council member and a former mayor in Sullabang,
we recognize the need for the power
that the PG&E puts out.
In my professional career,
I was a consultant to the nuclear industry.
I had visited nuclear facilities all over this country.
And after visiting the PG&E facility,
I was very impressed by their organization
and the way they handle things.
I have no doubt in my mind
that they can handle these mitigation issues
in a way that's acceptable to everybody.
And I would like to recommend that that be accepted.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Nextly, Mayor of Santa Maria, Alice Patino.
Yes, good morning or afternoon.
I'm Alice Patino, the mayor of the city of Santa Maria.
And I'm here to speak in favor
the continued operations and use of Diablo Canyon Power Plant. I think that the proposed mitigation
package being offered appears to satisfy concerns that were brought last month.
The number of acres that will be placed under conservation, the number of public trails that
will be available, the financial package for the future construction and the maintenance,
and the first right of refusal for Native American tribes and the additional mitigations
that were brought forward today. Land conservation, I think, is very important on the coast of
California. And I do want to thank the Coastal Commission, and I want to thank the collaboration
from all parties for bringing this package together. This took a lot of people and a lot
of work to do and we feel this enemy it is necessary and greatly needed. Thank you and
appreciation to the staff for a complete comprehensive report today and very understandable.
And as Senator Laird said, generations of people will also say thank you. Thank you very much today
for allowing me to speak. Thank you. And we just got word of a sign up from Violet Sage Walker.
go ahead.
Good morning.
Thank you.
Violet Sage Walker with the Northern Chumash tribal council.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
While we generally support the extents of the revised process.
We consent to the five-year extension with conditions mentioned.
NCTC has been a part of the decommission and mitigation consultation process going back over
a decade now. While we support the preservation of the lands around Diablo Canyons, we do not
support the inclusion of public access without having developed a robust tribal co-management
plan, tribal stewardship program, which includes all tribes culturally affiliated with the lands,
including North Ranch, South Ranch, Wild Cherry Canyon. We support the extension with the condition
to update the Once Through Cooling System to meet clean water standards and stop damaging the marine
life around Diablo Canyon. We also support expanding the language of state agencies in
conservation to include tribal co-management, tribal land trusts as priority for conservation.
We also encourage the Diablo Canyon decommissioning to reflect the UN Declaration of Rights of
Indigenous People that has been adopted by San Luis Obispo County, also the CPC Tribal
Lands Transfer Policy and Recommendations be incorporated. We support the inclusion of the
4,500 acres of the North Ranch and the easements to the North Ranch open to public agencies with
tribal co-management specifically including all Chumash tribes and members of Chumash communities
who want to participate. We support the 10 million dollar trail development plan with again
co-management from Chumash and tribal members. We would like to support the Wild Cherry Canyon sale
and congratulate the progress that has been made with the Wild Cherry Canyon sale but also
including tribal co-management and involvement. We would also like to encourage that the sale of
South Ranch should be publicly made available prior to 2035. In the event that the opportunity
arises to conserve the South Ranch, we think that having an arbitrary timeline of 2035 would
possibly prohibit funding and prohibit participation from tribal members.
The deed restriction on South Ranch, the 1200 acres, currently is inadequate to involve all
interested tribal parties, access, land conservation initiatives, including fire mitigation measures,
cultural reviolatization and promotion of the newly designated...
Thank you for your time and we generally support staff's recommendations.
Thank you. We're missing mayor of Paso Robles, John Hammond. If you are on Zoom please raise
your hand. And if we don't have them that would conclude our elected officials and tribal members.
Great, thank you very much Chris and thank you for that testimony.
So I know we've got a lot of members of the public signed up to speak and we very much
look forward to your testimony rather than bifurcating it for our lunch break.
I'm going to suggest we take lunch now.
If we could all please return at 1-10 promptly we'll get started with hearing from the public.
Thank you.
Okay everyone, thanks so much for your patience.
Hope you all had a good lunch.
We will now go back to public comment
and I'll turn it over to Chris.
All right, today for public comment
we have 54 speakers signed up.
We will start with Jeremy Frankel
with the Environmental Defense Center
and they have requested and been approved
for a 15 minute presentation.
Let me just test this out really quick.
Okay, ready when you are.
So good afternoon and happy holidays to Commissioner Jackson.
My name is Jeremy Frankel.
I'm an attorney with the Environmental Defense Center
and I'm representing Mothers for Peace.
So as explained in our prior presentation,
we do maintain that any extension of Diablo is unnecessary,
and so we urge you to deny both of PG&E's applications.
However, we offer some supplemental comments today
to respond to the modified staff report
in the revised mitigation package.
And specifically, I'd like to address first
why the commission cannot, as a matter of law,
approve the 20-year extension sought
in the consistency certification.
And second, if the commission proceeds with a five-year CDP,
the commission must require
all feasible mitigation measures,
which here means the conservation
of all the Diablo Canyon lands, including South Ranch.
So just to orient us again really quick,
staff is recommending that the commission approve,
or sorry, concur with PG&E's consistency certification
under the override provision.
To invoke that provision, the commission must find,
among other things, that the proposal
meets the public welfare test, pictured here.
And here, that means that the commission must find
that there is, one, a public need for a 20-year extension,
and two, that such an extension outweighs the impacts
of an additional 20 years of operations.
So now, in passing SB 846, the legislature acknowledged,
based on information available at the time,
that a five-year extension of operations may be necessary.
But neither the legislature nor any state agency
has ever suggested that continued operation of Diablo
is necessary beyond five years, let alone through 2045.
And in fact, the legislature expressly
stated that it anticipates an extension will not
be needed for more than five years.
And there's simply no evidence in the record
to support a finding that a 20-year extension is necessary
to meet the state's energy demands.
And actually, the staff report does not
find that a 20-year extension is necessary.
It just concludes that a five-year extension meets
the public welfare test.
And on the other hand, there is ample evidence
that continued operations of Diablo,
either for five or 20 years, is unnecessary
to meet the state's energy demands.
As outlined in the expert report
that we previously submitted,
the most recent data from CEC, the PUC,
KISO, indicates that the state's energy system
is actually expected to be over-reliable
due to increases in renewable energy and battery storage,
that Diablo can be entirely replaced
with clean, renewable energy from solar, geothermal,
and storage, and that Diablo is not
needed to achieve the state's carbon-free goals.
And in fact, may impair the state's ability
to do so by curtailing solar and wind development.
So with no evidence in the record
that PG&E's proposed 20 year extension is necessary,
let alone so necessary that it outweighs the impacts,
staggering impacts of 20 more years of operations,
the commission can't, as a matter of law,
invoke the override provision to concur
with the consistency certification.
In doing so would be a substantial departure
from what the legislature envisioned with SB 846.
And remember, this is really an issue
of PG&E's own making.
It could have sought a five-year license renewal consistent with SP846, and instead, it seized
on this legislation to apply for a 20-year extension.
And the Commission shouldn't, and as explained, it can't facilitate PG&E's power grab.
So with the 20-year extension really effectively off the table, the Commission's review here
is necessarily narrowed.
with 846, the sole issue before the Commission is really whether to grant a five-year CDP.
And I'd reiterate again that developments in the wake of 846, unforeseen perhaps by
the legislature, have rendered Diablo unnecessary.
So we would maintain that the CDP should be denied, but in the event the Commission finds
a five-year extension is necessary, we'd just like to address why, again as a matter of
law, the revised mitigation package is inadequate.
So let's start by looking at the mitigation proposal that PG&E came back with.
So it was originally offering for a five-year CDP, which you see on the left, which is a
smaller conservation easement over North Ranch and a right-of-first refusal for all 5,000
acres of South Ranch.
It would then hold and reserve additional feasible mitigation measures.
So a total of 6600 acres.
In its revised proposal, it's now offering 4500 acres for North Ranch, great, and a purchase
option for Wild Cherry Canyon, but that is just 6700 acres.
It's not offering anything for the five year CDP for South Ranch.
That's another 5000 acres that it's just holding in reserve.
So remember, there's a real possibility that PG&E does not operate past 2030 and probably
is the most likely scenario.
So anything offered as part of this phase two
is really just illusory.
PG&E's revised proposal, it ships some things around,
but it's really just a sleight of hand.
In reality, there's really little substantive difference
in terms of what is actually likely to be conserved.
So let's return to the commission's legal obligations
here under the override provision.
We touched on the public welfare test earlier,
But the other essential finding that the Commission must make is that impacts are mitigated
to the maximum extent feasible.
And again, with this 20-year extension effectively off the table,
the Commission's review here is narrow.
In considering PG&E's mitigation proposal, the sole question
for the Commission becomes, what is the maximum feasible mitigation for a five-year CDP,
irrespective of any possible future extension?
So in other words, 20-year extension off the table,
the commission's task is really
to identify all feasible mitigation measures
and then just include those as conditions of the five-year CDP.
So with that in mind, PG&E's phased approach,
which expressly withholds feasible mitigation measures,
simply can't be considered maximum feasible mitigation.
To satisfy the mandate of the override provision,
All feasible mitigation measures must be required now as mitigation for a five year extension
and can't be withheld for a speculative future extension past 2030.
So PG&E has already acknowledged between phase one and two that conservation
of nearly all the Diablo Canyon lands is feasible, but it's still obfuscating
when it comes to South Ranch.
And remember, PG&E initially represented that the immediate conservation
of South Ranch was infeasible, and now it appears to acknowledge that some amount is
feasible, but only up to about 1,200 acres, which is really an arbitrary amount.
According to PG&E, there's two things that apparently stand in the way of a conservation
easement over the full South Ranch, and that would be the cost to ratepayers and that any
encumbrance would have to be approved supposedly by PUC, but neither are really genuine impediments
conservation. There is no credible evidence that the cost here would be
prohibitive. The staff report estimates that an encumbrance over the full
property would result in a loss of value between 16 and 21 million dollars. But
there's a couple issues to start with with that calculation and the first is
that this property hasn't actually been appraised. So staff points to a 48
million dollar valuation but there's really nothing to support that valuation.
and then secondly staff estimates a 30 to 40 percent depreciation in value from
a conservation easement but I think that ignores the many encumbrances that are
already on this property. 1,200 acres so a quarter of it basically is already
deed restricted and it's zoned agricultural on top of that so it can't
be used for residential development it can't be used for commercial development
and as long as any encumbrance allows some amount of sustainable agriculture
which is something that the slow County voters approved and the decommissioning engagement panel as well
It's unclear why there would be really much if any depreciation in value
But even putting that aside and we assume that staff's estimate is correct the 16 to 20 million dollars
There's still a hundred and ten million dollars left in that SB 846 fund which you heard about earlier
specifically for land conservation and importantly that is excluding the 40 million dollars already allotted for
Wild Cherry Canyon, so
Second well that is more than enough to cover the cost of that 16 to 20 million dollar potential loss and valuation
So second thing PG&E says is they need approval from PUC
It's hard to see the agency withholding that approval especially considering funds exist to cover the cost to any rate payers
So it's very likely feasible to conserve immediately all 5,000 acres of South Ranch either by way of
conservation easement or deed restriction and
We did submit with our comment letter a proposed alternative condition for South Ranch that accounts for the potential uncertainty here
And it proposes first
Requiring PG&E to pursue full conservation easement of South Branch or deed restriction
But if that proves infeasible then requiring the partial deed restriction
that they've proposed, although everything again in phase one. So
in sum, I just want to conclude with
there's really no evidence again, none in the record, that Diablo is needed for an additional 20 years and as we
previously explained, developments in the wake of 846 have rendered any extension of Diablo unnecessary either for
five or 20 years.
So again, we'd urge the commission
to deny both of PG&E's applications,
but if the commission sees fit
to entertain the five-year CDP,
it must require as mitigation
the immediate conservation of all Diablo Canyon lands,
including the South Ranch.
And so logistically,
that would require two basic edits to the proposal.
The first being taking everything earmarked for phase two
and putting it in phase one,
and then amending that condition regarding the South Ranch
to require full conservation easement.
And again, we submitted a proposed alternative
for you to consider.
So with that, thank you for your time and consideration.
Thank you.
And I will also note that we do have Linda Crop online
and available for rebuttal and her questions.
Linda Crop is also with the Environmental Defense Center.
All right, moving on, we have 54 speakers.
We will start with those in the room.
First, we have Julia Chun here
with the California Coastal Protection Network
on behalf of Susan Jordan.
Following that will be Mitch Silverstein,
Rick Hernandez and Gary Rugeroni.
Good afternoon, I'm reading this on behalf of Susan Jordan.
Dear commissioners, I apologize that I cannot be there
to testify in person today.
I offer the following two observations on behalf of CCPN,
Environment California and NRDC.
First, we're pleased that PG&E and staff
have worked together to expand the mitigation
for the extensive harm caused by the continued operation
of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plan,
though the mitigation proposal still remains insufficient.
Second, we support EDC's recommendation
that the commission deny the permit
and the consistency determination.
But if the commission decides to approve both,
we strongly urge that you,
to follow the mitigation outlined in both Senator Laird
and Assemblymember Addison's letters
with one important distinction,
that the conservation easement over the south ranch portion
be recorded within the term of the five-year CDP
as assembly member Addis has explicitly requested.
As someone who witnessed PG&E's refusal
to agree to any additional mitigation at the last hearing,
I want to emphasize why I believe it's critical
that the conservation easement be required now.
This conservation easement is essential
to meet the legally required
maximum feasible mitigation standard
for the industrial override provision
the commission is relying on to approve the extension.
It is, if it's legally feasible in phase two,
it's feasible now.
Next, the argument that PG&E needs to hold back
this conservation easement so they have mitigation
to offer later seems disingenuous.
I feel quite confident that the powers that be
will be able to find suitable additional mitigation
if and when the power plant's operation life
is extended by the legislature.
Finally, I'm troubled by the threat
the financial burden will fall on PG&E ratepayers. As Senator Laird points out, there are funds
required by SB 846 that can be used to help address this potential impact. But also I
question whether this decision to burden ratepayers, rather than shareholders, lies in part with
PG&E itself. In closing, CCPN, Environment California, and RDC believe the time to require
a maximum compensatory mitigation is now. While the bird lies in your hand and not in
the proverbial bush at some point in the future, the people of California deserve certain
now. Thank you. Thank you, Mitch Silverstein, Rick Hernandez, Gary Rubaroni.
Chair Harmon and commissioners, Mitch Silverstein with Surfighter Foundation.
Last month you stood with Coastal Advocates demanding that PG&E fully
conserve the Diablo Canyon lands before approving extended operations. Thank you
for that leadership. PG&E has improved its proposal including new Wild Cherry
Canyon purchase option but it still falls short of what the Coastal Act
requires. The staff report itself acknowledges that the mitigation cannot
achieve consistency with the Coastal Act sections that protect marine biological
productivity. DCPP's cooling system processes two and a half billion gallons
daily and training marine life equal to what's found in 14 square miles of near
shore waters. Even with expanded North Ranch conservation, decades of land
protection would be needed to offset just five years of operations. We support
Senator Laird's recommendations as a starting point with a few enhancements.
First, we agree with EDC and others that if approved, the mitigation package should
be 100% tied to a five-year CDP.
Second, Wild Cherry Canyon.
We appreciate PG&E's new purchase option allowing immediate acquisition if a buyer
also secures the lease.
It's a significant improvement, but we urge the Commission to require that this happen
immediately, not just create an option that eventually expires.
The $40 million in state coastal conservancy funds and 2029 lease expiration create urgency
for action now, not justification for delay.
Third, South Ranch.
We urge full conservation protection now
for all 5,000 acres, not just a purchase option.
As Senator Laird and others stated,
110 million in SB 846 funding remains available
and can be put toward purchase to avoid costs
being passed to ratepayers.
These distinctions matter.
Conservation easements provide immediate binding protection.
Purchase options create only contingent opportunities
that may never materialize.
These coastal watersheds flow directly
into marine protected areas.
Without binding protections now future development could degrade the very marine resources we're
trying to protect.
We also urge at minimum equal priority for tribal entities and any land transfers not
subordinate status after government agencies.
The Commission has authority to require adequate mitigation.
We urge you to exercise it by requiring binding conservation protections now across all Diablo
Canyon lands.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Ray Hernandez, Gary Rugaroni, Taryn Collins.
Thank you commissioners today for your time and consideration.
My name is Rick Hernandez.
I've been dosing since 1987 on the Pecho Coast Trail.
When we're looking at these issues today, I want to focus on the fact that these large,
great new land conservation easements, the new trails that are being offered, we need
to remember the past, and the past starts with Peter Douglas.
Peter Douglas was the commissioner for 26 years.
He was a coauthor on Prop 20, which created the Coastal Commission.
He also coauthored the Coastal Act in 1976.
In 1992, Peter Douglas pointed the Nature Conservancy to establish and begin a managed
access trail that would provide open space and for public access on these lands.
The trail alignment that was proposed has a specific need, it has specific points and
has very areas that people can discuss about the history, about the geology, about the
cultural background, biology of the area.
These points were specifically put into that design and it's very important.
As we look at the future that we're going through right now, there are some management
issues with the trail, the way it's being managed now.
There's others in my group that will talk about those specifically.
We need to look at the fact that the Coast Guard road, which was an issue, has quite
a few of those points of interest those those interpretive points and there are
if there's an issue with safety on there there are very many ways that we can
simply address those. I was a little sad to see that that the Coast Guard Road
might be an issue to be taken out that's why the real alignment was considered. So
I urge and request that that the Coast Guard Road be kept in there and that the
the alignment stay in place.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Gary Rujoroni, Taryn Collins, Scott Buckles.
Commissioners and staff, my name is Gary Rujoroni.
I'm Pedro Coast Trail docent for the last 14 years.
Point St. Louis Lighthouse docent for the last 12 years.
And I'm on the Point St. Louis Lighthouse board of directors.
I'm here to raise a significant issue.
The Pitcher Coast Trail is more than just a hiking trail.
It was specifically established as a destination,
a trail to lead to a destination,
the historic lighthouse,
National Register of Historic Places.
It's required by PG&E that we have
at least two docents on the trail.
That's been a requirement for a long time.
Recently, PG&E changed that
and made it two docents for every six people.
Huge increase in the number of docents. It was actually we believe a violation of the implementation plans created for the patrocoast trail
PG&E requires
Reservations for the trail we support that they have an online reservation system that online reservation system cuts off
The registrations two days before the actual date of the trail
That means a lot of people are not who want to go on the trail are not able to get on to it
They don't allow walk-ons anymore.
Now it used to be that they had a reservation system.
You could actually sign up all the way to the day of the hike and they allowed walk-ons
as long as there were enough docents that worked really well.
Now we've reduced it to a point where we're eliminating a lot of access out on the trail.
Special hikes are a big part of the Pedro Coast Trail.
We have a lot of groups that want to hike as a big group.
try to set up that and accommodate that. PG&E requires at least two weeks
advance notice before they'll approve a special hike and they put a bunch of
very restricting conditions on it. Often our requests for a special harker denied
by PG&E. We have many other suggestions. We hope that the Pitcher Coast Trail and
the Lighthouse can be part of the implementation plan when that's being
considered we have a lot of things we could bring to the table. Thank you. Thank
you. Taryn Collins, Scott Buckles, Alyssa Buckles. Good afternoon commissioners and
staff. My name is Taryn Collins. I'm an attorney in Pismo Beach and I have a
long history of advocating on behalf of public coastal access. Today I speak as
a member of the board of the Point San Luis Lighthouse keepers and we're very
concerned about the possibility proposed in the staff report that allowing the
alignment of the Patro Coast Trail to be modified. This proposed real alignment
would end the successfully managed access program which for decades has
protected the sensitive resources including the lighthouse and its remote
location it also would take away two miles two of the most beautiful scenic
miles of that trail 54% of the trail and we don't want to lose that. I want to
point out that there was a managed access trail program that Peter Douglas
helped create. It's the managed access on this trail protects the lighthouse and
other sensitive resources. We ask that you make three modifications to the
conditions of approval. One, preserve the existing Pedro Coast Trail alignment. Two,
preserve the existing operational agreement. Three, require PG&E to work
with the Lighthouse and your staff to transfer the responsibility for trail
management as interim trail manager to the lighthouse keepers. I spoke for a moment
with Tom Jones from PG&E this morning. They are not opposed to this. They don't want
to be in the trail management business and it's been causing problems. So we really appreciate
your attention to this and we invite all of you and your families and staff and your families
to come out and take a hike, check out the lighthouse. We'd really like to host you.
you. Thank you. Next Scott Buchholz and then Bart Zeigler. Scott go ahead they're
pulling up your presentation. Well hi there thanks I'm Scott Buchholz it's a
pleasure to be here and I kind of wanted to talk about that coastal trail and I
wanted to give you an idea of what it looks like from the top at first. So
everything you've heard so far is from that trailhead at the top right down to
the lighthouse. But the Pedro Coast Trail goes further out to Rilesnake
Canyon. The catch is we're only allowed to do that once a month. That's a PG&E
restriction. Furthermore, I want to give you a view of what Taryn was talking
about with the loss of the trail. We have a zoomed-in view in the bottom left.
Everything in blue disappears. That would go away. The yellow is what's currently
proposed and I just wanted to show you where that trailhead starts with this
dolphin. Okay, this is the exhibit five from PG&E attachment to the staff report
and if we zoom in a little bit on the top you can kind of see that that whole
section isn't really covered well. There's two black dots they've already
decided to use the modified Patrocoast trail and retire it. That's their own
documentation. Again, everything in blue in the bottom left disappears for the
public. What does that look like? We can't take you out there so let's do it
virtually. This is where they start. This was yesterday before we drove down here
and it's beautiful off-road. When they finally get to their location this is
where that trailhead is. You'll notice it's not really on their property
anymore. We're past it. That stairwell points towards PG&E probably should
point towards Avila Beach. And then as you go a little bit further something
magical happens. Something we're all used to on the left is single file. When
you get to the road, which isn't much of a road, everyone can expand and break out.
That's where these interpretation sites are and that's what we get to share from
like Peter Douglas and others who set this up. The kids that we bring out here
are all walks of life. Our favorite, our fourth graders, but I'll leave this with you and
and thanks so much for for letting us be here today. Thank you. Next, Alyssa Buchholz, Bart
Ziegler, David Wiseman. Bart Ziegler? Alyssa Buchholz is next. Hello commissioners, it's good to be here
today. I wanted to talk to you guys about the age restriction on the trail. I always thought it would
be good for younger kids to go on there because when I first went on the trail I learned so many
new things I never knew about before. There was this plant called coyote bush on there.
There's two different types. There's one that has like little flowers on it and then
there's one that's just plants. I thought it was really cool. And I feel like younger
students would like to get, or not students, sorry, kids, would probably get a chance to
learn about that. And I have a little friend who's seven years old. He was really excited
that I was going to be here in San Diego and he's always been wanting to go with
me to the lighthouse so we could see the sights there and the dolphins he said.
He's really sweet. He likes going on bike rides with me. But yeah I just want him
to come with me on the lighthouse but I have to wait, I don't know, many years, a few
years though and yeah I feel like it'd be a good chance for younger kids to be
able to try to go on the hike. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Thank you. Next Bart Ziegler, David Wiseman, Carl Wertz. A Yale history
professor once once told me that we need to protect our institutions, Timothy
Snyder, and I want to thank you for being an institution to protect the coastline.
So this is the first and then also I'm Bart Ziegler, I'm the president of the
Samuel Lawrence Foundation and we're in full support of the Mothers for Peace actions.
I say this in honor and in memory of Daniel Hirsch, who schooled us in the seismic activity
surrounding the plant, and also Digby McDonald from Berkeley Material Science, who had about
two and a half letters after his name, who said that Diablo is the second most embrittled
reactor vessel in the nation.
I urge you to deny the consistency certification and coastal development permit for Diablo
Canyon 5 and 20 years extensions.
The record shows that those operations are inconsistent with the Coastal Act protections
for marine life, coastal hazards, and public resources.
First they went through cooling system caused large scale ongoing biological loss.
Diablo Canyon circulates 2.5 billion gallons
of seawater daily.
State assessments estimate over one and a half billion
fish larva and countless plankton are killed annually
through the entrainment and impingement.
The thermal plume alters the nearby seashore ecology.
Second, the proposed mitigation scientifically mismatched.
The land conservation does not mitigate marine mortality.
The state water board's OTC policy emphasizes direct
or in-kind marine mitigation intake modification
habitat restoration, artificial reefs, or fine mesh screens. None are meaningfully proposed
here. Increasing land acreage does not change the fact that coastal waters will continue
to be biologically depleted every day the OTC operates. Third, the statutory need for
the applicant is no longer clear. SB 846 requires that the operations continue only if the power
is necessary for reliability.
Thank you. David Weissman, Carl Wertz, Robert Shucraft.
Good afternoon. David Weissman aligns for nuclear responsibility. The revised staff
report recycles misleading and inaccurate information from PG&E concerning the feasibility
of a conservation easement for the entire 5,000-acre South Ranch. I direct you to our
written comments for a full description of the CPUC and tax ramifications. Suffice to
say that PG&E's characterization of a South Ranch conservation easement as, quote, financially
burdensome and cost prohibitive to the utility's customers who would pay the full cost for
the encumbrance and rates, is misleading and fails to reflect that SB 846 spreads the environmental
mitigation costs statewide to all CPUC jurisdictional load-serving entities and not only PG&E's
customers. PG&E's two-phase mitigation proposal unlawfully dilutes the already insufficient
mitigation of the 2025 to 2030 impacts even further by attempting to credit the same mitigation
measure impacts out to 2045. This absurdity becomes clearer in the staff report's table
two quantifying, quote, the years to reach full mitigation. PG&E's approach would extend
this net zero point to between 99 and 157 years. How absurd is stretching this biological
payback time? Well, the Social Security Administration's actuarial tables project Governor Newsom's
remaining life expectancy at 24.9 years. Using your staff's estimates, it would therefore
be Governor Newsom's great, great, great, great grandchildren who might be the first
to enjoy the mitigated waters of the Pacific near Diablo. You have until April 15th to
take final action. Clearly meeting this moment requires a higher expectation of
ourselves. Thank you. Thank you. Carl Wurtz, Robert Shucraft, Darryl Gail. Good
afternoon Chair Harmon and Commissioners. I'm Carl Wurtz of Fish
in Transition. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. We support
the proposed mitigation package and staff's recommendation but also believe
Diablo Canyon's hypothetical impacts to marine life are severely overstated and
aren't supported by empirical evidence. Rather than address staff's
recommendation point by point, I have some video evidence to share. Though it's
produced by PG&E, I'm here on my own volition, not on their behalf. In it, you'll
see why the plant is not destroying sea life but serving as a sanctuary for it.
Diablo Cove, located in the Pacific Ocean, is directly adjacent on the shoreline to
the Diablo Canyon Power Plant. As part of its operations, it discharges warmer water
into the ocean. In this video, we're going to take a look at its effects on the marine
environment.
As in any dynamic marine environment, there are changes within the cove, as it is affected
not only by the plant's discharge, but through natural phenomena such as El Nino and winter
storm events. Federal and state regulations limit the water temperature to no warmer than
22 degrees Fahrenheit than incoming seawater.
The discharge from the plant has never exceeded that limitation, and our team of highly qualified
divers and marine biologists find the water in the cove typically about 10% below the
requirement of 22 degrees.
For this reason, within Diablo Cove, the biomass has remained the same.
However, there is a greater occurrence of warm water-loving species, coexisting with
cold water-loving species such as copper rockfish, yellowtail, and wolf eels.
The presence of great whites has also been increasing in the cove, and the tide pools
along the shoreline are alive with anemones, mussels, barnacles, and abalone.
Through what has become the longest-running marine biological study in the United States,
PG&E has performed extensive monitoring in Diablo Cove and the shoreline at its dozens
of control stations since 1976, beginning eight years prior to plant operation.
Quarterly intertidal sampling is also conducted, counting invertebrates and checking the percentage
of algae cover.
These studies are also shared with regulators.
Additionally, a one nautical mile exclusion area acts as a de facto marine preserve for
animals such as a federally protected black abalone and southern sea otters.
Once the power plant seizes operating and transitions to decommissioning the operating
scientists expect warmer water fish will move south and colder water fish will either stay
or move in the water.
Thank you.
Next speaker please.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Robert Shuecraft, Darryl Gale, Frazier Haney.
Good afternoon, Chairman Harmon.
I'm one of many people trying to get over a bad cold and the rest of the commissioners.
I'm Robert Shuecraft.
Kraft, I'm an attorney for Home Fed Corporation.
Home Fed, as you know, is a development company.
It is the lessee under the 1968 lease of Wild Cherry Canyon.
We have a judicially confirmed right
to develop Wild Cherry Canyon for any lawful purpose
for the next 141 years.
PG&E's package does not include any offer or assurance
that Wild Cherry Canyon will not be developed
for any lawful use.
We appreciate staff's additions in Section 2.3 and also the language that was offered
by Mr. Tufill this morning to make it clear that our lease rights are not being impacted
by any of the mitigation measures that are being proposed here.
To be clear, Home Fed's leasehold interest through December 20th, 25th, night 2166, will
not be subject to a conservation easement, will not be subject to a deed restriction,
will not be subject to an option to sell to a state agency or write a first refusal.
Having said this, as we advised in our letter to the commission and to PG&E, home fed is
a willing seller, and we have an interest in selling this property for a fair, appraised
price.
Senator Laird made it very clear today that among the budgets from Senate Bill 846, $40
million was set aside for the acquisition of Wild Cherry Canyon.
Like this, Home Fed, having been a willing seller for many, many years, for decades,
no one has ever come forward and made us an offer to this very day.
Home Fed is open to discussions and we would appreciate any offer from Home Fed, or I'm
sorry, from PG&E.
I would also advise a commission that an appraisal has been performed of our Leashold rights
And as of October 26, 2020, our leasehold rights were valued at $39 million.
These usually did not dispute this appraisal in any of the litigation.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Darryl Gale, Frazier Haney, and Peter Anderson.
I'm Darryl Gale.
You must deny the consistency certification and the coastal development permits.
Don't radiate my favorite beautiful historical city in Northern California, San Luis Obispo.
And how does this, I can't wrap my head around it, 45,000 acres, 12,000 acres, all
this land mitigation stuff, I don't get it. How does it save the fish larvae and
their microscopic friends who have been cooked in daily, hourly hot water
releases for 40 years, thanks to PG&E? Somebody explained to me how that land
mitigation works for marine life, I don't understand. PG&E doesn't have a good
reputation in the rest of California for being careful regarding transmission lines or maintaining
equipment, fires anyone? But damn, they have great PR, especially in Northern California.
We know what's going on, especially in regards to candidate Newsom. Don't do it.
Thank you. Frazier Haney, Peter Anderson, and then we have our speakers.
Good afternoon, Chair Harmon and members of the commission. My name is Frazier Haney.
I'm the executive director for the Wildlands Conservancy,
and I wanted to speak today specifically
about Wild Cherry Canyon.
The Wildlands Conservancy manages
California's largest nature preserve system,
which is open to the public daily for free.
Places like the Windwolves Preserve
or the Jenner Headlands Preserve.
We recently worked with the commission
to open the Estero Americano Coast Preserve
to the public, and we've had other efforts
with the commission in the past.
More recently, too, we've worked on the acquisition
of the Raina Creek Preserve
with the Esalen Tribe of Monterey County,
something that Senator Laird supported.
Thank you very much, Senator.
And we stand here today also to let you know
we're in support of the staff recommendation
for Wild Cherry Canyon,
just specifically that part of the staff recommendation.
And I think that the conservation of Wild Cherry Canyon,
public access to Wild Cherry Canyon, tribal access and a priority on tribal collaborative
management represents real value to the California coast and to the people of California.
And we stand ready to work with all the stakeholders locally, the tribes, home fed, PG&E elected
officials to acquire Wild Cherry Canyon and steward it for a long term and make sure it's
open to the public.
So thank you for your time and consideration today,
and look forward to seeing how this turns out.
Thank you.
Peter Anderson.
And then after that, our first Zoom speakers
will be Madison Schroeder, Jill Zamek, and Gary Kirkland.
Peter Anderson.
Good afternoon.
I have great respect for the Coastal Commission.
You do wonderful work, and I hope you'll
do wonderful work on this occasion.
I wish we were denying the permit for Diablo Canyon
to operate it all.
It is the craziest and most dangerous way
to boil water in the world.
And I understand that approval of a five year permit
is a fait accompli, so let's talk about
the mitigation measures that are so important.
First of all, Sierra Club wants the strongest
conservation measures currently for all 12,000 acres
in the vicinity.
Secondly, we want a conservation easement
on all of South Ranch in phase one,
not delayed but right away in phase one.
We want the conservation plan for Wild Cherry Canyon
outlined in Senator Laird's recent letter to be implemented.
We want marine estuary and wetland restoration.
It is premature to say that Morro Bay is already protected.
some additional protections could be adopted.
But we also believe that Diablo Canyon
represents a threat to the entire California coast
and that you could do mitigation almost anywhere
up and down the coast.
It doesn't have to be delayed
until you can find local mitigation.
Finally, we believe very strongly
in only extending these protections for five years.
There's no rationale, not cost,
No, lack of electricity or anything else
to extend this warrant beyond five years.
And likewise, you should have the strongest mitigations
possible prior to the 2030 timeline.
I was the co-author of the Sierra Club report
on nuclear waste, 140-page document.
And I can tell you that it's one of the most dangerous
technologies that humans have ever invented,
but at least mitigate for it to the extent possible.
Thanks for your attention.
All right, thank you.
And we did have one more in-person.
Colleen Cochran, we moved you to Zoom accidentally
because we saw that you were logged on on Zoom.
Thank you, Kylie.
I logged on this morning, but been here for a bit.
Hi, everyone, thank you.
My name is Colleen Cochran.
I am a current student at the Scripps Institution
of oceanography, studying climate science and policy.
I've also been working in climate for over a decade,
and I work with global organizations
on their climate risk and strategy.
My comments today focus on the need
for a climate risk analysis that aligns
with California's evolving climate governance frameworks,
and on the urgent need for mitigation proportional
to the ecological harm caused by the facilities
once through cooling system.
California's SB261 requires large companies,
including PG&E to assess and disclose
material physical climate risks
using forward-looking scenario-based approaches.
PG&E's own climate strategy report in 2022
states that the company evaluates compound hazards
and pursues nature-positive strategies
including ecosystem restoration.
However, I do not believe these commitments
are fully represented in the application
before the Commission.
As the staff report indicates,
PG&E has not provided a comprehensive climate hazard
analysis for Diablo Canyon.
I urge this commission to consider
how this emerging climate risk landscape of SB261
intersects not only with the Diablo Canyon permit,
but with other corporate sites that come before this body.
Allowing the commission's expectation
with climate risk frameworks that companies are already
adopting will reduce confusion, lower compliance burdens,
and advance consistent science-based
environmental protections.
To my next point, as we've heard from others
and from the staff presentation this morning,
there is ecological harm is discreet, ongoing,
and biologically significant,
particularly for near shore productivity,
forage species, and trophic dynamics.
The mitigation package, as you again have heard,
largely centers on upland conservation and public access.
And while this is incredibly important,
there is no dedicated funding
to marine or near shore ecosystem restoration,
tied to actual mitigation and meaningful and proportional
to the harms as required by the Coastal Act.
Thank you.
Yeah, just in closing, therefore,
would like to propose for a complete scenario-based
climate hazard assessment and mitigation
that is proportional to the harms
and focused on marine restoration.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And Chris, before we move to Zoom,
I just want to make an announcement
for everyone who's waiting to speak.
We're gonna take 30 more minutes of two-minute comments
and then we'll be switching to one minute
We want to make sure that we hear from everyone.
So if you could be as focused as possible in your comments
and allow us to hear from everybody,
we'd really appreciate it.
So we'll go down to one minute at 2.40.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'll just note that we have about 37 people sign up
to speak on Zoom.
For those speaking on Zoom, I'm just
going to give a recap or a breakdown of our procedures,
just so things run smoothly.
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.
And then when we prompt you to be moved to panelists,
please accept so things go smoothly.
So first up again, Madison Schroeder,
Jill Zamek and Gary Kirkland.
Madison Schroeder, go ahead.
Great.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
My name is Madison Schroeder, and I'm
here on behalf of Generation Atomic.
We are a nonprofit advocating for nuclear power,
and many of our volunteers live in California and San
Louis Obispo.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak in support of extending
Diablo Canyon's operations.
I'd like to address three key points for your consideration.
First, Diablo Canyon represents one
of California's largest single sources
of carbon-free electricity.
The loss of this baseload capacity would create an immediate clean energy deficit.
Historical evidence from nuclear closures and other jurisdictions demonstrates that
natural gas generation typically increases to fill this gap, even as renewable capacity
continues to expand.
This outcome would directly undermine California's climate commitments and the coastal health
that depends on climate stability.
Second, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has conducted a rigorous environmental review
that directly addresses the question before you.
The NRC site-specific supplemental environmental impact statement compared to continued operations
against replacement power alternatives, including both purchased power from existing facilities
and a renewable combination with solar, wind, storage, and geothermal.
Their analysis found that both replacement alternatives would have environmental impacts
in multiple resource areas that exceed those of continued operations.
The renewables alternative would require substantial new construction, significant land use, water
resource and ecological impacts. The NRC determined that continued operations would result in
small environmental impacts across all resource categories, while replacement alternatives showed
potential for moderate or large impacts in several areas. Their conclusion was unambiguous. The
environmentally preferred alternative is licensed renewal. Third, the proposed mitigation package
provides substantial and permanent environmental benefits. The conservation easements offer
for watershed protection and directly benefits
marine ecosystems along with approximately 25 miles
of public access trails.
Approving the permit through 2045 aligns
with California's statutory climate objectives
while advancing coastal resource protection.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Next, Jill Zamak, Gary Kirkland, and Erika Steil.
Gary Kirkland, please accept being promoted to panelist.
Gary, Jill Zamak, go ahead.
Hi, I live downwind from dirty and dangerous Diablo Canyon in a Royal Grande.
Construction began in the late 1960s, yet it didn't go online until 1985.
This is a very old plant, sited in an active earthquake zone.
There is no permanent solution for storage of the enormous amount of high level radioactive
waste it continues to generate.
Extending the operation prolongs and exacerbates the risk to public safety and furthermore,
need for its energy is not certain. I urge the Commission to reject PG&E's efforts to
extend the life of Diablo Canyon and deny its applications for consistency certification
and a coastal development permit. As staff acknowledges, the proposed extension is inconsistent
with the Coastal Act policies meant to protect the marine environment. The severity of the
detrimental impacts to the ocean due to the once through cooling system is undisputed.
And although I'm in favor of preserving land when the plant is decommissioned, no amount
of land can mitigate 40-plus years of damage.
Stop the waivers and concessions, follow the Clean Water Act, and deny these permits.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next, Gary Kirkland, Ara Castello, and Bill Woodbridge.
Gary Kirkland.
Gary, you're in as a panelist.
You should be able to unmute.
I'm muted. Hi, Gary Kirkland from Atascadero. I'm a biologist. I know that
when an organism dies, another one benefits from it. The idea that you can
save an environment is absurd if you look at the history of the earth. When
one environment goes away, another one comes with it. Also, you cannot conserve
land. Land just stays as it is or it changes. And to the history of the earth,
the land has changed tremendously. And the earth is still here, humans are still here.
Also, based on their prior behavior, if the first settlers, which I call them as a group,
because they came here from Siberia, if they get ahold of that land, they're going to put on casinos
like they did down in Solvang. That's not preserving the land by even the definition
of people who talk on here you can't conserve land it's not possible the land still stays there
Diablo is a huge advantage to the economy of San Luis Obispo in the state of California
and it provides jobs it provides income and a steady reliable source of electricity
which wind and solar do not and wind and solar are not clean they provide all kinds of damage
to the environment, anything you do according to use people, damage the environment if you
change it at any. All you've done is change the environment. So I'm strongly urging the
Coastal Commission to not only support the five-year plan, but urge the legislature to
do the 20-year plan to protect a vital resource for the state and the county of San Luis
Obispo. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Next, Ara Castillo, Bill Woodbridge, and Nadia Kauja.
Ara Castillo.
Looks like my video is disabled. I guess that's okay. I'll start now.
You should be able to start it now through you.
Thank you. I'm Ara. I live here in So County.
For years, this commission has consulted with YTT Northern Chumash leaders,
extracting their time and expertise without compensation
while state contractors receive million dollar payouts.
For years, you've affirmed your commitment
to tribal land return in your own policy documents.
And now, when the moment arrives to honor those commitments,
things suddenly become complicated.
Are they complicated, or do they simply require courage?
Staff continues to rely on the NAHC contact list, which
is widely known to erroneously list proven pretend Indians
and their organizations, including speakers
on this topic.
That is part of why the list is in the process
of being amended now.
That is also why Senator Laird, Supervisor Bruce Gibson,
and Supervisor Don Ortiz-Lague
have all publicly expressed their support
for YTT and YTT only.
If we want to be truly different from the settlers
who violently colonized this land in the first place,
we can no longer afford the polite racism of bureaucracy.
There is no progress without justice.
Justice is the foundation.
Without justice, everything we build,
no matter how well-intentioned, is already broken.
And maybe you're okay with this.
Maybe you see nothing wrong with protecting the land
on paper while excluding and exploiting the people
who've protected it for millennia.
But if you're not, if you're tired of going along
with the status quo, if you feel deep down
that you might just be the right person at the right time
to do what seemed impossible a moment ago,
amend your staff recommendation.
It really is that simple.
make land return a binding commitment,
not an aspiration for some distant future,
return the land to YTT.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next, Bill Woodbridge, Nadia Kaujah,
and Gianna Patchen.
Bill Woodbridge.
Hi, commissioners.
Thank you very much for your time today.
You're muted, sir.
Can you hear me now?
Yes, we can.
Go ahead.
Okay, thank you very much, commissioners, for your time.
I am in favor of Assemblyperson Addis's comments about making the conservation of, especially
the South Ranch, but all of the Diablo Canyon conservation immediately, not hung up on some
thing that the gas company may or may not do.
I'm very concerned that PG&E pays no taxes to anybody
for all of the benefits they get.
And yet the rate payers bills continue to go up.
That's a quandary.
Most concerning is the amount of water,
two and a half billion gallons a day
that is sucked out of the ocean
and poured back into the ocean, heating it up.
We are creating dead zones along our coast.
14 square miles of overheated toxic water
along this coastal area is not good.
It prevents mammals, sea mammals and fish
from living like they should or could or would.
On top of that,
The amount of water sucked in
is killing one and a half billion fish a year.
That is not an ecologically good thing to happen.
It needs to stop.
The ocean environment is critical.
It's been devastated for 40 years.
It's continuing to be devastated
by this out flush of hot water every day.
Please deny these actions.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Nadia Khawja, Gianna Patchin, and Clint Olivier.
Nadia.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
My name is Nadia.
I'm a 26-year-old born and raised Californian
who will live with the consequences
of the decisions made here
long after this facility stops operating.
I'm urging you to deny the consistency certification
and coastal development permit
for both the five and 20-year extensions at Diablo Canyon.
We've already seen the consequences
of stranded spent nuclear fuel at San Onofre,
sitting on an eroding coastline with no relocation plan.
Diablo Canyon risks becoming a second San Inofre,
but this time with additional decades of waste production
and no credible disposal pathway.
Diablo Canyon's OTC system pulls in 2.5 billion gallons
of seawater each day and warm discharge water
stresses kelp forests, algae and fisheries communities
that young Californians value economically,
ecologically and culturally.
What concerns me most is that the proposed mitigation
is not marine mitigation.
California's own cooling policies stress
that mitigation for marine harm should reduce
or compensate for marine mortality
that has not been proposed.
As someone who will inherit both the coastal risks
and the waste inventory, I'm asking you to consider
what intergenerational equity looks like
under the Coastal Act.
Extending Diablo Canyon without direct marine mitigation
and without a viable long-term waste solution
shifts the burden onto Californians who had no voice
in the decision that created it.
If Diablo Canyon cannot operate
without continued unmitigated harm.
And if its waste will remain on this coastline indefinitely,
then it does not meet the Coastal Acts mandate
to protect and restore coastal resources.
You are the Coastal Commission.
It is your sole job to protect the coast.
So please protect it instead of sacrificing it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next, Gianna Patchen, Clint Olivier,
and then Julian Lake, Gianna Patchen.
Good morning, commissioners.
I'm Gianna Patchen,
the Sierra Club's Santa Lucia chapter coordinator,
representing over 4,000 Sierra Club members
and supporters here in San Josefispo County.
Thank you for the staff report revisions.
As many others have shared,
there are three key elements
that still need your attention today.
One, marine restoration mitigation requirements.
Two, a conservation easement on all of South Ranch.
And three, that all mitigations should be required
in phase one within the five year CDP timeline.
Additionally, we support land back
and inclusive tribal access policies
for all local tribal groups throughout this process.
Today, I'm here to emphasize, in particular,
that in-kind marine conservation
can and should be part of the mitigation package
to bring the project closer to the Coastal Act requirements
and shorten the lengthy mitigation and timeline.
In November, we appreciated commissioners' questions
about marine mitigations,
but you received insufficient answers
that warrant further discussion.
Today, we ask you to push further
and give more consideration to marine mitigations
that we are not currently seeing in this mitigation package.
First of all, any amount of estuarine, wetland,
or marine restoration is preferable to none.
Second, it's premature to consider Morro Bay Estuary
as already protected.
As long as there are people living near Morro Bay,
it will need ongoing conservation efforts.
Third, there is no need for marine mitigation
to solely focus on the nearest area.
Marine restoration can be done both nearby
and or across the California coast.
And lastly, the staff report's objection
that it would take several years
to identify restoration sites is out of place
when even the most comprehensive
land conservation mitigations will take over 30 years
to fully mitigate the five-year extension.
We can look to successful marine restoration examples
like the Delta Stewardship Council's 12,000 acres
of estuary habitat restoration,
as well as many local conservation efforts
that need support in phase of budget cuts,
including in Moreau Bay, Point Sal,
and
the
please ask today, why can't off-site
estuary and wetland habitat mitigation
be part of this mitigation package?
So far, the reasoning we've heard is insufficient.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next Clint Olivier, Julian Lake,
and then Jack Neff, Clint Olivier.
Good morning.
My name is Clint Olivier.
I'm the president and chief executive officer
of the Central Valley Business Federation.
At bizoy.
We support an all of the above energy strategy here in the Central Valley in California and Diablo Canyon is a key part of that. It's safe. It's reliable. It's environmentally responsible, as has been proven over and over again.
And it produces clean power for millions of Californians extending its operations, strengthens grid reliability, and keeps energy affordable as we continue expanding renewables statewide, especially down here in current county.
please approve this extension.
It's a smart, balanced step
toward California's energy future.
Thank you.
Next, Julian Lake, Jack Neff,
and then Gene Nelson, Julian Lake.
Hello, Chair Harmon and commissioners.
Thank you.
On behalf of the Bay Area Council,
I am speaking to express our strong support
for the approval of the necessary coastal development
permits and consistency certification
for the continued operation
of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant through 2030.
As a leading voice for the Bay Area's business
and civic community, we recognize Diablo Canyon's
critical role in ensuring California's reliable
carbon free electricity supply as state works,
as the state works towards its ambitious climate
and clean energy goals.
We understand the Coastal Commission's review
must ensure the protection of California's
coastal resources and we believe that the Diablo Canyon
Power Plant has taken the appropriate mitigation measures
and continues ongoing oversight of the environmental impacts
of continued operation.
I myself have visited Diablo Canyon and witnessed
the ecosystem that has been grown in the wake of the plant,
which is unique and prosperous.
The Bay Area Council has seen this thriving marine
ecosystem and respectfully urges the commission
to approve the pending permit applications
that allow Diablo Canyon to continue operation
as an essential operation in California's
clean energy future.
Doing so aligns with the state's climate,
economic, and environmental objectives.
The Diablo Canyon power plant provides 9%
of California's clean energy and 70%
of its clean power moving at a time
when energy demands are exponentially increasing
would be a grievous mistake.
If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Jack Neff, Jean Nelson, and Susan Harvey.
Jack Neff, you keep declining being promoted in.
You won't be able to speak if you keep declining.
Jack Neff, and Jack Neff, you should be able to unmute now.
Thank you.
Chair of the Coastal Commission and board members
of the California Coastal Commission,
Uh, have asked you to do two things. One is to, um, uh,
reject PG and E's application to continue using Diablo Canyon,
uh, functioning as a, uh, nuclear reactor on the California coast in a
seismically active area that, uh, consumes 2.5 billion gallons of
ocean water every day, uh, and also reject, um, the staff
recommendation to accept the PG and E's current mitigation that they upped since last month.
As PG and E's representative stated earlier this morning, that the mitigation being offered
as to the north and south portions and the Cherry Canyon is land mitigation entirely
mitigate the damages that PG&E's reactor, Diablo Canyon reactor, the damage that it
does to the ocean, the 2.5 billion gallons of water a day and countless microscopic and
tiny sea life that creates a 14-square-mile impact zone.
And so the mitigation doesn't match up.
mitigation of the land, offering mitigation of the land, mitigation of
land does not remediate the ocean. Diablo Canyon has harmed the ocean and PG&E
needs to remediate its damage. Also, there is no mention of remediation of the land.
What happens when PG&E pulls out after operating for 40, 50 or more years with
with their decaying nuclear waste laying around the land.
Thank you.
Next, Gene Nelson, Susan Harvey, and then Alice McNally.
Gene Nelson.
Chair Harmony and members of the California Coastal Commission, my name is Dr. Gene Nelson,
the President and Senior Legal Researcher for CGMP.
We generally support the staff recommendations regarding extending Diablo Canyon's operations
at least until 2045.
working to help develop the needed state legislation to run to 2045. The plan is seismically rugged
as was demonstrated by the magnitude 6.6 cent singing earthquake in 2003. We've documented
that Diablo Canyon operations are very cost effective at the high end of operating a hydroelectric
dam. Next slide. Next slide.
CGMP provided you with a copy of Dr. Siever Wang's December 3rd Breakthrough Institute
analysis showing the overestimation of California Coastal Convention claims.
Next slide. I recently toured the Diablo Canyon, noted the abundant sea life.
Next slide. CGN-P employs sea lions as an indicator species. These carnivorous marine mammals
consume between 15 and 40 pounds of fish and cephalopods per day.
Next slide. Here's what they eat. Next slide. So we have lion rock here, and this is the
the largest island in the Diablo Canyon outflow cove at about 4.1 acres. There are sea lions
in the lion's haunches. The white color is a dried sea lion waste products accumulated
over the years after they have consumed the abundant sea life. Next slide. There's a close
up of sea lions. Next slide. Here's a thriving sea lion colony with thousands of animals
on lion rock with Diablo Canyon in the background. There were 1,383 sea lions in 1979 by May
There were 7,595 sea lions, a more than five-fold increase in about 40 years.
Next slide.
Great white sharks are now congregating offshore of Diablo Canyon to consume the abundant sea
lions and their young.
Surfers, beware.
Next slide.
We need to protect the cultural heritage of the YTT northern Chumash and any plan to increase
public access to Diablo Canyon land.
Keep Diablo Canyon running.
Thank you.
Thank you.
for three more speakers at two minutes and then we'll be moving to one minute. We still
have a large number of people. Next will be Susan Harvey, Alice McNally, and Ben Lippert.
Those will be our last three at two minutes. Susan Harvey.
I'm Susan Harvey speaking for California Land Watch. We'd like to underscore the wording
of Special Condition 19, Federal Consistency Authorization, which the concurrence of in
The consistency certification authorizes operation till 2024 and 2025 or until the license expiration
dates approved by the NRC for the license renewal application if earlier than such dates.
The Admiral Canyon clearly is not locked into a 20-year operating period by the NRC licensing
process.
Our comments cited the precedent from the Indian Point Nuclear Plant and the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation in which the utility was required by the state
agency to file an amended NRC application requesting certification of a final date of
operation much earlier than the maximum 20-year period. It is clear at your November meeting and
in today's staff report that no amount of mitigation can mitigate for 20 more years of
of Diablo Canyon's marine impacts on any feasible timescale.
Only a restriction of the plant's licensing period to 2030
would make it possible to certify consistency
with the CCMP.
Alternatively, you could include a condition to the CDP
requiring PG&E to include in its renewal license application
a request for a 2030 end date that would negate the need
for a commission to make a finding of the CCMP consistency.
This would also align with the end date
for the plants operation with the dates mandated
by SB 846.
PG&E can request an NRC licensing term ending in 2030
and the Coastal Commission can require that they do so.
We request that you make that condition
part of your decision today.
Thank you so much.
Thank you. Next, Alice McNally, Ben Lippert, and then Randy Altergot. Alice McNally. Alice,
you are already in the panels. You should be able to unmute. Can you hear me? Yes, we
can hear you. Go ahead. Extending the operation of Diablo Canyon beyond the end of the licensing
period is counter to the commission's core mission defined by the Coastal Act to protect
the coast and ensure public access. The longer Diablo Canyon is allowed to operate, the longer
it will be off limits to the public. No amount of mitigation suggested in the staff report
makes this a reality and only enables PG&E to continue operation. The proposed mitigation plan
in the staff report is grossly inadequate given the impacts associated with Diablo's continued
operations. The energy for Diablo is no longer needed as California's greenhouse gas targets
can be met by the significant increase in new renewables.
Seismic safety has not been determined.
Diablo Canyon is built on interconnecting and active earthquake faults.
Japan is now on alert and is checking their nuclear plants for earthquake damage as we
speak.
Plans for the storage of high-level radioactive waste are uncertain.
PG&E plans to store accumulated waste in the spent fuel pools, which is significantly
more risky than the dry cast. That the Commission continued this item on the November meeting
gives me hope that you are listening and will not rubber stamp PG&E's operation extensions.
Vote no and return all 12,000 acres back to the public as agreed upon and expected for
the last 25 years. Thank you.
Thank you. Next is Ben Lippert, Harandi Altergott, and then Kyla Detman. Ben Lippert.
Thank you, commissioners and staff. Before I start, I need to point out that it's kind
of ridiculous to go so far over time playing a literal advertisement for PG&E, but then
you're cutting comments in half for actual people. My name is Ben Lippert. I'm a resident
and parent of two children in San Luis Obispo. I'll say that as someone who can't text commissioners
for ex-party communications, and I don't have this deep experience that the staff elected
officials have, I do really appreciate all the work everyone has put into this proposal.
But as an outsider, there feels like kind of an overall area of inevitability, the proceeding.
So for me, it's important that what I say brings a perspective that just hasn't been
represented.
The staff proposal has specific impacts on the value of land surrounding Diablo Canyon.
Our local community, including our schools, rely on property tax revenue from the plant
and its surrounding area.
And we've already suffered a multimillion dollar loss of tax revenue, despite the plant's
ongoing operations. And up to you that loss in revenue is
really small, it's hyper local, and I'm sure it doesn't move the
needle. And it's, you know, sign a rounding error for PG&E, but
it matters for our kids. You know, last night I had band
kids that I never met before asking me what they can do
because there's a board meeting on Tuesday to make sure they
have money to repair their instruments. And I owe it to
them to make sure that when you're deciding, what adversely
affects the public welfare, that they're being considered, at
least nominally. And next is a very just out of practice environmental attorney. I'll say that I
really appreciate that the staff worked hard on this recommendation with both PG&E and Senator
Laird looking over their shoulders metaphorically or not. There's kind of inherent absurdity that
once one month ago you had a plan that was you know mitigation to the maximum extent feasible
and then we're back and it's well know this time it's maximum extent feasible.
I'll just say that the plan has a lot of hand wavy language uncertainty rate pairs uncertainty of
of outcomes, uncertainty of regulatory processes.
Mitigation efforts appear to qualify for ESHA,
usually qualify, that sort of thing.
Again, I don't think this moves the needles,
but if you get to judicial review,
people much smarter and more experienced than me
are gonna be pouring over this
for those kinds of reasons.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
And repeating again earlier,
everyone now will have one minute to speak.
We have a total of 23 signups.
still in order to speed things up for us.
We will not be moving you in as panelists.
We will allow you to speak in as an attendee.
This also means that you will not
be able to turn your camera on,
you will just be able to speak.
So next is Randy Altergot, Kyla Detman,
and then Ryan Afsall.
Ryan Altergot, you should be able to unmute.
Thank you commissioners.
Good afternoon, my name is Randy Altergot.
I am a resident of Guadalupe, California.
So maybe about 20, 25 miles south of Diablo Canyon.
I want to speak in favor of the both items on the agenda
to continue operation of Diablo Canyon.
As a member of kind of an underserved community,
I think it's economically in our favor
to continue the usage of the power from Diablo Canyon
because renewables are gonna cost more
and it's gonna raise our rates,
and the rates go up anyway,
but it's gonna raise me more.
So at least for the time being,
I think it's important to keep Diablo Canyon going.
And I think the significant progress that your staff
and PG&E made on the mitigation also is very helpful.
So I am in support and I urge you to be in support also.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Kyla Detman, Ryan Afsall and Chris Goldblatt.
Kyla Detman.
Hi Chair, Harmon and commissioners.
I'm Kyla Detman, Executive Director of the Land Conservancy
of San Luis Obispo County,
our community's regional nonprofit land trust.
We've been deeply engaged for several years
in thoughtful local planning for the future
of the Diablo Canyon lands and are concerned
that the recommended special conditions
are not consistent with our community's vision.
So quickly for North Ranch,
we urge you to at least include conservation organizations
and tribes as potential recipients of the proposed offer
to dedicate on an equal level with state agencies.
I think that is being proposed today
and we agree with that change.
For the South Ranch, there is a,
under special condition 2.1, top of page 22,
it still states that government agencies
will have the right of first refusal
before conservation organizations and tribes.
And we urge you to correct that language
so that tribes will have the first right of refusal.
For Wild Cherry Canyon, we would agree
with the modifications to add nonprofit
land conservation organizations and local government.
And finally, I want to emphasize
that it is time to treat YTT Tribe as a project leader
and partner and an eligible conservation entity
that can and should be relied on to own
and steward their ancestral homelands.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Our last two speakers did a great job
condensing their comments down to one minute.
Next is Ryan Afzal, Chris Goldblatt, Susan Kirks.
Ryan Afzal, you should be able to unmute now.
Hello, can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
My name is Ryan.
I'm a PhD student at Cal studying nuclear engineering.
I want to remind the commission that closure of Diablo Canyon runs a substantial risk
of increasing California's use of natural gas, which is a lethal energy source similar
to what happened when San Onofo was shut down a decade ago.
Last month and now it has been brought up that Diablo Canyon would need to be replaced
with 8 to 12 gigawatts of new solar and battery storage.
At the same meeting last month I believe it was Commissioner Lopez who mentioned the dangerous
nature of battery energy storage facilities catching on fire.
To expand on that concern, lithium batteries are extremely hazardous in large quantities
when they catch on fire, they are extremely difficult to put out, will continue to burn
until their energy is exhausted. As they burn, they emit toxic fluoride and cyanide gas,
as well as heavy metals like cobalt that they contain. These chemicals will contaminate
our communities who live near these facilities. There's far too little control or regulation
of their safety, especially compared with the strict oversight of the NRC. It is an
unacceptable risk to Californians to be building dozens of these storage facilities near our
communities. I strongly support the staff recommendation and urge the Commission to adopt
Further, I strongly support the continued operation of Diablo Canyon in the event the
license extension is approved.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next, Chris Goldblatt, Susan Kirks and then Theodore Rettay.
Chris Goldblatt.
Good afternoon, everyone.
In March, 2023, Fish Reef Project placed 16 sea cave reefs and 37 feet of water in Galleta
Bay.
The sea caves have been proven to sustain a high density kelp forest for two years now
and have created breeding, hiding, and foraging grounds
for a large number of marine species and marine mammals.
We're asking the Coastal Commission
to consider this ready-made in lieu fee mitigation
for marine mitigation and to direct the operator
to fund $3 million for the expansion of this project,
which would pay for permitting and about 25%
of the planned 65 acre kelp restoration reef
that we're currently working on.
This is ideal mitigation of 65 acres of thriving kelp forest
We do very well to bring back a lot of coastal species and we seek full tribal inclusion.
Everyone please have a look at the project at FishReef.org and we look forward to working
with everybody moving forward on this important initiative to bring back and help ocean life
thrive.
Thank you.
Next is Susan Kirks followed by Theodore Rete and then Nina Beattie, Susan Kirks.
Thank you.
Good afternoon.
Susan Kirks, conservationist.
I align with the EDC presentation and Mothers for Peace, 2.5 billion gallons of seawater
extracted for this nuclear power plant and the loss of sea life are so horrifying.
I have thought about this every single day since your last meeting when this agenda item
was initially heard.
today, not one elected official mentioned the 2.5 billion gallons of seawater and loss
of marine life, but the tribal representatives did mention it in honoring the unceded lands
and the ocean and the earth.
So I encourage you to please deny this federal consistency determination and deny the permit.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
We had Theodore Raté and then he just disappeared so we will come back to him in a second if
he reappears.
We'll move on to Nita Beattie, Tom Cunhart, and then Farish Day Bunk.
Nita Beattie, I see that you're on a phone.
You should be able to unmute now.
Good afternoon.
I'm Nita Beattie from Monterey.
are in breach of their contract to close beat Diablo Canyon reject the
consistent consistency determination and CDP and uphold the contract staff
admits it doesn't conform to the Coastal Act it adversely affects public welfare
and the mitigations whitewash the Commission cannot override section 30260
how can you allow PG&E to operate this plan in the coastal zone it's deficient
management homicide conviction historic safety problems building defects etc
etc threaten public safety PG&E hides a 1970 nuclear accident
Humboldt Bay. Leaders say repeatedly PG&E can't be trusted. The myths need to be
debunked. Diablo is unreliable power. One or both reactors are offline 40% of the
time due to unplanned and planned outages. Diablo emits carbon, radioactive
carbon-14, bio accumulates in the environment absorbed in the bloodstream
and transfers to all bodies organs causing cancer. This energy uses carbon
in all its phases as well. Diablo is expensive, costly to build, operate,
refuel, decommission, et cetera.
The faults cause daily earthquake risk.
At least one reactor is embedded.
Over 2.2 billion hot water heats the ocean every day
and the emissions heat the atmosphere.
It emits tritium, which is radioactive hydrogen,
which bonds to form radioactive water.
Please reject the CDP and the CD and uphold the law.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Tom Cunhart, Ferris de Bunk, and Sabrina Too.
Tom, you should be able to unmute now.
There we go.
I'm unmuted thank you commissioners,
I appreciate the opportunity to speak today.
I would ask the Coastal Commission
to protect all 12,000 acres now
in phase one of the mitigation project.
I like some of the proposals we've heard
about through marine mitigation
because land mitigation is not going to cut it
for restoring the marine life.
And we can replace nuclear at Diablo Canyon
with solar wind and storage.
The new storage methodologies are sodium iron phosphate,
which is not flammable.
And so that's much safe for technology.
And it's proven it's gonna be the largest form
of new power generated and built rather
across the country this year
as it has for the last several years,
and it's cheaper and it's safer for everybody.
So I would ask you to please not support the extension.
Thank you Theodore Ratte came back.
So we will take you now, you can unmute.
Thank you Chairwoman Harmon and commissioners.
My name is Theodore Ratte, I'm a frequent visitor
to the beautiful areas surrounding the Apple Canyon.
And I'm also the parent of two amazing daughters,
Noel and Faith.
And I'd like to speak specifically toward
the Patro Coast Trail aspect. On page 119 there's a proposal about realignment of the
Patro Coast Trail. I've had the opportunity to hike on this trail and I've seen just truly
amazing things here on the trail segments, especially the trail segments that are co-located
with the not used, not busy, and very safe Coast Guard road that goes to the lighthouse.
I would also like to bring my daughters,
but due to the overly restrictive requirements,
I'm not able to until they reach money years later.
So please make these changes and thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Next, Fareshta Bunk, Sabrina Two, and Scott Lathrop.
Fareshta Bunk.
Hi, thank you.
My name is Fareshta Bunk.
I'm with Mothers for Nuclear.
We support approval of Diablo's coastal development permit
and federal consistency.
We appreciate the clarification in the staff report
that a future coastal development permit extension
can be extradited, considering mitigation
for the full NRC term has now been established.
We're disappointed that the staff report
fails to update their claims once through cooling harm
despite scientists' comments countering.
The 2.5 billions of gallons of seawater
that Diablo circulates is the tiniest fraction
of the approximately 187 quintillion gallons
in the Pacific Ocean,
and likely reuses water previously cycled through.
The entrainment studies also explicitly overestimate harm
while the adult marine populations
are obviously consistently thriving.
Although we're glad PG&E has been able to show its care
for the community by responding to everyone's requests,
it is disappointing to see this clean
and environmentally friendly resource blind.
Thank you so much for your time today.
Thank you.
Sabrina Tu, Scott Lathrop, and Abigail Harrison, Sabrina Tu.
Your harmony commissioners,
thank you for the opportunity to speak.
My name is Sabrina Tu and I'm a graduate student
at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
I wanna express my support for Senator Laird's
recommendation of the full permanent conservation
of all 12,000 acres of Diablo Canyon lands,
but echoing what others have already shared,
I believe more can and should be done
to directly address the harm occurring in the ocean.
I encourage the commission to add ocean-based mitigation
into the proposed package,
consistent with the scale and nature of the impacts.
The staff report notes that the entrainment
reduces larval supply and connectivity within nearby MPAs,
which is inconsistent with the Coastal Act's requirements
and undermines the ecological functions
for which the MLPA network was designed for.
The loss of billions of early life stages each year
has real consequences for fisheries and coastal communities
impacts that land conservation alone cannot mitigate.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Next, Scott Lathrop, Abigail Harrison and Leslie Purcell.
Scott Lathrop.
Thank you very much.
My name is Scott Lathrop.
I'm a resident of San Luis Obispo, California,
and thank you for the opportunity to comment
on the matters before the commission.
The proposed actions have raised concerns due
to current review and approval of items T8B and nine.
This proposed linkage seems to only serve
to justify the commission's overreach of authority.
The commission's authority is to conduct
a consistency review of the NRC.
Thank you. Next is Abigail Harrison.
I'll play Leslie Purcell and Nancy Okada.
Abigail Harrison, you should be able to unmute.
Good afternoon.
My name is Abigail and I'm
a Slough County resident and concerned community member.
Whether or not this recommendation is approved or whether or not
this power plant is decommissioned tomorrow or 20 years from now,
tribal land return to Yaktiju-Tiju-Yaktilhini should be a priority of the property today.
As it's been said over and over,
the land is untouched and has been protected.
The state of California states tribal land return as a priority.
I'd like to speak to a comment made by Supervisor Laird
Representatives Ms. Woodruff in last month's meeting saying YTT
isn't ready for a land of this scope and size.
That is an extremely condescending statement that echoes the words of her
forebears, not YTT's. Indigenous people know exactly how to
care for and steward their lands. Yactichu-Tichu-Yactilhini has been
operating in conservation spaces since time immemorial and are the sole
tribal experts of this county. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Leslie Purcell followed by Nancy Okada.
Leslie. Hello, it's Leslie Purcell. I would like to uplift the Mothers of Peace comments,
additional conservation of South Ranch, enhancement, kelp forests offshore
to mitigate for the marine life damage. I believe that we don't really need this power plant.
We have more solar, wind, geothermal, and new battery storage possibilities. So we need
a plan also for the radioactive waste. It's not really a clean technology. When you look at
uranium mining, processing, transport, the energy costs there, and the radioactive waste, which has
no real way to be mitigated so I would appreciate if you deny the permit
consistency or at least just the five years thank you very much appreciate all
your work thank you and next is Nancy Okada you can hear me right we can hear
you good afternoon good afternoon commissioners Nancy Okada thank you for
opportunity to comment I also echo all the environmental comments that have
been made by various organizations and the concern about this power plant being
continued to operate and so I would urge you to deny the consistency review but
among some of the more important things I want to reiterate is conservation
easement on all of North Ranch we need that we need really marine restoration
mitigations as well. Dumping all that hot water into the ocean is not very
good for it. And we also would like to have the five-year CDP also include all
the mitigations. The other thing is about, we've been very lucky we haven't had a
big earthquake there. And Fukushima was one example that we saw afar and they
had a recently had a very big earthquake again in the same area. It's only a
matter of time California is sitting on many faults. Please deny this application. Thank you.
Thank you. And now I'm going to list names that we weren't able to find in our Zoom list.
There are a few names that I see on Zoom that are generic names like iPhone and other things.
I will also note that we do have a lot of speaker requests that we got after the cutoff time when
the item started. If you are one of those people, unfortunately we will not be able
to accept your testimony at this time. I'm going to list off the names that we
are unable to find. If you are one of those people, raise your hand in the
attendee list. Heidi Harmon, Linda Sealy, Leila Cabugos, Andrew Taylor, Rachel
Waylon, Tony Horda, Kaleah Conrad, Vicky Connor, Greg
Haskin. Again, if I call your name, please raise your hand. I
see one person under the name iPhone. Can you please unmute
yourself and state your name?
Hello, this is Leila Cabugos.
Go ahead.
Hi, commissioners. I'm a resident of Oceano. Thank you
for hearing my testimony. The theme that I wanted to raise is
generally in support of the proposals that Don Addis has introduced but that really each of the
complications to improving the mitigation plan that have been raised by PG&E, there seems to be
a strong case that they are feasible as expressed by other speakers. So I'm heartened that you have
until April 15th to to finalize this process and I just hope that you feel empowered and committed
to taking the time to to really realizing the commit the community's vision and getting this
right now. I don't see a case for leaving anything aside for a phase two and that doesn't seem
justified by the duration of time that it would take to mitigate the the impact of five years of
operation. So I encourage you. Thank you. Thank you. I now see Kalea Conrad. Kalea
Conrad, you should be able to unmute now. Hello, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear
you. Okay, I don't know how to turn on my camera. You won't be able to at this
moment. Just please go ahead. Okay, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My
comment today focuses on the ensuring that the decommissioning of Diablo Canyon results in lasting
measurable benefits for the central coast both on land and offshore. To achieve that PG&E must
commit to strong permanent protections for all 12,000 acres included in phase one beginning with
a full conservation easement on the entirety of South Ranch. These lands are some of the most
ecologically and culturally significant on the California coast as you all know and I urge PG&E
to adopt the strongest possible conservation standards to actively support Senator Laird's
Wild Cherry Canyon Conservation Plan which offers once in a lifetime a chance to secure these lands
for the public and for future stewardship. But conservation has to extend beyond the shoreline
to the kelp forests. Once thriving in 2014 to 2018, the Pacific coast has lost more than 90%
of our kelp forests, and PG&E can play a significant role in restoring some of that
crucial habitat to our coastline, especially given these types of cleanup that they've
caused over the last several decades. Thank you. All right, thank you. Now we have Rachel Weyland.
Thank you. Good afternoon, I'm Rachel Weyland, the Governmental Affairs Coordinator at the San
Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce. We were at the November 6th meeting and are here again today to
express our support for PG&E's continued long-term operations at Diablo Canyon. Diablo Canyon provides
nearly 10% of California's power and does so without emitting carbon. Losing this source of
clean energy generation 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. We cannot meet our current needs for electrification
without the carbon-free power of Diablo Canyon Power Plant. Nuclear power is a dependable carbon-free
source of power. Diablo Canyon stands as the largest private employer in Slough 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,
future, and environment. Thank you. And we are still missing Heidi Harmon, Linda Seeley, Andrew
Taylor, Tony Horda, Vicki Connor, and Greg Haskin. Okay, I'm seeing one more hand raised.
Under the name iPhone, please state your name. iPhone, you're muted. You should be able to
the unmute again. Okay, you're briefly unmuted unmuted again. Try again. There you go. All
right now. Yes, please say your name. Greg Haskin representing CoLab, the Coalition
of Labor and Culture and Business in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara County. We are calling
to support strongly the staff recommendation and commend both staff and PG&E for working
so hard to come up with a very reasonable and practical solution, strong mitigation
plans and it's something that we need desperately. We would encourage the
Commission to vote yes and move this forward. Thank you. Thank you. I am seeing
no more hands raised, Madam Chair. Great. Thank you very much, Chris. I couldn't
see the clock but I do believe the representative from EDC had a few
minutes left to rebut and or that they had reserved rather so okay we generally
don't allow rebuttal for public okay from public commenters but I I'm not sure if
duni had time I think the applicant right I think the applicant had five
minutes for rebuttal okay I remember correctly they had three minutes and 30
seconds to be exact specific well Madam Chair members of Commission staff and
members of the public first I'd like to thank everyone for the impressive
civility on such a wide-ranging view of opinions in this, so I appreciate it
today's hearing in the way that everyone conducted themselves, and if this are
easy it would have been on consent, right? So I got a couple points here to go
through on rebuttal. So one, I think that we haven't overtly connected that's
good enough for my team about the power of condition 2.1a and 2.1d. Those two
together with the no-sale provision for the 15 years and the executive
director's authority to move forward any conservation deal creates the window of
opportunity for the hundred and ten million dollars that senator Laird had
referenced while SB 846 did call those funds out they've yet to be appropriated
so this tool provides that at no cost to our consumers to have that opportunity
moreover it doesn't prevent anyone tribal interest or others for coming
forward with an offer on the property today. So that tool I thought it was a
really creative solution that we worked with on staff to affect the goals of
conservation but moreover for 15 years you have de facto conservation plus the
trail alignments are going to be running through that property. So I think that's
a robust creative way to achieve the public policy goals that we were looking
for. On trails we've heard a lot about the trails I really appreciate the input
from the lighthouse keepers. I think what good looks like there and great looks
like there isn't the focus on the singular access point.
We have had concerns and incidents where pedestrians have had to dive into the bushes
and some remote areas of that road to avoid vehicular traffic that was going too fast.
It's not patrolled and it's been a real occurrence and safety is a core value for us.
And we can't act unilaterally to move the trailhead.
Commission has to approve it through staff and the other trail case that the trail stairs
that we're thinking about require a CDP.
We can preserve the current one, and hopefully add two, one in the Wild Cherry Canyon area and this other one, so I want to expand and not have an either or moment, but we'll capture that through the trail conditions.
And by working with staff and that'll include the age limitations and one of our goals on this new public access is to set the successors up for operating the trails we're good at running the trails but we're expensive and clunky and risk averse right.
So we want to set up the successors to run the trails
and we can revisit the age restrictions
and those other items.
Our ultimate goal while we're still operating is to phase
out the docent program and have it be optional,
but have the gates be open on to dusk
with new interpretive signs so that people can get some
of that docent experience without having to be let.
So I think that we got a lot of movement there
and that's pretty easy to do.
So with that, again, I want to come back to the summary.
We front loaded the mitigation.
You have the two actions before you today.
We think we have a durable, effective mitigation package
that lets the commission move forward
and then lets us move forward with the regional board
and the NRC.
The last item I will point out is that, while not
in this proceeding, SP 846 did over double the mitigation
cash payments to the regional board for marine mitigation.
Those funds often aren't spent in the area
because of how healthy it is,
rather they move them around California.
But that is also, when you look at the context
of this issue, we have multiple ways
that we're mitigating the impacts
to the once through cooling system,
not simply the terrestrial one.
Thank you very much for your time and attention today.
Thank you, and through the chair,
I'll just clarify that the three minutes
and 30 seconds was actually left over
from Jeremy Frankel's presentation from EDC.
We did not have a timer going for the PG&E presentation
from Tom Jones.
OK, do you have any final thoughts, Mr. Jones?
Yes.
We ask for you to call the question today,
and we look forward to your action on this permit.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, everybody.
OK, with that, we will close the public hearing,
and I'll return to our staff, please.
Thank you, Chair Harmon.
There was a lot of very thoughtful and comprehensive
and wide-ranging comments provided,
So I just want to thank the members of the public, the tribes, the elected
officials, um, and organizations for, for providing all that.
I think we have rebuttal.
Uh, this is Linda crop with the EDC.
Do we have a rebuttal?
Okay.
At the discretion of the chair, Ms.
Crop will have three minutes, please.
Sorry.
I thought we had some time remaining.
Um, so I'm Linda crop chief counsel of the environmental defense center on
on behalf of Sandals Bispel Mothers for Peace.
And we just want to make a couple responses.
First of all, appreciate the time
and consideration of the public comment.
So we just wanted to emphasize a couple points
we made earlier.
First of all, there's been no evidence presented today
that all mitigation cannot be required immediately.
There's been no demonstration that any conservation
of the 12,000 acres is infeasible.
And so in accordance with public resources code section 302.
260 all mitigation would have to be included
if a five year permit is approved within those five years.
We also want to point out that deferring any mitigation
is not only illusory, but may just be completely speculative.
There's so many hurdles for PG&E to extend operations beyond 2030, as Senator Laird mentioned
earlier.
So this is most likely the last opportunity to achieve that mitigation.
As Jeremy showed in his slide presentation, almost half of the mitigation is deferred
to phase two.
is unacceptable as practical matter but again under the override provision of the Coastal Act.
So in closing we just want to remind the commission that there is evidence in the record
not only from our energy expert but from the California Public Utilities Commission,
California Energy Commission, and CAISO modeling analyses that shows that there is no need for
even a five-year extension, let alone a 20-year extension. So in closing, we urge denial of both
applications. If the Commission decides to go forward with the five-year permit, we urge the
Commission to include all mitigation measures consistent with Section 30260. Thank you for your
time. Thank you, and I'd like to invite the representative from PG&E back up to have the
final final word here. Couple of minutes on the clock please.
Madam Chair, well I greatly respect you. I have no illusion that this is the final
word on this matter today. With that I'll just again remind that I feel that we've
arrived at a tremendous mitigation package in a way that's meaningful to
execute the Commission's mission and that we're happy to answer any questions
you might have but I think the record is well established and our positions clear.
Thank you very much. Thank you very much. And with that, I will close the public hearing.
And now turn it back to our staff. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.
In response to the feedback and requests provided by Senator Laird, tribal representatives,
PG&E and public commoners today, staff would like to make revisions to the recommended
special condition 1.1 for implementation of the proposed transfer of the North Ranch properties
and special conditions 2.2 and 2.3 for the purchase option
and right of first refusal
for the Wild Cherry Canyon properties.
These revisions would add nonprofit
land conservation organizations,
including those of California Native American tribes
to the conditions in the same manner
as is already reflected in the right
of first refusal condition for South Ranch,
special condition 2.1.
This change would provide tribes
with the same acquisition opportunities
for all of the Diablo Canyon properties
conservation easement. This change also resolves the inconsistent approach
currently in the conditions which only provide for the transfer of North Ranch
and Wild Cherry Canyon right of first refusal to public agencies. In response
to the changes to PG&E mitigation proposal described in his presentation
this morning, we're also changing our recommendation to, number one, revise
special condition 2.1a to reflect a new termination date for the prohibition of
sale from December 31, 2035 to December 31, 2040.
And number two, revise special condition 2.1b
to change the timeline for both a state
entity or a nonprofit land conservation organization,
as I said earlier, which would include those
of California Native American tribes,
to exercise the sale option for South Ranch from 180 days
to 18 months.
and this would further facilitate the ability to provide secure funding for those purchases.
In response to the comments, and now I'm going to just kind of jump around on a
variety of issues that were raised, in response to the comments that the mitigation proposal
would not affect ratepayers, I would note that over the last month, we've had several meetings
with staff of the California Public Utilities Commission on this issue, and they have told us
unequivocally that ratepayers would be affected. The exact scale of those effects cannot be
be determined at this time because it hinges heavily on the appraised value of the various
properties, particularly South Ranch, and that value was unknown. The best we were able
to do on this over the past month was determine the value that the CPUC has assigned and the
value used by the Board of Equalization for property taxes. These estimates are in the
$30 to $40 million range, but I want to emphasize they are not formal appraisals and thus provide
only a rough ballpark of the land's value. Staff were also able to consider
recent conservation easements placed on large coastal agricultural properties in
San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara County and determined that these easements
resulted in a reduction in property value ranging from 40 to 50 percent.
While we cannot confirm the cost of a conservation easement on South Ranch
properties, this research indicates that it could be substantial. This is a major
Region reason both Commission staff and PG&E are instead proposing a right of
first refusal approach combined with a prohibition on sale except for
conservation for South Ranch which would minimize effects to repairs. A comment
was also made that the proposed prohibition on sale of South Ranch
before 2040 would prevent the protection of this land. In response I would call
attention to the revision to special condition 2.1 included in the second
addendum posted earlier this week which would clarify that their prohibition
would not extend to any conservation sale of the property. Essentially
allowing that conservation sale as you heard from mr. Jones just a moment ago
to occur immediately. Another comment was made asserting that the proposed
mitigation would only increase from the 6,600 acres offered in November to 6,700
acres offered now. I would note that this simplification of the medication
proposal does not include all of the elements of that proposal, including a prohibition
on sale of South Ranch for the next 15 years I just described. And it also does not recognize
that a vast majority of acreage in the prior proposal was through a right of first refusal.
And that we heard very clearly from the Commission and members of the public that they were not
satisfied with the level of protection that was going to provide. Essentially last month
the Commission shared its concerns that the strength and certainty of this type of conservation
and that prompted PG&E to replace it
with a direct conservation easement instead.
That would cover the 4,500 acres.
A comment was made that some amount
of direct conservation of South Ranch
is now recognized to be feasible,
but that 1,300 acres was arbitrarily selected.
In response, I would note that the 1,300 acres
was not arbitrarily selected at all.
It was chosen to cover the entirety of that property
in the coastal zone.
And also because this acreage aligns
with what the California Public Utilities Commission
previously found to be feasible and acceptable
when roughly 10 years ago, it approved establishment
of a roughly 1,200 acre deed restriction on that property.
This template to CPUC approval,
while it cannot be guaranteed,
it would receive approval again,
nevertheless provides us a clear roadmap
to approval of a similar approach
and helped inform the current proposal
for the 1,290-acre deed restriction
that PG&E is proposing.
Comments were made requesting the need for a,
oh, I'm sorry, I can hand it over to our senior attorney
for this next one.
Thank you.
Comments were made questioning the 20-year license term
at issue in the Federal Consistency Review.
The scope of the Federal Consistency Review
is set by PG&E's application to NRC.
That is what comes to us then for review.
The application is for the standard 20-year NRC extension
term, so that is what is under consideration today.
However, staff is recommending special condition 19,
which would limit the term of the consistency certification
concurrence if the CPUC does not authorize operations beyond 2030.
I also want to note that if the commission were
to object to PG&E's consistency certification concurrence,
I'm sorry, the NRC would not be able to move forward
with issuance of the licenses that PG&E has applied for
and continued operations of Diablo Canyon would be uncertain.
In response to comments that we cannot concur
in the consistency certification
because there is no showing that operations are needed
for 20 years under the override provision of section 30260,
again, the concurrence is conditioned
under Special Condition 19 on the CPUC providing future authorization to PG&E for extended
Diablo Canyon operations beyond 2030. Special Condition 19 recognizes that even if NRC approves
the 20-year license, the Commission's concurrence lapses if the CPUC does not authorize operations
beyond 2030. This condition recognizes the CPUC's role in authorizing any extended operation,
extended operations and its role and expertise in identifying the need for the project and
for grid reliability and its expertise in estimating energy supply and demand.
The CPUC will not allow PG&E to extend operations beyond 2030 if it's not needed.
Which special condition 19 reflects?
So our authorization for the consistency certification is, in fact, tied to the need for the project.
In response to comments that the Commission does not have jurisdiction to require mitigation
involving Diablo Canyon lands and that only the CPUC has this authority under SB 846,
Commission staff notes that there is nothing in SB 846 that preempts the Commission's independent
authority to specify mitigation conditions relating to land conservation.
We note that the CPUC has its separate and independent authority to review aspects of
of this proposed project, including how this project
may relate to the CPUC's tribal land return policy.
Special condition 16 recognizes the CPUC's
independent review authority regarding land transfers
and encumbrances, and provides that if CPUC
does not approve them, PG&E would need to return
to the commission and apply for an amended CDP.
And with that, I will return it to Mr. Teufel.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Comments were also made requesting all mitigation
be provided in phase one.
Staff's analysis indicates that the proposed mitigation
for phase one is appropriate and proportional
to the anticipated adverse impacts
from marine productivity
from the proposed five years of operations.
Comments were also made that funds are available
through SB 846 to remove any cost burden from ratepayers.
In response, I would note that it is our understanding
that the 110 million described in SB 846
is not currently available.
And even if it were the commission does not have the ability to mandate those funds be used to offset cost rate payers or to reimburse them.
Regarding the lighthouse road or requests was made to preserve the existing trail alignment. I wanted to clarify that realignment of this trail is not being required. And if it were to be pursued, it would require additional permitting from both slow
county and the commission. While special condition for does allow for the existing trail easements to be offered by PG&E to third parties.
The intent of this was to establish parameters for such a transfer in order to ensure that
existing levels of access and use are preserved and continued by any entity that may be inclined
to accept the easements.
I would also note that the request from the Lighthouse Keepers to support transfer of
trail management to the Lighthouse Keepers organization, that this would be facilitated
by that condition, special condition four, which would give them the ability to acquire
and hold that easement.
I also want to note that enforcement staff connected with PG&E just this
morning about the compliance issues noted regarding the Petchel Coast Trail
and PG&E indicated they're willing to work with staff to ensure that they're
meeting all of the requirements of the permits and approved management plans
and resolve any compliance issues. Regarding their requests to add in-kind
mitigation to the overall mitigation package, staff is generally supportive of
that but acknowledges that the very limited nearby opportunities would likely
result in relatively small contributions to addressing the plant's adverse impacts.
Additionally, we expect that PG&E's ongoing annual payments to the state
water boards once through cooling mitigation program will provide some
beneficial marine or estuarine habitat restoration opportunities, particularly
if the funds are focused on projects within Diablo Canyon source water body,
as has been proposed by staff of both the Water Board and the Ocean Protection
Council through a revisions to an MOU that guides use of those funds. In
addition, staff commission staff consider the likelihood of success of
different alternative mitigation options during its evaluation of PG&E's
proposal, whereas the establishment of a conservation easement or deed
restriction would provide an immediate measurable conservation benefit.
Implementation of habitat restoration projects even on smaller scales brings
with it uncertainty as to whether or not necessary performance standards would be
met and conservation outcomes achieved. As such the proposed land conservation
tools included in PG&E's mitigation proposal provide a more certain
mitigation outcome. That concludes our rebuttal. Thank you. Okay, thank you very
much. I'm gonna ask that we put up that slide as requested by Vice Chair Hart
and while that's happening and before I turn to my fellow commissioners I just
want to take the chair's prerogative to make a few starting comments really to
ground us in how far I think we've come. At last month's hearing I know you all
remember the Commission engaged deeply with the material we listened to the
public and we gave tough feedback it was a challenging evening I think there's
really no other way to put it. But what came next in the intervening period is
certainly do some accolades today. Both our staff and the team from PG&E went
away from that hearing and they put their heads together in a good faith
collaborative way to chart a path forward. They heard this commission, they
heard the public, they heard Senator Laird and his colleagues, and they worked
in collaboration to move us closer together. The result, this revised
proposal that's before us today, is meaningfully responsive to our concerns
as we laid them out last month. That said, I do appreciate and want to
acknowledge that there are still many different perspectives here. We heard
some of them during public comment and we may yet hear more of them from one
another during our deliberations. That's understandable. Diablo Canyon implicates
states many, many complexities, some of which are within our purview on this body, and many
of them are far outside of it.
But as to our specific mandate under the Coastal Act and our role and responsibility in the
context of this item today, I believe that all of us, this Commission, the public, our
staff, Senator Laird, PG&E, all of us through this iterative, collaborative process have
have done important work of giving life to the Coastal Act.
And for my part, I share the belief,
as many who spoke today do, that the increased mitigations
will be of significant benefit for the state of California
for years to come.
So it's with all of that said, and in the sincere hope
that we bring that same spirit of collaboration
to our deliberations today, that I'm
going to turn to my colleagues.
By way of management, I've already started
a list of speakers.
If you want to talk, get my attention,
or raise your hand if you're on Zoom.
And we'll begin with Commissioner Jackson.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Can I do questions now and then deliberation after questions?
OK, great.
Thank you.
I just want to, you know, we always
say we want to speed things up, but then
when it's our turn to talk, we can't help ourselves.
But again, tremendous collaboration.
I mean, I was, you know, we all left the last meeting going,
oh my God, should we have done this, should we have done that?
But we can definitely see now, coming back a month later,
that it was worth the time and the delay for everybody
to step back, take a deep breath,
and let's look at this thing.
I'm glad we talked about the trails and the access
and the age restriction, because I look at this
and I don't understand why it's so restrictive.
So I'm glad that we're taking a look at that.
I mean, if I could take my kid down to the Grand Canyon
and to Half Dome and Zion as a five, six-year-old,
you know, with adult supervision or not,
I don't understand why we have those restrictions.
So I'm glad that you are here to address that, so thank you.
My real question, and forgive me,
I'm gonna use a football metaphor here.
You know, this is, we're in the red zone
of conservation right now.
You know, we were starting way on the other side of the field.
And I say we, as in I truly mean the collective we.
It's not us versus them.
It is the collective we.
I mean, I think we're so close to a historic win
for everybody, the land, the people, the future generations.
And I believe that protecting all 12,000 acres isn't symbolic.
It really is a long overdue act of ecological restitution.
And so, I'm leading up to a question for.
It's like, is it?
No.
It's setting the table, right?
Setting the conditions.
So after decades of taxpayer-funded benefit,
irreversible environmental loss,
this is the moment, as the speaker said,
the proverbial bird in the hand.
We have an opportunity to secure permanent protection
for one of California's most ecologically
and culturally significant landscapes.
So here's the question for Mr. Jones,
PG&E or smart people, help me understand what is standing in the way of finishing the job
now, knows phase 2, and securing a legacy of permanent protections consistent with what
I saw as well-reasoned, and I think my colleagues may share this, recommendations laid out by
Senator Laird, Assemblywoman Addis, and so many others.
Commissioner, the short answer is it's the end of what we can feasibly do for our consumers.
And here's how we got there.
We agreed on a mitigation outcome.
We did not agree with staff in any way on what the impacts are.
We see it on a daily basis.
We're there.
It's teeming with life.
The principal issue here that is before us, the mitigation is derived from the area of
production foregone.
the administrative record in this proceeding has quite a range of those
differing professional opinions. Staffs is on one side of the spectrum but it
doesn't take into account the the actual features of Diablo Canyon. It's more of
a generic average. We have much more rocky habitat and more regeneration so
we have our technical experts here to go deeper into that if we wish to but the
mitigation is based on the impacts. We voluntarily came in for what staff would
say would work for their calculation on the area of production foregone. We do not support
that calculation. That's a fundamental difference between the two parties.
I certainly appreciate that. And Senator Laird said that you guys are pretty steadfast in
your opposition to the whole kit and caboodle. I tend to be, you know, in the spirit of giving,
in the spirit of the season. And it's better to give than to receive at times. And I, and
And again, I'm from Florida, our education system's not that great, but I don't quite
help me understand why you can't.
And again, I'm a little slow.
Well, we feel that the action taken by the commission in 2006 for the steam generator,
it made the same arguments for the same impacts, and it was 1,200 acres of conservation.
I anticipated your question, but I thought it would come from another commissioner.
So, I went back at lunch, and this is just real for us,
right, on how we work as a utility.
The consumer price index since 2006 has gone up 68%.
This mitigation has gone up 800%,
notwithstanding the doubling of the regional water boards.
That's significant, it's huge.
And this is for us to not challenge
the area of production foregone in another venue.
So in the spirit of giving, we came a long way
and gave a lot, and I wish I had a complimentary hat
to yours when we had this discussion,
but that's, this is where the buck's at.
No, and I appreciate that.
I appreciate the response.
I'm not quite there with your explanation.
PG&E has benefited from federal taxpayer dollars
and state taxpayer dollars,
record profits over the last couple years,
And so, and one of my concerns, and maybe this is between you and the smart lawyers,
I mean, what protects us in the event of a PG&E sale or a bankruptcy similar to what
happened in 19 or 20, whatever that was?
The California Public Utilities Commission does.
So there's a procedure called 851, it refers to the California Public Utilities Code Section
851.
in any asset encumbered by customer funds requires their approval for any type of disposition.
So we can't act unilaterally on these things.
Moreover, even these encumberments on the Northland will require their subsequent approval.
I wish I had in front of me that Venn diagram I shared last time where none of the circles
overlap but it was the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Utilities Commission, state
lands, you, others, and us in the middle.
We have more work to do to get this across the finish line.
And I would also offer, we heard some other things
about the Coastal Zone Management Act consistency
determination.
It's important that we have something
called a sufficiency determination.
And some other public comment today brought up Indian Point.
And I want to talk about Indian Point for a second.
They did obtain their 20-year license.
But states ultimately, when you're regulating utility,
dictate how long you run.
But they couldn't come to agreement with their state
commissions.
And they ran over five years without any state approvals
in that sufficiency determination.
And that's a scenario we're trying to avoid.
And I'm not looking to break any records in that regard.
Thank you, Mr. Jones.
That's all my questions for now.
I'll save my comments for later.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thanks.
I have a question for the home fed attorney representative.
So I believe that there is a, I heard
say that there was an appraisal done in 2020 that valued the property or the rights sorry at 39
million dollars then I heard that that appraisal was done not in accordance with the war not
necessarily something that would be relied upon I'm not trying to dispute whether the any of that
I'm just curious from you given that 2020 was five years ago and just trying to get a general sense
because I don't know the specifics of this area.
What do you believe, do you think that that appraisal
at 39 million would be accurate today,
or do you have a different sense of what the value
of those rights are?
Well, in anticipation of this, the appraisal was done
in connection with the litigation,
but it was also done independent of the litigation as well.
It was done by an MAI appraiser, Valbridge, Mr. Walt Carney,
who actually is certified by the state
as a state approved appraiser.
And it was a short 157 page appraisal
that went through incredible details
to come up with the value of our leasehold interest.
And that value was, as I said, December 26th,
I'm sorry, October 26th of 2020,
it valued our leasehold interest at $39 million.
It also went through and valued what the reversionary interest was of the fee interest, PG&E's interest.
The reversionary interest of their fee was $8,442, not very much given the fact that the lease runs until the year 2166.
We have asked our appraiser, the same one, to go back, do an updated appraisal for us.
I can also tell you historically, in some of the previous land conservation groups that
have approached us, the American Land Conservancy and others, there was an appraisal done by
the DORI group back in the year 2010 that valued the lease hold interest back then at
21 million and change.
That deal fell through, another one almost took place in 2012, DORI updated that appraisal
when it came out at 20, I think it was 22,400,000
or something like that.
Do I know whether or not the property value's gone up
that much between 2020 when Mr. Carney did his last appraisal
and what he's gonna come up with?
No, I'm just a dumb lawyer, okay?
I have no idea.
I'm just asking him to do his job
and he will do a very independent job
and I can tell you we used him as a witness in our trial
and that he's not somebody that you can attack.
He has his opinions and those are his opinions
and he believes he's right.
So we'll have that appraisal done
and we'll be happy to share it with people.
Is that appraisal already underway?
Yes, we're supposed to be getting it.
I think he's got a calendar to try to get it to us
by the end of January.
Okay.
This is where he is on it.
Great, can you tell me a little bit about
what Home Fed's plans are for this site?
We have, we spent about four days of Judge Federman's life
showing her all of the various
different kinds of development plans
that we have spent millions of dollars on.
We've had charrettes in San Luis Obispo
to try to get community support
for some of the things that we've done,
ranchets, some homes, things that would be,
things that people would be proud of.
We're a developer, we don't want to go out
and just develop things that people think are ugly,
but we want to develop things that consumers
and the community and everybody would approve.
And so, again, we've got this leasehold interest.
We are a developer.
We are more than pleased to accept an offer
if someone comes forth and wants to buy
the leasehold interest from us.
But we can't wait forever.
We've been waiting 20 years for something to happen.
And if nothing does happen, we're gonna plunk ahead
and go to the county and try to get building permits
and try to do something.
You know, and go through all that process.
Got it.
That's what home fed does.
I know sometimes when people buy and sell real estate,
you can wait for an offer or you can have an asking price.
I'm just curious, has home fed put out an asking price
of which they would sell their interest for?
What we have told, and it was the letter that we wrote
to PGD, to Mr. Jones, that we sent to him last Friday
on the fifth, we would be willing to consider an offer
at a fair appraised value.
Okay, great, so stay tuned is the answer.
That's it, yes.
Okay.
And we were very pleased to hear today from Senator Laird
that apparently this $40 million has been found
and it's in the budget.
That seems like that may go a long way.
I just can't figure out how to get the $40 million
from the budget into somebody's hands
so they could stick it in an offer and send it to us.
Understood, and I know you mentioned previously
that there had already been millions of funds expended
to do the design charrettes and the different processes,
and given where you are in the entitlement process,
absent from the fact of this entire,
divorce yourself from the reality that is today,
if you were to be moving forward with an entitlement process
with the county and otherwise,
do you have an estimated cost of the expense
that the home fed would have to allocate
towards those entitlements?
and then a general timeline knowing-
Just to go through trying to get all the entitlements,
I know that we advise Judge Fetterman,
I think he was something north of five and a half million
dollars that we'd spent already to date
just coming up with stuff.
We've got various civil engineers
and all manner of experts on it.
It's just impossible to say because we'd have to go through,
we'd have to go through the county hearings
and who knows what they want to add to it,
but that's what HomeFed does.
We're not a home builder.
We're a developing company and we're in for the long run
and that's what we're good at.
So there's getting it entitled.
You don't currently have an estimated pro forma
of what the estimated entitlement cost would be
from here forward.
No, I've got a dozen different pro formas I can give you
to show you all we've planned.
Fair, totally understand.
There's exhibit 42, 97 and 68 in the civil trial.
You're not just a dumb lawyer, as you said.
You have quite the memory.
Well, I appreciate it.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
And then I did have a quick, not for you, but thank you.
And then just a quick question for Mr. Jones regarding,
I mean, I don't want to dispute the prior comments regarding
the mitigation, so I'm just going to leave that parked,
but know that I have similar questions.
The PG&E is net revenue from this plant annually.
Do you have a number?
I'm gonna have to take a look,
look up and get back to you.
What I do know is that the revenues right now
are offset against power sales,
and those funds go back to the state of California
to offset the reoccurring loan.
So the reason that there was a forgivable loan in SB 846,
this is rather complex, I'll make it short.
When the state asked us to turn the ship around and stay open for their energy
needs, there wasn't time for the normal rate making process for the utility.
Those take about 18 months, and it's a budget for three years at a time.
So in 2022 and 2023, there wasn't time to do the normal rate making process.
So the legislature did as a bridging strategy,
has created this one time forgivable loan and what it takes to run the plant.
And that gets offset by money we recover from the Department of Energy from a credit.
So that goes back to the state coffers.
It doesn't go to our shareholders, it offsets those operational costs.
And then the energy sales come back and those proceeds further offset the loan balance.
So we're in the middle of that process now, but now that that bridging strategy is over,
the legislation already also created an annual rate case before the Public Utilities Commission
specific to this facility.
And so that will be underway every year as long as we operate or until they change that
type of proceeding.
Okay, so pretend like I'm a dumb lawyer.
Did you have a general sense of what the revenue generation is for PG&E on the site?
I don't because it's prospective on market sales and different energy costs that value
over time that's influenced by the total energy market of the state of California.
They do projections of what the needs are and what the costs are.
Our budget to operate the facility is approximately 550 to 600 million a year.
That's offset by energy sales to go to the loan proceedings.
I didn't come prepared for that question today, but we can take a look up for you.
Do you think for the $550 to $600 million of expense
that it is per year, do you think
that the sales are offsetting that amount, exceeding?
Yeah, they'll offset.
The forecast right now shows that Diablo Canyon,
even in the next year, drives utility rates
the right direction down a dollar a month
for all of our customers.
And we're now serving 40 load serving entities
across California.
It used to be that our power is exclusive
from PG&E customers.
So you don't know until after you have the market forces,
and it's like asking me what my airplane ticket's
gonna cost next year.
I can't give you that answer unless I book it
to date one contract.
But I could ask you what it cost last year
and you could tell me?
I can get the finance guy on the phone,
but I don't have those things memorized.
I'm the regulatory and permit guy.
Okay, sounds good.
And then, so I did wanna ask you, and I appreciate,
so the conversation about the trail,
discussing the trailhead, discussing your concerns
about public safety of cars on that roadway.
You're saying the vehicles that are on the road at times,
are those PG&E vehicles or those are not?
Either volunteer driven or from the lighthouse,
there's some attendance out there as well
on their relatives.
The instance was related to someone that lives in the house
and people had to literally dive into the bushes.
We maintain the road access from our kiosks.
So we're under no obligation,
but our security officers at our front gate,
they also serve as the dispatch center.
You call in and say, hey, I'd like to use the road.
No, look for a red Honda,
and that's the last car on the road.
So that's how we manage it.
But again, based on the feedback today,
we're fine keeping that alignment open,
but offering additional access points
will reduce that pedestrian conflict.
And so I just think the success path here is more points.
And the second part we have concern of
And what wasn't shown very accurately in the photos is the distance from the fisherman's memorial that Dauphin fountain
You saw to where hikers go it's it's narrow. There's a lot of traffic in the Port Harbor district
Executive director also expressed his concerns about pedestrian traffic. There's no sidewalks there
You're walking at about a one foot wide stripe of paint and people are in the traffic lane
So our goal was to enhance that and add a new staircase if folks want to keep walking there let them
We'll do it and then I recall from our tour
There were a number of gates that you had to open and close to kind of minimize access and be a particular traffic on certain roads
Is that not something that would be possible to put gates in to minimize the vehicular?
potential for you know
Pedestrian risk in some of those areas we can add gates and under the trail management program
Most of the gates we went through were more related to the security buffer around the power plant understood
But there are some other traffic management. We can try to employ but I think
Just like Caltrans it tries to achieve great separation on left turns and overpasses if you don't have the conflict
That's the best place to be by think by adding additional access. We can greatly reduce it
Okay, I think that's it for me. Thank you. Thank you vice chair heart
Thanks chair. Um, I want to just begin. I don't I don't I don't really have any questions
But I just want to begin my comments by acknowledging the tremendous effort by all of the parties here
I really want to start with senator Laird
you have been working on this for years and years and years and
Without you we wouldn't be where we are today
I want to fully acknowledge you for the incredible effort you've made on behalf of all the people of California if this in fact
moves forward and really anyone who ever comes to this area express my deep
gratitude to you. Next, it was a rough hearing. I was rough at our last hearing.
I wasn't happy with Wild Cherry Canyon. I found it hard to believe that something
couldn't have been worked out there. Now the lawsuit has resolved the questions
around it and on top of that we have an incredible nonprofit the Wildlands
Conservancy with Fraser Haney here today to say that they are interested in
potentially taking on the ownership and providing public access. I can tell you I
have extensive experience with wildlands. They own and manage one of the most
beautiful and valuable properties in Sonoma County, General Headlands. They
just opened one of the most controversial and difficult to access
properties on the coast and land along the Estero San Antonio, Estero,
Americano, yeah exactly. Gosh, it would be nice but hasn't happened. Americano in
Sonoma County and land along the Eel River that I work with them extensively
on and I not only are they an incredibly responsible land management entity, they
have wonderful relationships with the tribes. They've entered into I believe a
a land-back agreement on their ranch or they're working on it on one of their
properties in Carmel. I know they've worked very closely with tribes in the
Eel River Canyon which is a very very difficult area. So I feel that we have a
path forward on Wild Cherry Canyon. We have a willing seller, we have a funding
source, we have an acquisition entity, and we have a time frame that we need to
accomplish it by 2029.
And so I really see that, let's just talk about,
Wild Cherry Canyon should move forward expeditiously.
I think things need to be worked out, of course,
with the tribes, but I really think that that's just part
of the overall deal.
So I'm really excited that we can now see a clear path
forward for an area that frankly, I appreciate what you said
And I appreciate when you talk about development.
But the reality is that there have been proposals
to build 1,500 homes there, to build take tops of mountains.
Maybe not.
But in the press.
Let's just say in the press.
Fake news.
I don't like that term, but all right.
In any event, there's no question
that home fed is in it.
You're a developer.
You're not in it for conservation.
You're in it to you're a business.
And the threat is real.
And it's such an important area.
So I'm really excited to see this move forward.
And I would really, I think that if the commission approves
this today and if it goes through the additional steps,
it would be great to see Wild Cherry Canyon be a real priority.
Yeah, right.
Right.
We have much more experienced real estate types on the commission.
So further than that, I mean, yes, we
it all like we all wish that South Ranch was included at this time but now
we've got an additional five years PG&E is indicated they are ready to go I
mean they are open to a conservation deal and now we have not just a state
agency on both the North Ranch and the South Ranch but we also have a
conservation NGOs and tribes so we are PG&E is indicated they want to move
forward. We have the money again and we have groups that are interested. One of
the most exciting things is you have on the north case the North Ranch adjacent
to a very heavily used state park. And now an opportunity for a
through trail to connect Montana de Oro all the way along the Diablo
Canyon land. So I personally am so appreciative of our staff and all the
work of PG&E and everything that they put in to get us to this point and the
public how much time everyone has spent on this effort but I feel very strongly
the moment has arrived to do this deal personally whether this you know extends
into the 20-year period that's you know other than a consistency finding today
that's that's really up to the legislature up to PG&E etc I'm really
looking at right now you know what do we have before us for the next five years
and you know preserving these lands it's an incredible opportunity it really is
so I hope that my fellow commissioners will join with me in supporting this
thank you thank you commissioner Nada thanks so much for all the thoughtful
comments, I learned new things today. I think as I did say before, I cheered in 2016 when
PG&AD announced its decommissioning plan for the Diablo Canyon power plant, which included
a thoughtful, feasible plan to replace the power with a combination of energy efficiency
and renewable investments. My colleagues at NRDC at the time were central in crafting
this that welcoming welcome proposal and I frankly wish we were talking about decommissioning
today and mitigation for that but see that as it may we have SB 846 and that's why we're
here today and I really do recognize all the progress that has been made and the compromises
that have been made between our staff and with the applicant, especially in the last
month.
But as I said, I'm not a fan of phase two, and I would like to see if there's, you know,
I hear, I heard Senator Laird that he's been talking until he's blue in the face with PG&E
about South Ranch.
But you know, I do want to make sure that staff has looked at all the options there.
Is there something we could do just at least for the coastal zone portion of South Ranch
that's more immediate protection now?
So I wanted your thoughts on that.
And as for authorization and certification post 2030, I would, if we do end up having
a phase two, I would like to talk about phase two as part of a decommissioning proposal
post 2030, not in sort of a consistency certification.
So that's, I wanted to just, you know, push a little bit more about is there any way to
to you know splice South Ranch so that we get some immediate protection now well
I guess first off I'd answer that by saying we've I think we have pushed on
every permutation of this package in every which way we possibly have with
with PG&E and with others and and kind of explored every avenue that we thought
was possible but I think we feel very confident that the package that's
described in the staff report that we described today it's part of our staff
presentation is what's feasible and it does adequately mitigate impacts under
the Coastal Act and CZMA. So at this point we feel confident moving forward
with what we what we've recommended. As I've heard PG&E say that you know they
deserve 1200 acres for an equipment upgrade but I would say that that was
an equipment upgrade and it was 1200 acres this is operation of the entire
plant for multiple years so I don't think that we're asking in consistent
amounts of mitigation. Thank you. If I may address that for the steam generator
replacement project we essentially treated that as extending the life of
the plant for a certain number of years I don't recall what it was but 11 years
so we did treat it as basically the entire right right the other thing I'd
note is that the we have some special conditions that with respect to South
Ranch kind of lock in the status quo so PG&E and Eureka cannot undertake any
development until the the you know the right of first refusal related
conservation easements are recorded and you know we're basically trying to make
sure there's no development that could interfere with the any potential future
conservation protection that may be required in a phase two.
So that kind of protects things right now.
And then of course there's the prohibition against sale
of the South Branch properties until now it's 2040.
But of course PG&E could elect to trigger that earlier
if they wish to.
So that doesn't stand in their way from doing that.
But we try to find ways to,
recognizing that there is this phase two,
But what can we do to kind of make sure
that we're not prejudicing the ability
to get that conservation protection in a phase two?
So you're not losing opportunities for conservation.
Correct.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Commissioner O'Malley.
Thank you.
Thank you, staff, for putting in all the work and others
that this took over the last month.
It's so much improved, so I appreciate that.
I think I mentioned last,
and I'm not gonna repeat last month
because time is limited.
I think I mentioned I prefer in-kind mitigation, of course,
and I understand that there are complications
and just practical issues around that.
That said, I see the benefit of the terrestrial conservation.
I'm a fan of it.
I have to say, Mothers for Peace, Senator Laird,
I look at the Coastal Act, I'm saying,
I'm looking at this override.
I'm looking at maximum extent feasible.
And to me, that means everything's in phase one.
It seems that this is feasible.
I'm just told it's timing or whatever, right?
So I'm not sure how I'm voting on this,
but it's troubled me that we can't get this done when
the law says maximum extent feasible.
Something in my brain is not getting me
why it's not feasible, because it's
going to happen at some point.
I understand the money's there, if that's correct, right?
It is feasible.
And that's just kind of way I'd read the Coastal Act
and our charge under that for the maximum expense.
So I just want, I don't have any questions.
I think everyone's done a great job
of answering questions of vetting this.
I just wanted to kind of put that out there.
Thank you.
Commissioner Lopez.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I do have a question for the representative from PG&E
and I'm wondering if he doesn't mind.
Coming forward, the question really revolves
around the issue of pass-through costs to repairs.
We've heard, I think, every opinion
that it will not impact ratepayers,
that it will impact ratepayers,
that it could impact ratepayers.
I think staff was clear after talking
with the CPUC representatives that it will.
It's just a question to what extent.
My question is from the place that you sit
as the utility in this instance,
I believe you have a lot of control
over how much you attempt to pass through.
What is the position of PG&E given the packages
for us today in terms of what you anticipate potentially passing through to ratepayers
or is there a commitment to not do so given the frame of this agreement as we talked about
it's the holidays, keeping that giving spirit alive here, what is your position today on
that potential?
Utility operations, their costs are directly passed through to consumers, period.
And so whether it's painting a transformer green, decommissioning a small power plant
that's natural gas that's inland, or operating nuclear power plant, including medication
costs, those are included in our rate case and borne by customers.
And the utilities commission's view on it is that the consumers that benefit from the
generation of electricity at that time or the utility appliance like a streetlight,
pay for it during that time.
Okay.
Okay, so to go so
Commissioner Lopez your concern about affordability
That's why again
I go back to special condition 2.1 a and D that we create this framework that doesn't pass costs through and give Senator Laird
Another folks the time to put together that hundred and ten million dollars that has yet to be appropriated but was specified in statute
Understood. So I'm hearing that if that hundred and ten is appropriated. You do not anticipate passing through any additional costs
Would that be fair for the acquisition of the properties? That's correct
Okay, thank you. My other question is just directly to you and staff can answer this one as well. When we get into deals like this, the question always comes, is this going to happen? Are we going to see it through?
So the question to both you and to Cassidy is what is your anticipation given the structure of this
in terms of feasibility that these deals will get done that we will see this through in terms of
delivery for the promises made and commitments made in today's hearing? For permits at Diablo
Canyon and our coastal permits as a utility we have an outstanding track record of delivering
on the conditions and sometimes they evolve over time. The trail program is morphed over time
and we work with staff to make sure that we're in compliance. That's our commitment and we
we deliver them quickly and I apologize because our every Thursday we test our
emergency equipment at 4 p.m. and it's calling me right now and it won't stop
working so it is only a drill it's a great distraction thanks fellas I really
appreciate that no so no we're gonna deliver period and I'll defer to staff
on both our track record with them and their ability for oversight thanks and
I'll just weigh in on behalf of staff I think we have worked really hard on
these conditions to make sure that they are enforceable, and that they are feasible, and
we will do our best to make sure that they're implemented to the maximum extent of our ability
under the law. So again, we feel pretty confident that this is going to happen.
Thank you. And with that, I'll finish my questions and we'll have the appropriate time. I'll
make just a few brief comments. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Would you like to make your comments now? I think we're kind of mixing it in. Feel free.
I'm happy to, I'll just say that I'm going to support this today and it's for the reason
that what we're doing is obviously, as was pointed out by Senator Laird and the work
that he and the rest of the team have done along with Assemblymember Addis, it's going
to be something that changes lives on the Central Coast in perpetuity.
This is important.
This matters to generations that have yet to exist on this planet and as we move forward,
this is going to be a place that so many people mark in their minds as a place that transforms
our lives as they visit, recreate and love it in a way that most of us can't even imagine
today. And that is only possible because of the work we're doing today. These commitments
that we're doing that we're getting done hand in glove will change the way the Central Coast
evolves and develops. And I'm appreciative of everybody's willingness to come to the
table. I feel like nobody's happy and often that's a sign good work. So thank you, Madam
Chair. I'm going to be proud to support this today with whoever may make the motion at
the appropriate time. Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Eckerle.
Thank you chair. I also want to echo my sincere thanks to everyone who has worked to get us
here, including our staff, and PG&E. I want to thank Senator Laird for your tireless commitment
to protecting California's coast, along with the leadership of Assemblymember Addis and
tribal leaders from the YTT, the coastal band of Chumash, and the Northern Chumash
Tribal Council, as well as the members of the community and the public who have
continued to share their priorities and their perspectives with all of us. I
appreciate the collaborative effort over the last month that has resulted in the
strengthened mitigation package to significantly increase conservation on
Diablo Canyon lands. As I stated in our hearing last month, the ongoing operation
of the Diablo Canyon power plant through 2030 is a priority for the NUSM
administration and critical to maintain the state's energy reliability and
affordability. The recommendation before us today would allow continued operation
of the plant through 2030 and establishes a pathway for conservation
on all of the Diablo Canyon lands while addressing concerns about
affordability for ratepayers. I agree with Senator Laird that approval
today would be a monumental victory for conservation and partnership with tribes along one of the
most breathtaking stretches of California's coast and I urge the commission to approve
this item today. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Wilson. That's me already. You think after
all these years I would recognize a wall before I see it. So I want to emphasize just a couple
things. One is in terms and ask this question of PG&E of Mr. Jones which is when we're talking
about the rate payers and the impact to rate payers, we haven't heard any order of magnitude
of what that is, whether it is $0.10 or $100. Is there any order of magnitude understanding
of what that, we just keep saying it will cost, it is like there is a big difference
between $0.10 and $100 in terms of the value of getting a good final conservation goal
done today versus that.
So what is that differential?
Can you at least get us someplace where we're like,
well, the rate payer is going to,
if we move this forward today versus,
or if we were to give full conservation,
it would cost us much money, no phase two, just phase one.
It would cost the rate payers.
We're solving for X.
What I would say is that the staff report was,
they took the information that was available
absent of current appraisal.
But a lot of the properties were acquired in the mid-90s.
And so those numbers were derived on a purchase price
and an assessed value based on the mid-90s.
I would equate it to a home that was purchased in 1995
versus on the market today.
Those numbers are gonna be disparate.
I don't think they're,
I think their number is conservative and low.
I would expect it to be in the $100 million range.
And because we have a two phase loss of the value,
the conservation isn't first and then the acquisition, right?
So based on some other comps we've looked at,
it's gonna be a substantial number.
I can't tell you what it means on a monthly bill.
I haven't done that calculation.
But it's gonna be large,
one, two, five, six, seven, eight, eight or nine figures.
It's a tremendous number.
But that's why I go back to the durability
of those conditions that we can get the same outcome
for free.
2.1a and 2.1delta give the commission the power
to make it happen when it's right to happen.
And so that I think is the tool that we're relying on
so that the subsequent regulatory approvals we need,
we can point to it.
Because remember, I'll also point to my slide
that's different than the staff slide.
We're 800% above this identical mitigation
from the last action of this commission.
So that's important to take into account.
That's why we're trying to keep those numbers down
but give the commission the authority
to facilitate the conservation
without costing consumers more money.
That's part of our calculus on why we're here today.
And I agree with Supervisor Lopez or Commissioner Lopez on if everyone's grumpy it's probably
we're getting pretty close to and I really want to appreciate the enthusiasm of Commissioner
Hart on where this is at and appreciate because I know Commissioner Hart actually has a lot
of experience in sort of these broader landscape preservation and landscape acquisition processes.
In some way I'm putting some faith in that, in your analysis and where you're at, because
you do not like to have the wool pulled over your eyes in these situations.
You are not that person that wants to, you're really, I'm putting faith in this organization,
the commission, PG&E, I'm putting faith in the state of California, I'm putting faith
in the local folks to hold everyone's feet to the fire, not just for this, moving this
forward, but also I'm hearing from the local school districts and their concerns, I'm hearing
from other folks who have access issues and those concerns and tribal representation as
well.
I feel everyone is motivated to get to the right place.
It's not where I want it to be, but I'm going to recognize that wall today and be supportive
of the motion, thanks.
Commissioner Lee.
Thank you.
I want to commend our incredible commission staff and the work and rigor and delicate
balance of all of these really, really complicated factors coming together in what really appears
to be an elegant solution.
I want to commend PG&E for coming back to the table.
I unfortunately was absent in November, but I did go back.
I listened to all of the public testimony.
I listened to the entire hearing to make sure
that I was well-informed coming into today.
And this thoughtful approach is really a safe
and monumental path towards conserving land
that will change people's lives for generations, a safe path.
I use the word elegant because it comes not on the back of rate payers, but in something
over time that is achieved for free through a natural path.
And so I'm supportive of staff's recommendation.
I also think it's important to note that on a macro scale to recognize where we sit.
We talk about the electrification of our entire motor fleet in California.
We talk about moving away from gas cooktops and things like that in our homes.
We do not currently have the infrastructure to successfully implement those things.
We're talking about zero emissions trucks in all of our ports hauling things away, zero
emissions trains.
Whether it's hydrogen fuel cell or electricity, we do not have the infrastructure currently
to address that.
No one yet has mentioned the AI boom.
And so while many of my fellow commissioners have talked about lots of things, I don't
I wanna repeat those things.
I wanna focus on the fact that AI is moving
so much more rapidly than each prediction.
Every single time an expert says,
we thought we would be here 18 months from now
or 24 months from now and it's already happening.
The United States is poised to win the race to AGI
and we need to accomplish that,
especially here in the state
where that basically created the internet
and we invented emails here in California.
technology needs to happen here in our home state but already we're we're going
to hit an energy wall in 2028. We don't even have the infrastructure to carry
out the capacity needs that we have for all the humongous data centers that are
being built for this 24-7 usage of electricity that needs to happen and so
I don't think unfortunately that anything's gonna be happening to Diablo
anytime soon, we need to find ways that are safe, sustainable, efficient, reliable,
that aren't increasing costs to consumers, like we're all experiencing it
constantly here in the state, the unreliability and the rapidly increasing
costs, especially on the commercial side of utilities, and so I think it's
critically important that we continue to invest and look to ways to help support
our human energy needs moving forward in ways that are all of those things and
also not ocean dependent but we need to continue to urge all of leadership to
move towards those infrastructure investments and progress and also
hopefully that don't necessarily come before this body. Thank you. Thank you
Commissioner. Commissioner Escalante. Thank you Madam Chair and I think you
You know, speaking of walls and that we're coming to hit,
and it's so funny, because Commissioner Lee,
my brain was circling around sort of what the demand's
going to be in the near future because of AI
and the accelerated timeline that we're on to jump on that,
which in itself is an enormous climate concern,
aside from a social society concern.
So I do still share Commissioner Notoff and Commissioner O'Malley's concern, and my wall
is, is this going to just automatically commit us to, if there is an extension in five years,
this just going to say, well, you know, Coastal Commission gave us a blessing for 20 years.
So we don't have to have to, you know, have any consideration. That's one. And two, if
there's no, you know, new sort of restart or continuation of for the 20 years, or something
happens to the plan, like in San Onofre, you know, things happen. Does that mean that then
there won't be a phase two if for some reason PG&E is not able to continue.
So Commissioner Escalante on your first question, we are very clear in their staff report and
the conditions that the Commission is approving a CDP for five years and a conditioned consistency
certification that just sets a framework for mitigation should PG&E receive the necessary
approvals from the legislature, from the other regulatory agencies, and from this
Commission moving forward. So this is not an approval to operate beyond 2030. I want
to be really clear about that. But should that approval occur, there is a framework
for mitigation that we have already established. And so that's, so we do feel
pretty confident that we're not, we are not presupposing any type of action past
2030 at this point. But we are set up in case there is an action moving forward
to know what the mitigation would look like.
And then what was your second question?
Can you repeat?
Oh, and then what happens if there is no phase two?
So if PG&E doesn't receive approvals to operate beyond 2030,
then they would immediately go into decommissioning.
They would have to start, and that actually would need to start
sooner rather than later, because there's a long lead
time in that process.
And so it is my expectation that we would then
be looking at what are the mitigation needs under the coastal lag for
decommissioning and in essence would likely simply look to move those phase
two things phase two options into our decommissioning discussions with PG&E.
Now that's not part of this proposal obviously but that's that's our
expectation. Just to did you have something Sarah? Oh I was just gonna I
was going to add that one of our conditions here is that if PG&E does not
propose to go beyond this current phase, we are requiring them to come to us for an amended
CDP, for decommissioning action, or any other disposition of the plant. So we will be looking
at them again, no matter what they do, whatever they decide to do as far as seeking operations
beyond 2030 or not.
Okay, and since we're kind of just going through this exercise of future telling
Looking in a and a glass ball, so
What could
sort of prevent
that that from derailing say the commitments anyway for any kind of more mitigation or the
follow-through of this mitigation if
the argument about rates and the argument about cost comes up again if say we get to that point and it's just
No, no now we now we're littered with data centers now. We're never gonna meet any of our you know energy and climate goals
Because right now we're on you know fast-track towards that
How you know what are our tools at that point, you know, if once again those other agencies or the utility come forward and say
What you guys are asking for is gonna, you know, make everybody bankrupt even more than
So again, I think when we were working on this proposal
We were making every effort to set it up in a way that would minimize impacts to repairs
Which is why the kind of framework of a first right of refusal that requires a conservation as part of the sale was sort
Of what we arrived on
As a way to minimize impacts to repairs, but that ultimately is up to the CPU see the CPU see will review all these actions and make
determination about about whether that's an acceptable whatever whatever the ant we know whatever the ultimate appraised value and
Costs to be passed on to ratepayers is determined to be CPUC will need to approve that
And at that point if the CPUC does make a finding and that it is not an acceptable cost to the ratepayers
Then PG&E would need to come back to this Commission with a new mitigation package
We would need to start over again because we are relying on these
effectuation of these items to move forward with to get mitigation under the coastal act and if they're not able to go forward then
We would have to come back and think about new a new mitigation package
Okay, thank you
Commissioner Jackson
Thank you
You know for more than 40 years
You guys all know this power plan has been
exacted an enormous toll on the very ocean it overlooks and
And we have decided it's the price we've been willing to pay to keep the lights on.
But I want to be clear, it's a price paid not by the company, but by the ocean itself,
and by the public and by future generations.
We all recognize there's nothing free.
Ratepayers have shouldered and always will shoulder the costs.
It's a pay me now or pay me later.
pocket the gains while the ratepayers shoulder the cost, just as they have for decades. Profits
of $2.2 billion in 2023 and profits of $2.4 billion in 2020 to 2024. And yes, I mean,
I certainly appreciate, and we can all appreciate PG&E's community involvement, importance of
the local economy, but that does not erase the ecological debt still owed. When we consider
the decades of harm already inflicted on the ecosystem and the continued destruction that
will occur at a minimum through 2030 under the plant's extended operations, protecting
the entire 12,000 acres of Diablo Canyon lands is far more than justified. It is essential.
My colleagues have spoken about the uncertainty. We have no idea what the future is going to
hold, and that's why I think it's imperative upon us to act now.
Being in local government, you know, we tend to kick the can down the road, we study and
we wait for this and we wait for that, and there's never a perfect opportunity.
But we have the bird in the hand now to protect the entire 12,000 acres.
And I think after decades of taxpayer-funded benefit and what really is incalculable environmental
loss it's time for an investment that finally pays the people back through
lasting protections of the lands that remain I have not been convinced that we
cannot secure the permanent protection of the 12,000 acres now and I just want
to emphasize that again this is not just an act of preservation it's an overdue
act of ecological restitution thank you madam chair and I will not be supporting
the motion as I anticipate will be made.
Understood.
Thank you.
Commissioner Wilson briefly,
and then I'll entertain a motion if we're ready.
I'm not gonna make the motion,
but I do wanna entertain,
I just wanna say a couple things.
One is there has been some movement today,
and I wanna be focused on that too,
because walking in the room,
there's a couple things that we're walking out
that we move forward.
One is that non-profit and tribal
conservation organizations have been added to the list of potential owners and managers
of these conservative lands. And there has been a fiveyear extension in terms of the
holding as well. So those were added as part of this.
I also want to say I concur with and I disagree with PG&E's assessment on the environmental
review and that I concur with staffs assessment under sections 30230 and 30231 to the extent
of the marine biological resources impacts and I just want to make sure it's clear in
the findings that we, or at least I, will make a decision based on those findings in
the staff report. Thank you.
Thank you Commissioner and for my part, I think it'll come as no surprise based on my
opening comments I'm going to align myself with Vice Chair Hart and again
with much gratitude for all the work that has brought us to this point
Commissioner Lopez I think you volunteered to make the motion and seeing
no further requests to speak I'll turn the mic over to you to do so. I don't
think that was me I don't have it up in front of me I heard someone ahead of me
maybe I was wrong with that. Okay Vice Chair Hart are you ready? Commissioner
Are you okay with if I go ahead and make the motion and you could second?
That works. All right. All right in that case. I
Move the Commission approved coastal development permit nine dash two five dash zero seven three nine pursuant to the staff
Recommendation along with the amendments that have been made today
with regard to the length of time etc that
Cassidy mentioned masking for a yes vote
Now second that
That's on the CDP. It's a motion by Vice Chair Hart a second by Commissioner Lopez. They're asking for a yes vote
May we have a roll call please miss Miller?
Commissioner Hart. Yes, Hart. Yes, Commissioner Jackson. No Jackson. No
Commissioner Kelly. Yes. Kelly. Yes, Commissioner Lee. Yes Lee. Yes
Commissioner Lopez
Yes, Lopez. Yes
Commissioner Lowenberg
Yes, Loenberg. Yes, Commissioner not off. I not off. Yes, Commissioner Presiado
Yes, presiado. Yes, Commissioner Wilson. Yes, Wilson. Yes, Commissioner. O'Malley. No
O'Malley. No commissioner Escalante
No, Escalante. No chair Herman. Yes, Herman. Yes, the vote is nine. Yes three. No the motion carries
Are you prepared for the second motion? All right. I'm now going to move to the consistency certification
I move the Commission conditionally concur with consistency certification CC dash
003 dash 2 3 on the grounds that if modified in accordance with the conditions recommended by staff
Previously and today the project described therein would be consistent with the enforceable policies of the California coastal management
program asking for a yes vote
Lopez seconds. Thank you. That's a motion by Vice Chair Hart a second by Commissioner Lopez. They're asking for a yes vote
May we have a roll call, please? Miss Miller?
Commissioner Jackson
Jackson yes, Commissioner Kelly. Yes, Kelly. Yes, Commissioner Lee. Yes Lee. Yes, Commissioner Lopez
Yes, Lopez. Yes, Commissioner Lowenberg
Yes, Lowenberg. Yes, Commissioner not off. No
no no commissioner presiado yes presiado yes commissioner wolfson yes wolfson yes commissioner
o'mally no o'mally no commissioner escalante no escalante no commissioner heart yes heart yes
chair herman yes herman yes the vote is nine yes three no thank you the motion carries
I think that's it. Thank you so much to everyone for your engagement. We are going to take a break.
Please be back in 10 minutes. Thank you, everyone. We are back and we've got just a couple things
left today. I think our next item is item 11, the deputy director's report for the North Coast
District. Absolutely. Thank you and good afternoon, Chair Harmon and commissioners. We just have one
this is the first item. Um
lonely little item in the
North Coast Deputy Directors
report, which is a consolidated
waiver for a last mile fiber
optic project in the city of
Arcata. We are not aware of any
opposition to this item, and
we're asking whether three or
more commissioners object.
Thank you very much. Are there
any expertise? Any speakers?
None. Great Do three or more
but that brings us to item 14 the Deputy Director's Report for the North Central Coast District.
That's right we're tied number 14 and I think you're gonna get a zoom parade for the rest of the day.
In the North Central Coast District directors report this month we're reporting four emergency
permits, three in Marin County and one in Pacifica. These are simply being reported for notification
these are simply being reported for notification purposes.
We don't actually need commission concurrent.
So unless anyone has any questions about those items,
we can move on.
Any questions?
Seeing none, let's move on.
Thank you, Mr. Garopp.
I would just like to report,
before moving on to the next item,
there is some good news in the DD's report today.
This is the commission will recall
that you approved Caltrans Bridge replacement project
for the Lagunius Creek Bridge in Marin County.
That was about a year ago.
One of the central issues at the hearing
was the disposition of a large redwood tree
that Caltrans had slated for removal.
And at that time, the commission made it pretty clear
to Caltrans that every effort had to be made
to save the tree and that its removal was only gonna be allowed
if there were no feasible other alternatives.
And staff, of course, was tasked
with ensuring that no stone was left unturned
and helping to look for those alternatives.
Well, I'm happy to report
that Caltrans took that direction seriously,
and ultimately, they found a way to preserve the tree.
They came to an agreement with PG&E.
So that's a happy outcome.
And I just want to say thank you to our transportation team
and also our colleagues at Caltrans
for all the extra effort and to find a good solution there.
And that project will start construction this spring,
and that's expected to last about a year.
So unless anyone has questions about that one,
We can move to the next agenda item.
Thank you, Mr. Carl.
Any questions?
Just thank you, Caltrans.
Just thank you, Caltrans.
OK, thank you.
Thanks, Mr. Carl.
So that will take us down to item 15.1A.
And this is an appeal in San Mateo County.
And we have Isabel Cooper on the Zoom
to give our staff presentation.
We do have a PowerPoint for this.
Thank you.
Good evening, commissioners.
Item 15.1A is an appeal of a San Mateo County
postal permit approval for a new single family residence
with an attached garage and ADU
and the unincorporated El Granada area of San Mateo County.
Slide one shows a rendering of the county approved project
as seen from San Carlos Avenue.
Next slide please.
The project site outlined in red on slide two
is a roughly 7,000 square foot parcel
within an existing developed residential neighborhood
adjacent to the Montesee to Reparian Corridor,
which is the green vegetated area
to the center left on this slide.
Next slide, please.
Slide three shows a rendering
of the county approved residents
from both east and west elevations at the top,
as well as a site plan with the house noted in green
and the lot lines in red at the bottom.
As you can see, the development envelope
has been tucked up against San Carlos Avenue
and as far from the Reparian Corridor as possible.
As you can also see, the structure steps down a steep slope and includes a roughly 1,700
square foot single family residence, a nearly 800 square foot ADU, and a nearly 400 square
foot attached garage, all told a total of about 2800 square feet of residential development.
The appellant contends that the approved development raises LCP consistency issues related primarily
to sensitive habitats and zoning variances.
side, please. In terms of habitat issues, the appellant contends that the approved development
is inconsistent with LCP provisions protecting riparian and wetland habitats associated with
the Montasito riparian corridor, including that the development is sited within required habitat
buffer areas. The Montasito riparian corridor is associated with Santa Guston Creek, an intermittent
creek some 100 feet west of the project site, meaning towards the top and off screen in this
image. Several biological resource evaluations and boundary delineations have been completed
for the site and the most recent of which is represented on slide four showing in green the
boundary of the riparian corridor. The LCP requires a 30-foot buffer from the edge of riparian
vegetation which is shown here as the combination of the yellow and orange areas but this buffer can
be reduced to 20 feet which is shown here as just the yellow area. The 20-foot buffer can be applied
where there are no other feasible building sites on the property. As you can see from the footprint
of the development outlined in red, the majority of the home is located outside of the 30-foot
buffer and all of the development is located outside of the 20-foot buffer. Given the LCP's
allowance for as little as a 20-foot buffer in cases like this, staff believes that the project
can be found LCP consistent in terms of required buffers. The appellant also asserts that wetlands
are present on site, as well as potentially within 100 feet on adjacent properties also
located along the Montesito riparian corridor, and that the proposed development is within LCP
required wetland buffers. However, the site-specific wetland delineation did not demonstrate wetlands,
and the report that covered off-site areas did not suggest that wetlands were present there either.
All of this was reviewed by a commission's ecologist who concluded that the resources
in question was repairing habitat and not wetlands. All of this is covered in more detail in the
addendum that was distributed yesterday. Next slide please. The appellant also contends that the
county approved reduced front yard setback is excessive and suggests that an alternative
design with a smaller scale and footprint should have instead been considered to assure required
front yard setbacks could be accommodated. The LCP typically requires a 20-foot front yard setback as
was illustrated by the red dash line on slide five.
However, in this case, the county approved
a reduced three foot front yard setback
shown by the green dash line on the slide.
The county found that strict adherence
to the front yard setback requirements
would have further restricted the development potential
of a site which is already constrained
by the riparian corridor and buffers.
Commission staff concur with the county's conclusion
that the reduced front yard setback,
which is consistent with the LCP
and has been applied to adjacent residential developments
in the vicinity, allows for a development
which is comparable in size and scale
to other homes in the neighborhood
while still conforming to habitat
and other setback requirements.
Next slide, please.
In short, it appears that the county's approval
adequately addressed LCP provisions
as they relate to riparian and wetland habitats,
and that the county-applied front setback reduction
is consistent with what is allowed under the LCP,
and these issues do not rise
the level of a substantial issue. This outcome suggests that the commission
need not become further involved in this case, and staff recommends the
commission find that no substantial issue exists with respect to the county
approved projects conformity with the LCP. The single motion and resolution to
do so is found on page four of the staff report, and this concludes staff's
presentation. Thank you.
Great. Thank you very much. Are there any ex parte? Seeing none will open the
public hearing and I'll turn it over to Simone. Yes we have two on Zoom, Lenny
Roberts. I've moved you to panelists and then also Peter Prowse. Good afternoon
commissioners. Are you hearing me? Yes. Okay thank you. Good afternoon Chair
Harmon and commissioners. I'm Lenny Roberts, legislative advocate for Green
Foothills, the appellant. In 1972 I carried petitions for Prop 20 and have
also served as a coastal commissioner.
County planning determined that the proposed project
is appealable to your commission in part based
on the presumption that there are wetlands
within a hundred feet of the subject property.
We strongly agree.
Please find substantial issue.
There's a thriving Arroyo willow forest
that covers the adjacent undeveloped property to the west,
which is mapped as part of the Montecito riparian corridor,
which you saw on your earlier slide.
No comprehensive biological survey has been done
on the adjacent property.
It's highly likely that wetlands are on this site.
The reason I say that is that two wetland plants
were identified in 2004 on the subject property
prior to acquisition by the current owners.
A biological report dated October 15th, 2004,
prepared by Tom Mahoney of Albion Environmental,
identified slew sledge, an obligate wetland species
and spreading wash of facultative wetland species
that have been growing on the subject property
and were re-sprouting after
unpermitted clearing of the arroyo willows.
Re-vegetation of this area required by the county back then
failed due to a lack of proper care,
which should have included weeding and watering
during the first three years.
Habitats we know can change over time,
in this case due to removal of the shady willow canopy,
but these onsite wetlands species strongly support
the likelihood of wetlands
in the adjacent Montecito riparian corridor.
Regarding the coastal development permit,
condition of approval number 91
requires recordation of a deed restriction
requiring compliance with performance standards
for riparian and buffer areas,
but does not specifically prohibit construction of pathways,
walkways, patios, and the like within the buffer.
As such, this condition is vague and is problematic,
if not impossible to enforce.
It needs more specificity.
Condition 91's requirement to minimize removal of vegetation
within the deed restricted area should include an exception
for highly flammable invasive species
now growing on the dry upland portion of the property.
And these include scotch broom, French broom,
pampas grass, and coyote bush.
The extreme variance to allow a miserly three-foot setback in front where 20 feet are required
would result in an 85% intrusion into the setback on a narrow, substandard street.
Where will all the occupants of the proposed three-story, five-bedroom house and ADU be
able to park?
How will emergency vehicles access nearby home?
Please find substantial issues so the house can be scaled back and adequate protections
for the deed-restricted area can be included.
Thanks for all your work on behalf of the California coast.
Thank you.
Next we have the representative, Peter Prowse, Peter, if you can unmute yourself.
Thank you.
Yes.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Okay.
Great.
Thank you.
Good evening, commissioners.
My name is Peter Prowse.
I'm the representative of the applicant, Elizabeth Lacasio.
I am here, I think with our project team, including my client, Ms. Lacasia, the architect,
as well as the biologists, who are here to answer any questions if they come up from
the commissioners.
I would like to commend staff.
We support the staff recommendation to find no substantial issue here.
This has been a 20-year odyssey for Ms. Lacasia and her late husband, Rod.
This project has gone through four different successively smaller designs to fit it within
a small portion of the corner of the property to avoid any sensitive LCP issues.
And we're hopeful that this Odyssey can come to a conclusion today.
Here's the street, the project, the property is at the end of the street.
It's a dead end street.
You can see the cars have no trouble parking down there.
Next slide, please.
This is a figure prepared by the architect
showing the setbacks, unlike many of the neighboring
properties, which includes some of the project opponents.
This project complies with all resource-related LCP setback
requirements.
Even if there were wetlands on an adjacent property,
as Ms. Roberts contends, which we dispute
and which the Coastal Commission staff agree with us on,
the project would still comply.
That's all shown on this slide.
all the portions of the project
that actually touch the ground are more than 30 feet
from any riparian or wetland boundary.
And if there were any doubt, as staff noted,
the LCP allows for reduced setbacks
and the county made appropriate findings in that regard
as staff has correctly noted.
Next slide, please.
This is just the area overview,
the properties in the lower left,
it's that small red triangle.
You can see the size of this property
in relation to some of the adjacent properties,
as well as the numbers on a number of different houses here
signify those houses which also enjoy
an encroachment into the front setback.
And we agree there's no substantial issue
and would ask for your, that you dismiss this appeal.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
And we have three badges available for questions.
Great, thank you very much.
So now we will close the public hearing
and ask if our staff has any response.
I can start off, and then I have a specific question
that probably passed to Isabel.
I mean, one thing, this question about
whether this is a wetland versus a riparian corridor,
we looked at that pretty closely,
and water courses like this
can exhibit wetland characteristics.
It doesn't make them a wetland,
but we work closely with our ecologist,
and Dr. Pausch is on the Zoom too,
if you want further detail about that determination.
we came to the conclusion that this was a riparian habitat.
And that's why we applied the riparian habitat
sorts of requirements which this project meets under the LCP.
And then with respect to the buffer,
the deed restriction does prohibit future development
in the buffer.
And so that's a requirement
that went along with the county's permit.
So we believe that that's adequate protection
for that buffer area.
And then like I said, I would note that Dr. Pausch is online
if you have kind of further biological questions.
And then Isabel, did you have something you want to add?
No, no, I think you covered that all.
Well, just to note the county also included
a condition approval regarding landscaping
within the 30 foot buffer as well,
for minimizing removal of riparian vegetation
and requiring replacement with native species
for any additional encrushment into that buffer.
OK, great.
Thank you very much.
So I'll return to the commission,
ask if there are any questions, comments,
or I'll entertain a motion for no substantial issue.
Commissioner Nada.
Thank you.
I appreciate staff's clarification on this.
I did want to say that I have concerns about this one,
because as the staff report says, this
is one of several lots in this repair that could it could be
precedential for other development along around this
riparian corridor. So I, I would maybe like to look at it
further on repair and wetlands impacts. The parking I'm not I
think we've, you know, are getting more comfortable with
But not accommodating the harkiness much as we used to, but I did want to raise concern
about the precedential impacts on this.
Do you see, are there others in the pike that we're, because it does seem like we're, they're
routinely disregarding, they're routinely doing exceptions to the front setbacks, at least.
Not aware of others in the pipeline, but Isabel may more may know a little bit more about
that, but, you know, in terms of precedence, there are these kinds of these lots, they're
all over the place in the coastal zone where there's some habitat constraints. And, you
know, what we saw in this case is that the county, you know, applied those standards,
which is the 30 foot setback that could be moved down to 20 feet. And so, in large degree,
precedent is that they follow the LCP. And to note that what Mr. Prowse indicated, which
is accurate, which is the incursions that are beyond the 30 foot limit, which is the
standard riparian setback limit. Those are all the elevated structures. So those are
some of the decks and stuff like that that extend roughly to 25 feet, I think, give or
take. But do you know, Isabel, about other sorts of projects that might be in the pipeline
take fish or not ask question. No, unfortunately and the county was not
available today for questions. I do know the adjacent property I believe is also
zoned as residential and is currently vacant but I'm not aware of any plans in
the pipeline so to speak for any additional development in the
neighborhood. Yeah I was thinking that since the Commission's going to be
meeting in Half Moon Bay in February we might be able to take a look at it then
but okay thank you thank you any other commissioners comments questions or
a motion please I would entertain a motion to be the day for me to make
motions I move the Commission determined that appeal number a dash to dash SMC
dash 25 dash zero zero five one raises no substantial issue with respect to the
grounds in which the appeal has been filed under section 306 or three of the
Co-Select and I recommend a yes vote. Second. Lopez seconds. Okay thank you.
That's a motion by Vice Chair Hart, a second by Commissioner Lopez. May we,
they're asking for a yes vote. May we have a roll call vote please Ms. Miller.
Commissioner Jackson? Aye. Jackson yes. Commissioner Kelly? Yes. Kelly yes. Commissioner
Lee? Yes. Lee yes. Commissioner Lopez? Yes. Lopez yes. Commissioner Nottoff? Nottoff?
Now, Commissioner Presiato.
Yes.
Presiato.
Yes.
Commissioner Wilson.
Commissioner O'Malley.
Yes.
O'Malley.
Yes.
Commissioner Escalante.
Yes.
Escalante.
Yes.
Commissioner Hart.
Yes.
Hart.
Yes.
Chair Harmon.
Yes.
Harmon.
Yes.
The vote is 9, yes, 1, no.
Thank you.
No substantial issue has been found.
Okay.
Now we'll move on to item 16.
Council member. Thank you.
Deputy director's report for
the Central Coast district.
Yes that brings us to item 16
and then the Central Coast
District directors report this
month were paid reporting two
waivers. One for improvements
to the concrete peer structure
levers point in Pacific Grove
and one for state parks
improvements at their Seabright
State Beach unit in the city of
Santa Cruz. In terms of the
latter. I know we did receive
some objections. Essentially
I would note that there are currently no ADA improvements at San Lorenzo Point and thus folks with disabilities are hard pressed to access this area all currently.
So the improvements that state parks proposes will mean that ADA users will have safe access to this popular overlook area for the first time.
And the view here provides a stunning panorama up and down coast takes in Santa Cruz main beach, the beach boardwalk amusement park and the Santa Cruz war.
And the ADA improvements proposed mean that ADA users
will be able to access this view as well for the first time.
And so we believe this to be a good project,
one that is supported by the city
and the neighborhood association,
as you can see in the correspondence package
for this item and one that will provide tangible
public access enhancements and improvements
at a very popular visitor destination.
So we continue to recommend the waiver.
Past that, we're not aware of any objections
or controversy regarding the other waiver.
And so the question is whether three or more
commissioners object to the items in the report. If not, then the commission will concur. Thank
you, Mr. Carl any ex partes. Any speakers. Yes, you have one Robert Russell. And let
me go ahead and promote. Robert, can you unmute yourself? Just try it this way. Robert Russell.
Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Do I get not do I not get three minutes? To standard
You get two minutes, Robert, go for it.
Just two minutes.
All right.
Yes.
Commissioners, I acknowledge your service.
Are your brains full yet?
What a day.
On the whole American West Coast, this little park, Seabright Overlook, is unique.
It's not just another state park.
It is famous as a site where in 1885, three Hawaiian princes introduced surfing to America.
This history is a source of pride for Santa Cruz.
If this park is to be changed, it deserves the very best reconfiguration we can create.
The state plan, presented here today for a waiver, is both ill-conceived and inexplicably
ADA non-conforming given that ADA funds are being expended.
There exists a practical, fully-conforming alternative plan already designed by renowned
landscape architect Gregory Cole.
Please see my letter, which is included in your package.
I hope. For a decade, I've shared a fence with the park and we see hundreds of visitors
during stretches of good weather. A hundred a day is not unusual and sunsets, for example,
typically draw 50 viewers. People come to this unique park to see the river flowing to the
Pacific. And the best view you can get is right at the fence. The problem is the existing plan
offered to the commissioners only gets handicapped people halfway in.
There is an alternative plan which allows fully access to the western fence.
So the whole best view can be seen by handicapped people.
An evolving and new difficulty is electric bikes and their danger in mixing with people on foot.
Any new configuration should prohibit all motorized vehicles including electric bikes.
Suitable signage should also include the statement,
no beach access in both English and Spanish.
This is a unique coastal park, and since it is practical,
should provide for full ADA access, not just partial.
Please deny the waiver and require full ADA compliance for this coastal jewel.
Going forward, this should also be a well-publicized neighborhood meeting that is...
Thank you, Robert. That concludes our public speech. Okay, thank you very much. Do three or
more commissioners object? Do you want to take it back to staff? I would stuff like me to take it
back to them. Stop. I'll just note this is Keanu Ford with the Central Coast District planner in
their office. If you guys have any questions, we're welcome to answer them. I'll just note that
The current proposal from state parks does allow ADA accessibility out to the western
point of the park. There is a small section where the elevation and slope of the park
is too great for ADA users, but it does allow that full view to the river and to the beach.
And lastly, I will note that there are interpretive panels proposed as part of the project,
And so that will be included in the design as well.
And we're happy to answer any other questions.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
So I'll entertain questions.
Commissioner Jackson.
Just a quick question.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Forte, so real quickly on the ADA axis.
So what I'm getting is that what they're proposing
is the best we can do based on the slope and the terrain?
That's correct, yeah.
The proposal is very minor grading at the site, which is something that we would support.
And it also allows for better drainage at the site.
This area is subject to erosion.
And so the design allows for the erosion to be less significant in this area.
So that's also a key component of the design.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Thank you. I just I have an ex parte that I want to make sure I think it's an ex parte
to get it out there still fairly new with this thing. But I didn't meet with city manager
Matt Morgan Mogensen, as well as Mayor Nick Smith, back in September on September 29.
And we went for a walk there at Lovers Point. And this was mentioned to me as a project
that they were hoping to get moving. And at the time I did reach out to staff just to
share I thought there was a miscommunication around a report. And that's the extent of
communications. I didn't I miss this one on the agenda so my apologies. Thank you and and I'm sorry
I missed your hand in that shelf. So um okay are there any further questions or do three or more
commissioners wish to remove any item from the deputy director's report? Seeing none the commission
can curse. Thank you and that brings us to our final item for today I believe which is item 18a.
Yes that correct it does take us down to 18a and this is an appeal in Morro Bay and I'd like to
ask Sarah McGregor the planner has assigned this item to give our staff presentation. We do have a
powerpoint for this one too. Thank you. Good evening commissioners. Item 18a is an appeal of
a city of Morro Bay coastal development permit amendment to slightly modify lot lines and the
the parameters of an approved but not yet built single-family residence on an undeveloped
lot.
Slide one shows a rendering of the proposed house post-construction in white roughly in
the middle behind the telephone pole.
Next slide, please.
The project is located on a vacant parcel sandwiched between Main Street and Tide Avenue,
inland of Highway 1 in the northern end of the city of Morrow Bay, noted on slide two
by the red star.
A stream known as No Name Creek bisects the project site,
where that creek is LCP designated as Esha
and subject to the LCP's Esha and Esha buffer provisions.
Next slide, please.
And slide three zooms in on the site and surrounding area
with the currently vacant site noted in green,
the currently developed lot noted in blue,
and the rough location of No Name Creek shown
in dashed green within the larger lot.
The city approved a CDP in 2010 creating these two lots
and authorizing a single family residence
on the new green lot where the blue lot
already contained a home at that time.
However, the city's action did not provide
for driveway access to the proposed new house
and the house was not constructed at the time.
Subsequently, the city modified the original CDP
to shift the lot lines to provide a little more space
on the green lot to allow for the not yet constructed
residents to be located as far away from the creek as possible, and modified the allowable
building envelope accordingly. The city also allowed for a permeable paver driveway adjacent
to the creek to access the building envelope from Main Street. Next slide, please.
Slide four shows a site plan view with the already built house site in blue, the 2B built
house building envelope in red the new driveway location in gray and the required conservation
conservation easement area in green with the rough location of No Name Creek shown in dashed
green within that area. The appeal primarily contends that the city approved project raises
LCP consistency questions related to ESHA and ESHA buffers, other approvals, water quality and
violations. The LCP's primary standard for buffers from Esha is 50 feet and in this case the proposed
residence is located entirely outside of that buffer including because the shared lot line has
been moved to allow the residents to be located at the furthest point on the lot from the creek.
As to the driveway, portions of the driveway are within about 15 feet of the Esha but the LCP
allows for buffers as small as 10 feet if the site is unusable for its principal purpose
without a setback reduction and if the reduction is the minimum necessary to allow the use after
all practical design modifications are evaluated. In this case, the city approved project meets both
criteria including because there is no other way for vehicles to access the building envelope
and the driveway has been moved as far away from the ESHA as possible. The approval also includes
other habitat protection measures including a conservation conservation easement and full
restoration in the green areas here and extending off this slide to the right a total of some 29,000
square feet of restoration a grade separation of about 10 feet from the creek elevation to the
driveway elevation the use of permeable pavers for the driveway and erosion and sediment control
requirements all of which serve to provide additional protection to the habitat including
in terms of water quality concerns. As to the other appeal contentions, the city approved
project appears to have received all other required agency approvals and the proposed
driveway width is LCP consistent. Finally, the appellant alleges that there has been
unpermitted willow removal at the site. It does in fact appear that some vegetation associated
with No Name Creek was in fact removed at some point from the vacant parcel without
a CDP, thus constitutes being a violation. The LCP requires that violations like this
be corrected in order to allow for CDP approval. And this CDP includes the habitat restoration
requirements I previously described, which will also serve to address this violation.
Next slide, please. In short, the changes to the project in front of you today on appeal
serve to move already allowed house development further away from ESHA and to provide code
required ingress and egress all in a manner that is allowed under the LCP. As a result,
staff recommends that the commission determine that the appeal contentions do not raise a
substantial issue and that the commission declined to take jurisdiction over the CDP
application for this project. The single motion necessary to implement this recommendation
is found on page five of the staff report. This concludes staff's presentation.
Great, thank you very much. Are there any ex partes to report? Okay, seeing none.
We just checking zoom. All right, we'll open the public hearing and
question not after you. No, no. Okay. Open the public hearing and I'll turn it over
to Simone and Chris. Thank you. Hi. Yep. We have two speakers, one's not showing up.
We have Ann Schoenauer and Kevin Merck. Kevin Merck, if you are available, just use the hand
function on Zoom so we can see you. And then we have Christy Fry available for questions. So Ann,
let me go ahead and move you to panelists real quick.
I think Kevin Merck is listed under Sarah McGregor. He was having trouble with the Zoom
login. So I think he's in the attendee mode right now.
Okay, let us look for him real quick again. For now, and show now you can go ahead and speak.
And if you can unmute yourself. Okay, sorry about that. Can you hear me now? Yes, we can hear you.
Okay, thank you for hearing me out today. I wanted to first find some pictures of like
the actual site that aren't just maps, so you guys can kind of see what's going on.
So this is a view from the creek going towards that existing house. And basically where all
those wood chip piles have been dumped, which probably isn't legal. That's where the site's
going to be. So if you could flip to the next video or next picture. And so if you see here,
it's actually tucked behind that house. So if you follow the line of the white meets the green,
that is going to be actually the wall they're proposing. And then the house is actually going
to be tucked behind that house against those other houses that you see back there. And all that soil
over there is for Parian. If you walk on it, your foot will sink right through. It's very porous,
so that would have to all be excavated and then, you know, a hard pack would have to go in in
order to put that house there. So that does use filtration for the water. That's our only storm
drain for our whole North Morrow Bay. So it's very concerning that that house gets built because
you've really taken away that filtration that ultimately just flows into the ocean. And so I
I think that filtration is really important
and should be looked at.
The other thing is I'm not really confident on the easements.
If you could flip to the next.
So if you look here, they kind of made a new easement
and carved out that riparian area.
And so I'm not sure how that came about.
But I think that needs to be reevaluated.
I'm not sure about the measurements on that because,
or even the soil samples, because that environment
is riparian and it is being used.
And some willows were cut down in that area.
We all know about it.
So, and then wood chips were piled on top.
So that's a little concerning as well.
So I would just like, maybe a commissioner,
somebody just take a second look at, you know,
all the paperwork and all of our concerns
to see, you know, what's really going on with the setbacks
and the soil samples and things like that.
I think the last tests that were done
were quite some time ago.
I think they were pretty old.
I wanna say maybe 2015, 2010, something like that.
So anyway, I think new tests should be done,
maybe some new assessments.
And I think, I think that's all I have to say.
Thank you.
Oh, wait, one more thing.
If you could go to the next slide.
I forgot, I included some maps.
So I looked at the policy in Morro Bay
and I found like three or four maps
that actually does think that area
zoned as environmentally sensitive, a storm drain.
If you could go to the next map.
I can't quite see the title on that one.
But all five maps, you just flip through the next few.
All five maps showed that area as being environmentally
sensitive, non-buildable.
And I believe when that property sold,
it was known that that was not going to be a buildable site
too.
So I'm not sure how all that transpired.
Anyway, that's all I have to say, thank you so much.
Okay, and so we sent an email to Kevin Marks,
who was using Sarah MacGregor's.
We're gonna see, hopefully he can hop back on.
Other than that, that completes it,
and we just had Christi Frye,
who's available for questions.
Okay, let's just give Mr. McGurk's one minute.
Christi Frye has their hands up,
so I'm gonna let her talk, see what she...
Thank you. Okay.
Is he been promoted if you can unmute yourself?
Oh, we're just waiting a minute to see if he's, yeah.
Are you guys going to hear me?
Christy Fry, yes, we can hear you.
Yeah, this is Christy Fry.
Sorry, I know Kevin Mark did want to speak as well,
but while we're waiting for him to connect,
I'll try to do a little explanation
on the setback concerns of the,
I'm a civil engineer and a land surveyor.
I was not involved in the project at the time.
This was originally approved.
That civil engineer surveyor has since retired.
And I've just been helping out to fill in the blanks here.
This property was mapped environmentally in 2015,
I believe.
And Kevin Merck prepared the biology report
for the habitat restoration.
The ESHA setback, the 25 foot ESHA setback buffer
was monumented in the ground
with permanent markers by a surveyor.
And so those are valid locations
that can be retraced at any time.
The ESHA setback established at that time does,
even if it did change in real life, does not change,
it was monumented at that time on the map
based on information provided and the applicant has actually dedicated, let's see what that
total area is, the parcel two there, the green parcel is 34,321 square feet so it's pretty
close to an acre and he has left with a 5,452 square foot building envelope to put his home
in he's given up a lot of the property as conservation easement the my
understanding and I will let Kevin speak to it more if he can get on in the
meeting is that all of the all of the weed abatement that's been done out
there was done under his direction or under the city's direction as far as weed
abatement has been the vegetation removal and when everything is finished on this the restoration
plan will bring it back to where it needs to be even if something may may have been over or under
or wood chips accidentally gotten a place they weren't the final restoration plan has to be
signed off by the city with a two-year monitoring plan once it's once it is
revegetated. And looks like I'm about running out of time so if anybody has
any questions. Thank you. Okay we got Kevin. Mark. Can you hear me? Yes. Sorry
for that. Kevin Merck here. Thank you Chair Harmon and commissioners. I'm the
project biologist and here to answer questions and just wanted to say that
your staff did a great job pulling all those pieces together and providing a
staff report that is consistent and that I support and as far as any questions
that you may have pertaining to biology Esha I'm here to answer them. Okay that
includes it. Thank you very much. I will ask our staff if they'd like to make any
closing comments? Yeah I'll just note a quick couple things in response to the
appellant's presentation. So the site is designated on the LCP-ESHA map and that
designation triggers the requirement for a biological assessment and that
assessment is what defined the ESHA buffers and the setbacks. And as Miss
Frye said during her presentation, those buffers are required to be surveyed by
our licensed surveyor and verified. And again, I would just note that this amendment serves to
move the development envelope further away from the ESHA compared to the already approved version
of this project. And with that we're available for questions. Great. Thank you very much. I'll
bring it back to the commission. Questions, comments, or a motion for no substantial issue?
I'd be happy to make a motion. Thank you very much. I move that the commission determine that
appeal number A-3-MRB-25-0048 raises no substantial issue with respect to the grounds on which
the appeal has been filed under section 30603 and I recommend a yes vote.
Second.
It's a motion by Commissioner Kelly, a second by Commissioner Nodoff and they're asking for
a yes vote.
May we have a roll call vote please.
Commissioner Kelly.
Yes.
Kelly.
Yes.
Commissioner Lee.
Yes.
Lee.
Yes.
Oh, Lopez.
Yes.
Oh, Lopez.
Yes.
Commissioner not off.
I not off.
Yes.
Commissioner Presiado.
Yes.
Presiado.
Yes.
Commissioner Wilson.
Commissioner O'Malley.
Yes.
O'Malley.
Yes.
Commissioner Escalante.
Yes.
Escalante.
Yes.
Commissioner Hart.
Yes.
Hart.
Yes.
Commissioner Jackson.
Jackson.
Yes.
Yes, Herman. Yes, the vote is unanimous. Thank you. No substantial issue has been found Commissioner Lopez
We'd love seeing the honorary Coastal Commissioner with you there. Okay, so we're done for today for you
So how many votes you get now
Okay before we adjourn I just want to remind everyone that we're meeting tomorrow morning at 8 a.m. To finish closed session
I'm looking at yes, okay. We indeed are all right. See y'all tomorrow morning