AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PRIOR TO THE MEETING
AGENDA NO: PC
MEETING DATE: January 28, 2025
AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PRIOR TO THE MEETING
AGENDA NO: 7b
MEETING DATE: January 28, 2025
1 Heather Goodwin
From: June Swall
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 11:50 AM
To: Council
Subject: Morro Elemtary School - Consent Agenda 7b
[Some people who received this message don't oŌen get email from . Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ]
CAUTION: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking links or opening aƩachments.
I support the Council approve the sending of leƩer to San Luis Obispo School District to request the District not take any acƟon to sell or dispose of School for 120 days. This would allow opportunity for our community to create a financial plan for purchase of property.
This school was given with sƟpulaƟon by original owner that it would always retain its educaƟonal purpose. This community desires to honor this generous giŌ with its one condiƟon. The building itself is of historical and emoƟonal significance to many in Morro Bay. The building itself is of architectural importance and beauty. I am aware of a building in community where I grew up and received educaƟon that has been carefully preserved/maintained and has conƟnued to provide a wonderful facility for educaƟon and cultural event. Please help this beauƟful building conƟnue to provide a facility for enhancement of the ciƟzens of Morro Bay!
Respecƞully submiƩed, June Swall, Devoted Morro Bay Resident Sent from my iPad
1 Dana Swanson
From: Madison Treiber
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 7:15 AM
To: Council
Subject: 1/28 Consent agenda, 7.b.
[Some people who received this message don't oŌen get email from . Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ]
CAUTION: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking links or opening aƩachments.
Morro Bay City CouncilThank you for all your hard work in serving our community. I’m wriƟng to request that the city send the leƩer to SLCUSD asking for the district to wait 120 before proceeding with the sale of the Morro Bay Elementary site to allow the city Ɵme to further explore opƟons for purchase.
-Madison Treiber
1 Dana Swanson
From: Linda Donnelly
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 7:10 PM
To: Council
Subject: Item 7b
[Some people who received this message don't oŌen get email from . Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ]
CAUTION: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking links or opening aƩachments.
Dear Council,
I am wriƟng this email in support of Council Member Landrum’s request that you direct the city to send a leƩer to the SLCUSD and let them know we would sƟll like to be considered as an interested party in the purchase of the school and land. Let them know we’d like a certain amount of Ɵme to gather a plan and check our opƟons.
This property was a giŌ to our community 90 years ago. It has been a significant investment in the growth of our community.
I would ask that Council discuss how we as a community might benefit from keeping this historic property, and how we can do it to our advantage. What property do we have that they might benefit from? Can we get creaƟve with this project?
I think we can. Lets work together.
Respecƞully,
Linda Donnelly
Sent from my iPhone
1 Dana Swanson
From: tunde banffy
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 8:30 AM
To: Council
Subject: Agenda item 7b The old Morro Elementary Property [Some people who received this message don't oŌen get email from . Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ]
CAUTION: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking links or opening aƩachments.
Dear Morro Bay City Council Members,
Thank you for hearing the voices of our community and adding item 7b to your meeƟng agenda. I recommend the Council approve the leƩer to be sent to San Luis Coastal School District requesƟng the District not take any acƟon to sell or dispose of the old Morro Elementary School site for 120 days to allow the community to create a financial plan to purchase the property.
The locaƟon is beauƟful, in the heart of Morro Bay, right next to the community center; walking distance to the library, post office, fire house, Vet’s Hall and other city offices. It has a beauƟful view of Morro Rock. The buildings there are historic, have lovely dramaƟc archways, and are surrounded by green fields. The property was kindly donated by the Quintana family many years ago who, at the Ɵme, requested it be used for educaƟonal purposes. The property is such a gem and deserves to be preserved for our community as do the unique programs that currently reside there. The programs offered at this site have brought community together for years, especially young families. There is also lots of room in those buildings for other community programs and would make great offices for the city, too! Thank you for your Ɵme and all you do,
Tünde Bánffy-Stapleton
Morro Bay resident
AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PRIOR TO THE MEETING
AGENDA NO: 7b & 8a
MEETING DATE: January 28, 2025
2 I’m Sent from my iPad
AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PRIOR TO THE MEETING
AGENDA NO: 8a & 8b
MEETING DATE: January 28, 2025
AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PRIOR TO THE MEETING
AGENDA NO: 8a
MEETING DATE: January 28, 2025
1 Heather Goodwin
From: June Swall
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 9:56 AM
To: Council
Subject: Council Meeting - Consent Agenda Item 8a
CAUTION: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking links or opening aƩachments.
I fully support denial by Planning Commission to demolish current structures and replace with new hotel.
The bungalows are not only historic but they are unique colorful pleasing and have a beach town vibe. The proposed replacement is in violaƟon of a height regulaƟon and thus obstrucƟng bay view and presents other concerns.
The MariƟme business would also be affected and this is of criƟcal importance to the City for harbor repairs.
Thank you for consideraƟon in maintaining waterfront character, enforcing height requirements and criƟcal waterfront business.... June Swall, Morro Bay Resident Sent from my iPad
2 551 Embarcadero (Kayak Horizons) - concept plan received; PC unsatisfied with public benefits proposed; requested revised proposal for better public access connections 571 Embarcadero (Salt Building) - mandated lateral and vertical access improvements as part of upstairs STVR approval
701 Embarcadero (Dutchman's) - retained historical pier elements as part of applicant's proposed remodel
725 Embarcadero (Rose's) - expanded lateral and vertical access as part of second floor hotel conversion
801 Embarcadero (Libertine) - rejected initial proposal that failed to provide adequate public benefit for large footprint structure at city center; worked successfully with applicant to achieve significant public benefits for the people of Morro Bay and California 833 Embarcadero (Harborwalk Inn) - worked alongside applicant/RFP winner to create a successful public-private partnership and appropriately balance benefits/drawbacks 945 Embarcadero (House of Juju) - expanded harborwalk lateral and vertical access with 45- degree angled approach as part of applicant's proposed extension 1001 Front Street (Giovanni's/STAX) - enforced pedestrian coastal access through narrow passageway and previously closed gate as part of applicant's temporary use permitting for weekend markets
I list the above not to relive the past but to give proper credit to our thoughtful, experienced, councilappointed planning commissioners in recent years who have taken seriously their role in representing the people of Morro Bay and California, especially when it comes to private development of public lease sites on our waterfront. Whereas in the distant past, the threshold for significant public benefits and/or a "yes" vote on a proposed waterfront project may have been lower, earning the trust of today's public for new development along a coastline that's decreasingly visible with each passing project is part of what makes increased scrutiny by planning commissioners and staff that much more important over time.
Case and point: the proposed Libertine project at 801 Embarcadero originally came in weak in many respects and faced worthy PC opposition. Yet, through a coordinated effort between planning commissioners, planning staff, and a willing applicant, the project evolved from a clear "no" to a hardearned "yes," received all necessary approvals as a result, expects to break ground in 2025, and should contribute meaningfully to our waterfront visibility, access, and bottom line for decades to come. In hindsight, it's a clear example of a project that never would have been as well received by our city council, the CA Coastal Commission, and the general public had our Planning Commission, former staffers, and the applicant himself not fought so hard to balance public and private gain while protecting our waterfront. If that very same Planning Commission felt the project at 451 Embarcadero, as proposed and presented at its 10/29/24 meeting, didn't meet the threshold required to grant 50 years of private development on public property, we should probably listen.
Thankfully, it appears we did listen.
Today's updated version of the proposed project at 451 Embarcadero, if I'm interpreting today's staff report and related attachments correctly, does not appear to be the same project voted down 4-1 by our planning commissioners three months ago. Though phrased in today's appeal hearing as if Council might be preparing to overrule the Planning Commission's pragmatic decision, it seems instead as if the applicant has taken to heart the well intended stipulations cited by planning commissioners (as grounds for what would have earned their approval had they been implemented prior to the 10/29/24 hearing) and conscientiously implemented most or all of PC's feedback into today's revised proposal. The result, from a public perspective, appears to be a more palatable version of private development on our public 3 waterfront than previous iterations. If, in fact, all specifically requested PC changes have now been implemented in today's proposal, then Council would be wise to support the hard work and good intentions of the applicant, our Community Development staff, and our Planning Commission by endorsing a revised, improved version of the proposed project at 451 Embarcadero. If, however, any aspect of the proposed project at 451 Embarcadero were to revert back to a version previously denied by Planning Commission during today's Council hearing, please support the people of Morro Bay and California by preserving the Planning Commission's denial of the proposed project at 451 Embarcadero.
Private investment in our public waterfront is an important piece of the economic puzzle, but it's not the only piece. With each approved project on Tidelands lease sites, especially those of today's scale, we risk sacrificing Morro Bay's small town waterfront charm irreversibly. To maintain physical and visual access to the bay and Morro Rock is to protect the essence of our city; our Planning Commission recognized that. Today's hearing is an opportunity for Council to support its planning commissioners by requiring the project changes sought at previous PC hearings. If approved by Council as suggested by the Planning Commission, the CA Coastal Commission will have a much easier time following suit and expediting the redevelopment process accordingly.
I thank all parties involved for their diligence, investment, and good intentions with respect to the proposed project at the southern terminus of our harbor walk and visitor-serving waterfront. I hope it turns out well.
Respectfully submitted,
Sean Green
Morro Bay, CA
1 Dana Swanson
From: Joseph Ingraffia
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 8:53 PM
To: Carla Wixom; Zara Landrum; Cyndee Edwards; Jeff Eckles; Bill Luffee; Council Subject: "small cottages" on Embarcadero
I am writing on this occasion only as a resident of Morro Bay, but nevertheless, one well-positioned to comment on the reasons behind the recent decision of the Planning Commission with respect to the "small cottages" at the south end of the Embarcadero. My hope is to explain my thinking in the most plain and simple fashion possible.
The original proposal was for an eight unit hotel development, consisting of five units on the ground floor and three as second story units. Because the applicant sought a height extension beyond the 17 feet maximum, a finding of sufficient additional community benefit was required in order to grant the exception.
The public viewshed on the Embarcadero above one story and/or 17 feet has become a very rare and valuable resource and, as with any resource becoming rarer, it has accordingly, become increasingly even more valuable. Therefore, the adequate additional community value must, likewise, be commensurate with the resource sacrificed, the disappearing viewshed above one story construction.
The applicant proposed as additional community benefits, three significant items, a second story viewing platform, a small public restroom and a small "pocket" park at the south end of the property.
Note that I felt that other proposed improvements did not fall under the rubric of the additional community benefits or were primarily private benefits.
The majority on the planning commission found that because of the scope of the viewshed being obscured by the height extension, the benefits offered were not adequate to justify the viewshed loss. In response and mindful of the worth of the applicant's proposal, the majority of commissions, while denying the applicant's proposal, did offer what it thought were some well-considered, informal suggestions. The applicant could dispense with the offer of the viewing platform. (Moreover, the platform as envisioned, could be considered its own obstruction of the viewshed.) In addition, the applicant could dispense with the restroom. There are public restrooms to the south and to the north within easy walking distance. Finally, the pocket park could be reduced by half its square footage, so that space could be found to build a replica of "Reggie" apartment at the south end of the property, an accommodation which the applicant had accepted, in principle, at a second planning commission hearing. The modified proposal, as suggested, would be six income producing units on the ground floor consisting of five hotel units and one commercial space. The commission majority suggested that the second story development be limited to two hotel rooms, thus preserving a total of eight income producing units on the property, the total number of income units originally proposed. By reducing the second-floor development by one unit, a significant portion of that increasingly valuable viewshed is preserved that would otherwise be obscured for the next 50-75 year at a minimum. Likewise, this suggested compromise is in accord with the precedent established in the redevelopment of the Libertine Pub property, where the height exception was granted primarily because the applicant was willing to significantly reduce second story construction and preserve the viewshed at the south end of that property.
2 The applicant by his appeal has declined to embrace the suggestions offered by a majority of the commissioners. I believe the suggested compromise that accompanied the commission's denial was an equitable balancing of private and public interest and should be supported by the council. I believe the applicant's appeal should be denied.
Joe Ingraffia
2 The new design offers less square footage than the original building, the design should work around this historical landmark.
*All public spaces have shrunk with new design*
What constitutes public gain?
B. Parking: The design of a building should require parking for the amount of people that will be staying and utilizing the VRBO’s and facilities
8 rooms = 8 Parking spots, this does not even consider parking for patrons of the planned facilities. Is that at least 6 more spots at a minimum therefore requiring 14 parking spots? What keeps other properties from converting parking space into commercial space and reducing the available parking even more in the area. There are large trucks towing boats through this area all the time, this should require a safe place to park for the patrons of the businesses downtown and the guest of the VRBO.
C. Increased roofline height from 17’ to 25’
TOT tax to the city will be affected
o Potential of 33 rooms that pay TOT tax are being jeopardized for 3 upper-level rooms proposed in the plan.
o Hotels in the area averaging around 65% occupancy rates. Would the area be better suited a single level commercial space for restaurants, art, and shopping.
D. The commodity of open skyline is scarce in Morro Bay Precedent itself is not controlling, just because building regulations have been lifted in the past does not give the free pass to continue doing so for future construction projects How many single story structures remain on the coast line The applicant has done a great job maintaining the facade of the wooden building and should take the same care for adjacent properties. A significant remodel of the units with additional building to tie the three together would be a beautiful design. while maintaining the Fishermans charm that we all want to resonate throughout the community. The applicant has designed a beautiful dock that would proudly tie off larger boats and demand additional revenue for the applicant and TOT for the city from the use of the boat slips. If an incorporation of advice provided and some of the details captured from the applicant were blended it could be a very nice addition to the Embarcadero checking all the boxes for the vested parties.
Questions:
1. What regulations have to be modified or changed to accommodate these proposed plans?
2. The city has a goal to Maximize Rev in any and all of its RFP’s, is this new design going to bring that said revenue?
3 3. What constitutes public gain?
Thank you again for your time.
Respectfully,
Daniel McCall
Di Drill Survey Services
President/CEO
661-345-3979
www.didrill.com
2 E. While the RFP uses the phrase "maximize revenue," it also uses the phrases "best and highest use" and "tourism draw." A pocket park the size of a bedroom is not the tourist draw Tidelands Park is a few feet away. Standing on an elevated walkway between hotel rooms is not inviting, but feels intrusive. Renting a hotel room where I have to park in a pubic parking lot down and across the street from where I would be staying does not attract me to stay here. What is attractive--the novelty of the cottages--is being removed. A strip of color does not make the new hotel attractive nor maritime. Tearing down a building to replicate it is fake.
F. Alternative: reinforce the 3 moneymaking cottages, drop the pocket park, put in the floating docks, and turn the authentic, 2-story, maritime building into hotel rooms.
There is your revenue stream (not food and drink), plus off-street parking on site, and a real attraction. If the developer is concerned that less required financial investment may mean a shorter lease, acknowledge that saving history is worth something, just like the Salt Building was saved.
Complaining about the Planning Commission is moot. As a de novo hearing with discretion, Council can ask, require anything it thinks best.
Sincerely,
Betty Winholtz
1 Heather Goodwin
From: Airlin Singewald
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 5:57 PM
To: Council
Subject: Bayside Landing CUP Appeal - Response to CM Landrum Questions Attachments: Bayside Landing Staff Reponse to CM Landrum.pdf Dear Council,
Please find attached my responses to Councilmember Landrum's questions on the Bayside Landing CUP appeal, scheduled for this Tuesday (Item 8A).
These responses will also be posted online with the agenda.
I am sending my responses to all Councilmembers so you have the same information.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Please don't "reply all".
Sincerely,
Airlin
Airlin M. Singewald
Community Development Director
[email protected]
Phone: 805-772-6291
City of Morro Bay | Community
Development
955 Shasta Ave | Morro Bay, CA 93442
www.morrobayca.gov/planning
NOTICE
2 Counter Hours M-TH- 8:00 am to 5:00 pm closed Fridays.
Bayside Landing CUP Appeal - January 28, 2025, City Council Staff Response to Councilmember Landrum Questions (dated 1/25/2025) Staff responses are provided below in blue text.
I’m reviewing this item and would like clarification, are the “marine research office” and the “research space for the existing marine contractor business" the same space? Yes. The Applicant will be able to speak more to their current office needs for APC and how these needs would be accommodated with the proposed “research space.” When you quote the waterfront master plan with regards to public benefit, and state that it means that development should ensure that it creates spaces for the public to enjoy, access and view the bay, is this fact, or is this Community Development’s interpretation? The Waterfront Master Plan (WMP) states that heights greater than 17 feet are allowable on the west side of the Embarcadero when “the proposed project also provides significant public benefit pursuant to the Planned Development (PD) Overlay Zone requirements.” The public benefit finding for the PD Overlay Zone (Chapter 17.18 of the Zoning Code) reads as follows:
“The proposed development is demonstratively superior to the development that could occur under the standards applicable to the underlying base zoning district, and will achieve superior community design, resource protection, and/or substantial public benefit.” [emphasis added]
The term “public benefit” is not defined in the WMP or the Zoning Code. However, when discussing public benefits, the WMP refers to ensuring the waterfront is not privatized so the public can enjoy the visual and aesthetic resources of the waterfront. The following excerpt is from the second paragraph of the WMP’s introduction chapter:
“In 1988/89 the City Planning Commission faced several major proposals that raised the issues of public benefit versus private rights to develop property. The visual and aesthetic resources that translated into an economic resource for the city and many of its businesses needed definition and protection. It was ironic that the very characteristics that made the Embarcadero desirable for development were those that, without regulation, could lead to improper development and destroy the values that attracted the development in the first place.”
This language leads staff to believe that “public benefit” for development on the Embarcadero should focus on physical and visual access to the bay. Staff’s interpretation is also consistent with provisions of the Coastal Act that promote physical and visual access to coastal resources.
Is the total height of this proposed development measured from where it all currently is? Building height is measured from the average level of the highest and lowest point of that portion of the lot/lease site covered by the building, as measured to the topmost point of the roof.
Is the requirement for a harbor walk a City requirement, or a CCC requirement? If it is required by the CCC, is it still considered a City community benefit when calculating allowances?
The harbor walk is a City requirement in the WMP. See excerpt below from Page 4-7 of the WMP. It’s up to the Council’s discretion to determine whether a required element, such as the harbor walk, is considered a public benefit for height allowance purposes. For example, although the WMP requires a harbor walk, the proposed project would allow for the continuous development of a harbor walk connecting Mariner Park to a proposed pocket park. This could be viewed as a significant public benefit exceeding the harbor walk requirement.
I need some help understanding what cut outs and translucent grates are exactly.
The applicant could speak to this at the hearing. The plans show square cut outs on the observation deck, which will allow light to penetrate to the sidewalk and public access areas below.
Am I right to understand that kayak rentals are considered a public benefit? The Council may, in its discretion, include this in the public benefit finding, since they would provide a relatively affordable amenity or service that can enhance public access to the bay.
The proposed dock would also be accessible to the public.
Under Standard Conditions, #4 Changes, can I have a definition of what the term “minor changes” covers?
This is not defined in the Zoning Code. In practice, we consider a change to be minor if it doesn’t substantively change or enlarge the project and is clearly consistent with the public’s and decision-maker’s expectation of the project based on the conditions of approval and discussion at the hearing. For example, the Department may authorize a minor change in building materials, provided the change is consistent with applicable design guidelines and the specific building material was not a point of discussion at the hearing.
I am to understand correctly, the “building official” can approve mismeasurements of the building height?
The building height will be subject to a height certification by a licensed surveyor. #75 because we’ve had so many complaints of dust with building/remodel projects, can penalties be added to this to enhance compliance?
The City’s Municipal Code would need to be updated to establish penalties. Additionally, dust impacts is primarily the jurisdiction of the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD). The APCD will enforce dust regulations if they can verify a public nuisance. #82 what % of building materials is required to be salvaged and repurposed? To the greatest extent feasible. This would be mostly non-structural façade treatments and design elements. Structural elements are not salvageable. #83 What body, such as the planning commission, will be reviewing the permit for the southernmost building, “Reg’s Place”?
If the Council upholds the appeal and approves the Conditional Use Permit, no further discretionary review would be needed. Staff would review the building permit for Reggie’s Place, and the rest of the project, to determine consistency with the conditions of approval and approved plans.
#86 I’m not sure if this is the correct spot but are there to be clear signs indicating public access areas and public restrooms?
Thank you for catching this. While this condition would have been added by the Coastal Commission on the Coastal Development Permit, staff will revise the resolution to include the following finding:
“Signage shall be added to entrance of public view deck, dock, restrooms, and at street level announcing public access. Form and design of signage shall be consistent with the approval of public coastal access signs as approved by the California Coastal Commission. Final public access signs shall be included and shown on the building permit plans and shall denote all signage locations.” #90 I thought I understood there was to be a bench/benches at the pocket park. Is this included in the count here?
Yes, this should include the benches in the pocket park. We will review the plans to verify the bench and table count.
Embarcadero Master Leaseholders, LLC
701 Embarcadero, Morro Bay, CA 93442
January 23, 2025
Mayor Carla Wixom
Members of the City Council
City of Morro Bay
945 Harbor Drive
Morro Bay, CA 93442
Re: 431, 451, 495 Embarcadero Development Plan
January 28, 2025, Agenda Item # 8a
Dear Mayor Wixom,
On behalf of the Embarcadero Master Leaseholders, LLC we would like to express our grave concern with regard to the recent denial by the Planning Commission of the applica�on for development referenced above. There are several reasons that we feel that this denial poses significant risks to the fiscal health of the City of Morro Bay.
In all fairness to the Planning Commissioners, the issue of the adequacy of the proposed community benefit in exchange for the height variance is not one that they should be tackling on an ad hoc project by project basis. Simply put, the Planning Commission’s role is to evaluate individual projects for compliance with the policies established by the City Council. Without a clear writen policy on community benefits, the commissioners are le� to interpret preceding approvals of similar projects, and they have litle guidance for that interpreta�on. The lack of a specific policy leads to the commissioners expressing their own policy preferences and deba�ng the value of each proposed community benefit compared with precedents set by prior projects.
It is not the place of the Planning Commission to decide and implement policy. It is the City Council’s responsibility to enact policy and the planning commission’s to apply it in their review of projects. That lack of direc�on from the City Council unfortunately led to their denial of this otherwise solid and desirable development.
We believe that the City Council should establish that policy and direct the Planning Commissioners on its implementa�on. In October of 2022 the Harbor Advisory Board took up the issue and proposed a policy on the issue. We have atached a copy of their staff report with this leter. We are not endorsing this specific policy, but it is a good effort at establishing some guidelines.
Unfortunately, it is too late to implement the policy before this project needs the Council’s aten�on. So, we respec�ully request that you overrule the Planning Commission’s denial and approve the project in accordance with the Community Development Department’s recommenda�on.
Embarcadero Master Leaseholders, LLC
701 Embarcadero, Morro Bay, CA 93442
The proposed project will provide the City of Morro Bay with between $100,000 and $120,000 in base and percentage rents; another $85,000 t0 $100,000 in TOT; and maybe another $30,000 to $40,000 in sales taxes. This is not to men�on the addi�onal revenue and sales taxes brought to other businesses on the Embarcadero and the rest of the city by the ac�vity this project will generate. And don’t forget the addi�onal direct financial contribu�on to the City, and other significant public benefits, this proposed developer is providing including a por�on of the project with a commercial rated wharf access to support ongoing marine construc�on and maintenance ac�vi�es for the Harbor. A significant public benefit which the Planning commission completely discounted.
The alterna�ve to your approval of this project is to put out another RFP and hope that another project is proposed that will exceed this project’s prospec�ve revenue to the City. We would point out the unlikelihood of that occurring, given the reputa�on of Morro Bay in approving these projects a�er considerable effort and expense on the part of proposers. This is yet another example.
A new RFP will take at least another two years to bring to the point that this project is at. It will require at least another two years of RFP prepara�on, marke�ng and the applicant’s processing.
Effec�vely, your decision to deny this project and seek a new RFP, will be spending at least ½ of a million dollars in income that the city would otherwise realize.
Paul Gillen has been a ‘tenant in good standing‘ for over twenty years. He is well known to you and the community as a solid businessperson and his proposal was accepted by the City Council, showing it as a two-story structure. No other proposals were submited at the �me that the City Council accepted his RFP proposal.
It seems to us that the decision to approve Mr. Gillen’s project is a ‘no brainer’. You have a solid, well grounded, high revenue project before you and a master tenant with a proven track record.
It would be fiscally irresponsible for this City Council to deny the project and go back to ground zero to seek another.
Respec�ully submited,
Embarcadero Master Leaseholder’s, LLC
Paul Van Beurden, President
Gio DeGarimore, Vice President
Bob Fowler, Secretary/Treasurer
January 26, 2025
To: Morro Bay City Council re. 1/28/2025 Council Meeting Agenda Item 8.a The City Council exists to ensure the safety and well-being of the community. It does so by supporting City services necessary to those purposes. As Council is well aware, those services are in jeopardy due to the City’s current and projected financial situation.
Given that reality, Council has straightforward choices: increase the City’s financial position or reduce City services. Options for increasing City revenue include:
• Increased revenue from sales tax
• Increased revenue from TOT
• Increased general taxation
• Reduction of City services
The options for increasing sales tax revenue and TOT revenue are in part dependent on additional revenue-producing developments within City limits. Recently, Council turned away from a Market Street project that would have realized nearly a million dollars per year in City revenue. You now have before a much less controversial development project, but one that would produce significant revenue for the City – the Gillen project.
That project, which was responsive to the City’s own Request for Proposal, ran afoul of the Morro Bay Planning Commission. We are all reminded that the function of the Planning Commission as mandated by you, the City Council, is to:
• Develop a general plan and recommend its adoption by the City Council • Maintain the general plan after its adoption by the City Council • Develop specific plans as may be necessary to implement the general plan • Periodically review the capital improvement program of the City for recommendations to the City Council
What the Planning Commission is not, and cannot be, is an architectural design board – which is counter to its mandated function.
The principal controversy with the Gillen project is roof height, and the principal complaining party is the hotel complex across the street - whose originally approved design included a roof top deck on the second level to the south, where there are now guest rooms (how that happened would be an interesting story).
Bottom line in the case of the proposed Gillen project – and other development projects should any come forward at this point given the City’s development reputation - the City Council either chooses to increase City revenue from a project with a known Master Lease Holder, or face the prospect of increased local taxation and/or reduction of City services.
Thank you,
Ron Reisner, Morro Bay Resident
AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PRIOR TO THE MEETING
AGENDA NO: 8b
MEETING DATE: January 28, 2025
Public comment regarding 1.28.25 City Council Agenda Item 8.b.:
We would probably not be considering an Urgency Ordinance prohibiting a grid scale BESS within city limits if we were dealing with the placement of a solid-state BESS rather than a lithium-ion BESS.
We know that serious environmental and human health hazards can result from storing and using lithium-ion batteries. Placing the world’s largest array of lithium-ion batteries, items which are prone to catch fire (especially when exposed to salt water), on top of Morro Bay’s old power plant is foolhardy. About the last place where these things should be stored is on property that’s situated slightly above sea level, not too far from the edge of the Pacific, in an area which sustained damage from an earthquake and a tsunami in the last 20 years.
Unlike lithium-ion batteries, solid-state batteries do not contain volatile, flammable liquid electrolytes, the ingredients which can cause the battery to combust and burn. Solid-state batteries do not overheat nor start on fire and take forever to put out. They are better for the environment and public safety in other ways. They have a lower carbon footprint; fewer materials are used in making solid-state batteries, which could reduce their climate impact by 39% compared to lithium-ion batteries.
Lithium-ion batteries are outdated. Solid-state batteries are the future. And they are ideal for energy storage.
“Renewable energy sources like solar and wind power are intermittent, requiring efficient energy storage solutions. Solid-state batteries can store large amounts of energy and release it when needed, making them perfect for renewable energy applications. Their long lifespan and high efficiency make them a sustainable choice for future energy grids.” (https://www.monolithai.com/blog/solid-state-batteries-energystorage).
If the city has entered into a written agreement with Vistra to place a lithium-ion BESS on the old power plant property, could the parties not renegotiate that one provision to make it a solidstate BESS? If we prohibit Vistra and any other entity from placing a BESS of any kind on the old power plant, what happens to that property? Will it be cleaned up? If it is or is not, what could it possibly be used for other than the placement of a BESS? That property is an environmental hazard, which is so contaminated that the last known estimate to clean it up was $30 million.
It’s my understanding that Vistra had agreed to pay for that clean up in exchange, or partial exchange, for being allowed to install a lithium-ion BESS on top of it. With the enactment of the Urgency Ordinance prohibiting a BESS, would Vistra still be required to remove the hazardous waste? Or, as a result of Measure A-24 and/or Vistra's direct application to the state, is Vistra no longer obligated to clean up the property?
We should allow a BESS but require it to be a solid-state BESS. We should make sure that Vistra pays for the remediation of the old power plant. If we do not, that property remains an environmental hazard and useless.
While the old power plant is being cleaned up and prepared for installation of the solid-state BESS, research on, and production of, those batteries will have caught up to and overtaken lithium-ion batteries. Toyota, Samsung and Volkswagen have been and remain heavily invested in researching and manufacturing solid-state batteries and are getting closer to entering the market. Toyota plans to introduce solid-state batteries in its vehicles by as early as 2027.
By the time the site where the solid-state BESS will be installed is ready, lithium-ion batteries will be a thing of the past. And Morro Bay will be at the forefront in pursuing truly green (and safe) energy solutions.
Victoria Berry
Date: January 28, 2025
From: Mary and Barry Garelick
To: Mayor Wixom and Council Members
Subject: Agenda Item 8.b: "Request to consider an Urgency Ordinance Prohibiting the Application, Acceptance, Approval, Commencement, Establishment, Operation, Relocation, or Expansion of Grid-Scale Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) within the city limits” Dear Mayor Wixom and Council Members,
We have owned our home in Morro Bay since 2011 and live within a mile upwind of the proposed BESS project. Thus, we have followed the development of this project with great interest and were horrified to learn of the recent fire at the BESS facility in Moss Landing, especially since this was the third fire to occur at that facility within the past two years. We are also deeply concerned about the incidents of lithium-ion battery fires that have been reported in Australia, China, South Korea, and Arizona over the past decade.
Given the growth of electric vehicles, artificial intelligence, and quantum computing we realize there is a critical need to increase energy supply to meet demand. And while we believe that in the future, there will be alternative chemistries and new technology available for safer battery storage to help meet this demand, we believe the urgency ordinance, if adopted, is prudent as it would allow the City time to thoroughly evaluate BESS’s project proposal and consider whether a permanent ordinance to prohibit or regulate new BESS facilities within the City limits is warranted. Consequently, we urge you to adopt the “Urgency Ordinance Prohibiting Grid-Scale Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) Within the City Limits of Morro Bay”. Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Mary and Barry Garelick
2 Regarding Agenda Item 8.b - "Request to consider an Urgency Ordinance Prohibiting the Application, Acceptance, Approval, Commencement, Establishment, Operation, Relocation, or Expansion of Grid-Scale Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) within the city limits”:
January 27, 2025
Dear Mayor Wixom & Esteemed Council Members:
Even before the horrendous fires in Moss Landing, our City initiated a study and proposed an Urgency Ordinance to protect the health and safety of our community. We are grateful to you! Our City can not wait for the County or the State to set standards that will protect our populations. We can’t trust corporations to “do what’s right.” Until or unless AB205 is amended to exclude all BESS facilities for CEC consideration, or a new Bill is written and passed that puts the authority for BESS approval back to the hands of local jurisdictions, we must act to protect ourselves. The Urgency Ordinance is a good start.
In the wake of the fires in Moss Landing (and spurred by incidents at other locations in the State and the Nation), Assembly Member Dawn Addis proposed Assembly Bill 303. Although this Bill would return control of BESS development to local agencies, it fails on science and logic. In my opinion, AB303 gives lip service to constituents while offering BESS developers and operators plenty of loopholes to sidestep local ordinances. For these reasons, in my opinion, if AB303 fails to pass, it isn’t the end of the world. Therefore, the City of Morro Bay must establish our own strict standards.
On January 23, immediately after reading AB303, I contacted Ms. Addis through her CA.org website. I have not received a reply to date. Here is the text of my letter to Dawn Addis:
January 23, 2025
Dear Assembly Member Addis -
We in Morro Bay appreciate your concern regarding the safety of BESS facilities, and your authorship of AB303.
I would like to know why 1) your Bill does not apply to BESS facilities with less than 200 MW and 2) how you arrived at the 3,200' setback.
AB 303 should apply to any BESS facility installed by an entity for the purpose of buying and selling electricity for profit, or when that BESS would require an industrial land use designation (zoning), regardless of its size. It only takes one faulty battery in one container to devastate a community.
3 It is simple to calculate that a 3,200 feet setback is less than 2/3 of a mile. The setback should be at least as far from "sensitive receptors" as an evacuation radius in a "worst case scenario". What was the evacuation radius for the Moss Landing fire? That should be the minimum standard.
During the planning and permitting process, I would also like to see a requirement for much more vigorous outreach to communities that may be affected by "commercial" BESS facilities. So far as I can tell, the public is generally unaware of most proposed BESS developments; they find out about it after the BESS has been approved, especially in unincorporated areas of the State. Public notices should be included in utility bills for at least 3 cycles (90 days), posted in newspapers and mailed to anyone (property owners, tenants & residents) within 2 (or more) miles of the proposed site. (As you know, symptoms from the Moss Landing fire were experienced several miles from the source.) Particular attention should be made to notify renters (who sometimes are "out of the loop" of public notices) and families with children (who have little time to be involved in government affairs).
Thank you for your consideration.
Gail Johnson
Morro Bay
I urge you to adopt the "Urgency Ordinance Prohibiting . . . Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) within the city limits of Morro Bay."
As stated in the Urgency Ordinance, while this "interim ordinance is in effect, the City intends to study and consider land use development policies and standards related to BESS facilities that should be added to the City’s General Plan and Zoning Regulations.” I would like to see a permanent moratorium of BESS facilities within our city limits, which would omit the need for Policies and Regulations.
When considering a Permanent Ordinance, please keep these things in mind:
The Permanent Ordinance should avoid the term “grid scale” and specifically describe BESS as ANY battery storage system that is (per your wording - “Front-of-the-Meter”) installed by an entity for the purpose of buying and selling electricity for profit regardless of the size or scale of the BESS. Dawn Addis' 200 MW “catchall” is a gift-to-the-industry loophole.
The Permanent Ordinance should exclude all BESS facilities within the City Limits. However, if our Planning Department decides to allow BESS within the city limits and set new standards, then the new Ordinance should:
1) Determine a setback that is science-based and informed by the experience of others. Dawn Addis’ 3,200 foot (less than 2/3 mile) setback is ludicrous. The setback should be at least as far from "sensitive receptors" as an evacuation radius in a "worst case scenario”. Since the start of the Moss Landing fire, people and animals are suffering from various health issues even outside the evacuation zone. After the Moss Landing fire, Vistra’s monitoring and testing of air samples for toxins (which shows no dangerous levels) near the ground fail to recognize that lithium-ion fires emit toxic hydrogen fluoride (HF), which dissipates in the air primarily by dissolving into atmospheric water (rain, fog and clouds) forming hydrofluoric acid, which then gets removed from the air as acid rain as it falls to the ground. Only 10 days after the start of the fire, soil testing is showing toxic heavy-metal particles two miles from the fire. 4 2) Define the BESS technology that is covered under the ordinance. Make it clear that any battery energy storage technology, whether it’s lithium-ion, sodium-ion, phosphate, solid state, “emerging" or “new" battery storage systems is subject to the Ordinance. “New” technology must be tested and proven safe, in absolute and quantitative measures. I suggest that a technology is "proven safe" when it has been operating at other locations without incident for at least 2 years. We don’t want to be “sold” a promise that a new technology is safe, only to find out that we have been hapless fools.
3) BESS Enclosure standards, similarly, must be described in detail, time-tested and proven safe. Although the “container” option is currently the “go-to most safe" option, they, too, suffer devastating fires that harm communities.
4) Deny any BESS that would require a land use designation/zoning change to industrial land use. 5) Include strict and vigorous requirements for public notification, similar to my suggestions to Dawn Addis (above).
I would also like to encourage you to insist that Vistra withdraw their application due to continual changes in their stated plans (as opposed to the plans in their written application), or return their application as “incomplete” within 30 days or as allowed by law.
My compliments to Mr. Singewald on his January 2 letter to Claudia Morrow, Vistra Rep. What have we heard regarding this letter?
Thank you for your consideration,
Gail Johnson
Morro Bay
1 Heather Goodwin
From: Jennifer Burke
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2025 8:40 PM
To: Council
Subject: No BESS in Morro Bay city limits
[Some people who received this message don't oŌen get email from . Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ] CAUTION: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking links or opening aƩachments.
Dear mayor and city council members:
I feel it is NOT in Morro Bay ciƟzens interest to have any form of lithium BESS in Morro Bay city limits.
It is unsafe technology and puts our ciƟzens, wildlife, and economy all at risk.
It is also not in keeping with our small town tourist vibe.
A beƩer locaƟon would be east on Hwy 1, closer to the firing range (or way way out on hwy 41 east of Atascadero)in my humble opinion.
Thank you for preserving Morro Bay!
Sincerely,
Jennifer Burke
Morro Bay, California
iPhone
1 Heather Goodwin
From: Darrell Lakey >
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2025 6:41 PM
To: Council
Subject: Battery storage
[Some people who received this message don't oŌen get email from Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ] CAUTION: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking links or opening aƩachments.
Dear Councilors,
I vehemently oppose the proposed lithium baƩery storage facility in our wonderful City. Lithium baƩeries can’t withstand water intrusion and once started cannot be stopped. Stop the insanity.
Please deny the proposal.
Thanks ,
Don’t kill our city or its ciƟzens.
Darrell Lakey
Sent from my iPh
AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PRIOR TO THE MEETING
AGENDA NO: 9a
MEETING DATE: January 28, 2025