AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE
RECEIVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR
PUBLIC REVIEW PRIOR TO THE
MEETING
AGENDA NO: PC
MEETING DATE: February 24, 2026
2 Mr. Landis updated his research in 2026. (A copy of this updated paper is attached.) Mr. Landis has contacted Claire Trombadore, Director of the US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, so that further study can be done regarding the arsenic contamination and, we hope, spur an effort to clean it up. Mr. Landis has also talked with Mr. Stack, urging him to take action on behalf of our City and its citizens.
I am urging the City of Morro Bay, as the entity with standing with the EPA, to add pressure to further Mr. Landis’ efforts and begin the process of cleaning up at least one of the many dangerous toxins polluting the property at 1290 Embarcadero.
It is obvious that unless the City takes action, the property will sit fallow and dangerous for the foreseeable future. As it stands, the current owner does a poor job of simply maintaining their property. They have no incentive to mitigate the contamination, nor to develop or enhance their property as laid out in Plan Morro Bay and reinforced with the passage of Proposition A-24. It is abundantly clear that their interests are not in the best interest of the City of Morro Bay.
Using Mr. Landis’ expertise and research could be the first step in mitigating all of the contamination and for opening the door to realizing the vision of Plan Morro Bay for the North Embarcadero area. Please take action on behalf of everyone who lives and visits Morro Bay.
Thank you,
Gail Johnson
Morro Bay
January 22, 2026
US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9
75 Hawthorne St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
ATTN: Ms. Claire Trombadore, Director
Land, Chemicals and Redevelopment Division
RE: Residual Arsenic Contamination at PG&E’s Former Morro Bay Power Plant, Morro Bay, CA Dear Director Trombadore:
My name is Larry Landis and I am a retired environmental engineer residing in Morro Bay, California. I am a cancer survivor and my professional career spanned approximately 40 years in the field of environmental regulatory compliance, including hazardous waste remediation concerns for the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).1 I am writing to submit compelling evidence that PG&E’s former Morro Bay Power Plant remains contaminated with hazardous waste arsenic herbicide, despite the completion of a RCRA corrective measures investigation in 2023, under California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) oversight.2 I respectfully request the EPA to revisit the archived data in the California DTSC’s Envirostor database that is referenced in this letter and require additional investigation and remediation with regard to soil contaminated with abandoned and discarded arsenic pesticide, pursuant to section 3008(h) of RCRA, and consistent with your agency’s current internal guidance that was originally issued on Dec. 16, 1985. Absent further action, the soil will remain contaminated with residual hazardous waste in excess of health-based (cancer) standards for construction workers and residents and in excess of natural background concentrations of arsenic.
There are three significant facts that have come to light since the 2006 Corrective Action Consent Agreement (CACA)3 was signed by PG&E and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). There is no record in the DTSC’s Envirostor archive that the following salient information was ever considered for inclusion in the Conceptual Site Model (CSM). • The application of registered hazardous commercial materials in accordance with applicable regulations is not a release of a hazardous waste regulated by RCRA.
However, when soil that has been treated with hazardous inorganic arsenic herbicide is discarded by being abandoned and disposed of as defined in 40 CFR 261.2, it then becomes a solid waste and a hazardous waste subject to RCRA corrective action.
Dynegy Inc. (PG&E’s successor in the plant’s ownership following the 1998 sale to Duke Energy Morro Bay, LLC) abandoned the power plant in 2014 when it removed or decommissioned all of the operational facilities except the switchyards. The abandoned, arsenic-treated soil was disposed of when Dynegy and Vistra Corp. merged in 2018 and ownership of the 107-acre site was transferred to Vistra or to its subsidiary. This is significant, because the DTSC’s CACA only obligated PG&E to be responsible for releases of hazardous waste that occurred during its ownership of the property3.
• The industry’s Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) has reported to the USEPA that arsenic contamination is commonly found at electric power facilities4, due to the widespread use of arsenic trioxide as a soil sterilant to eliminate combustible vegetation, before certification of commercial chemicals was assigned to the EPA in the 1970’s. (The Morro Bay Power Plant commenced operation in 1956.) Although common knowledge within the electric power industry, this possibility was not addressed in the Conceptual Site Model (CSM) developed in the 1997 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (Phase II ESA)5, nor in PG&E’s Feb. 20, 2018 Revised CSM Report. 6 With regard to inorganic
arsenic soil contamination, the 2018 Revised CSM Report screened out consideration of arsenic herbicides, with a circular argument that there were no samples greater than the Site Screening Level (SSL) as previously presented in the 2010 Technical Memorandum.
The argument was circular, because the SSL was developed indirectly from the deficient CSM developed in the 1997 Phase II ESA, which did not include herbicide application.
This was an unrecognized deficiency that the 2018 Revised CSM could have addressed, but did not.
• A spill report for arsenic chemical archived in the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board’s GeoTracker data base documents that arsenic herbicide was in fact present on the property while under the control of PG&E.7 This is significant because PG&E reported that only licensed pesticide applicators brought chemicals onto the property. Logically, if the arsenic chemical reported in the GeoTracker spill report was present on the property, it was a registered pesticide intended for application by a licensed contractor. Furthermore, in 2018, PG&E submitted a revised CSM report for AOC’s 1,2,3,4 and 6 written by CH2M Hill which listed the DTSC’s Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual as a reference. This reference specifically requires the records of the Regional California Water Quality Control Board to be reviewed and lists the GeoTracker database as an on-line source of information14. The 2018 Revised CSM Report does not explain why the GeoTracker database was not consulted.
As noted above, the Conceptual Site Model employed to develop Site Screening Levels (SSLs) for arsenic and other metals was a product of the 1997 Phase II ESA. The 2006 CACA recognized that this ESA was not developed to support a RCRA Corrective Action investigation8; and in 2010 PG&E and Jacobson-James & Associates submitted a Technical Memorandum to address deficiencies.9 In addition to adding more sampling locations, the statistical derivation of the arsenic Upper Tolerance Limit and SSL was changed from a normal distribution of (22) samples to a non-parametric method based on hundreds of samples scattered exclusively throughout the industrialized and vegetation-free portion of the property. (A map of sample locations and an aerial photograph are attached, showing areas devoid of vegetation.)
10,11
. As explained more fully below, this derivation relied on the false premise that there were no industrial sources of arsenic on the property. However, there is no archived evidence that the “weed spray” used to control combustible vegetation avoided inorganic arsenical herbicide.
Furthermore, there is no archived evidence (chemical analyses or interviews) supporting the use of any particular organic herbicide in the 1950’s and 1960’s, nor at any time, for that matter. The extant
evidence points inextricably to the application of arsenical herbicides at the Morro Bay power plant, as noted below.
As determined by the ANOVA evaluation of the variation between samples in the 2010 Technical Memorandum, the metals arsenic, barium, chromium vanadium and zinc appear to be from different populations than other naturally occurring metals.
9 This result is consistent with the hypothesis that
arsenic was applied to the surface of the ground to eliminate combustible vegetation. Obviously, the bare areas where most of these samples were collected, were bare because of efforts to eliminate combustible vegetation – areas where herbicides would be utilized and residual arsenic variability would not be expected to match the variability of other metals deposited naturally. This conclusion is based on the weight of the evidence12 – not conjecture.
According to JJ&A’s 2010 Technical Memorandum, the approach of developing the natural background SSL followed a paradigm based on US Air Force facility remediations in California. The cited methodology for determining “natural background” concentrations for metals involved collecting soil samples throughout the active areas of the facility and excluding samples where liquid organics were found, based on the logic that the only sources of contamination on the facility were liquid fuel and fuel additives. If none were present, then the on-site samples must represent “natural background”. For the PG&E Morro Bay power plant, a similar presumption was made for arsenic, apparently based on the 1997 CSM5that did not list any potential sources of arsenic. Today, based on the USEPA’s report of the historical use of arsenic herbicides at electrical facilities, we can conclude that the Air Force paradigm should never be followed at abandoned power plants and certainly not at the Morro Bay power plant, where there is reliable documentation that at least one commercial arsenic chemical was actually used.
Pointedly, the research paper presenting the US Air Force methodology states that “…the background data in this presentation should not be used to replace local background data…” and “These results can provide a useful context, but they cannot substitute for site-specific background concentrations.”
13 Nevertheless, the 2010 Technical Memorandum presented the onsite soil samples as representative of local “natural background” and the DTSC accepted the results as the basis for the nonparametric determination for the arsenic SSL (7.54 mg/kg).
As specified by the DTSC’s HERO “HHRA Note 3”
14a
to develop the SSL for naturally occurring
arsenic in the soil “…HERO strongly recommends consideration of site-specific background concentrations of inorganic constituents.” Previous versions of this manual contained similar recommendations. HHRA Note 3 also stresses: ”Before conducting a human health risk assessment, development of a site-specific conceptual site model is critical to ensure that all appropriate receptors and exposure pathways are addressed.” Additional DTSC guidance14b,c directs that samples for determining natural background should be collected from adjacent property that is unimpacted by industrial activity. This is consistent with USEPA guidance contained in section 1.4 of the USEPA’s “Guidance for Comparing Background and Chemical Concentrations in Soil for CERCLA Sites” 15 . Section
2.3 of this guidance goes on to state: “A background reference area should have the same physical, chemical, geological and biological characteristics as the site being investigated, but has not been affected by activities -LLon the site.” [Underline added]. Obviously, reliance on data collected from areas
likely to have been sprayed with “weed spray” to represent “natural background” for arsenic is not supported. The incomplete CSM led to the erroneous null hypothesis that arsenic chemical was never used at the facility.
Clearly, investigators should not have relied on the hundreds of soil samples taken from active areas of the property to develop the arsenic SSL, based merely on the unsubstantiated and undocumented premise that arsenic chemicals were never applied by PG&E or its licensed pesticide contractors. This conclusion undermines the SSL (7.54 mg of arsenic per kg of soil) upon which the DTSC’s No Further Action letters were based. The poorly-grounded soil SSL developed in the 2010 Technical Memorandum was employed to screen out impacts to Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments, to ground water and to the adjacent Morro Bay. More significantly, soil levels of arsenic exceed state and federal standards for allowable incremental increases in excess cancer risk for construction workers and residents, and the property is ripe for development. As a cancer survivor, I am optimistic that you will share my concern.
RCRA Section 3008(h) provides: “Whenever on the basis of any information the Administrator determines that there is or has been a release of hazardous waste into the environment from a facility authorized to operate under Section 3005(e) of this subtitle, the Administrator may issue an order requiring corrective action or such other response measure as he deems necessary to protect human health or the environment…”
As a carcinogen and a toxin, arsenic contamination presents a risk to health and the environment that has not been adequately addressed by the actions taken pursuant to the DTSC’s 2006 consent agreement. The weight of reliable evidence12 archived in the Envirostor database and other official records establishes that at least some of the arsenic contamination in the soil is due to the residual inorganic arsenic herbicide that is no longer used for its original purpose and has been discarded by being abandoned and disposed of. Again, the preponderance of the evidence in the official regulatory agencies’ archives (Envirostor, GeoTracker, and USEPA) establishes that arsenic herbicide was applied to the soil at the Morro Bay Power Plant and, due to the plant’s abandonment and sale, the residual herbicide is a hazardous waste that has been released into the human and ecological environment.
Thank you for your consideration. The favor of a response by E-mail will be greatly appreciated.
Please advise, if I can provide additional clarification or amplification.
Sincerely,
Larry R. Landis, (MS Environmental Engineering, USC, 1987; BS Chemistry, Fresno State College, 1969; CA Registered Environmental Health Specialist #3401 (ret.)) Morro Bay, CA 93442
End Notes and Links (Copy and paste the links into your browser)
1. Larry Landis Curriculum Vitae (attached)
2. Signed GPRA dated Feb. 27, 2023
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/getfile?filename=/public%2Fdeliverable documents%2F5597706437%2FCertification%20for m%20for%20Morro%20Bay%20-%20signed.pdf
3. 2006 Corrective Action Consent Agreement, pp. 1& signatures. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/getfile?filename=/public%2Fdeliverable documents%2F2261570572%2FMBPP%20CACA%2 0signed.pdf
4. USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs “Historical Arsenical Pesticide Research”, 2004, p. 10 https://semspub.epa.gov/work/05/259803.pdf
5. 1997 Phase II ESA, Figure 4-2: Conceptual Site Model (CSM). https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/getfile?filename=/public%2Fdeliverable documents%2F6965131998%2FMBPP Phase-IIESA 19970701 reduced.pdf
6. CH2M Hill, Final Technical Memorandum: Updated SSLs for Morro Bay Power Plant CSM, January 22, 2018, p.1 & Table 1. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/getfile?filename=/public%2Fdeliverable documents%2F3884524285%2FMBPPUpdate-SSLs-TM-20180122.pdf
7. GeoTracker arsenic chemical spill report for PG&E’s Morro Bay power plant. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/case summary?global id=SL203431377
8. 2006 Corrective Action Consent Agreement, pp.2&3, sec. 2.2 – 2.4. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/getfile?filename=/public%2Fdeliverable documents%2F2261570572%2FMBPP%20CACA%2 0signed.pdf
9. Jacobson James & Assoc.: “Technical Memorandum- Ambient Screening Thresholds for Metals in Soil…”, dated December 20, 2010-pp. 1&5-9.--.All of the sampling locations referenced in the 2010 memorandum were selected as “not likely to be contaminated” with arsenic by plant operations. This includes borings reported in the 1997 Phase II ESA and in supplemental borings. The assumptions and presumptions in 1997 and 2010 relied on the 1997 CSM and its deficient list of plant operations. Application of hazardous material (weed spray) is in fact a plant operation, albeit an operation performed by licensed contractors using portable equipment, not directly by PG&E employees. PG&E’s investigators neglected to consider this when the CSM was examined or reexamined in 1997, 2010, and 2018. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/getfile?filename=/public%2Fdeliverable documents%2F9864148795%2FMBPPAmbient%20 Metals%20Assessment 122010%20FINAL.pdf
10. Ibid, Figure 2 – Aerial Photo
11. Ibid. Figure 3 – Map of arsenic sample locations
12. Summary of evidence archived in the Envirostor record of the corrective action investigation plus other official records described in notes (4) and (7). It should also be noted that emergence of ruderal vegetation in cleared areas in Morro Bay’s coastal environment requires active suppression. [personal observation].
13. Hunter, Davis & Roach, “Inorganic Chemicals in Ground Water and Soil: Background Concentrations at California Air Force Bases”, pp.1-2, March 10, 2005. https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2018/01/Metals Handout.pdf 14a. CA DTSC (HERO): HHRA Note (3), pp. 5, 12, 15, April 2025. https://dtsc.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/sites/31/2025/04/HHRA-Note-3-Revised-April-2025.pdf 14b. CA DTSC: “Selecting Inorganic Constituents as Chemicals of Potential Concern at Hazardous Waste Sites”, pp.1-4, February, 1997. https://dtsc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2021/11/Background-Feb-1997-A.pdf 14c. CA DTSC: “Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual”, pp.12-14&43, January 1994/October 2015. https://dtsc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2023/06/PEA Guidance Manual.pdf 14d. CA DTSC: “Arsenic Strategies. Determination of Arsenic Remediation Development of Arsenic Cleanup Goals”, p.1, January 16, 2009. https://dtsc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2018/01/Arsenic-Cleanup-Goals-Jan09.pdf
15. USEPA (OERR): “Guidance for Comparing Background and Chemical Concentrations in Soil for CERCLA Sites” EPA 540- R-01-003, pp. 1.1 – 2.2, September 2002. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-11/documents/background.pdf
Attachments
(The attachments follow the listing of the end notes above) The archived Envirostor records can also be recovered by the following primary link:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile report?global id=80001832 or accessed by the following search path, if there are firewall issues:
“CA Envirostor” >>>[Envirostor]>>>”Morro Bay”>>>[Dynegy]>>>[Site Facility/Docs] cc: (with attachments)
Mr. Brian Stack, Morro Bay City Attorney
595 Harbor Street, Morro Bay, CA 93442
Electronic cc: (without attachments)
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE
RECEIVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR
PUBLIC REVIEW PRIOR TO THE
MEETING
AGENDA NO: 6f
MEETING DATE: February 24, 2026
AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE
RECEIVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR
PUBLIC REVIEW PRIOR TO THE
MEETING
AGENDA NO: 6h
MEETING DATE: February 24, 2026
2 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE
RECEIVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR
PUBLIC REVIEW PRIOR TO THE
MEETING
AGENDA NO: 7a
MEETING DATE: February 24, 2026
2 Commercial and Mixed Use Districts, it does not involve the IP and does not need to be forwarded to the Coastal Commission for certification." However, in the City Council packet, the following statement is made:
"Exhibit E of Ordinance No. 678 shows the blufftop height standard brought back into the Zoning Code in MBMC Section 17.08.030, (Commercial) Development Standards (IP). The proposed additions amount to a reference in the development standards table, followed by an additional provision explaining the standard below. Because this section of the Zoning Code is located within the IP, it must be certified by the Coastal Commission following Council approval."
Could a clarification be made?
Sincerely,
Betty Winholtz
AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE
RECEIVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR
PUBLIC REVIEW PRIOR TO THE
MEETING
AGENDA NO: 8d
MEETING DATE: February 24, 2026
1 Dana Swanson
From: John Craig
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 4:11 PM
To: Council
Cc: Greg Kwolek
Subject: Fw: COLEMAN PARK IMPROVEMENTS, PHASE 1 (MB2024-PA01) Council,
Apologies for the late addition, but staff completed the detailed bid tabulation for the Coleman Park Improvements (agenda Item 8d) and the information was requested by and provided to a citizen today.
We wanted to make sure you had the information as well.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
John Craig
City Manager
City of Morro Bay
[email protected]
Cell: (805) 554-9559
Desk: (805) 772-6206
595 Harbor Street
Morro Bay CA 93442
morrobayca.gov
From: Greg Kwolek <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 3:14 PM
Subject: Re: COLEMAN PARK IMPROVEMENTS, PHASE 1 (MB2024-PA01)
Hi Judy,
The bid results are on our website. Here's a link for convenience:
https://morrobayca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/21496/Coleman-Park-Improvements-Phase-I--- Detailed-Bid-Results-Form?bidId=141
Greg
From: Judy Setting
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 1:02 PM
To: Greg Kwolek <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: COLEMAN PARK IMPROVEMENTS, PHASE 1 (MB2024-PA01)
3 Hello,
What exactly, besides providing tools, equipment, apparatus, facilities, labor and materials necessary to perform and complete in a workmanlike manner, will the proposed contractor be constructing? Where can I obtain a detailed scope of work for COLEMAN PARK IMPROVEMENTS, PHASE 1 (MB2024- PA01)?
Which company provided the prefabricated restrooms?
Thank you,
Judy Lynn Setting
--
Judy Lynn Setting