CITY OF MORRO BAY
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 28, 2026, 5:30 p.m.
Veterans Memorial Hall
209 Surf St., Morro Bay, CA
Public Participation
Public participation is offered in the following ways:
• Community members may attend the meeting in person at the Morro Bay Veterans Hall.
Alternatively, members of the public may watch the meeting and speak during general Public Comment or on a specific agenda item by logging into the Zoom webinar using the information provided below. Please use the "raise hand" feature to indicate your desire to provide public comment.
•
• Zoom webinar link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82429164990 Or Telephone Attendee: 1 (669) 444-9171 or 1 (669) 900-9128 or 1 (346) 248-7799; Webinar ID: 824 2916 4990. Press *9 to raise hand for public comment. •
• Meetings are also livestreamed on the City's website.
Community Members are encouraged to submit agenda correspondence via email to the City Council at [email protected] prior to the meeting. Agenda correspondence received by 10:00 a.m. on the meeting day will be posted on the City website.
•
Pages
1. ESTABLISH QUORUM AND CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. REPORTS
3.a Closed Session Report
3.b Mayor and Councilmembers' Reports, Announcements and Presentations
3.c City Manager Reports, Announcements and Presentations
3.d Subcommittee Reports - Verbal Update of Current Subcommittee Activities
1. Water Reclamation Facility & Morro Bay / Cayucos Sanitary District JPA
2. Morro Bay Power Plant (Vistra)
3. Offshore Wind Energy
4. Morro Elementary School
5. Shared Fire Services
4. RECOGNITION AND PRESENTATIONS
None.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the audience wishing to address the Council on City business matters not on the agenda may do so at this time. For those desiring to speak on items on the agenda, but unable to stay for the item, may also address the Council at this time.
Public comment is an opportunity for members of the public to provide input to the governing body. To increase the effectiveness of the Public Comment Period, the City respectfully requests the following guidelines and expectations be followed:
•
Those desiring to speak are asked to complete a speaker slip, which are located at the entrance, and submit it to the City Clerk. However, speaker slips are not required to provide public comment.
•
When recognized by the Mayor, please come forward to the podium to speak.
Though not required, it is helpful if you state your name, city of residence and whether you represent a business or group. Unless otherwise established by the Mayor, comments are to be limited to three minutes. •
All remarks should be addressed to Council, as a whole, and not to any individual member thereof.
•
The Council respectfully requests that you refrain from making slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any elected official, commission and/or staff.
•
Please refrain from public displays or outbursts such as unsolicited applause, comments or cheering.
•
Any disruptive activities that substantially interfere with the ability of the City Council to carry out its meeting will not be permitted and offenders will be requested to leave the meeting.
•
Your participation in City Council meetings is welcome and your courtesy will be appreciated.
•
The Council in turn agrees to abide by its best practices of civility and civil discourse according to Resolution No. 07-19.
•
6. CONSENT AGENDA
Unless an item is pulled for separate action by the City Council, the following actions are approved without discussion. The public will also be provided an opportunity to comment on consent agenda items.
Recommended Action
Approve Consent Agenda Items 6.a through 6.e as submitted.
6.a Approval of Minutes
(City Clerk)
Recommended Action
Approve as submitted.
1. April 14, 2026 - Regular Council Meeting 5
6.b Approval of Proclamations
(City Clerk)
Recommended Action
Approve as submitted.
1. Proclamation Declaring May 2026 as "Bike Month" 11
6.c Reappointment of Hemant Patel to the Visit SLO CAL Board of Directors 12 (City Clerk)
Recommended Action
Reappoint Hemant Patel as the City’s representative on the Visit SLO CAL Board of Directors (Board) for a 3-year term ending June 2029.
6.d Ordinance No. 679, amending Chapter 14.75 of Title 14 (Buildings and Construction) of the MBMC to incorporate the provisions of Senate Bill 1383, which updated the California Green Building Standards Code, or CALGreen 16 (Community Development Department)
Recommended Action
Adopt Ordinance No. 679: “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Morro Bay, California, amending Chapter 14.75 of Title 14 (Buildings and Construction) of the Morro Bay Municipal Code (MBMC) to incorporate the provisions of Senate Bill 1383, which updated the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen).”
6.e Equipment donation from the Friends of the Morro Bay Fire Department 29 (Fire Department)
Recommended Action
Accept the donated equipment from the Friends of the Morro Bay Fire Department and authorize the City Manager to execute the Donation Agreement.
7. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
None.
8. BUSINESS ITEMS
8.a Offshore Wind Operations and Maintenance Infrastructure Study - Morro Bay 34 (Community Development Department)
Recommended Action
Receive and file the attached Offshore Wind Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Infrastructure Study.
8.b Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Cannon Corporation for Design of Phase 1 and Environmental Permitting for all Phases of the North Morro Bay Water Improvements Project
204
(Public Works Department)
Recommended Action
Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Cannon Corporation to provide design and engineering services during construction for Phase 1 of the North Morro Bay Water
Improvements Project (Project), and environmental review and permitting for all phases of the Project, in an amount not-to-exceed $525,492.00, and authorize the City Manager to execute amendments if necessary not to exceed $52,549.00 for contingencies.
9. COUNCIL DECLARATION OF FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
10. ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Meeting will be held on May 12, 2026.
This agenda is subject to amendment up to 72 hours prior to the date and time set for the meeting. Please refer to the agenda posted at City Hall, 595 Harbor Street, Morro Bay, CA 93442 for any revisions or call the Clerk's office at (805) 772-6205 for further information.
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection upon request by calling the City Clerk's office at (805) 772-6205.
In compliance with the Americans Disability Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City meeting, please contact the Clerk's office 24 hours prior to the meeting to insure reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting.
1 MINUTES - MORRO BAY CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
April 14, 2026, 5:30 p.m.
Veterans Memorial Hall
209 Surf St., Morro Bay, CA
Members Present: Mayor Carla Wixom
Council Member Jeff Eckles
Council Member Cyndee Edwards
Council Member Zara Landrum
Council Member Bill Luffee
Staff Present: City Manager John Craig
City Attorney Brian Stack
City Clerk Dana Swanson
Finance Director Emily Conrad
Community Development Director Airlin Singewald
Police Chief Amy Watkins
Fire Chief Dan McCrain
Harbor Director Chris Munson
Utilities Division Manager Damaris Hanson
City Engineer Nate Stong
_____________________________________________________________________
1. ESTABLISH QUORUM AND CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Wixom called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. with all members present.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. REPORTS
3.a Closed Session Report
City Attorney Stack announced the Council had not met in closed session since the last regular meeting.
3.b Mayor and Councilmembers' Reports, Announcements and Presentations
3.c City Manager Reports, Announcements and Presentations
3.d Subcommittee Reports - Verbal Update of Current Subcommittee Activities
1. Water Reclamation Facility & Morro Bay / Cayucos Sanitary District JPA
2. Morro Bay Power Plant (Vistra)
3. Offshore Wind Energy
2 4. Morro Elementary School
5. Shared Fire Services
4. RECOGNITION AND PRESENTATIONS
4.a Morro Bay Yacht Club 70th Anniversary Proclamation
Presented to Morro Bay Yacht Club Commodore John Wimer.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
June McIvor, SLO Climate Coalition, appreciated the proclamation recognizing April as Earth Month and invited residents to attend SLO Earthfest 2026 on April 18th from 11:00am - 5:00pm at Santa Rosa Park in San Luis Obispo. Susan Stewart, Morro Bay business owner and Chair of the Chamber Business Advocacy Committee, announced upcoming Chamber events including the Avocado & Margarita Street Festival on September 12th. Visit avomargfest.com for more information.
Tina Metzger, Morro Bay, encouraged residents to attend the San Luis Obispo County Desal Meeting at the Community Center on Monday, April 20th, from 6:00-8:00pm.
Denise Lowe, Morro Bay, Acting Chair of the Chamber of Commerce, invited residents to the Spring Shop, Sip & Stroll event on April 26th from 1:00 - 4:00pm.
Tickets are available online at morrochamber.org.
Mike Gerson, Morro Bay, announced the reopening of the San Luis Obispo Shooting Range. Visit slosr.org for more information.
Linda Winters, Morro Bay, shared thoughts and words of encouragement. Renny Dean Strong, offered comments on world issues.
Betty Winholtz, Morro Bay, on behalf of Friends of Morro Elementary, shared a message from Kent Nagano.
End of public comment.
6. CONSENT AGENDA
Unless an item is pulled for separate action by the City Council, the following actions are approved without discussion. The public will also be provided an opportunity to comment on consent agenda items.
Mayor Wixom opened public comment for items on the Consent Agenda. Betty Winholtz, Morro Bay, stated the AB 2561 report should be a public hearing item and General Plan update a business item. She asked the City to include a statement that residents do not want BESS projects within our sphere of influence and suggested the Planning Commission prepare the Housing Element update. Regarding Item 6.e., she inquired about project costs to date and ongoing expenses and requested the monitoring plan be posted online.
End of public comment.
3 Staff responded to questions raised during public comment.
Council Member Landrum pulled Item 6.e
Motion by Council Member Eckles
Seconded by Council Member Luffee
Approve all items on the Consent Agenda except Item 6.e.
Ayes (5): Mayor Wixom, Council Member Eckles, Council Member Edwards, Council Member Landrum, and Council Member Luffee
CARRIED (5 to 0)
6.a Approval of Minutes
Approve as submitted.
1. March 24, 2026 - Regular Council Meeting
6.b Approval of Proclamations
1. Proclamation Recognizing April 2026 as Sexual Assault Awareness Month
2. Proclamation Recognizing the 70th Anniversary of the Morro Bay Yacht Club
3. Proclamation Recognizing April 2026 as Earth Month and SLO Earthfest 2026
6.c Adoption of Resolution No. 18-26 Initiating Proceedings to Levy the Annual Assessment for the Cloisters Park and Open Space - Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District
Adopt Resolution No. 18-26 ordering the preparation of an Engineer’s Report detailing the expenses projected for Fiscal Year (FY) 2026/27 for the maintenance of the Cloisters Park and Open Space under the provisions of the “Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.”
6.d Adoption of Resolution No. 19-26 Initiating Proceedings to Levy the Annual Assessment for the North Point Natural Area - Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District
Adopt Resolution No. 19-26 ordering the preparation of an Engineer’s Report detailing the expenses projected for Fiscal Year (FY) 2026/27 for the maintenance of the North Point Natural Area under the provisions of the “Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.”
6.e Morro Creek Stabilization Project Completion Report City Engineer Stong clarified the original budget appropriation for this project included biology work to permit and develop the monitoring plan and 5-year monitoring and offered to post the plan on the City website.
Motion by Council Member Landrum
Seconded by Council Member Luffee
4 Terminate the emergency action for the Morro Creek Bank Stabilization Project pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 22050.
Ayes (5): Mayor Wixom, Council Member Eckles, Council Member Edwards, Council Member Landrum, and Council Member Luffee
CARRIED (5 to 0)
6.f Equipment donation from the Friends of the Morro Bay Fire Department Accept the donated equipment from the Friends of the Morro Bay Fire Department and authorize the City Manager to execute the Donation Agreement.
6.g General Plan Annual Progress Report for Reporting Year 2025 Receive and file the General Plan Annual Progress Report.
6.h Ordinance No. 679, amending Chapter 14.75 of Title 14 (Buildings and Construction) of the MBMC to incorporate the provisions of Senate Bill 1383, which updated the California Green Building Standards Code, or CALGreen
Introduce for first reading by title only and with further reading waived, Ordinance No. 679: “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Morro Bay, California, amending Chapter 17.45 of Title 14 (Buildings and Construction) of the Morro Bay Municipal Code, to incorporate the provisions of Senate Bill 1383, which updated the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen).”
6.i Submission of a letter of support for AB 2517 (Calderon), a Cal Cities sponsored bill that would improve the Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) designation process conducted by the Office of the State Fire Marshal Submit a letter of support for AB 2517 (Calderon), a Cal Cities sponsored bill that would improve the Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) designation process conducted by the Office of the State Fire Marshal by ensuring consistent and timely updates to the local responsibility area FHSZ maps.
6.j Annual Status Report on Vacancies to Comply with Assembly Bill 2561 Receive and file this report.
7. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
The Council took a brief recess at 6:18 p.m. and reconvened at 6:28 p.m. with all members present.
7.a Public Hearing and Adoption of Resolution No. 20-26 Updating and Establishing Various User and Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-27 Finance Director Conrad presented the report and, along with Harbor Director Munson and Community Development Director Singewald, responded to Council inquiries.
Mayor Wixom opened the public hearing and public comment for Item 7.a.
5 Betty Winholtz, Morro Bay, advocated for no CPI increase on appeal fees to ensure a person's right to participate within their government. Tina Metzger, Morro Bay, agreed the appeal fee should not be increased as projects improve from the public process.
Michelle Leicester-Cadaret, Morro Bay, also supported the request noting families do not have disposable income and lower appeal fees allow residents to participate.
End of public comment.
Mayor Wixom closed the public hearing.
Staff responded to additional questions and clarified the proposed fee for land use appeals, including CPI, is $419.
Council Member Eckles proposed a total cap of 10% increase on fees, inclusive of CPI, as we move toward full cost recovery. Council Member Landrum supported this approach.
The Council directed staff to review and return with the following items:
a tiered structure for short-term rental (STR) permits, potential for increased liveaboard fees (inspection & monthly rate), and a fee scheme that incentivizes workforce and multi-family housing.
Community Development Director Singewald suggested consideration of lowering fees to spur development occur with Development Impact Fee discussion coming to Council in the next few months.
There was majority support to accept the fees as presented except the land use appeal fee which would remain unchanged. Council Members Eckles and Landrum dissented as they favored a 10% cap inclusive of CPI.
Motion by Mayor Wixom
Seconded by Council Member Luffee
Adopt Resolution No. 20-26 updating and establishing various user and regulatory fees for FY 2026-27 with the direction provided including no CPI increase on land use appeal fees.
Ayes (3): Mayor Wixom, Council Member Edwards, and Council Member Luffee Noes (2): Council Member Eckles, and Council Member Landrum CARRIED (3 to 2)
8. BUSINESS ITEMS
None.
9. COUNCIL DECLARATION OF FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
None.
6 10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Dana Swanson, City Clerk
A PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF MORRO BAY, CALIFORNIA
DECLARING MAY 2026 AS “BIKE MONTH”
CITY COUNCIL
City of Morro Bay, California
Whereas, the bicycle is a viable and environmentally sound form of transportation and an excellent form of recreation; and
Whereas, millions of Californians will experience the joys of bicycling during the month of May through educational programs, races, commuting events, trail work days, helmet promotion, charity events, or just getting out and going for a ride; and
Whereas, California hosts the longest segment of internationally popular Pacific Coast Bike Route, considered one of the most scenic biking trails anywhere in the world, bringing bicycle tourism in the form of hundreds of cross- country and local bicyclists each year, Whereas, San Luis Obispo County offers urban and rural cycling routes popular to riders statewide; and
Whereas, these bicycling activities and attractions have great potential to have a positive impact on San Luis Obispo County’s economy and tourism industry and to stimulate economic development by making the state attractive to businesses and citizens who enjoy the out of doors and healthy lifestyles; and
Whereas, creating bicycle-friendly communities has been shown to improve citizens’ health, well-being, and quality of life, to boost community spirit, to improve traffic safety, and to reduce pollution and congestion; and
Whereas, May has been declared National Bike Month for each of the last 69 years, and is so again in 2026; and
Whereas, the League of American Bicyclists, CalBike, bicycle clubs and advocacy organizations, schools, parks and recreation departments, police departments, hospitals, companies and civic groups throughout California will be promoting bicycling as a leisure activity as well as an environmentally-friendly alternative to the automobile during the month of May 2026; and Whereas, the education of bicyclists and motorists as to the proper and safe operation of bicycles is important to ensure the safety and comfort of all users; and Whereas, Calbike, The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, Bike SLO County, and other organizations across the state will promote bicycle safety during the month of May 2026; and Whereas, the League of American Bicyclists sets May of each year as National Bike Month.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Morro Bay City Council, California, does hereby proclaim the month of May 2026 as Bike Month.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto
set my hand and caused the seal of the City
of Morro Bay to be affixed this 28th day of
April, 2026.
___________________________________
CARLA WIXOM, MAYOR
City of Morro Bay, California
Prepared By: DS Dept Review: DS
City Manager Review: JC City Attorney Review: BS
Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: April 13, 2026 FROM: Dana Swanson, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Reappointment of Hemant Patel to the Visit SLO CAL Board of Directors
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Reappoint Hemant Patel as the City’s representative on the Visit SLO CAL Board of Directors (Board) for a 3-year term ending June 2029.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may choose to direct staff to conduct an open recruitment to fill the seat and/or may direct that appointment be made by the City Manager.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Visit SLO CAL Board of Directors
In December 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 82-14 consenting to the inclusion of the City within the proposed San Luis Obispo County Tourism Marketing District (SLOCTMD), an action that was reconfirmed in 2019 with the adoption of Resolution No. 84-19 consenting to the renewal of the SLOCTMD. The SLOCTMD Management District Plan (Plan) provides each community has a representative of an assessed lodging business on the Board of Directors, a nonprofit corporation, which serves as the Owner’s Association for the SLOCTMD.
Hemant Patel has served as the City’s representative to the Visit SLO CAL Board of Directors since August 2018. He has expressed a willingness and desire to continue to serve as the City’s representative on the Board for a new 3-year term.
The Plan provides the following selection process:
At least one lodging business representative from each of the cities shall be appointed by the respective jurisdiction’s city council or tourism organization, as each city determines. At least one lodging business representative shall be appointed by the County Board of Supervisors.
At least one additional representative at-large shall be appointed by the County Board of Supervisors.
Nominations shall be sought from the assessed lodging businesses for the remaining atlarge seats. Nominations will be verified by the nominating committee, and a slate provided to the Board of Directors for election. The slate will take into consideration the requirement for various business types.
AGENDA NO: 6.c
MEETING DATE: April 28, 2026
Cathy Cartier, President & CEO of Visit SLO CAL submitted a letter of recommendation for Mr.
Patel, which is provided as Attachment 2. Given the latitude provided in the Plan, the Council has the authority to appoint Mr. Patel to the Board for the 3-year term. Alternatively, the Council may direct staff to advertise for recruitment and conduct interviews at a later date, or consider some other method consistent with appointment directed by the Council.
ATTACHMENTS
1. San Luis Obispo Tourism Marketing District Management District Plan Link
2. Letter of recommendation from Visit SLO CAL
1 Dana Swanson
From: John Craig
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2026 11:37 AM
To: Dana Swanson; Heather Goodwin
Subject: Fw: Visit SLO CAL Board Seat Renewal
John Craig, City Manager
[email protected]
(805) 554-9559
Sent from my cellphone, please excuse any typos
From: Cathy Cartier <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 9:10:29 AM
To: John Craig <[email protected]>
Cc: Heather Goodwin <[email protected]>; Emily Rudge <[email protected]> Subject: Visit SLO CAL Board Seat Renewal
CAUTION: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments.
Good morning, John.
As you are aware, Morro Bay has representation on the Visit SLO CAL Board with the appointment of Hemant Patel. Hemant has served on our Board since 2018 and is a member of our Executive Committee, having previously served as Board Chair. His current term ends in June of this year and is up for renewal for an additional three-year term.
Hemant has been an excellent representative for Morro Bay on our Board, and we would welcome his reappointment.
If you have any questions please don't hesitate to reach out.
Best,
Cathy
Cathy Cartier | President & CEO
Visit SLO CAL
[email protected]
2 O: 805.541.8000 | C: 702-510-4597
slocal.com
Prepared By: AMS Dept Review: AMS
City Manager Review: JC City Attorney Review: BS
Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: April 17, 2026 FROM: Airlin M. Singewald, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 679, amending Chapter 14.75 of Title 14 (Buildings and Construction) of the MBMC to incorporate the provisions of Senate Bill 1383, which updated the California Green Building Standards Code, or CALGreen
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt Ordinance No. 679: “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Morro Bay, California, amending Chapter 14.75 of Title 14 (Buildings and Construction) of the Morro Bay Municipal Code (MBMC) to incorporate the provisions of Senate Bill 1383, which updated the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen).”
ALTERNATIVES
Staff does not recommend any alternatives to adopting Ordinance No. 679 to incorporate the latest changes to the CALGreen Code regarding construction waste recycling.
FISCAL IMPACT
The attached ordinance would not significantly impact the City’s budget. While the ordinance changes the fine structure for non-compliance with State recycling requirements, these fines are an insignificant part of the City’s budget.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
At the April 14, 2026 Regular Meeting, Council was presented a report and proposed Ordinance No. 679 entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Morro Bay, California, amending Chapter
14.75 of Title 14 (Buildings and Construction) of the Morro Bay Municipal Code (MBMC) to incorporate the provisions of Senate Bill 1383, which updated the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen).”
A link to the April 14, 2026 staff report and attachment can be found here.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 679, which incorporates the latest changes to the CALGreen Code regarding construction waste recycling, consistent with State law.
If adopted, the Ordinance and new construction waste recycling requirements, consistent with State law, will become effective May 28, 2026.
AGENDA NO: 6.d
MEETING DATE: April 28, 2026
ATTACHMENTS
1. Ordinance No. 679, Amendments to MBMC 14.75 – Mandatory Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Program
a. Exhibit A – 14.75 Mandatory Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Program Redlines
ONLINE LINKS
1. CalRecycle “Overview of Requirements” for SB 1383 and CALGreen:
https://calrecycle.ca.gov/organics/slcp/jurisdictions/calgreenmwelo/#:~:text=Construction%2 0Waste%20Diversion,building%20projects%20in%20the%20state.
1 ORDINANCE NO. 679
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF MORRO BAY, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
CHAPTER 14.75 OF TITLE 14 (BUILDINGS AND
CONSTRUCTION) OF THE MORRO BAY MUNICIPAL CODE
(MBMC) TO INCORPORATE THE PROVISIONS OF SENATE
BILL 1383, WHICH UPDATED THE CALIFORNIA GREEN
BUILDING STANDARDS CODE (CALGREEN)
THE CITY COUNCIL
City of Morro Bay, California
WHEREAS, on April 22, 2002, the City Council of the City of Morro Bay (“City Council”) held a duly noticed public hearing and passed Ordinance No. 488, which established a Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Program pursuant to the provisions of Assembly Bill 939 (“AB 939”); and
WHEREAS, the California Legislature passed Senate Bill 1383 (“SB 1383”) in 2016, with the goal of reducing short-lived climate pollutants, specifically methane emissions, by targeting organic waste reduction; and
WHEREAS, SB 1383 directed the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (“CalRecycle”) to adopt regulations to reduce organic waste by 50 percent from its 2014 baseline level by 2020 and 75 percent by 2025; and
WHEREAS, CalRecycle promulgated regulations as directed by SB 1383 in Chapter 12 (Short-Lived Climate Pollutants) of Division 7 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (“SB Regulations”); and
WHEREAS, jurisdictions are required to adopt the California Green Building Standards Code (“CALGreen”), Sections 4.408.1 and 5.408 in their municipal code, which requires projects requiring local construction permits to divert at least 65% of the Construction and Demolition (“C&D”) generated at the project site from landfills; and WHEREAS, SB 1383 regulations require jurisdictions to have a mechanism to enforce CALGreen’s 65% C&D debris requirement; and
WHEREAS, the City has a C&D Debris Recycling Program in place that was established through Ordinance No. 488 and is incorporated into the MBMC through Section 14.75 – Mandatory Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Program; and WHEREAS, the City desires to amend MBMC Section 14.75 to comply with the regulations set forth in SB 1383.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORRO BAY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
2 SECTION 1. Recitals. The City Council hereby declares and adopts the foregoing recitals and findings as true and correct and they are incorporated herein.
SECTION 2. Municipal Code Amendments. The City Council hereby adopts the proposed Ordinance, amending Title 14 (Buildings and Construction), Chapter 14.75 (Mandatory Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Program) of the Morro Bay Municipal Code as shown in Exhibit A – MBMC Section 14.75: Mandatory Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Program.
SECTION 5. CEQA Findings. The City Council has considered the changes that are proposed with respect to the matter described above. The City Council has, as a result of its consideration, the evidence presented at the hearings on said manner, and all comments that were received during the public hearing process, determined that this activity is exempt from review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) which provides that an activity is not subject to CEQA review where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that it may have a “significant effect on the environment.” The City Council finds that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the amendment of MBMC Section 14.75 to incorporate the provisions of SB 1383 may have a significant effect on the environment because there is no substantial evidence that the adoption of this ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. The City Council hereby approves this amendment of the MBMC in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
SECTION 6. Severability. If any section, subsection, phrase, or clause of this ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise unenforceable, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance or any part thereof.
The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each section, subsection, phrase or clause thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, phrases, or clauses be declared unconstitutional or otherwise unenforceable.
SECTION 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its adoption and upon certification required as an operation of law. ///
///
///
///
///
3 SECTION 8. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify as to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as the designated locations in the City of Morro Bay.
INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of Morro Bay, held on the 14th day of April 2026 by motion of Councilmember Eckles and seconded by Councilmember Luffee.
PASSED AND ADOPTED on the ___ day of _______________, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RECUSE:
__________________________
CARLA WIXOM, MAYOR
ATTEST:
DANA SWANSON, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
BRIAN STACK, City Attorney
4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO )
CITY OF MORRO BAY )
I, Dana Swanson, City Clerk for the City of Morro Bay, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 679 was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Morro Bay at the regular meeting thereof, held on the ____ day of ________ 2026, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RECUSED:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Morro Bay, California, this day of , 2026.
______________________________
DANA SWANSON, City Clerk
Title 14 - BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION
Chapter 14.75 MANDATORY CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS RECYCLING PROGRAM Morro Bay, California, Code of Ordinances Created: 2025-10-07 09:04:20 [EST] (Supp. No. 25)
Chapter 14.75 MANDATORY CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS
RECYCLING PROGRAM
Sections:
14.75.010 Definitions.
"Applicant" means any individual, firm, limited liability company, association, partnership, political subdivision, government agency, municipality, industry, public or private corporation, or any other entity whatsoever who applies to the cCity for the applicable permits to undertake any construction, demolition, or renovation project within the city, unless otherwise specifically exempted by law. “Commingled waste” means a system in which all paper fibers, plastics, metals, and other containers are mixed in a collection truck, instead of being sorted by the depositor into separate commodities. (also known as “single-stream”, “single-sort”).
"Compliance official" means the chief building official or his/her designee. "Construction" means the building of any structure or any portion thereof including any tenant improvements to an existing facility or structure.
"Construction and demolition debris" means used or discarded materials removed from premises during construction or renovation of a structure resulting from construction, remodeling, repair, or demolition operations on any pavement, house, commercial building, or other structure. "Conversion rate" means the rate set forth in the standardized conversion rate table approved by the cCity pursuant to this article for use in estimating the volume or weight of materials identified in a recycling plan. "Covered project" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 14.75.020(A) of this chapter. means any construction, addition, or alteration where there is an increase in the building’s conditioned area, volume, or size. "Deconstruction" means the systematic removal of usage items from a structure. "Demolition" means the decimating, razing, ruining, tearing down or wrecking of any facility, structure, pavement or building, whether in whole or in part, whether interior or exterior. "Divert" means to use material for any purpose other than disposal in a landfill. "Diversion requirement" means the diversion of at least fifty sixty-five percent by weight of the total construction and demolition debris generated by a project via reuse or recycling, unless the applicant has been granted an infeasible exemption pursuant to Section 14.75.060 of this chapter, in which case the diversion requirement shall be the maximum feasible diversion rate established by the recycling plan compliance official for the project.
"Noncovered project" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 14.75.020(C) of this chapter. "Project" means any activity that requires an application for a building or demolition permit or any similar permit from the cCity.
"Renovation" means any change, addition, or modification in an existing structure. "Reuse" means further or repeated use of construction or demolition debris.
Created: 2025-10-07 09:04:17 [EST]
(Supp. No. 25)
"Salvage" means the controlled removal of construction or demolition debris from a permitted building or demolition site for the purpose of recycling, reuse or storage for later recycling or reuse. "Recycling plan" means a completed recycling plan form, approved by the city for the purpose of compliance with this article, submitted by the applicant for any covered or noncovered project. (Ord. No. 564, 11-8-10)
14.75.020 Threshold for covered projects.
A. Covered Projects. All construction and renovation projects within the city, the valuation of which are, or are projected to be, greater than or equal to fifty thousand dollars ("covered projects"), shall be required to divert at least fifty percent of all project construction and demolition debris in compliance with this chapter.
The cost of the project shall be the valuation ascribed to the project by the building official. In addition, all demolition projects having a total footage of more than one thousand square feet shall be a covered project.
Failure to comply with any of the terms of this chapter shall subject the project applicant to the full range of enforcement mechanisms set forth in Sections 14.75.050(C)(3) and 14.75.060 below.
B. City-Sponsored Projects. All city-sponsored construction and renovation projects within the city, the costs of which are, or are projected to be, greater than or equal to fifty thousand dollars ("covered projects") shall be required to divert at least fifty percent of all project construction and demolition debris in compliance with this chapter. The cost of the project shall be the valuation attributed to the permit issued by the building official. In addition, all demolition projects having a total square footage of more than one thousand shall be a covered project.
These city-sponsored covered projects shall submit a recycling plan to the compliance official prior to beginning any construction or demolition activities and shall be subject to all applicable provisions of this chapter with the exception of Section 14.75.050(C)(3).
C. Non-Covered Projects. Applicants for construction, demolition, and renovation projects within the city whose permit valuations are less than fifty thousand dollars ("non-covered projects") shall be encouraged to divert at least fifty percent of all project-related construction and demolition debris.
D. Compliance as a Condition of Approval. Compliance with the provisions of this chapter shall be listed as a condition of approval on any building or demolition permit issued for a covered project. (Ord. No. 564, 11-8-10)
14.75.020 Construction Waste Management Residential.
A. All residential covered projects within the City shall be required to recycle and/or salvage for reuse at least sixty-five (65) percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition debris in compliance with this chapter and section 4.408.1 of the 2025 California Green Building Standards Code.
Where 5 or more multifamily dwelling units are constructed on a building site, provide readily accessible areas that serve the entire building and are identified for the depositing, storage, and collection of nonhazardous materials for recycling, including (at a minimum) paper, corrugated cardboard, glass, plastics, organic waste, and metals. (See Section 4.410.2: 2019 CGBSC) If commingled waste is identified in sorted, separated commodities, the applicant is subject to waste conversion to a single-stream collection method. Failure to comply with any of the terms of this chapter or section 4.408.1 of the 2025 California Green Building Standards Code, shall subject the project
Created: 2025-10-07 09:04:17 [EST]
(Supp. No. 25)
applicant to the full range of enforcement mechanisms set forth in Sections 14.75.050(C)(3) and 14.75.060 below.
B. City-Sponsored Residential covered Projects. All city-sponsored residential construction and renovation projects within the City shall be required to recycle and/or salvage for reuse at least sixty-five (65) percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition debris in compliance with this chapter. These citysponsored projects shall submit a recycling plan to the compliance official prior to beginning any construction or demolition activities and shall be subject to all applicable provisions of this chapter and section 4.408.1 of the 2025 California Green Building Standards Code with the exception of Section
14.75.050(C)(3).
14.75.020.1 Construction Waste Management Non-Residential.
C. All non-residential construction and renovation projects within the city shall be required to recycle and/or salvage for reuse at least sixty-five (65) percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition debris in compliance with this chapter and section 5.408.1 of the 2025 California Green Building Standards Code.
Recycling by occupants. Provide readily accessible areas that serve the entire building and are identified for the depositing, storage, and collection of non-hazardous materials for recycling, including (at a minimum) paper, corrugated cardboard, glass, plastics, organic waste, and metals. (See section 5.410.1:
2019 CGBSC)
If commingled waste is identified in sorted, separated commodities, the applicant is subject to waste conversion to a single-stream collection method. Failure to comply with any of the terms of this chapter shall subject the project applicant to the full range of enforcement mechanisms set forth in Sections 14.75.050(C)(3) and 14.75.060 below.
D. City-Sponsored Non-Residential covered Projects. All city-sponsored non-residential construction and renovation projects within the city shall be required to recycle and/or salvage for reuse at least sixty-five (65) percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition debris in compliance with this chapter.
These city-sponsored projects shall submit a recycling plan to the compliance official prior to beginning any construction or demolition activities and shall be subject to all applicable provisions of this chapter and section 5.408.1 of the 2025 California Green Building Standards Code with the exception of Section
14.75.050(C)(3).
14.75.030 Submission of C&D recycling plan.
A. C&D Recycling Plan Forms. Applicants for building or demolition permits involving any covered project shall complete and submit a recycling plan on a recycling plan form approved by the cCity for this purpose as part of the application packet for the building or demolition permit. The completed recycling plan shall indicate all of the following:
1. The estimated volume or weight of project construction and demolition debris, by materials type, to be generated;
2. The maximum volume or weight of such materials that can feasibly be diverted via reuse or recycling;
3. The vendor or facility that the applicant proposes to use to collect or receive that material; and
4. The estimated volume or weight of construction and demolition debris that will be landfilled.
Created: 2025-10-07 09:04:17 [EST]
(Supp. No. 25)
B. Calculating Volume and Weight of Debris. In estimating the volume or weight of materials identified in the recycling plan, the applicant shall use the standardized conversion rates approved by the cCity for this purpose.
C. Deconstruction. In preparing the recycling plan, applicants for building or demolition permits involving the removal of all or part of an existing structure shall deconstruct, to the maximum extent feasible, and shall make the materials generated thereby available for salvage. (Ord. 488 § 1 (part), 2002) (Ord. No. 564, 11-8-10)
14.75.040 Review of recycling plan.
A. Approval. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, no building or demolition permit shall be issued for any covered project unless and until the recycling plan compliance official has approved the recycling plan. Approval shall not be required, however, where an emergency demolition is required to protect the public health, welfare or safety as determined by the chief building official. The recycling plan compliance official shall only approve a recycling plan if he or she first determines that all of the following conditions have been met:
1. The recycling plan provides all of the information set forth in Section 14.75.030(A) of this chapter; and
2. The recycling plan indicates that at least fifty sixty-five percent by weight of all construction and demolition debris generated by the project will be diverted.
If the recycling plan compliance official determines that these conditions have been met, he or she shall mark the recycling plan "approved," return a copy of the recycling plan to the applicant, and notify the building divisiondepartment that the recycling plan has been approved.
B. Nonapproval. If the recycling plan compliance official determines that the recycling plan is incomplete or fails to indicate that at least fifty sixty-five percent by weight of all construction and demolition debris generated by the project will be reused or recycled, he or she shall either:
1. Return the recycling plan to the applicant marked "denied," including a statement of reasons, and so notify the building divisiondepartment; or
2. Return the recycling plan to the applicant marked "further explanation required." (Ord. No. 564, 11-8-10)
14.75.050 Compliance with recycling plan.
A. Documentation. Prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy for the project, the applicant shall submit to the recycling plan compliance official documentation that the diversion requirement for the project has been met. The diversion requirement shall be that the applicant has diverted at least fifty sixty-five percent of the total construction and demolition debris generated by the project via reuse or recycling, unless the applicant has been granted an infeasible exemption pursuant to Section 14.75.060 of this chapter, in which case the diversion requirement shall be the maximum feasible diversion rate established by the recycling plan compliance official for the project. This documentation shall include all of the following:
1. Completed C&D disposal report and Rreceipts from the vendor or facility which collected or received each material showing the actual weight or volume of that material;
2. A copy of the previously approved recycling plan for the project adding the actual volume or weight of each material diverted and landfilled;
Created: 2025-10-07 09:04:20 [EST]
(Supp. No. 25)
3. Any additional information the applicant believes is relevant to determining its efforts to comply in good faith with this chapter.
B. Weighing of Wastes. Applicants shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that all construction and demolition debris diverted or landfilled are measured and recorded using the most accurate method of measurement available. To the extent practical, all construction and demolition debris shall be weighed by measurement on scales. Such scales shall be in compliance with all regulatory requirements for accuracy and maintenance.
For construction and demolition debris for which weighing is not practical due to small size or other considerations, a volumetric measurement shall be used. For conversion of volumetric measurements to weight, the applicant shall use the standardized conversion rates approved by the cCity for this purpose.
C. Determination of Compliance. The recycling plan compliance official shall review the information submitted under Section 14.75.050(A) and determine whether the applicant has complied with the diversion requirement, as follows:
1. Full Compliance. If the recycling plan compliance official determines that the applicant has fully complied with the diversion requirements applicable to the project, he or she shall approve the recycling plan and inform the building division that a certificate of occupancy can be issued.
2. Substantial Compliance. If the recycling plan compliance official determines that the diversion requirement has not been achieved, he or she shall determine on a case-by-case basis whether the applicant has made a good faith effort and is in substantial compliance with this chapter.
In making this determination, the recycling plan compliance official shall consider the availability of markets for the construction and demolition debris landfilled, the size of the project, and/or the documented efforts of the applicant to divert construction and demolition debris. If the recycling plan compliance official determines that the applicant has made a good faith effort to comply with this chapter and is in substantial compliance, he or she shall approve the recycling plan and inform the building division that a certificate of occupancy can be issued.
3. Noncompliance. If the recycling plan compliance official determines that the applicant is not in substantial compliance with this chapter, or if the applicant fails to submit the documentation required by Section 14.75.050(A), then the applicant shall pay a civil penalty as prescribed in Section 14.75.080 prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
D. Falsification of Records. If the applicant deliberately provides false or misleading data to the cCity in violation of this chapter, the applicant may be subject to penalties in addition to those specified in Section 14.75.080.
In any civil enforcement action, administrative or judicial, the city shall be entitled to recover its attorneys' fees and costs from an applicant who is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to have violated this chapter.
E. Final Approval. Prior to final approval by the building division all conditions of this chapter shall be met. (Ord. No. 564, 11-8-10)
14.75.060 Infeasible exemption.
A. Application. If an applicant for a covered project experiences unique circumstances that the applicant believes make it infeasible to comply with the diversion requirement, the applicant may apply for an exemption at the time that he or she submits the recycling plan required under Section 14.75.030(A) of this chapter. The applicant shall indicate on the recycling plan the maximum rate of diversion he or she believes is feasible for each material and the specific circumstances that he or she believes make it infeasible to comply with the diversion requirement.
B. Meeting with Recycling Plan Compliance Official. The recycling plan compliance official shall review the information supplied by the applicant and may meet with the applicant to discuss possible ways of meeting
Created: 2025-10-07 09:04:20 [EST]
(Supp. No. 25)
the diversion requirement. Based on the information supplied by the applicant and, if applicable, San Luis Obispo county integrated waste management authority staff or designee, the recycling plan compliance official shall determine whether it is possible for the applicant to meet the diversion requirement.
C. Granting of Exemption. If the recycling plan compliance official determines that it is infeasible for the applicant to meet the diversion requirement due to unique circumstances, he or she shall determine the maximum feasible diversion rate for each material and shall indicate this rate on the recycling plan submitted by the applicant. The recycling plan compliance official shall return a copy of the recycling plan to the applicant marked "Approved for Infeasible Exemption" and shall notify the building division that the recycling plan has been approved.
D. Denial of Exemption. If the recycling plan compliance official determines that it is possible for the applicant to meet the diversion requirement, he or she shall so inform the applicant in writing. The applicant shall have thirty days to resubmit a recycling plan form in full compliance with Section 14.75.030(A) of this chapter. If the applicant fails to resubmit the recycling plan, or if the resubmitted recycling plan does not comply with Section 14.75.030(A) of this chapter, the recycling plan compliance official shall deny the recycling plan in accordance with Section 14.75.040(B) of this chapter.
(Ord. No. 564, 11-8-10)
14.75.070 Appeals.
A. Contents of Appeals. An appeal of the recycling plan compliance official decision may be made to the public servicesCommunity Development dDirector in writing not longer than ten days after the compliance official's decision. The decision of the public servicesCommunity Development dDirector shall be final. The appellant must specifically state in the notice of appeal:
1. The name and address of the appellant and appellant's interest in the decision;
2. The nature of the decision appealed from and/or the conditions appealed from;
3. A clear, complete, but brief statement of the reasons why, in the opinion of the appellant, the decision or the conditions imposed were unjustified or inappropriate; and
4. The specific facts of the matter in sufficient detail to notify the cCity. The appeal shall not be stated in generalities.
B. Acceptance of Appeal. An appeal shall not be accepted by the public servicesCommunity Development dDirector unless it is complete.
(Ord. No. 564, 11-8-10)
14.75.080 Civil penalties.
A. Civil Penalty. If the recycling plan compliance official, or on upon appeal, the public servicesCommunity Development dDirector determines that an applicant is in noncompliance as described in Section
14.75.050(C)(3), the applicant shall pay a civil penalty in the amount calculated as two percent of the total project valuation of $500 for residential projects, and $1,000 for commercial projects. Until the civil penalty is paid, the building division may withhold a certificate of occupancy. In order to provide adequate education to applicants of this chapter and allow time for them to become familiar with the necessary requirements, enforcement of the civil penalty shall not occur until twelve months after the effective date of this chapter.
B. Enforcement. The cCity aAttorney is authorized to bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction to recover such civil penalties for the cCity of Morro Bay.
Created: 2025-10-07 09:04:20 [EST]
(Supp. No. 25)
(Ord. No. 564, 11-8-10)
14.75.090 Severability.
If any subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of the this chapter is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforcement of the remaining portions of this chapter, or any other provisions of the cCity's rules and regulations. It is the city's express intent that each remaining portion would have been adopted irrespective of the fact that any one or more subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid or unenforceable.
(Ord. No. 564, 11-8-10)
Prepared By: DM Dept Review: DM
City Manager Review: JC City Attorney Review: BS___
Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: April 20, 2026 FROM: Daniel McCrain, Fire Chief
SUBJECT: Equipment donation from the Friends of the Morro Bay Fire Department
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Accept the donated equipment from the Friends of the Morro Bay Fire Department and authorize the City Manager to execute the Donation Agreement.
ALTERNATIVES
None, donation offer complies with the City’s Donation Policy as established by Resolution No. 61-
19. FISCAL IMPACT
The value of donated equipment totals $5,271.61 for three (3) UE Scope 2 VL460 Video Laryngoscopes with required accessories.
BACKGROUND
The Morro Bay Fire Department received a donation of three (3) UE Scope 2 VL460 Video Laryngoscopes with required accessories that was purchased by the Friends of the Morro Bay Fire Department in April 2026. This equipment will only be by licensed Paramedic Fire Department staff.
These video laryngoscopes will be used for advanced airway placement by Paramedics to support lifesaving care of a patient. The video laryngoscopes are useful in locating the airway in patients with difficult anatomy, trauma, blood or other obstructions leading to increased success rated in placing an advanced airway.
The Friends of the Moro Bay Fire Department board made a request for a release of liability for the donated equipment. The Friends of the Morro Bay Fire Department is a 501(c)(3) Non-Profit organization whose mission is,
1. To establish and maintain an association of persons interested in public safety;
2. To focus public attention on fire safety, services, facilities and needs;
3. To support and cooperate with the Morro Bay Fire Department to enhance safety, services, and facilities for the community;
4. To stimulate gifts, endowments, and bequests.
AGENDA NO: 6.e
MEETING DATE: April 28, 2026
In support of this mission the Friends of the Morro Bay Fire Department has generously donated these valuable pieces of equipment to the Fire Department and the community of Morro Bay.
Providing a release of liability for these donated items will help to ensure the Friends of the Morro Bay Fire Department will be able to continue making donations of valuable and much needed equipment to the Morro Bay Fire Department in the years to come without assuming unnecessary liability which may preclude future donations. This action is also consistent with the City’s Donation Policy established by Resolution 61-19 which requires City Council approval to accept donations exceeding $5,000.
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Friends of MB Fire Dept Donation Acceptance Agreement Video Laryngoscopes
DONATION AGREEMENT
BY THE FRIENDS OF THE MORRO BAY FIRE DEPARTMENT
TO THE CITY OF MORRO BAY
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 28 day of April, 2026, and is effective as of the 28 day of April, 2026 (“Agreement”), by and between the CITY OF MORRO BAY, a municipal corporation of the State of California (hereinafter GRANTEE and “City”), and FRIENDS OF THE MORRO BAY FIRE DEPARTMENT, a California nonprofit corporation, (hereinafter GRANTOR).
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, GRANTEE provides emergency response for the whole community of Morro Bay; and
WHEREAS, the UE Scope 2 VL460 Video Laryngoscopes and required accessories are intended to support public safety; and
WHEREAS, the Fire Department has not had sufficient funds to purchase this specialty equipment; and
WHEREAS, GRANTOR is a not-for-profit community group established to help improve the Fire Services in Morro Bay; and
WHEREAS, GRANTOR desires to assist GRANTEE by purchasing and donating the UE Scope 2 VL460 Video laryngoscopes and required accessories; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE, as follows:
1. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, on or before April 28, 2026, GRANTOR agrees to donate to GRANTEE a quantity of three (3) UE Scope 2 VL460 Video Laryngoscopes and required accessories for use by the Fire Department and the City, with consideration to GRANTOR that GRANTEE’S use of the equipment furthers GRANTOR’S established goal of improving public safety in Morro Bay.
2. GRANTOR agrees that the UE Scope 2 VL460 Video Laryngoscopes and required accessories donated shall be the sole and separate property of City.
4. Neither GRANTOR nor GRANTEE may assign any rights or obligations created by this Agreement to any other person without the prior written approval of the other party.
5. The terms and conditions of this Agreement can only be amended in writing approved and signed by GRANTOR and GRANTEE.
6. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
A. The Caption
The captions of the various sections, paragraphs, and subparagraphs of the Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be considered nor referred to for resolving questions of the interpretation.
B. No Third Party Beneficiary
This Agreement shall not be construed or deemed to be an Agreement for the benefit of any third party or parties, and no third party shall have any claim or right of action hereunder for any cause whatsoever.
C. Severability Clause
In case any one or more of the provisions contained herein shall, for any reason, be held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, it shall not affect the validity of the other provisions which shall remain in full force and effect.
D. No Pledging of GRANTEE'S Credit
Under no circumstances shall GRANTOR have the authority or power to pledge the credit of GRANTEE or incur any obligation in the name of GRANTEE.
E. Venue
This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and governed both as to validity and to performance of the parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Legal actions concerning any dispute, claim or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be instituted in the Superior Court of the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, or any other appropriate court in such county, and GRANTOR covenants and agrees to submit to the personal jurisdiction of such court in the event of such action. In the event of litigation in a U.S. District Court, venue shall lie exclusively in the Central District of California, in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California.
H. Non-liability of GRANTOR Officers and Employees
No officer or employee of GRANTOR shall be personally liable to the GRANTEE, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by GRANTOR or for any amount which may become due to GRANTOR or to its successor, or for breach of any obligation of the terms of this Agreement.
I. Interpretation
The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the language used and shall not be construed for or against either party by reason of the authorship of this Agreement or any other rule of construction which might otherwise apply.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first herein above set forth.
City of Morro Bay Friends of the Morro Bay Fire Department __________________________ _________________________________ John Craig, City Manager Mike Groves, President
_________________________________
Elaine Giannini, Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Brian Stack, City Attorney
ATTEST:
__________________________
Dana Swanson, City Clerk
AGENDA NO: 8.a
MEETING DATE: April 28, 2026
Prepared By: AS/CM Dept Review: AS
City Manager Review: JC City Attorney Review: BS
Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: April 14, 2026 FROM: Airlin Singewald, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Offshore Wind Operations and Maintenance Infrastructure Study – Morro Bay
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Receive and file the attached Offshore Wind Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Infrastructure Study.
ALTERNATIVES
None.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City incurred staffing expenses by attending meetings with the County and their consultant (Mott MacDonald) during preparation of the operations and maintenance (O&M) infrastructure study. To offset this expense, the County allocated $127,675 in State grant funds to the City. The City Council approved a sub-recipient agreement with the County on September 18, 2024 to accept these funds.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The County of San Luis Obispo received a $1 million earmark in the 2022 State budget to study offshore wind (OSW) infrastructure along the Central Coast. On September 10, 2024, the County allocated these funds by approving a $684,750 contract with engineering firm Mott MacDonald to prepare two operations and maintenance (O&M) infrastructure studies: one for Morro Bay and one for San Luis Bay. The remaining $315,250 was distributed to Port San Luis, Cal Poly, and the City of Morro Bay to support staff time associated with the study.
Using this State grant, the County retained Mott MacDonald to evaluate the feasibility of developing an O&M facility in Morro Bay. Mott MacDonald and County staff will attend the April 28, 2026 City Council meeting to present the study’s findings in person. City staff will briefly introduce the item, including key takeaways from City staff perspective.
The study serves as an informational resource, describing what a potential O&M facility in Morro Bay could look like, outlining the regulatory process required to establish one, and identifying key constraints that would need to be addressed. It is intended to help inform the City and the public in the event that an OSW development proposal is submitted in the future.
Importantly, the City has not received any proposals from OSW developers and has not engaged in recent discussions with them regarding potential port facilities in Morro Bay. Any future application for OSW infrastructure would require detailed analysis and extensive community engagement.
The study focuses primarily on potential improvements to the harbor and waterfront needed to support OSW operations, including vessels, office space, and staging areas. For example, it evaluates options such as rebuilding the northern T-pier to accommodate berths for 300-foot service operating vessels (SOVs) and 90-foot crew transfer vessels (CTVs), as well as widening the navigation channel to meet vessel turning requirements. The study does not address other components such as cable landings, grid connections, or fueling infrastructure.
Two “least constrained” development alternatives are identified in the study. One option would provide support for three OSW developers, with waterfront capacity for two developers simultaneously. Meanwhile, a “split location” alternative would accommodate one developer in Morro Bay, with a second potentially locating at Port San Luis or another port. However, the Morro Bay study concludes that even these least constrained options would face significant regulatory, environmental, and community acceptance challenges, and may ultimately prove infeasible for Morro Bay.
Key Takeaways
The following are City staff’s key takeaways from the O&M study:
1. The study confirms that even the “least constrained” alternative would face significant hurdles and may not be feasible from a regulatory, environmental, and community acceptance perspective.
2. The City would maintain significant land use local control over development of an O&M facility. An application for OSW infrastructure development would currently be subject to the City’s zoning ordinance, General Plan, and any applicable ballot initiatives restricting land uses. The Coastal Commission’s Coastal Development Permit authority over OSW facilities does not preempt the City’s local land use control, permitting requirements, or ballot initiatives (e.g., A-24, or Measure D).
3. If an application is submitted for OSW development in the future, significant community engagement (including public workshops prior to application submittal) would be essential to evaluate feasibility from a community acceptance standpoint.
4. While a potential O&M facility may have economic benefits for the City, such as job creation and revenue enhancements, if an application is submitted in the future, these benefits should be weighed against opportunity costs and increased expenses associated with O&M infrastructure on the waterfront.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the O&M study provides a conceptual assessment of what offshore wind O&M infrastructure in Morro Bay could entail, but it does not propose or advance any specific project.
While it identifies potential opportunities, it also underscores substantial regulatory, environmental, and community considerations that would need to be carefully evaluated. Should a proposal be submitted in the future, it would require thorough analysis, adherence to local land use authority, and robust public engagement to determine whether such development aligns with community priorities.
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study – Morro Bay (Mott MacDonald; April 2026)
Central Coast Offshore Wind
O&M Infrastructure Study
Final Report - Morro Bay
April 2026
Page i of vii
Mott MacDonald Restricted Page 36 of 230
This page left intentionally blank for pagination.
Page ii of vii
Mott MacDonald Restricted Page 37 of 230
Page iii of vii
Mott MacDonald Restricted
Mott MacDonald
1601 5th Avenue
Suite 800
Seattle
WA 98101
United States of America
T +1 (206) 838 2886
mottmac.com
Central Coast Offshore Wind
O&M Infrastructure Study
Final Report - Morro Bay
April 2026
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay
Page iv of vii
Mott MacDonald Restricted
Issue and revision record
Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description
0 12/05/25 SC, BF CP KP Draft Submission
1 04/16/26 SC, BF, EM CP AP Final Submission
Document reference:
This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the abovecaptioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.
We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties.
This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it.
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay
Page v of vii
Mott MacDonald Restricted
Contents
Executive summary 1
1 Introduction 6
2 Abbreviations and acronyms 8
3 Basis of assessment 9
3.1 Site conditions 9
3.1.1 Site location 9
3.1.2 Existing marine infrastructure 9
3.1.3 Environmental conditions 14
3.1.4 Bathymetry 15
3.1.5 Other site constraints 16
3.2 O&M facility infrastructure minimum functional requirements 17
3.2.1 Design vessels 17
3.2.2 Berthing and navigation 18
3.2.3 Marine facility 19
3.3 Study assumptions & exclusions 20
3.3.1 Guidelines 21
4 O&M facility infrastructure concept design 22
4.1 Gap assessment 22
4.2 Concept design for a facility shared by three developers 23
4.2.1 List of concept designs 23
4.2.2 Least constrained concept design 27
4.2.3 Strategic development scenarios 27
4.2.4 Concept design development 27
4.3 Navigation and dredging assessment 32
4.3.1 Background 32
4.3.2 Maintenance dredging history and methodology 32
4.3.3 Preliminary dredging assessment 34
4.4 Cost estimate 38
4.5 Concept design for a facility operated by one developer (Split-Location) 42
4.5.1 Split-location introduction 42
4.5.2 Modified basis of assessment for a single OSW developer 42
4.5.3 Least constrained site layout 42
4.5.4 Split-location cost 47
4.5.5 Split-location conceptual design summary 51
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay
Page vi of vii
Mott MacDonald Restricted
5 Environmental and permitting assessment 52
5.1 Summary 52
6 Summary 54
6.1 Conclusions 54
6.2 Next steps 55
7 References 57
Appendices 58
A. Basis of design 59
B. Environmental constraints and feasibility analysis report (Rincon, 2026) 60
C. Preliminary geotechnical desk study 61
Tables
Table 3.1 Typical vessel mix at the North T-Pier for Harbor Department, USCG and U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service 11
Table 3.2: Tidal datums at the project location 14
Table 3-3 – Topographic and bathymetric data sources 16 Table 3-4 – Morro Bay FNC authorized channel geometries 17 Table 3-5 – Design vessels 18
Table 3-6 – Berthing and navigation requirements 18
Table 3-7 – Operation zones definitions 19
Table 3-8 – Moorage requirements and waterfront facilities 20 Table 3-9 – Upland facilities 20
Table 4-1 – Functional requirements and upgrades to support an O&M facility 22 Table 4.4: List of concept designs 24
Table 4.6: Morro Bay site alternative options cost estimate 39 Table 4.7: Morro Bay Option 4A cost estimate 40
Table 4.8: Morro Bay Option 4B cost estimate 41
Table 4-9: Updated functional requirements for a single developer at Morro Bay 42 Table 4-10 Morro Bay site alternative variant options cost estimate 47 Table 4-11 Split-Location Option Variant A detailed cost estimate 48 Table 4-12 Split-Location Option Variant B detailed cost estimate 49 Table 4-13 Split-Location Option Variant C detailed cost estimate 50
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay
Page vii of vii
Mott MacDonald Restricted
Figures
Figure 1.1: Map of California Wind Lease Areas (BOEM, 2025) 7 Figure 3.1: Morro Bay project vicinity map 9
Figure 3.2: Existing conditions and land use at Morro Bay Waterfront 10 Figure 3.3: Photos of the fueling facility at Morro Bay 11 Figure 3.4: Photo of the shoreline protection adjacent to USCG and Harbor Dept. 12 Figure 3.5: Photo of the rock revetment protecting Coleman Park 12 Figure 3.6: Public beach at Morro Bay 12
Figure 3.7: City of Morro Bay Harbor Dept. 13
Figure 3.8: USCG Surf Station 13
Figure 3.9: Vistra Pump Intake Waterfront Property 13
Figure 3.10: Power station pump intake 13
Figure 3.11 Current velocity measurement locations. (1 – Between Morro Rock and Sand Spit, 2 – North T-Pier, 3 – South T-Pier) 15
Figure 3.12: Morro Bay basemap. Numbers denote elevation in feet relative to the mean lower-low water (MLLW) tidal datum 16
Figure 3.13 Summary of site constraints in Morro Bay, to be read in conjunction with Table 3-4. 17
Figure 4.1: Morro Bay Option 4A Conceptual Plan 30
Figure 4.2: Morro Bay Option 4B Conceptual Plan 31
Figure 4.3: Schematic a Trailing Hopper Suction Dredger (USAV Yaquina) 33 Figure 4.4: Example of a Cutter Section Dredger 33
Figure 4.5: Dredge material placement sites (USACE, 2013). Orange boxes indicate dredge placement pipes. Red line indicates temporary dredge pipeline. 34 Figure 4.6: Dredging depths in feet for a representative navigation channel layout at Morro Bay 35
Figure 4.7: Turning basin design for high current configuration (USACE, 2006) 37 Figure 4.10: Split-Location Conceptual Design, Variant A – Vistra property not acquired 44 Figure 4.11: Split-Location Conceptual Design, Variant B – Vistra waterfront property leased or acquired 45
Figure 4.12: Split-Location Conceptual Design, Variant C – Vistra waterfront and powerplant property leased or acquired 46
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
Executive summary
As part of the 2022 State budget, San Luis Obispo County was awarded $1 million for a “DeepWater Port Feasibility Study for Offshore Wind Procurement.” The funds were used for the development of two studies, one for Morro Bay and one for San Luis Obispo Bay, which evaluate the technical suitability of the two locations for potential offshore wind (OSW) operations and maintenance (O&M) facilities to serve projects in the Morro Bay Wind Energy Area (MBWEA). In an earlier study, the AB 525 Port Readiness Plan by Lim and Trowbridge (2023) prepared for the California State Lands Commission, Morro Bay and San Luis Obispo Bay were identified as appropriate candidates.
This study furthers the evaluation of Morro Bay (the San Luis Obispo Bay study is under separate cover) as a potential O&M facility location. It performs site specific comparisons of the likely requirements an OSW O&M facility with the conditions and constraints within the Bay.
Examples of potential modifications or additions to waterfront infrastructure that may be required to meet OSW facility requirements have also been included. The study was developed in coordination with a Study Team consisting of representatives from the County of San Luis Obispo and the City of Morro Bay Community Development and Harbor Department.
It is important to note that the Study Team evaluation of OSW O&M facility concept designs included in the study does not signify a Study Team representative’s personal or organizational support or objection for the conceptual design or the development of an OSW O&M facility, nor does the report intend to promote or support offshore wind development or related facilities.
Instead, the study presents conceptual information about the specific functional requirements for a potential OSW O&M facility, what could be accommodated within Morro Bay, and what modifications would likely be necessary in the design and agency review of an application to develop an O&M facility at Morro Bay. Currently, no land use applications have been submitted for the development of an OSW O&M facility in Morro Bay. If an O&M facility is proposed in the future, it would be subject to detailed project-level analysis and public review. This study, however, provides useful information should such an application ever be submitted.
Offshore Wind O&M Base description
Unlike a Staging and Integration (S&I) facility, an OSW O&M facility is typically limited to a dock and loading space for support vessels as well as nearby offices and warehousing for maintenance activities and storage of weather sensitive components. Based on similar facilities and initial conversations with the Morro Bay Wind Energy Area (MBWEA) offshore wind developers, an OSW O&M fleet for a single lease area in the MBWEA would be anticipated to include one (1) large offshore Service Operations Vessel (SOV) and optionally one (1) small Crew Transfer Vessel (CTV).
As an O&M facility in this region could service any or all the three (3) lease areas, this study first considered a concept design suitable for a maximum of three (3) SOVs and three (3) CTVs.
The study later considered a Split-Location approach, whereby the Morro Bay site would only be expected to service one (1) developer with one (1) SOV, and one (1) CTV. Under this scenario, Morro Bay would accommodate a second OSW developer’s SOV and CTV, and it is assumed the third developer would be located out of the area.
CTVs are assumed to be up to 90ft in length and are typically used for shuttling personnel and minor supplies on a daily basis from the O&M facility to the lease area.
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
SOVs are assumed to be up to 300ft in length and typically remain offshore for extended periods of time (assumed 1 - 2 weeks) performing inspections and maintenance, activities before returning to the O&M facility for a short turnaround (assumed 24hrs). Exact schedules would be subject to the OSW developers’ O&M model. Whilst the berths are vacant, developers would be expected to utilize the wharf to stage equipment for the next scheduled vessel call.
Study Approach
This study consists of a desktop assessment of the likely minimum functional requirements for a successful O&M facility, a site visit to assess the condition of the existing infrastructure as well as discussion with the City of Morro Bay and the Harbor Department to understand how an O&M facility may affect their activities and existing public uses. This study methodology included:
1. Identification of minimum functional requirements for an O&M facility and development of Basis of Assessment criteria.
2. Development of conceptual designs which satisfy the Basis of Assessment.
3. Collaborative multi-criteria assessment of concept design alternatives to assess concept options by:
a. Functional performance including mooring loading and weather downtime options b. Environmental and permitting constraints
c. Potential effects to the community
d. Likely capital cost
Basis of Assessment
The Basis of Assessment for this study identified existing site conditions of the bay such as bathymetry, wind, and wave data, and considered information and data from relevant previous studies. Informal interviews with likely stakeholders, such as an O&M facility developer and OSW developers, were conducted to refine assumptions related to operating details of an O&M facility. Minimum functional requirements were identified for berthing and navigation of design vessels, quayside operations, and upland support facilities.
The following key conditions were refined throughout the process and collectively agreed upon by all parties present:
● Development should be focused on the North T-Pier, rather than both T-Piers. ● Development should take the form of a T-pier to respect the local fabric of the waterfront. ● The T-Pier should be at least partially publicly accessible. ● T-Pier development should be respectful to neighboring lease sites, recreational areas, local businesses, and restaurants by keeping O&M activities to the north side of the North T-Pier. ● Layouts should avoid partitioning sections of the promenade and harbor-walk for secure access.
● U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and Morro Bay Harbor Department to be kept at or near the North T-Pier. Secured access would be preferred by USCG.
● Development should be respectful to the Commercial Fishing intent of the Measure D area and minimize impacts on the industry’s operations.
● Development should be respectful to Measure A-24. Under this measure, any future changes to the land use designations in the affected area require approval by a majority vote of city residents (Morro Bay 2024).
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
● The Study Team agreed on these conditions for the purposes of this concept level review. If a project is proposed in the future, these conditions could be re-evaluated based on projectspecific information and public input.
Environmental and Permitting Constraints
Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) provided input on the development of the various design concepts and shared environmental planning, resource, land use and permitting constraints for the Study. Rincon’s Environmental Constraints and Feasibility Analysis Report (report) analyzed the least constrained alternatives and locations for an OSW O&M facility located in Morro Bay (Appendix B). The report identifies, evaluates, and provides a technical analysis of the environmental planning, resource, and permitting constraints related to the least constrained concept designs and includes details on responsible parties, permit requirements, approval processes, timelines, and estimated costs.
Any new development on the waterfront would need to be consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code. A primary constraint of an O&M facility from a permitting standpoint is the potential for such a project to be inconsistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code.
The City’s recently updated 2021 General Plan envisions a sustainable, vibrant. and accessible waterfront. The City is updating its 1996 Waterfront Master Plan to create a roadmap to implement this vision. In 2024, the City rezoned key waterfront properties (e.g., the power plant property) from ‘industrial’ to ‘visitor-serving commercial.’ A project would not be able to proceed with the processing of a Coastal Development Permit, until it can be found consistent with the General Plan or until the General Plan is amended to allow for the proposed development. A change to the General Plan for this portion of the waterfront would require voter approval, per a 2024 ballot initiative (A-24).
Potential Effects on the Community
The North and South T-Piers at Morro Bay are currently used by the Harbor Department, U.S.
Coast Guard (USCG), U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the fishing industry, and for boat moorage, and storage. Adjacent to the North T-Pier is a fishing wharf, used for offloading catch and equipment, and businesses on City lease sites.
The impact that an O&M facility could have can be separated into short term and long-term benefits, changes in use, and localized resource impact. Short-term benefits may include local job opportunities and investment due to construction-related activities. Short-term negative impacts may include public inconveniences and environmental impacts due to construction, such as local noise, traffic management, dredging, and temporary increases in construction traffic.
Long-term benefits of a successful project may include:
● Investment to repair and maintain T-pier(s).
● Reduced maintenance costs for City of Morro Bay, due to cost sharing with OSW tenants. ● Potentially safer navigation for vessels due to dredging of the navigation channel resulting in less shoaling and potentially reduced wave heights propagating through the harbor breakwater.
● Additional beach nourishment from dredging operations, protecting bird habitats at Morro Rock Beach.
● Potential investment for coastal protection upgrades within the bay.
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
● Improvements to public facilities augmented by the new facility, such as the Harbor Department office, a new boat lift (if required for CTVs), and additional fueling or powering facilities.
● Job creation to service the O&M facility and potential supply chain business opportunities to fabricate serviceable offshore wind components.
Pro-active community engagement would be a critical component for a viable project, to maximize the potential community benefits whilst reducing the potential for long-term negative impacts to Morro Bay’s character and identity. Identified community considerations included the following:
● Changes to the viewscape and character of the bay due to new marine infrastructure and moorage of large vessels.
● Additional Heavy Goods Vehicle movements expected to transfer service components to and from the OSW O&M facility on the waterfront.
● Additional commercial and industrial operations in the bay may impact the character of the city and waterfront.
● Wave conditions through the inlet may improve due to dredging of the navigation channel.
Improvements to navigational safety could speculatively lead to the USCG surf station being converted to a security station or other mission. This change may affect the USCG vessel mix, berthing, and facility requirements. However, without wave modelling and without formal coordination with the USCG, it remains unclear whether these changes in wave conditions and station designation would occur.
● The waterfront area between Beach Street and Coleman Park is heavily used for commercial and recreational fishing, kayaking, boat tours, sporting events, and sightseeing. These uses play a major role in sustaining Morro Bay’s economy and help define the community’s character. Any O&M facility in this area would need to be designed to maintain coastal access for these activities while preserving Morro Bay’s distinctive character.
Cost
Costs were estimated for the waterfront infrastructure only and excluded any potential costs for environmental mitigation, upland development, or costs to relocate or compensate businesses.
Construction cost estimates for the least constrained concept designs were estimated to be approximately $130-140 million, however may be in the range of $90-210 million according to the Advancement of Cost Estimating’s Class V cost estimate scheme (-50% to +100%) for concept-level assessments.
Construction cost estimates for the Split-Location concept design (one developer at Morro Bay, one developer at San Luis Obispo Bay, and one developer located out of the area) were estimated to be approximately $114-$122 million, but may be in the range of $80-183 million according to the Advancement of Cost Estimating’s Class V cost estimate scheme (-50% to +100%) for concept-level assessments.
Study Recommendations
An O&M facility located on the Morro Bay waterfront would present several inconsistencies with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code. Despite this, the existing waterfront infrastructure at Morro Bay has the physical characteristics needed to support the development of an O&M facility to service the OSW industry. This is due to key factors such as the presence of an existing channel and the availability of industrial land parcels with waterfront access that make development a viable option.
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
The existing infrastructure was assessed for reuse viability for an OSW O&M facility. Due to the expected size of vessels and loading required for O&M activities, the existing T-Piers at Morro Bay were found to be likely unsuitable for reuse or modification for O&M requirements. As such, an O&M facility would likely require a new marine structure, sized to support the required number of SOV(s) and CTVs.
Several concept designs which met the minimal functional requirements of an offshore wind O&M facility are included within this report. The concepts aimed to reduce environmental and permitting challenges and attempted to minimize the impact to existing infrastructure and community activities.
The study found that the reconstruction of the North T-Pier, as a purpose-built OSW O&M facility, would be technically viable from a construction perspective; however, such a development would face multiple challenges that would need to be resolved in the pursuit of sustainable development. The outstanding issues include the following:
● Potential inconsistency with the General Plan’s vision for visitor-serving and commercial fishing waterfront.
● Environmental concerns due to the extent of dredging required, and the increase in maritime and road traffic.
● Potential local objection due to changes to the waterfront viewscape and local character. The loss of the historic wooden T-Pier and its appearance.
● Fueling arrangements (excluded from this study due to uncertainty on vessel fueling methods and potential for electrification).
● Onerous permitting process due to environmental impacts, impacts to a federal facility and the FNC channel, potential changes in zoning and Measure D, which aims to preserve the waterfront for ‘commercial fishing uses’ and ‘visitor serving uses’. ● Relatively high capital investment costs due to the necessity to construct a new T-Pier to accommodate the expected vessel and equipment loads.
● The waterfront area between Beach Street and Coleman Park is heavily used for commercial and recreational fishing, kayaking, boat tours, sporting events, and sightseeing. These uses play a key role in sustaining Morro Bay’s economy and help define the community’s character. Any O&M facility in this area would need to be designed to maintain coastal access for these activities while preserving Morro Bay’s distinctive character.
The extent and cost of the facility would be dependent on the number of OSW developers served by the facility. To address this uncertainty, this study has also considered a smaller facility which may support a single OSW developer, with an additional O&M facility to be constructed in San Luis Obispo Bay. For this scenario, it is assumed the third OSW developer would be located out of the region. This would marginally reduce the local impacts and the capital investment for the individual facility within Morro Bay but would increase the total capital costs required to serve the Morro Bay Wind Energy Area.
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
1 Introduction
Morro Bay Wind Energy Area is located approximately 20 miles offshore from the central California coastline and is comprised of three lease areas, OCS-P 0563, OCS-P 0564, and OCS-P 0565, as outlined by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) in Figure 1.1.
These lease areas are projected to provide a total installation capacity between 2.9 and 5.1 GW using floating offshore wind (OSW) technologies, sufficient to provide power to about 1 million homes (Lim & Trowbridge, 2023).
Marine facilities to support the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) requirements of the lease areas need to be identified and assessed to understand the level of effort required to convert existing infrastructure into an operational O&M hub, thus forming the basis of this study.
With close proximity to the Morro Bay Wind Energy Area, Morro Bay has been identified as a potential site to support the Offshore Wind (OSW) initiative as an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) facility for support vessels. O&M facilities are used as a base for technicians and engineers to travel to and from lease areas to restock supplies, crew members, and equipment for long-term maintenance support of the OSW facility. The facility is usually complemented by an upland area for staff offices and storage of repair and maintenance components.
This study aims to evaluate the technical suitability of Morro Bay to accommodate an OSW O&M facility. A combination of desktop studies, site visits, and a concept-level engineering analysis and design was used to provide a deeper understanding of the potential upgrades required to host O&M support functions.
The report contains the following sections (in chronological order):
● Basis of Assessment: Documents the assumptions to be used in the study and outline key functional requirements for O&M operations. Summarizes conditions and characteristics for existing waterfront infrastructure through desktop research and Morro Bay site visits. ● O&M Waterfront Facility Concept Design: Evaluates the Morro Bay waterfront for suitability for SOV berthing and develops high-level concept sketches and multi-criteria assessment (MCA) to identify the least constrained alternative. Presents concept drawings for site layouts and construction cost estimates.
● Navigation & Dredging Assessment: Compiles and contrasts different dredging techniques that could be used at Morro Bay. Identifies areas to be considered for dredging using vessel sizes and navigation requirements set forth in the Basis of Assessment.
Provides concept-level estimates for dredge volumes and costs. ● Environmental and Permitting Assessment: Developed by Subconsultant, Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon), this assessment identifies and maps environmental constraints for the impact assessment. Develops an environmental planning and permitting matrix, providing information on the likely permits required for an OSW O&M facility. The full report is attached within Appendix B.
● Conclusions & Next Steps: Summarizes findings and potential next steps.
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
Figure 1.1: Map of California Wind Lease Areas (BOEM, 2025)
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
2 Abbreviations and acronyms
Acronym Description
AACE Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering BoA Basis of Assessment
BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
CCC California Coastal Commission
CDP Coastal Development Permit
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CSD Cutter Suction Dredger
CTV Crew Transfer Vessel
CY Cubic Yard
FNC Federal Navigation Channel
Ft Feet
F&W Fish & Wildlife
GW Gigawatt
H&S Health and Safety
LAT Lowest Astronomical Tide
MBWEA Morro Bay Wind Energy Area
MCA Multi-Criteria Analysis
MLLW Mean Lower-Low Water
NDBC National Data Buoy Center
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
O&M Operations and Maintenance
OSW Offshore Wind
SLO San Luis Obispo
SOV Service Operations Vessel
TSHD Trailing Suction Hopper Dredger
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USAV U.S. Army Vessel
USCG U.S. Coast Guard
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
3 Basis of assessment
A Basis of Assessment (BoA) was developed to outline all study inputs, assumptions, and criteria necessary to facilitate the conceptual design of a potential O&M site. This section provides a brief overview of existing conditions and design criteria. A copy of the full BoA is provided in Appendix A.
3.1 Site conditions
3.1.1 Site location
The project site at Morro Bay is located along the northeastern shore of the Morro Bay Navy Channel and spans approximately 2100 feet between Coleman Park and the junction of Embarcadero and Beach Street.
Figure 3.1: Morro Bay project vicinity map
Source: Vantor, Earthstar Geographics
3.1.2 Existing marine infrastructure
Existing infrastructure along the shoreline is labelled within Figure 3.2 and detailed in the following sections.
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
Figure 3.2: Existing conditions and land use at Morro Bay Waterfront Sources: Maxar, Microsoft
3.1.2.1 Access road
The project site is accessible via Embarcadero, the main road connecting the coastal town of Morro Bay to Morro Rock and parts of the city north of the navigation channel.
3.1.2.2 South T-Piers
The South T-Pier extends 256ft into the channel with a 250ft pier head. The structure was constructed in 1952 and later reconstructed in 1992 following a fire.
The T-Pier is supported by a mix of creosote treated timber piles, and steel piles. A 2016 condition assessment report (Shoreline Engineering, Inc, 2016) recommended significant repairs to the timber piles, deck, bracing, fender piles, and utilities.
There’s an otter viewing area and nursery to the south of the T-Pier.
3.1.2.3 North T-Pier
The North T-Pier is located to the west of the Harbor Department Building and was constructed between 1942 and 1945. The T-Pier extends approximately 168ft into the channel and features a pier head with a berthing length of approximately 400ft.
Whilst the T-Pier is publicly accessible, the north section of the pier head is secured with chains, restricting public access to a shed and berthing slips owned by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG).
There are also floating pontoons owned by the Harbor Department. The typical vessel mix of local and federal vessels using the North T-Pier is detailed in Table 3.1.
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
Table 3.1 Typical vessel mix at the North T-Pier for Harbor Department, USCG and U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service
Boat Assumed
Dimensions
Harbor
Department
USCG U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
Small 30 x 10 ft 5 0 0
Medium 50 x 15 ft 1 4 0
Large 70 x 30 ft 0 0 1
The North T-Pier was last inspected in 2023 (Brady, 2024), with recommendations to undertake repairs to utilities, piles, pile caps, fender piles, guide piles. The recommendations are unsurprising for a structure of its kind and age, approaching end of life.
3.1.2.4 Marina
The marina and associated finger piers are owned by the City of Morro Bay Harbor Department and are present along the waterfront, offering moorage space for local fishing boats, vessels, and tour boats.
3.1.2.5 Fueling facility
A fueling facility (Figure 3.3) is present to the South of the junction between Embarcadero and Beach Street. The tank and berth for which is sized suitably for the existing vessel mix in the marina.
The largest vessel served at the facility is the Yaquina dredger with a length of 200 feet. These infrequent fueling events require special berthing arrangements, blocking adjacent docks. Due to the large capacity of the vessel fuel tanks, it needs to be fueled directly from fuel tankers.
This fueling arrangement would not satisfy design standards for the O&M facility and would be unsuitable for fueling SOVs (up to 300ft in length). However, fueling is not addressed in the study due to uncertainty of vessel fueling methods and potential for vessel electrification.
Figure 3.3: Photos of the fueling facility at Morro Bay Source: Mott MacDonald, 2024 Source: Mott MacDonald, 2024
3.1.2.6 Shoreline protection
Adjacent to the USCG and Harbor Department, the shoreline protection takes the form of a concrete capped revetment (Figure 3.4), and was generally observed in a poor condition.
To the north of the Vistra waterfront property (pump intake building), the shoreline appears to be cliffing from erosion next to the public beach (Figure 3.6).
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
To the west of the beach, Coleman Park is protected by a rock revetment (Figure 3.6), which was observed to be in a generally poor condition.
Figure 3.4: Photo of the shoreline
protection adjacent to USCG and Harbor
Dept.
Figure 3.5: Photo of the rock revetment
protecting Coleman Park
Source: Mott MacDonald, 2024 Source: Mott MacDonald, 2024
3.1.2.7 Public beach
The public beach (Figure 3.6) is located on the north side of the Vistra waterfront property (pump intake building). The beach is well used by locals and tourists for recreational use and serves as a location to launch kayaks and paddle boards into the bay.
There is a much larger public beach (Morro Rock Beach), located to the north of Morro Rock.
Figure 3.6: Public beach at Morro Bay
Source: Mott MacDonald, 2024
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
3.1.2.8 Waterfront buildings and structures:
The Morro Bay waterfront is primarily used by restaurants, offering views over the Bay and Morro Rock. To the south of the beach lies the Vistra Waterfront Property and Pump Intake Building (Figure 3.9) associated with the Morro Bay Power Plant. To the south of the Vistra Waterfront Property lies the Morro Bay Oyster Company, and the nearby administrative buildings occupied by the U.S. Coast Guard (Figure 3.8) and Harbor Department (Figure 3.7).
Waterfront buildings between the two T-Piers are primarily used by restaurants, fishing charters, local cruise and tour operators, and commercial fishing.
Figure 3.7: City of Morro Bay Harbor Dept. Figure 3.8: USCG Surf Station Source: Mott MacDonald, 2024 Source: Mott MacDonald, 2024 Figure 3.9: Vistra Pump Intake Waterfront
Property
Figure 3.10: Power station pump intake
Source: Mott MacDonald, 2024 Source: Mott MacDonald, 2024
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
3.1.3 Environmental conditions
3.1.3.1 Tidal datums
Tidal datums at Morro Bay have been obtained from the neighboring Port San Luis Gauge Station (ID: 9412110) managed by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as the difference in tidal levels at the study site and the gauge station is negligible for the purpose of this study. All water levels are in feet relative to mean lower-low water (MLLW) of the 1983-2001 tidal epoch.
Table 3.2: Tidal datums at the project location
Datum Abbreviation Elevation [ft MLLW]
Highest Astronomical Tide HAT 7.10
Mean Higher High Water MHHW 5.33
Mean High Water MHW 4.62
Mean Sea Level MSL 2.80
Mean Low Water MLW 1.04
North American Vertical Datum of 1988 NAVD88 0.08
Mean Lower Low Water MLLW 0.00
Lowest Astronomical Tide LAT -1.99
3.1.3.2 Currents
In lieu of accurate current records, current velocities were approximated in the navigation channel by recording the time needed for a semi-submersible float to pass a fixed distance of 100m (328ft) at peak ebb tides. Measurements were taken on a spring tide and repeated five times for each of the three locations marked in Figure 3.11.
Whilst the estimated current results should be seen as indicative only, the current speeds measured along the Morro Bay Channel were relatively high, reaching 1.9 knots near the South T-Pier (Location 3) and the narrow channel section between Morro Rock and the sand spit (Location 1). Current velocities near the North T-Pier (Location 2) were slightly lower, measuring
1.2 knots.
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
Figure 3.11 Current velocity measurement locations. (1 – Between Morro Rock and Sand Spit, 2 – North T-Pier, 3 – South T-Pier)
Sources: Maxar
3.1.3.3 Winds
Representative wind speeds at Morro Bay have been compiled by NOAA’s National Data Buoy Center (NDBC), from the neighboring Port San Luis Station (ID: PSLC1) and Cal Poly Pier Station (ID: CPXC1). It was noted the local Morro Bay Station (ID: MBXC1) did not have any wind-related measurements available at the time of the study. The considered wind records were adjusted to a 60-minute average wind speed at an elevation of 32.8ft above site elevation.
Data for the wind stations suggest that wind speeds are generally less than 10 knots but may exceed 30 knots in storm conditions. The strongest winds usually blow landward from the West or Northwest directions.
3.1.3.4 Waves
Waves approaching Morro Bay are mainly comprised energetic swells originating from the Pacific Ocean. The existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) breakwaters provide good protection for Morro Bay and the navigation channel; however swells may occasionally pass through the channel opening and propagate upstream. Vessel access through the channel may be restricted by the USCG in times where the swell-tidal combination is unsafe for recreational vessels.
The inner reaches of the navigation channel are further protected by the sand spit and are less vulnerable to incoming waves.
3.1.4 Bathymetry
Publicly available topographic and bathymetric datasets near the study site have been evaluated to support subsequent analysis and design processes. A basemap was created utilizing datasets listed in Table 3-3.
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
Table 3-3 – Topographic and bathymetric data sources
Dataset Originator Date
2024 Hydrographic Survey USACE Published in 2024.
2022 NOAA Topobathy Lidar DEM: Morro Bay,
CA
NOAA Data acquired in 2022.
2019 NOAA Topobathy Lidar: Morro Bay, CA NOAA Data acquired in 2019. 2018 FEMA Lidar: Region 9, CA NOAA Data acquired in 2018. 1929 – 2017 USGS CoNED Topobathy DEM
(Compiled 2017): Central Coast of California
USGS Published in 2018. Underlying
topographic and bathymetric datasets
from 1929-2017.
Figure 3.12: Morro Bay basemap. Numbers denote elevation in feet relative to the mean lower-low water (MLLW) tidal datum
Source: Maxar
3.1.5 Other site constraints
Potential constraints and obstructions near the project site that may interfere with the design process have been identified and summarized in Figure 3.13. The authorized depths of the Morro Bay Federal Navigation Channel (FNC) are summarized in Figure 3.13 and Table 3-4.
In addition, significant sand infilling was observed along the northeastern face of the sand spit.
Water depths as shallow as 3 ft have been observed in parts of the FNC Channel and pose a vessel navigation hazard. Geotechnical, geological, and seismic constraints and hazards were also identified based on a desk study of previous studies and reports in vicinity of Morro Bay and have been summarized in the preliminary geotechnical report provided in Appendix C.
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
Figure 3.13 Summary of site constraints in Morro Bay, to be read in conjunction with Table 3-4.
Source: Maxar.
Table 3-4 – Morro Bay FNC authorized channel geometries Identifier Channel Section Authorized Depth [ft] Channel Width [ft] A Entrance Channel 30 350
B Transition Channel Varies from 16 – 30 350
C Sand Trap 25 N/A
D Main Channel 16 350
E Navy Channel 16 350
F Morro Channel 12 150
3.2 O&M facility infrastructure minimum functional
requirements
This section provides an overview of the functional requirements used to develop O&M site plans. These requirements were developed through engineering experience from similar sites worldwide and through a series of interviews with MBWEA OSW.
3.2.1 Design vessels
Two (2) types of vessels were selected to support the O&M activities at the study site, namely:
● Service Operations Vessels (SOV)
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
● Crew Transfer Vessels (CTV).
SOVs typically remain offshore for extended periods of time (approximately two weeks) performing inspections and small repairs. Upon return to the O&M facility, they would typically be at berth for approximately 24 hours while being loaded with supplies before heading back to the MBWEA OSW lease areas. CTVs would shuttle personnel and minor supplies from the O&M facility to the lease area on a daily basis.
Due to this schedule, the facility would be expected to provide one dedicated SOV berth shared between developers, and a second transient mixed use SOV berth which would be used less frequently. For rare occasions where a third SOV is required at the site, this would use bow and stern mooring buoys in the channel or bay entrance.
Table 3-5 summarizes the vessel functions and dimensions to be used for design purposes, based on past project experience and developer feedback.
Table 3-5 – Design vessels
Service Operations Vessel (SOV) Crew Transfer Vessel (CTV) Purpose Supports multi-day O&M trips, provides
accommodation for wind farm workers, and
assists with servicing and repairing wind
turbines.
Vessels used to transport and shuttle wind
farm technicians and other personnel out to
sites daily. No live aboard accommodation.
Length 260 – 300 feet 65 – 90 feet
Beam 65 – 75 feet 22 – 30 feet
Draft 18 – 25 feet 5 – 10 feet
Number 3 (1 per developer) 3 (1 per developer)
Speed Limit 10 knots 10 knots
Note, Service Accommodation Transfer Vessels have been listed within past studies such as REACH (Mott MacDonald, 2022). The developers interviewed for this study indicated that Service Accommodation Transfer Vessels did not form part of their planned O&M vessel mix for the Morro Bay Wind Energy Area.
3.2.2 Berthing and navigation
Table 3-6 outlines the requirements for vessel access and general berth geometry for safe mooring of vessels. These requirements are based on the anticipated vessel types and dimensions entering the waterfront as listed above and may be subject to future revisions.
Table 3-6 – Berthing and navigation requirements
Parameter Value
Berth Length CTV: 100ft (finger pier) or 120ft (linear berthing) SOV: 400ft (linear berthing) per SOV or 150-200ft (mooring dolphins) Berth Pocket Width
(CTV Only)
Single Slip: 35ft
Double Slip: 70ft
Berth Draft CTV: 12ft at LAT
SOV: 28ft at LAT
Navigation Channel Width 300ft minimum
Navigation Channel Depth 30ft at MLLW + overdredge
Turning Basin Diameter 600ft minimum
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
3.2.3 Marine facility
This section addresses the marine infrastructure necessary to support O&M activities beyond vessel access, maneuvering, and berthing. It includes definitions of the various operational zones, followed by the functional requirements for both waterfront and upland facilities.
3.2.3.1 Operation area definitions
To support efficient SOV operations at the O&M site, the quayside area is organized into three spatial components, each serving a specific role in operation logistics:
● Quayside Staging Apron: The immediate interface between the vessel and shore, used for direct loadout activities and crew transfer.
● Intermediate Staging Zone: Located near but not necessarily on the quay, this area provides buffer for overflow staging and temporary container holding. ● Upland Yard: Positioned further inland, the upland yard supports long-term inventory storage and operational logistics beyond the immediate vessel loading operations.
Detailed descriptions for each component are shown in Table 3-7 below.
Table 3-7 – Operation zones definitions
Operation
Zones
Quayside Staging Apron Intermediate Staging
Zone
Upland Yard
Description Area for direct SOV operations
and transfers (personnel and
inventory/containers)
Buffer area between the quay
and upland yard
Dedicated space for long-term
inventory/container storage,
and space for additional
buildings supporting O&M
operations
Location On quay Near quay but not required to
be on the quay itself
Uplands
Features ● Secure site
● Truck lane
● Forklift maneuver area
● Container handling and
staging zone
● Shared between
developers through
scheduling.
● Secure site
● Short-term container
staging
● Pre/Post vessel berthing
operation zones
● Long-term container
storage
● Office space
● Warehouses and
workshops
● Crew parking
Minimum
Size
60ft width.
Min 0.5 aces
0.5 acre 3+ acres per developer
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
3.2.3.2 Quayside and waterfront facilities
This section defines the assumed requirements and characteristics for quayside and waterfront facilities to support O&M operations.
Table 3-8 – Moorage requirements and waterfront facilities Parameter Value
Wharf Width Minimum 60 ft for dedicated quay
Over-water Construction No multi-story buildings
Wharf Bearing Capacity 1,000 psf (2,000 psf for jib crane foundation) Lifting Equipment 1 jib crane per SOV berth supporting quayside operations. 1 jib crane at CTV berth for vessel maintenance reaching the loading zone of vessel
Quayside Area Quayside staging apron and intermediate staging zone shared between developers.
Dedicated quay length for 1 SOV
1 transient mixed-use berth
Additional Moorage Moorage for 1 SOV using mooring dolphins and/or mooring buoys Fueling & Fuel Berth Fueling not considered in this study due to uncertainties in fueling type (e.g., diesel or electrification at OSW lease site)
Helicopter Facilities / Helipads Not required
Boat Lift 1 mixed-use boat lift capable of lifting CTVs
3.2.3.3 Upland facilities
This subsection covers the landside infrastructure beyond the immediate waterfront essential to O&M operations. Upland facilities can be located further inland, away from the bay. This section assumes the upland facilities for each OSW developer are sited together to gain potential efficiencies in planning and cost.
Table 3-9 – Upland facilities
Parameter Value
Access Road Shared access road between developers
Access Road Width Minimum 30ft to accommodate 2 lanes of traffic Total Upland Area 10 acres (3 acres per developer + access roads) Warehouse 60,000 SF (20,000 SF per developer)
Office Facility 30,000 SF (10,000 SF per developer)
3.3 Study assumptions & exclusions
This study was based on the following assumptions:
● Marine infrastructure upgrades were developed to a conceptual, pre-feasibility assessment level of detail.
● The study was based upon prior project experience, publicly available information, engagement with offshore wind developers, information collected during the site visit on November 21, 2024, and project participants; it is not intended to be comprehensive.
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
● Dredging assessments were conducted at a conceptual level only; dredge volumes are estimated based on representative dredge prisms and side slopes. No detailed ground investigations were carried out to characterize soil conditions. ● Waterfront infrastructure conceptual designs were not developed with detailed engineering calculations. Conceptual layouts were developed based on review of site conditions and assumed loading criteria.
● It is assumed that upland area is available to support an upland yard for all layout options under consideration.
● Helicopter operations were assumed to be handled by neighboring airports. ● The following items were excluded from the study:
– Wave and vessel mooring modeling
– Detailed sedimentation and circulation modeling
– Analysis of navigation channel sedimentation rates
– Detailed geotechnical or structural analysis
– Detailed construction schedules
– Phased construction options and considerations
– Skilled labor workforce estimates
– Fueling studies:
○ There are currently too many uncertainties to assess requirement for fueling at Morro Bay.
○ If marine fuel is used by SOVs, the fuel type, vessel tank capacity and fueling frequency would need to be understood. Fueling methodology would also need to be understood from developers; ie, fueling barges or a shoreside fueling facility. ○ If the OSW developer decides to use a hybrid or electrified fleet, a recharge station might be provided at the offshore wind lease area. Uncertainties remain over potential battery capacity, range, and requirements to recharge in port.
3.3.1 Guidelines
The following guidelines, and standards will be referenced throughout the study:
● Planning and Design Guidelines for Small Craft Harbors (ASCE, 2020) ● Harbor Approach Channels Design Guidelines (PIANC, 2014) ● Hydraulic Design of Deep-Draft Navigation Projects (USACE, 2006) ● Port Designer’s Handbook, 3rd Edition (Theoresen, 2014)
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
4 O&M facility infrastructure concept
design
As described earlier, MBWEA is expected to host three OSW developers. The conceptual design efforts for an O&M facility at Morro Bay were initially focused on the development of a single site at Morro Bay shared by all three OSW developers. However, an additional scenario was later added, whereby the O&M facility at Morro Bay would only host one OSW developer.
In this case, the second developer would be located at San Luis Obispo Bay and the third developer assumed to be located out of the County limits.
4.1 Gap assessment
This section intends to identify the infrastructure gaps that exist at the Morro Bay North and South T-Piers for the development of the Offshore Wind O&M facility. This gap assessment is primarily based on observations made during a site visit conducted in November 2024.
Additional information such as aerial pictures, existing condition assessments and other available supporting documents has been used to supplement information to support the assessment.
Table 4-1 below summarizes the functional requirements for the proposed O&M facility, the existing pier characteristics, and the upgrades that would be required to meet the O&M facility infrastructure functional requirements.
Table 4-1 – Functional requirements and upgrades to support an O&M facility Functional Requirements Existing Pier
Characteristics
Upgrades
Needed
Commentary
Berth length
CTV: 100ft (finger pier1)
or 120ft (linear berthing)
SOV: 400ft (linear berthing)
or mooring dolphins
Existing North T-Pier
Length: ~400ft
Finger pier to
accommodate
CTV’s at a lower
elevation than the
pier deck
The existing pier and finger
pier would need to be
demolished to build a new
pier along with finger piers.
Navigation Channel
Channel width: 300ft minimum
Channel depth: 30ft at MLLW
+ overdredge
Turning basin dia.: 600ft minimum
Navigation channel
Channel width: >300ft
Channel depth: -15ft MLLW
Basin dia.: <600ft
Dredging would be
needed
Dredging would be needed
to get the required
navigation channel depth
and to widen the turning
basin.
Access road
Road width: 30ft minimum
(2 lanes traffic)
Access road width: ~26ft Widening of access
road
New pier access would
need to have a minimum
width of 30ft to
accommodate 2 traffic
lanes; therefore new pier
with adequate access road
width would need to be built.
1 Pier arrangement with narrow, shorter docks extending perpendicularly from a main, larger dock to create individual boat slips.
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
Functional Requirements Existing Pier
Characteristics
Upgrades
Needed
Commentary
Wharf geometry
Width: minimum of 60ft
Existing T-Pier Quayside
Width: ~23ft T-piers ideally
widened
New T-Pier should be wider
than existing, however
developer may accept
narrower width for cost
savings.
Wharf live load capacity
1000psf
(2000 psf for crane)
Existing capacity: 12,000 lbs. New pier able to
resist the minimum
live load capacity
Existing timber pier does not
have the required capacity.
New pier would need to be
built with adequate capacity.
Cranes
1 jib crane2 per SOV berth
1 jib crane per CTV berth
No current crane operation 1 jib crane per SOV
1 jib crane per CTV
The new pier would need to
be able to support both SOV
and CTV crane operation.
Jib cranes would be
required to transfer
equipment to/from pier to
vessel.
Offices
Facility: 30,000 SF
(10,000 per OSW developer)
Pier head area: < 30, 000 SF
-
Office space assumed to be
situated in upland yard.
Quayside
Area: 0.5-1 acre
Length: to accommodate 2 SOV’s
Existing quayside (North Pier)
Area: ~0.27 acre
Length: ~440ft
-
The new pier would need to
meet the minimum quayside
area requirement.
Additional moorage
Use of mooring dolphins3
And/ or mooring buoys
No mooring dolphins
No mooring buoys
No fenders
Mooring dolphins,
buoys, and fenders
Dolphins may not be
required if the new pier has
sufficient berth area.
Boat Lift
1 boat lift for CTV’s
No current boat lift on site New boat lift station Boat lift capable of lifting the vessels.
Fueling Existing nearby fueling facility
unsuitable for SOVs
- Fueling not considered at
this stage of development
due to uncertainties in
fueling methods (Diesel vs
electrification from OSW
lease area).
4.2 Concept design for a facility shared by three developers
4.2.1 List of concept designs
The study focused on the North T-Pier as the primary pier for redevelopment. North T-Pier was chosen because it is positioned closer to the entrance channel, is less constrained than the South T-Pier, and presents greater potential for utilization of existing industrial land use.
A list of concept designs was then developed, considering different variables that could be considered in design; these include but are not limited to:
● Location of Harbor Department and USCG
2 Freestanding/base-mounted crane with a horizontal boom (jib) supporting a movable hoist to move loads. 3 Standalone group of piles supporting a concrete block and bollard on top to secure mooring lines connected to a vessel.
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
● Leasing or purchase of Vistra waterfront property:
– The waterfront building was once an intake pump house for the power station and is currently understood to be vacant. Successful redevelopment of this land would provide good access to waterfront facilities with minimal disruption to local businesses. – Note that redevelopment of this property would require liaison and agreement with the Vistra property and may be subject to permitting challenges. While Vistra have been contacted as part of this study, it is noted that formal engagement with Vistra has not been undertaken, nor have any agreements been formed.
Brief descriptions of all concept designs considered are provided in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2: List of concept designs
Concept
Design
Conceptual Layout Description
Do Nothing Existing layout of Morro Bay
without modifications.
The do-nothing alternative is
typically added for
comparative purposes only.
The T-Piers in current
condition and configuration
do not satisfy the minimum
functional requirements for
an O&M facility.
Option unsuitable for
further development.
Do Minimum Existing layout of Morro Bay
with structural modifications.
Due to age and structural
conditions, existing piers
cannot be reasonably
modified for O&M purposes.
Further, existing length of
South T-Pier would be too
short for SOV vessels.
Option unsuitable for
further development.
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
Concept
Design
Conceptual Layout Description
Option 1 Reconstruction of both TPiers to satisfy O&M
operations.
North T-Pier reconstructed
with longer, wider berth,
suitable for SOVs and CTVs.
Vistra property leased and
converted into O&M space.
USCG and Harbor Dept.
vessels located on
redeveloped finger piers.
South T-Pier reconstructed
in current form, to withstand
SOV berthing loads, and
used as a public mixed-use
berth. It’s noted that length
may be less than ideal for
SOVs.
Option 2 Reconstruction of both piers
to satisfy O&M operations.
North Pier extended to
include intermediate staging
zone, facilities or office
space, assuming Vistra
property is not leased.
USCG and Habor
Department located on
redeveloped finger piers.
South T-Pier reconstructed
in current form, to withstand
SOV berthing loads, and
used as a public mixed-use
berth. It’s noted that length
may be less than ideal for
SOVs.
Option 3 Reconstruction of North TPier in U-shape to
accommodate all O&M
vessels.
Office space location
dependent on Vistra
property lease/purchase.
South T-Pier repaired in
keeping with original. USCG
and Harbor Department to
be relocated to South T-Pier.
All O&M operations on North
Pier so a reduced dredge
footprint possible.
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
Concept
Design
Conceptual Layout Description
Option 4 Reconstruction of North TPier with a longer berthing face to accommodate all
O&M vessels.
Vistra property
leased/purchased and
converted into office space.
USCG and Harbor
Department located on new
finger piers near the North TPier.
South T-Pier repaired in
keeping with original and
open to public use.
All O&M operations on North
Pier so a reduced dredge
footprint possible.
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
4.2.2 Least constrained concept design
From the list of concepts above, the Do Nothing and the Do Minimum did not meet the minimum functional requirements of an O&M facility and were not be considered for further development.
Between the remaining Options 1 to 4, Option 4 was selected by the Project Team for further evaluation and refinement in subsequent sections of the report; the justification for selection is detailed below:
● Option 4 featured the lowest construction and dredging footprint compared to other options that satisfied the minimum functional requirements of an O&M facility. ● With the O&M operations constrained to the North T-Pier, local impact to the town would be lessened, compared to Options 1.
● The South T-Pier would remain fully open to public and would not face disruption due to construction or operation of O&M facilities.
● The facility would resemble the existing T-Piers to help maintain local character and fabric. ● The majority of overwater construction and seabed impacts are located from the shoreline, therefore minimizing impacts to the eelgrass habitat in the shallow waters. ● Should it be required, the south side of the North T-pier could potentially open to public couse as a mixed-use berth in normal operational conditions. It is however noted there will be times when two SOV’s would be required at the facility simultaneously; during such times it is expected that public use of the T-Pier would be temporarily restricted for safety. ● It was noted that the location of finger piers to service USCG and Harbor Dept. in Option 4 would be unacceptable in its current configuration due to proximity to the fishing wharf and resultant negative impact on fishing activities; this would be later resolved in Concept Design Development (Section 4.2.4).
4.2.3 Strategic development scenarios
Two strategic development scenarios were then developed for Option 4, comprising identical marine infrastructure but covering different property acquisition and leasing outcomes.
Conceptual sketches for the scenarios are provided in and respectively. ● Option 4A – Development of O&M facility with acquisition of the Vistra Waterfront Property and conversion to an Intermediate Staging Zone. USCG and Harbor Dept. would remain in place with access to upgraded finger piers.
● Option 4B – Development of O&M facility without acquisition of the Vistra Waterfront Property. An Intermediate Staging Zone would instead be constructed within the “Triangle Lot,” north of the Morro Bay Maritime Museum. USCG and Harbor Dept. would remain in place with access to upgraded finger piers.
4.2.4 Concept design development
The concept designs were then further developed and refined in line with the two strategic development scenarios previously described. Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2 illustrate the conceptual plans for Option 4A and Option 4B, respectively.
Both options would be expected to comprise the same dredging footprint and marine infrastructure:
● The pier width was sized as 60ft to provide suitable width for a truck lane, maneuvering space for forklifts, cargo staging, with a no-vehicle zone on the berthing faces of the pier structure.
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
● The northern extent of the North T-Pier would be dedicated for O&M use and access would be secure with a gated entry. The primary SOV berth would be located on the outer edge, with the CTVs moored linearly on the inside edge of the T-Pier. The CTVs would be accessed via a gangway ramp and floating pontoons to suit the comparatively lower freeboard of the CTVs. It is envisioned small jib cranes could be used from the pier to lift lightweight materials and tools to the CTVs.
● The southern side of the T-Pier could potentially be open for public use, subject to agreement with O&M operators. It is however noted there will be times when two SOVs would require moorage simultaneously at the facility; during such times it is assumed that public use of the T-Pier would be temporarily prevented for public safety. ● The existing USCG shed and gated facility has been moved from the north side of the T-Pier to the South side. The spatial extents of this compound would be no less than their existing compound and would be secure from public access as per the existing arrangement. USCG would have access to their vessels via a private gangway ramp and floating pontoons accessed from within the gated compound. It is noted there may be concerns that USCG would be situated a greater distance from the entrance to the bay than the current arrangement which may slightly hinder emergency response times. ● The Harbor Dept. would have access to dedicated floating finger pontons accessed from the shoreline in a similar arrangement to existing.
● The fishing wharf would be left open for fishing operations as per the existing arrangement. ● Morro Bay Oyster Company, Dockside, and Morro Bay Fish Company, may be impacted these concepts. Full assessment of impacts would be required at a later stage, and mitigations or relocation addressed before a development could progress. ● A boatlift could be included to the south of the waterfront. This would be sized for CTV vessels and would be open to public use. The location shown is indicative and would be subject to the wider Morro Bay Waterfront Masterplan. Any moorage slips impacted by the boatlift location would be relocated to avoid negative impacts. ● As per the minimum functional requirements, a third SOV may be required to reside in Morro Bay in abnormal scenarios. As such it is assumed that this third vessel could be located on dual mooring buoys (bow and stern) within the mouth of the bay.
Both concept design variations were assumed to include the following structural components, which were conceptually sized for the purpose of drawings and cost estimates in Section 4.4:
● Reinforced Concrete deck slab
● Reinforced concrete beams
● Reinforced concrete pile cap beams
● Concrete filled steel pipe piles
● Steel pipe piles
● Steel dolphin deck
● New floating pontoons for USCG and Harbor Dept. and gangways for access.
A navigation and dredging assessment was undertaken to support the design development; this is detailed in Section 4.3.
Both conceptual design variations feature a turning basin that extends beyond the current limits of the FNC; although it is important to note that the basin dimensions were based on conservative preliminary design guidance. This guidance specifies a diameter equal to at least twice the length of the largest vessel which may be overly conservative for a vessel as maneuverable as an SOV. As described in Section 4.3, this size could potentially be reduced to
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
1½ times the vessel length with validation through ship simulation modelling at later design phases.
The difference between Option 4A and Option 4B lies within the upland layout. ● Option 4A assumed that a leasing or purchase agreement could be formed with Vistra for the waterfront property. It is envisioned that this land be used for O&M operations for an Intermediate Staging Zone. This would likely be a secure area, gated from public access. ● Option 4B assumes that a leasing or land purchase agreement is not made with Vistra.
Instead, the Triangle Lot would be converted to a secure compound for use as an Intermediate Staging Zone.
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay Page 30 of 62
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
Figure 4.1: Morro Bay Option 4A Conceptual Plan
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay Page 31 of 62
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
Figure 4.2: Morro Bay Option 4B Conceptual Plan
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay Page 32 of 62
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
4.3 Navigation and dredging assessment
A navigation and dredging assessment was performed for Morro Bay to support the conceptual O&M Facility Infrastructure Design. The key objective of the assessment was to develop dredging alternatives incorporating the following items:
● Dredging methodology and anticipated equipment requirements ● Potential dredged material placement locations
● Dredge volumes
● Dredge cost estimates
4.3.1 Background
The navigation channel at Morro Bay once served as an important waterway for the harbor to export dairy and ranch products in the 19th century, with the original entrance of the natural channel located east of Morro Rock. Between 1933 to 1936 a causeway was built to connect Morro Rock and the mainland, and the entrance was further modified during World War II to construct two additional breakwaters to provide enhanced protection for Navy patrol boats (USACE, 2023). The navigation channel, however, has experienced significant navigation problems since then due to a combination of exposure to storm wave conditions in the Pacific and continuous sedimentation, leading to numerous deaths and injuries over several decades.
The entrance channel was finally deepened and expanded in 1995-1996 to reduce wave breaking and improve safety for vessels entering and leaving the harbor, alongside the dredging of an additional sand trap within the harbor entrance (Thompson, Bottin & Shak, 2002).
As pointed out by Alfving (2019), majority of sedimentation occurring along the shores of Morro Bay are likely attributed to nearby seasonal offshore and littoral origins due to a convergence of sedimentation flow at Morro Rock, therefore effectively making the deeper navigation channel a sediment sink.
4.3.2 Maintenance dredging history and methodology
The USACE oversees the maintenance dredging of the Morro Bay FNC. The entrance channel, transition channel, sand trap, main channel, and parts of the navy channel are regularly dredged by the USACE to maintain its authorized depth for safe passage to the back bay, and approximately 150,000 to 200,000 cubic yards (CY) of sediment are removed on an annual basis. Dredging of the inner channels (Navy Channel & Morro Channel) are often considered as a separate operation and dredged at a much lower frequency by a specialist dredge contractor, with the last dredging operation conducted in 2016-2017 to remove approximately 240,000 CY of sediment (City of Morro Bay, 2016).
Due to the loose sandy sediment type and high volumes, hydraulic dredging is likely to be the most efficient method. The two main types of dredgers historically used in Morro Bay are:
● Trailing Suction Hopper Dredger (TSHD): A self-propelled vessel equipped with suction pipes on either side that descend to the seafloor and vacuum up sediment upon trailing.
Sediment that has been removed from the seafloor is temporarily stored onboard and released once the vessel arrives at a designated placement site, by dumping through the split bottom of the hull, pumping, or rainbowing. Recent dredging operations have been undertaken by a 200ft TSHD vessel owned by USACE and named the U.S. Army Vessel (USAV) Yaquina (Figure 4.3).
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay Page 33 of 62
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
● Cutter Suction Dredger (CSD): A barge equipped with a cutterhead or auger that loosens the sediment and subsequently removes it via sucking up and pumping the sediment-water slurry to the vessel. CSD’s rarely have slurry storage on board but instead use powerful internal pumps to discharge the slurry along a pipeline to a nearby onshore placement site, typically on a beach. Alternatively, the dredger can pump the slurry into a hopper barge moored alongside for material placement further offshore. In comparison to a TSHD, CSDs offer greater maneuverability in confined locations and can work in shallower water and where shoaling is an issue. CSD’s that have previously been used to dredge in the Morro Bay back bay include the 200ft H.R. Morris and the La Encina.
TSHD and CSD have historically handled total dredge volumes up to 580,000 CY and 660,000 CY in the 1998 and 2001-2002 maintenance dredging campaigns (USACE, 2013). The average dredge production rates for the two methods were similar (6,000 CY/day) but varied by operation, depending on the barge and crew composition and the environmental conditions where the dredging operation took place.
Figure 4.3: Schematic a Trailing Hopper Suction
Dredger (USAV Yaquina)
Figure 4.4: Example of a Cutter Section Dredger
Source: Marine Traffic Source: Damen, 2018
The selection of dredge platforms has historically been determined by the areas of the FNC being dredged. A TSHD is typically employed in the entrance channel due to its greater depth and straight alignment, which reduces the need for turning maneuvers. A CSD is commonly used in the shallower waters of the inner channels. Dredged material is usually placed in the nearshore area off the Morro Bay State Park sand spit and in the surf zone at Morro Strand State Beach for the two dredge platforms, respectively.
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay Page 34 of 62
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
Figure 4.5: Dredge material placement sites (USACE, 2013). Orange boxes indicate dredge placement pipes. Red line indicates temporary dredge pipeline.
4.3.3 Preliminary dredging assessment
Given the USACE has undertaken dredging using TSHDs and CSDs in the past, they are both considered technically feasible options and are discussed in more detail in subsequent sections below. Impacts due to the capital dredging for this study are likely to be significant and therefore a full dredging assessment would be required to confirm an agreed methodology and material placement site. The assessment could evaluate beneficial reuse and would be subject to sediment transport modeling, environmental studies, and discussions with USACE, the City of Morro Bay, and key stakeholders.
4.3.3.1 Dredge volumes
Annual dredging operations conducted by the USACE have historically maintained a navigable depth of approximately 20 to 25 ft in the channels leading up to the waterfront. Significant dredging is therefore expected to deepen the channels to 30 ft below MLLW for improved navigability and safe operation of an SOV at the newly constructed T-Pier. It is also assumed that the existing sand trap would be deepened to 30 ft below MLLW simultaneously to keep its purpose and reduce sedimentation rates in the main channels.
Based on bathymetry data, and the assumption of a 4H:1V stable sediment slope, the total dredge volume was estimated to be 1,110,000 CY for a representative navigation channel layout. Approximately half of the material would result from dredging at the entrance, transition,
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay Page 35 of 62
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
main channels, and sand trap, with the remaining half coming from the Navy Channel where the turning basin is placed. Dredging near the existing shoreline is expected to be minimal.
Figure 4.6: Dredging depths in feet for a representative navigation channel layout at Morro Bay
4.3.3.2 Environmental considerations
Morro Bay is home to several threatened & endangered species, most notably the Western Snowy Plover and Southern Sea Otter, and is an active eelgrass habitat (USACE, 2013).
Capital dredging works at Morro Bay may temporarily affect these habitats and present a permitting challenge. It is assumed that dredging would occur from mid-September through late February (outside the breeding seasons) to minimize impact on the species above. Due to the high volume of dredge material, it is likely that the dredging operation would either need to span multiple dredge seasons, or use additional dredgers to increase productivity.
It is also noted that dredging could result in positive environmental and safety benefits. A deeper channel would result in waves of lower height propagating through the harbor entrance improving navigability and safety for vessels. Beneficial reuse of dredged material could have significant benefits too; previous dredging campaigns that deposited sand at Morro Strand State Beach were shown to provide and protect nesting habitats for Western Snowy Plovers and improve shoreline protection through better beach response in storm events.
See Appendix B for further information.
4.3.3.3 Placement alternatives
Based on past operations in Morro Bay, two dredging placement methodologies could be used, subject to further assessment:
● Nearshore Placement
● Beach Placement
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay Page 36 of 62
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
Beach placement
Significant dredging would need to be undertaken in the Navy Channel; as such the use of CSD represents a viable option capable of removing large amounts of sediment, followed by placement on the beach as a means of beach nourishment. Reusing dredged sediment on the beach replenishes the sediment lost due to tide and wave actions and may help alleviate erosion and protect nesting habitat for the federally threatened Western Snowy Plover population along the shoreline.
It should be noted that the placement of dredged material on a public beach may lead to potential public health and safety questions. Whilst no issues are expected at this stage, sediment sampling would need to be performed in the design stage to comply with regulations, confirm material suitability and to test for potential contamination. Agreement on the dredging and sediment placement plans would require engagement with the City of Morro Bay and other key stakeholders to address public safety concerns, and potential impacts of the operation to businesses and recreational use.
While the beach capacity is currently unknown, the volume of capital dredging required exceeds that previously placed at Morro Strand State Beach. As such, there may be a requirement to also place dredge material nearshore to Morro Bay State Park.
Nearshore placement
Nearshore placement of dredged sediment could be undertaken using an additional dredger such as a TSHD or CSD-barge spread, the choice of which depends on the detailed dredging assessment conducted at a later phase.
4.3.3.4 Other dredging considerations
Some other considerations regarding the dredging operation are discussed as follows:
● Maintenance dredging: Regular maintenance dredging in the back bay region may be required if significant sedimentation is observed in the absence of coastal protection measures. As pointed out in Section 3.1, the northeastern face of the sand spit currently experiences shoaling as sand migrates continuously into the navigation channel and poses a potential navigation hazard for deep draft vessels.
● Geotechnical conditions: Previous USACE dredging operations do not seem to have encountered rocky material or hard substrate. According to the Geo Hazard and Resources report by City of Morro Bay, depth to bedrock is approximately 70 ft below ground surface which was observed from multiple boreholes in the vicinity of the site. Nevertheless, a detailed geotechnical investigation is needed to characterize subsurface geological conditions and confirm feasibility of dredging operations listed above. Further Geotechnical information can be found in Appendix C.
● Training wall: A training wall is an underwater structure built to guide and stabilize channel flow such that the amount of sedimentation in the channel is controlled while ensuring neighboring regions do not suffer from unintentional shoreline erosion. Given the significant amount of dredging expected near the sand spit, a training wall may be required as well as other coastal measures to help direct current flow and maintain navigable depth for SOV access. This would be subject to further assessment should the project progress. ● Impact on USCG: By deepening the channel and reducing wave heights, the mission of the USCG could possibly change from a surf station to a security station. USCG surf station is a Coast Guard small-boat station formally designated for locations where wave (surf) conditions exceed 8 feet for at least 36 days per year, and typically feature 50-foot vessels.
USCG security station is a Coast Guard unit focused on providing maritime security and may
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay Page 37 of 62
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
feature larger 87-foot Marine Protector Class vessels. Should this happen, there may be motivation to initiate further changes to the T-Pier to service larger USCG vessels, such as Marine Protector-Class patrol vessels (87 ft) which would be of similar size to the CTV vessels. The impact of this change on the necessary office space and upland yard is currently unknown.
4.3.3.5 Turning basin
Current dredging volumes were calculated under a conservative design assumption of a turning basin with diameter twice the length of a SOV. While suitable for predesign purposes, this configuration has the turning basin extending beyond the existing FNC and encroaches into the shoal adjacent to the sand spit, thereby increasing the dredge volume.
If design work were to be carried forward, the designer would be expected to employ ship simulation to reduce the turning basin diameter; USACE provides an alternative ellipticalshaped turning basin aligned with prevailing currents with the transverse axis being 1.5 times the SOV length, as shown in Figure 4.7. By configurating the turning basin as such, the longitudinal axis would then be able to account for current drifts during turning maneuvers, while the dimensions along the transverse axis can be minimized to reduce dredge volumes and costs, the exact dimensions of which would need to be confirmed through a ship simulator in later design stages. A turning basin that is aligned with the natural channel geometry may also see less maintenance dredging in the long term due to reduced flow disruption and sedimentation, as well as a reduced potential for a training wall for flow redirection.
Figure 4.7: Turning basin design for high current configuration (USACE, 2006)
4.3.3.6 Dredging conclusions
Overall, dredging at Morro Bay remains a challenging task due to the large dredge volume involved. Conventional hydraulic dredging methods that have been used in the past by the USACE for maintenance dredging, such as TSHD and CSD, are expected to remain utilized in future dredging campaigns. It is estimated that the entire dredging operation would take about 6 months to complete using a single dredge spread that operates continuously within this period, at a total cost estimated between $25M to $30M. However, due to scheduling constraints, the contractor may also utilize a second dredge spread, with open-water placement at the nearshore region off the Morro Bay State Park sand spit.
Sediment removed from the channel may potentially see beneficial reuse as beach nourishment at the neighboring Morro Strand State Beach to restore lost nesting habitat of the federally endangered Western Snowy Plover population.
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay Page 38 of 62
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
Dredging a wider and deeper channel at Morro Bay would reduce the vessel navigation hazard at the harbor due to the absence of shoaling and the potentially improved wave conditions.
Should an O&M facility be proposed in the future, detailed coastal engineering analyses such as circulation modelling, wave modelling, and vessel motion analysis would be required. This is to better understand environmental loading conditions and determine the need of other coastal structures, such as training walls and expected maintenance dredging volumes.
Finally, it should be noted that dredging in a navigation channel may cause disruption to the public, and navigation of commercial vessels would need to be coordinated to minimize disruption. It is therefore recommended that a dredging plan is thoroughly explained with safety concerns addressed upon engagement with the City of Morro Bay, members of the public, and other relevant stakeholders.
4.4 Cost estimate
Construction and engineering cost estimates were developed in accordance with the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) Class 5 estimate. For this estimate class, the accuracy level ranges from -20% to -50% on the low range and from +30% to +100% on the high range. The order of magnitude estimate typically ranges from -30% to +50%. Class 5 estimates, by definition, are prepared based on very limited information; thus, they have a wide range of accuracy. The purpose of a Class 5 estimate is to conduct a concept screening with the project between 0% and 2% of complete definition. The costs are determined based on past projects with similar infrastructure and prior experience on similar projects, conceptual engineering analyses, and professional judgment. The following approach was followed:
● Understand and determine the functional requirements for the selected location. ● Create different concept designs for the selected location. ● Conduct a quantity take-off for the types of improvements required such as demolition of existing infrastructure, construction of new infrastructure, upland improvements, dredging, etc.
● Once quantity take-off is complete, a unit cost was assigned to each line item based on prior studies, projects, and experience.
A contingency consideration of 50% was included to cover undefined items due to the level of engineering carried out at this stage. The contingency was added to cover items or additional undefined steps that would need to be taken that are not fully detailed during this predesign stage.
The scope of the cost estimate covers OSW O&M waterfront infrastructure only. As such, the following items were excluded from the cost estimates:
● Potential relocation of USCG property, shed, and relocation of floating pontoons. ● Relocation of Harbor Department.
● Relocation of impacted restaurants and other businesses. ● Relocation of commercial fishing docks/facilities.
● OSW O&M Upland yard, utilities, office construction and interior fit-out. ● Environmental mitigation for development.
The costs are summarized in Table 4.3 and detailed in Table 4.4 and Table 4.5.
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay Page 39 of 62
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
Table 4.3: Morro Bay site alternative options cost estimate Site Alternatives Option Cost Estimate Cost Accuracy Range (-30% / +50%)
Morro Bay Option 4A $128.8M $90.15M to $193.2M
Morro Bay Option 4B $140.8M $98.55M to $211.2M
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay Page 40 of 62
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
Table 4.4: Morro Bay Option 4A cost estimate
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay Page 41 of 62
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
Table 4.5: Morro Bay Option 4B cost estimate
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay Page 42 of 62
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
4.5 Concept design for a facility operated by one developer (Split-Location)
4.5.1 Split-location introduction
Initial conceptual design efforts were focused on the development of a single site at Morro Bay shared by three OSW developers for O&M activities. However, an additional scenario was added whereby the O&M facility would only host one OSW developer. A second developer would be located at San Luis Obispo Bay, and it is assumed the third developer would be located out of the region.
This section provides a summary of the additional split-location conceptual design. The existing functional requirements were reviewed and subsequently updated with modifications tailored to a single OSW developer in Morro Bay, followed by several conceptual layouts that satisfy the adjusted requirements.
4.5.2 Modified basis of assessment for a single OSW developer This section presents the modified minimum functional requirements for the O&M facilities, adjusted in alignment with the reduced demands and needs for a single OSW developer. The proposed modifications are summarized in Table 4-6 below, along with a brief justification of changes made.
Table 4-6: Updated functional requirements for a single developer at Morro Bay Functional Requirements Adjusted Requirements Justification Quay length for 1 dedicated SOV
berth and 1 transient mixed-use
berth
Quay length for 1 SOV 1 OSW developer only. Offsite
moorage for 2nd SOV available
through mooring dolphins and/or
mooring buoys.
0.5 acre, 60ft wide quayside staging
apron + 0.5 acre intermediate
staging zone
Unchanged Same laydown space requirements
needed.
The following key assumptions were used in the split-location design concept conditions:
● Development to be focused on the North T-Pier.
● Development to take the form of a T-Pier to respect the local fabric of the waterfront. ● The T-Pier should be partially publicly accessible.
● T-Pier development should be respectful to neighboring local businesses and restaurants by keeping O&M activities to the north side of the North T-Pier. ● Layouts to avoid partitioning up sections of the promenade for secured access. ● USCG and Morro Bay Harbor Department to be kept at or near the North T-Pier. Secured access would be preferred.
4.5.3 Least constrained site layout
A short-list of site layouts satisfying the updated functional requirements were developed with the following design considerations:
● Location of Morro Bay Harbor Department and USCG:
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay Page 43 of 62
Mott MacDonald Restricted
April 2026
– Direct access and views to the Morro Bay Entrance Channel are assumed to be preferred by the USCG and Harbor Department to safeguard and monitor vessel traffic in the FNC; however video cameras could also be used.
– Secure access required to USCG floats and property.
● Lease or purchase arrangements for the Vistra waterfront property and upland property:
– The Vistra property represents a suitable industrial property near the waterfront, subject to land-use and zoning designation change.
– If successfully leased or purchased, the Vistra waterfront property that was historically used as an intake pump house could potentially be converted for use as an OSW intermediate staging zone or USCG/Harbor Department office space with minimal disruption to the local community. It is noted that there have been no agreements made with Vistra at this time.
● Degree of disturbance to neighboring businesses:
– The waterfront to the south of the North T-Pier is primarily used by fishing vessels, restaurants, and tour operators. Development of the new pier should aim to minimize impact on existing users by keeping O&M activities to the north.
Three variants of the same base design were developed from the list of design concepts to cover potential property acquisition outcomes. Conceptual sketches for each variant are provided in Figure 4.8 through Figure 4.10 respectively, with brief descriptions of each variant provided below:
● Variant A – Development of the O&M facility without acquisition or leasing of any Vistra property: New T-Pier constructed. Harbor Department office to be demolished. A USCG facility could be constructed on the north tip of the pier head, and the Harbor Department could either have access to the existing USCG building or an adjacent plot such as a conversion of the public restrooms. The public restroom structure would likely be expanded into a two-story building with the second floor used exclusively by the Harbor Department for their operations. The intermediate staging zone could be located within the “triangle lot,” north of Morro Bay Maritime Museum.
● Variant B – Development of the O&M facility with a lease or purchase arrangement for the Vistra waterfront property and conversion into an intermediate staging zone:
Similar to Variant A, a USCG facility could be constructed on the pier head, while the Harbor Department gains access to the existing USCG building or site of the public restrooms. The triangle lot would not be required.
● Variant C – Development of the O&M facility with a lease or purchase arrangement for the Vistra waterfront property and powerplant property: The Harbor Department would need to be relocated; a new Harbor Department office could either be constructed above the public restrooms, or a redevelopment of the Vistra waterfront property could host both USCG and Harbor Department, with secure berths. The intermediate staging zone could then be located on the opposite side of Embarcadero on the Vistra powerplant property.
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay Page 44 of 62
April 2026
Figure 4.8: Split-Location Conceptual Design, Variant A – Vistra property not acquired
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay Page 45 of 62
April 2026
Figure 4.9: Split-Location Conceptual Design, Variant B – Vistra waterfront property leased or acquired
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay Page 46 of 62
April 2026
Figure 4.10: Split-Location Conceptual Design, Variant C – Vistra waterfront and powerplant property leased or acquired
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay Page 47 of 62
4.5.4 Split-location cost
Construction and engineering cost estimates for the Split-Location Options were developed to AACE Class 5 accuracy, in accordance with the methodology presented Section 4.4.
The scope of the cost estimate covers OSW O&M waterfront infrastructure only. As such, the following items were excluded from the cost estimates:
● Potential relocation of USCG property, shed, and relocation of floating pontoons. ● Relocation of Harbor Department.
● Relocation of impacted oyster farming business.
● OSW O&M Upland yard, utilities, office construction and fit out. ● Environmental mitigation for development.
● Other waterfront infrastructure upgrades that may be negotiated in planning stages such as coastal protection upgrades.
Table 4-7 shows a summary of the total cost estimates with the Class 5 cost accuracy range.
Table 4-8 to Table 4-10 show the detailed itemized cost estimates for the additional options.
Table 4-7 Morro Bay site alternative variant options cost estimate Site Alternatives Option Cost Estimate Cost Accuracy Range (-30% / +50%)
Split-location Variant A $122.1M $85.5M to $183M
Split-location Variant B $122.1M $85.5M to $183.1M
Split-location Variant C $114.0M $79.8M to $171.0M
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay Page 48 of 62
Table 4-8 Split-Location Option Variant A detailed cost estimate
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay Page 49 of 62
Table 4-9 Split-Location Option Variant B detailed cost estimate
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay Page 50 of 62
Table 4-10 Split-Location Option Variant C detailed cost estimate
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay Page 51 of 62
4.5.5 Split-location conceptual design summary
A conceptual layout capable of supporting O&M operations for one OSW developer was selected and refined through a series of study meetings, with three sub-variants developed, dependent on the following unknown variables:
● Vistra property purchase/leasing arrangements.
● Preferred relocation of harbor department.
● Arrangements for USCG.
When compared to the original three-developer approach, the size of the waterfront facilities to service one developer could be marginally reduced under the condition that only one SOV berth is required. The North T-Pier would still require replacement; a new purpose-built T-Pier would likely be the preferred structural form, with the north side of the T-Pier dedicated to OSW use.
The volume of capital dredging and the associated environmental impacts would be largely unchanged.
Through use of adjacent land at the Vistra property, the USCG operations could be moved off the pier, thus reducing the size of the T-Pier, lowering cost and overwater coverage. This would be subject to discussion and agreement from USCG and Harbor Dept.
It is currently assumed the SOV would in berth for up to 24hrs, before returning offshore for one-to-two-week periods. Therefore, the split-location design concept would also result in less frequent SOV activity since only one SOV would utilize the area. The split-location design concept would also result in reduced development costs and less vehicular traffic to the O&M facility. In addition, the south side of the North T-pier could potentially remain open to public use.
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay Page 52 of 62
5 Environmental and permitting
assessment
5.1 Summary
Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) has conducted an Environmental Constraints and Feasibility Analysis Report (Constraints and Feasibility Report) to help inform the Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study. The full report by Rincon is included within Appendix B.
The Study Area includes the City of Morro Bay and surrounding nearshore and coastal areas and contains sensitive terrestrial and marine resources, including environmentally sensitive habitat areas, essential fish habitat, designated critical habitat, and special status species.
Development of OSW O&M facilities would require comprehensive environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and coordination with multiple agencies, including the California Coastal Commission (CCC), California State Lands Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), City of Morro Bay, and resource agencies.
While recent legislation such as Senate Bill 286 provides opportunities to streamline permitting through a consolidated Coastal Development Permit (CDP), OSW O&M development in Morro Bay would remain subject to substantial regulatory review due to coastal resource sensitivities, land use constraints established by City of Morro Bay Measures A-24 and D, and public trust considerations. Furthermore, Senate Bill 286 does not preempt the City of Morro Bay’s authority to require the necessary City of Morro Bay land use permits (e.g., Conditional Use Permits), rezoning, and land use designation changes, in accordance with the City’s zoning code and applicable voter initiatives. The following broad steps and agency approvals would be anticipated to be required to permit development of the least constrained concept designs:
● City of Morro Bay and USACE adopt CEQA and NEPA documents for OSW O&M facilities. ● City of Morro Bay approves a land use and zoning designation change at the North T-Pier to permit OSW O&M facility development (applies to all the least constrained concept designs).
The land use element map change would be subject to voter approval, in addition to Planning Commission, City Council, and Coastal Commission approval, in accordance with Measure A-24. Development would have to comply with Measure D use limitations, which prioritize commercial fishing.
● City of Morro Bay approves land use and zoning designation change via a voter ballot initiative, to permit an Intermediate Staging Zone facility within the Vistra properties (applies to Option 4A, Split Location Variant B, and Split Location Variant C). The land use element map change would be subject to voter approval, in addition to Planning Commission, City Council, and Coastal Commission approval, in accordance with Measure A-24. Development would have to comply with Measure D use limitations, as applicable, which prioritize commercial fishing.
● City of Morro Bay issues a Conditional Use Permit for OSW O&M facilities (applies to all of the least constrained concept designs).
● Federal and State environmental resources agencies (e.g., USACE, National Marine Fisheries Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, etc.) issue environmental permits (e.g., Clean Water Act Section 404 permit[s], Federal Endangered Species Act Section 7 incidental take statement[s], etc.).
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay Page 53 of 62
● CCC issues a consolidated CDP.
OSW O&M development is potentially inconsistent with the City’s current and recently updated General Plan, Zoning Code, and voter initiatives, all of which prioritize visitor serving and commercial fishing uses on the City’s waterfront. Additionally, with a grant from the California Coastal Commission, the City is currently updating its Waterfront Master Plan to reinforce the existing zoning and General Plan designations and to further define its vision for transitioning former industrial and utility sites into visitor serving, recreational, cultural, and commercial fishing uses. While OSW O&M development is potentially feasible from an environmental and regulatory perspective, it would potentially require land use and zoning changes following the City of Morro Bay’s entitlement process, including voter approval of land use designation changes in accordance with Measure A-24. Given this regulatory context, any future OSW developer would need to conduct significant public outreach, including community workshops to determine the actual feasibility of such facilities.
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay Page 54 of 62
6 Summary
6.1 Conclusions
Waterfront facilities at Morro Bay were assessed for their potential in supporting Operations and Maintenance (O&M) activities for the offshore wind OSW industry. Using minimum functional requirements agreed with the Study Team, opportunities and constraints for the Morro Bay Waterfront study site were identified and technically viable options were developed as independent concept designs.
For an O&M facility serving multiple developers, Option 4 was selected for further evaluation based on site characteristics, and two strategic development scenarios were developed to cover potential property acquisition outcomes. For an O&M facility serving one developer, three variants (A, B, C) were developed covering different property aquistition outcomes.
Pre-feasibility level conceptual layouts and construction and dredging cost estimates were developed to inform future decision-making processes. The key findings were as follows:
● O&M facility serving three developers: The existing waterfront infrastructure at Morro Bay has the physical characteristics needed to support the development of an O&M facility to service the OSW industry. While key physical factors such as the presence of a natural channel and availability of land parcels with waterfront access makes development a viable option, Morro Bay also faces challenges from a congested navigation channel and dilapidated marine infrastructure. Development would require a complete rebuild of the North T-Pier to support the navigation and berthing of OSW vessels. Construction cost estimates for the least constrained alternatives were estimated to be approximately $130 to $140 million, but may be in the range of $90 to $210 million according to the Advancement of Cost Estimating’s Class 5 cost estimate scheme (-30% to +50%) for concept-level assessments. ● O&M facility serving one developer (Split-Location Option): To investigate the feasibility of simultaneously utilizing Morro Bay and San Luis Obispo Bay for OSW O&M activities, several conceptual designs were prepared using a reduced set of functional requirements applicable to having a single OSW developer operating at Morro Bay. A conceptual layout involving the complete reconstruction of the North T-Pier capable of supporting O&M operations was selected as the least constrained alternative, with three sub-variants made available based on different Vistra property agreement outcomes. This split-location option kept the South portion of the North T-Pier publicly accessible and was expected to have a reduced impact on the local fabric of the City. Cost estimates for the Split-Location alternatives were estimated to be approximately $114 to $122 million, but may be in the range of $80 to $183 million according to the Advancement of Cost Estimating’s Class 5 cost estimate scheme (-30% to +50%) for concept-level assessments. ● Dredging: Significant dredging would be expected to lower the mudline elevation to -30 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) for SOV access into the bay, with a high-level volume estimate of 1.1 million cubic yards (CY). Dredging methods would likely be consistent with those that have been used in the past, such as Trailing Suction Hopper Dredge (TSHD) and Cutter Suction Dredge (CSD). Sandy sediment that has been dredged may see beneficial reuse as beach nourishment at the Morro Strand State Beach for habitat creation and erosion control, or placement at the nearshore placement area off the Morro Bay State Park sand spit. The associated dredging cost is projected to be in the order of $25-30 million but could potentially be reduced by optimizing the turning basin layout with support from an
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay Page 55 of 62
analysis of ship simulators. It is also noted that by deepening the navigation channel, waves propagating through the harbor entrance would have a reduced height, improving navigability to recreational and fishing vessels. This change in wave conditions has potential to trigger a change in the mission of the USCG facility from a surf station to a security station.
● Permitting (Rincon, 2026):
– The study area contains sensitive terrestrial and marine resources, including environmentally sensitive habitat areas, essential fish habitat, designated critical habitat, and special status species. Development of OSW O&M facilities would require comprehensive environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and coordination with multiple agencies, including the California Coastal Commission (CCC), California State Lands Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), City of Morro Bay, and resource agencies.
– The Permitting Assessment concluded that an O&M development would be potentially inconsistent with the City’s current and recently updated General Plan, Zoning Code, and voter initiatives, all of which prioritize visitor serving and commercial fishing uses on the City’s waterfront. Additionally, with a grant from the California Coastal Commission, the City is currently updating its Waterfront Master Plan to reinforce the existing zoning and General Plan designations and to further define its vision for transitioning former industrial and utility sites into visitor serving, recreational, cultural, and commercial fishing uses.
While OSW O&M development is potentially feasible from an environmental and regulatory perspective, it would potentially require land use and zoning changes following the City of Morro Bay’s entitlement process, including voter approval of land use designation changes in accordance with Measure A-24. Given this regulatory context, any future OSW developer would need to conduct significant public outreach, including community workshops to determine the actual feasibility of such facilities.
In summary, the study found that the reconstruction of the North T-Pier as a purpose-built OSW O&M facility would be technically viable from a construction perspective, owing to the adjacent industrial land and sheltered waterway. However, such a development would face multiple challenges that would need to be resolved in the pursuit of sustainable development. The outstanding issues include the following:
● Environmental concerns due to the extent of dredging required, and the increase in maritime and road traffic.
● Changes to the waterfront viewscape and waterfront character, conflicts with coastal access, commercial fishing, marine life, and recreational uses. ● Fueling arrangements (excluded from this study due to uncertainty on vessel fueling methods and electrification).
● Onerous permitting process due to potential inconsistency with the General Plan, Zoning Code, and voter initiatives, as well as environmental impacts and potential impacts to a federal facility and the FNC channel.
● Relatively high capital investment costs due to the necessity to construct a new T-Pier to accommodate the expected vessel and material loads.
6.2 Next steps
Below are additional activities which could be conducted for further investigation for an OSW O&M facility at Morro Bay:
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay Page 56 of 62
● Technical
– Conduct ship simulation and review turning basin layout for dredge volume optimization. – Conduct detailed coastal engineering analyses such as circulation modelling, wave modelling, and vessel motion analysis. This is to better understand environmental loading conditions and determine the need of other coastal structures, such as training walls and expected maintenance dredging volumes.
– Undertake a mooring assessment to estimate downtime associated with adverse environmental conditions not suitable for quayside operations. – Detailed geotechnical and structural analysis to confirm design assumptions. – Detailed construction schedules.
– Construction phasing to ensure USCG and Harbor Department operations are not impeded during construction.
– Better understand fueling requirements of developers and potential impacts on the waterfront masterplan.
– Cost estimates for excluded items and capital cost comparison between Morro Bay and other candidate OSW O&M sites, and review of economic benefits. ● Social
– Potential advantages to waterfront and to the City of Morro Bay should be assessed. – Undertake stakeholder and public engagement.
– Coordination with waterfront parcel owners and an assessment of impacts on local business and mitigation strategies.
– Skilled labor workforce estimates.
● Environmental and permitting
– Identify, inform, and engage with stakeholders involved in the permitting process including but not limited to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other relevant federal, state, and local agencies.
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay Page 57 of 62
7 References
Alfving, C. J. (2019) Assessing the Environmental Impacts of a Beach Nourishment Operation, Morro Bay, CA. MS thesis. California State University, Fresno.
BOEM. (2025) Overview Map of the California Final Lease Areas. Available at:
https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/renewable-energy/stateactivities/CA%20FSN%20Lease%20Area%20Maps.pdf [Accessed 15 July 2025] City of Morro Bay. (2016) Army Corps of Engineers Dredging Morro Bay Harbor [Press Release]. 16 December issued. Available at:
https://www.morrobayca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/10302/Corps-dredging-press-publicrelease-Dec-2016-Final?bidId= [Accessed June 2025].
City of Morro Bay. (n.d.) Geo Hazard and Resources report by City of Morro Bay Available at:
https://www.morrobayca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/15266/Geo-Hazards-and-Resources [accessed Nov 2024]
Lim, J. & Trowbridge, M. (2023) AB 525 Port Readiness Plan, Final Report. California State Lands Commission.
Mott MacDonald. (2022) REACH Central Coast Emerging Industries Waterfront Siting + Infrastructure Study. REACH.
Rincon. (2026) County of San Luis Obispo Operations and Maintenance Waterfront Infrastructure and Site Readiness Plan Study: City of Morro Bay.
Shoreline Engineering, Inc. (2016). Routine Inspection And Structural Condition Assessment - South T-Pier & Commercial Docks.
Thompson, E. F., Bottin, R. R. Jr., & Shak, A. T. (2002) Monitoring of Entrance Channel Navigation Improvements at Morro Bay Harbor, Morro Bay, California. USACE. Report number:
ERDC/CHL TR-02-18.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2006) Hydraulic Design of Deep-Draft Navigation Projects.
USACE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2013) Draft Environmental Assessment, Morro Bay, Six Year Federal Maintenance Dredging Program, San Luis Obispo County, California. USACE.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2023) Final Environmental Assessment for Morro Bay, Six Year Federal Maintenance Dredging Program, San Luis Obispo County, California. USACE.
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay Page 58 of 62
Appendices
A. Basis of design 59
B. Environmental constraints and feasibility analysis report (Rincon, 2026) 60 C. Preliminary geotechnical desk study 61
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay Page 59 of 62
A. Basis of design
Basis of Assessment
CA Central Coast
OSW Phase II
DRAFT
Mott MacDonald
Mott MacDonald Restricted
Agenda
1 Introduction - What is an O&M facility and why is it needed 5 GIS session (Rincon)
4 Site conditions and Constraints Map
2 Study Approach
3 Functional requirements
DRAFT
What is an O&M facility and why is it
needed
DRAFT
Mott MacDonald
Mott MacDonald Restricted
DRAFT
Mott MacDonald
Mott MacDonald Restricted
Morro Bay
San Luis Obispo Bay
SLO County Morro Bay Wind
Energy Area
DRAFT
Mott MacDonald
Mott MacDonald Restricted
What is an O&M facility and why is it needed
Foundations and cables
• Typically performed on an ad-hoc basis by contractors • Routine visual inspections
− ROVs, divers checking foundations or cable routes
for burial issues
− Mooring inspections
• Structural integrity checks
− Structural analysis
− Structural repairs
− Fatigue: main consideration (from WTG and
Metocean)
• Maintenance campaigns
− Remove marine growth
− Replace damaged anodes
− Repair painting
Depending on contractual agreement and developer maturity various scope of services are arranged to balance risk and cost control.
WTGs
• Usually performed by the OEM in the first years at least • Regular WTG inspection regime
− Scheduled maintenance (3 – 6 – 12-month plans)
• Unscheduled maintenance
− Alarms
− Reactive inspections
− Major maintenance
Study Approach
DRAFT
Mott MacDonald
Mott MacDonald Restricted
Existing Conditions:
Establish existing conditions through:
• Data collection from client and publicly available
sources.
• Site visit
• Perform initial coastal and geotechnical studies to
appraise the existing conditions on site.
Study Approach
How will we determine the feasibility of an O&M port in this location Functional Requirements/Design Basis:
Establish minimum function requirements through:
• Literature reviews
• Experience from global Mott MacDonald
projects
• Developer outreach to confirm assumptions
Conceptual waterfront infrastructure design
• Preliminary concept options
• Dredging assessment
• Downtime assessment and breakwater sizing (SLO only)
• Concept drawings
• Environmental and Permitting matrix
• Cost
Environmental Constraints:
• Data collection
• Waterfront land use planning due diligence
• Environmental constraints assessment and mapping
Gap assessment:
• Determine what upgrades are
required to meet the functional
requirements
Basis of Assessment:
Public Engagement Event
• Final concept
overview
DRAFT
Functional Requirements
DRAFT
Mott MacDonald
Mott MacDonald Restricted
Functional Requirements
Design Vessels
Vessel Service Operation Vessel
(SOV)
Purpose Supports multi-day O&M trips,
provides accommodations for
wind farm workers and assists
with servicing and repairing
wind turbines
Length 300 ft
Draft 25ft
Beam 75ft
Vessel Crew Transfer Vessel
(CTV)
Purpose These vessels are used to
transport and shuttle wind farm
technicians and other personnel
out to sites on a daily basis. No
live aboard accommodation.
Length 90ft
Draft 10ft
Beam 30ft
Vessel Service Accommodation
Transfer Vessel
(SATV)
Purpose Combines elements of SOV
and CTV to provide a smaller
live aboard vessel for
technicians. Heavy
equipment not required.
Length 130 ft
Draft 16ft
Beam 50ft
Functional requirements preliminary
and subject to developer outreach
DRAFT
Mott MacDonald
Mott MacDonald Restricted
Quayside Staging Apron
(≥0.5 acres)
Intermediate Staging
Zone
Quayside Staging Apron (≥0.5 acres) (≥0.5 acres)
• Immediately adjacent to quay wall
• Area for SOV/CTV operations, short term material staging and transfers (materials & personnel)
Intermediate Staging Zone (≥0.5 acres)
• Buffer area between the quay and upland yard
• Positioned near the quay but not required to be on the pier itself.
• Used for short term staging, and pre/post vessel operations. • Includes a small welfare unit, and a small parking lot for personnel shuttle services
Upland Yard (>3 acres)
• Warehouses, workshops, and office space
• Dedicated space for inventory, spare parts, anchor chains, and long-term containerized storage
• Staff parking included
BoD Recap
Definitions
Access Road
Shore
Upland Yard
(>3 acres)
DRAFT
Indicative sketch for definition purposes only
Mott MacDonald
Mott MacDonald Restricted
Berth Depth (REACH)
• Under keel clearance (UKC) 10% of draft
Berth Length (Port Designer’s Handbook)
• 10% of LOA between vessels
• 15% of LOA at both ends of the vessel
Finger Pier Width (AS 3962)
• 2x maximum beam + 5ft
Functional Requirements
Berths
DRAFT
Vessel Draft Design Water Level UKC [ft] Concept Berth Bed Elevation [ft MLLW]
10ft (CTV)
LAT (-2ft MLLW)
1.0 -13.0
12ft 1.2 -15.2
16ft (SATV) 1.6 -19.6
20ft 2.0 -24.0
25ft (SOV) 2.5 -29.5
LAT (-2ft MLLW)
Wharf/Berth
Draft
UKC
Mott MacDonald
Mott MacDonald Restricted
Functional Requirements
Berths
Harbor tranquility in operational conditions
• Facility should remain operational in all storm events up to the limit of offshore design vessel operations • Offshore vessels (CTV Mothership) can operate in up to 8-10 ft waves. • Assume inshore O&M facility is not operational when offshore waves exceed 8-10 ft Harbor tranquility in storm conditions
• Facility should provide safe harbor for vessels in a storm event that might probabilistically be expected in a 1 in 100year return period.
• Wave conditions TBD and beyond scope of study.
DRAFT
Mott MacDonald
Mott MacDonald Restricted
Turning Basin Diameter (PIANC)
• Depends on vessel maneuverability and presence of bow thrusters and Dynamic Positioning (DP) systems.
• Minimum 2x LOA, unless ship simulations undertaken.
• Existing turning basin diameter ~400ft (REACH)
• It is noted that most vessels used in O&M applications will be highly maneuverable with ability to turn on a dime, however allowance should be made for wind, currents, and avoidance of small recreational craft.
Functional Requirements
Turning Basin
DRAFT
LOA Minimum Diameter
90ft (CTV) 180ft
130ft (SATV) 260ft
200ft (Yakima) 400ft
300ft (SOV) 600ft
Mott MacDonald
Mott MacDonald Restricted
Extents
• TBD
Channel Depth
• For sheltered conditions, assume Channel Depth is draft of largest vessel +3ft UKC.
• Assume SOV not operational at LAT as tides can be planned around. • Assume all vessels to be operational at MLLW.
• Preliminary channel depth:
− 28ft below MLLW for SOV channel
− 19ft below MLLW, assuming SOV not required (subject to developer outreach)
• Note, UKC to be refined upon assessment of wave climate Channel Width
• Assume one-way traffic for SOVs
• Channel width 2-2.5x beam of largest vessel
Functional Requirements
Navigation Channel
DRAFT
B
Channel Width
Channel Depth
Morro Bay - Site Conditions and
Constraints
DRAFT
Mott MacDonald
Mott MacDonald Restricted
Measure D: Morro Bay law, known as “Measure D” stipulates that no new development can occur within the state-owned tidelands subject to city lease between Beach Street and Target Rock unless its primary use is commercial and noncommercial recreational fishing.
Figure & excerpt from REACH report (2022)
Federal Navigation Channel
DRAFT
Mott MacDonald
Mott MacDonald Restricted
DRAFT
Mott MacDonald
Mott MacDonald Restricted
Hillshade figure generated using
USACE’s survey data (2024-06-27)
DRAFT
Mott MacDonald
Mott MacDonald Restricted
Notes
• State MPA
• Covers entire back bay
MPA
Morro Bay State Marine
Recreational Management Area
DRAFT
Mott MacDonald
Mott MacDonald Restricted
DRAFT
Mott MacDonald | Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study Final Report - Morro Bay Page 60 of 62
B. Environmental constraints and feasibility
analysis report (Rincon, 2026)
Mott MacDonald Restricted
County of San Luis Obispo Operations and
Maintenance Waterfront Infrastructure and
Site Readiness Plan Study:
City of Morro Bay
Environmental Constraints and Feasibility Analysis Report prepared for
Mott MacDonald
prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
1530 Monterey Street, Suite D
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
April 2026
Table of Contents
Environmental Constraints and Feasibility Analysis Report i Mott MacDonald Restricted
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................1 2 Introduction....................................................................................................................................3
2.1 Study Area...........................................................................................................................3
2.2 Study Description................................................................................................................6
2.3 Purpose and General Methodology of this Constraints and Feasibility Report .............. 13 3 Land Use and Zoning Setting ....................................................................................................... 15
3.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................................... 15
3.2 Regulatory Setting............................................................................................................ 18
3.2.1 Federal and State Regulations........................................................................... 18
3.2.2 Local Regulations............................................................................................... 20 4 Biological Resources Setting ........................................................................................................ 23
4.1 Regulatory Overview........................................................................................................ 23
4.1.1 Definition of Special Status Species .................................................................. 23
4.1.2 Environmental Statutes..................................................................................... 23
4.2 Literature and Database Review...................................................................................... 24
4.3 Existing Conditions........................................................................................................... 25
4.3.1 Physical Characteristics..................................................................................... 25
4.3.2 Watershed and Drainages................................................................................. 25
4.3.3 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover......................................................... 27
4.3.4 Marine Habitat Types........................................................................................ 30
4.4 Sensitive Biological Resources......................................................................................... 33
4.4.1 Potential Special-Status Species........................................................................ 33
4.4.2 Essential Fish Habitat, Habitat Areas of Particular Concerns, Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas, Designated Critical Habitat, and Marine Protected Areas.................................................................................................................. 37
4.5 Biological Resources Recommendations......................................................................... 42 5 Environmental Compliance Pathways......................................................................................... 43
5.1 Concept design Overview and Considerations ................................................................ 43
5.2 Environmental Permitting Requirements........................................................................ 43
5.2.1 Federal Permitting............................................................................................. 44
5.2.2 State Permitting Overview ................................................................................ 46
5.2.3 Local Permitting Overview ................................................................................ 48
5.3 Land Use and Zoning Considerations............................................................................... 51
5.4 CEQA and NEPA Requirements........................................................................................ 57
5.4.1 California Environmental Quality Act................................................................ 57
5.4.2 National Environmental Policy Act.................................................................... 58 6 Environmental Planning and Regulatory Permitting – Timelines and Costs ............................... 61
6.1 Environmental Planning................................................................................................... 61
6.2 Regulatory Permitting...................................................................................................... 61
6.2.1 Federal Permitting............................................................................................. 62
6.2.2 State Permitting ................................................................................................ 63
6.2.3 Local Permitting................................................................................................. 64 7 References................................................................................................................................... 65
Mott MacDonald
County of San Luis Obispo Operations and Maintenance Waterfront Infrastructure and Site Readiness Plan Study: City of Morro Bay
ii
Mott MacDonald Restricted
Tables
Table 1 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types in the APE............................................ 27 Table 2 Special-Status Species with Potential to Occur within the Study Area............................ 34 Table 3 Federal, State, and Local Permitting Matrix .................................................................... 49 Table 4 Allowable Land Uses and Permit Requirements.............................................................. 53 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location Map .......................................................................................................4 Figure 2 Study Area and Area of Potential Effects............................................................................5 Figure 4 Option 4A Concept Design..................................................................................................8 Figure 5 Option 4B Concept Design ..................................................................................................9 Figure 6 Split Location Variant A Concept Design.......................................................................... 10 Figure 7 Split Location Variant B Concept Design.......................................................................... 11 Figure 8 Split Location Variant C Concept Design.......................................................................... 12 Figure 9 Land Use Plan Boundaries................................................................................................ 16 Figure 10 Land Use Designations..................................................................................................... 17 Figure 11 Watershed and Drainages within the APE and adjacent Study Area............................... 26 Figure 12 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types within the APE and adjacent Study Area.................................................................................................................................. 28 Figure 13 Marine Habitat Types within the APE.............................................................................. 31 Open Water with Sandy Bottom ......................................................................................................... 32 Figure 14 Essential Fish Habitat within the APE and adjacent Study Area ...................................... 38 Figure 15 ESHA within the APE and adjacent Study Area................................................................ 40 Figure 16 Critical Habitat within the APE and adjacent Study Area ................................................ 41 Figure 17 Environmental Review and Land Use Permitting Flowchart ........................................... 59
Executive Summary
Environmental Constraints and Feasibility Analysis Report 1 Mott MacDonald Restricted
1 Executive Summary
Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) prepared this Environmental Constraints and Feasibility Analysis Report (Constraints and Feasibility Report) to support the Central Coast Offshore Wind Operations and Maintenance (OSW O&M) Infrastructure Study – Morro Bay (the Study), led by Mott MacDonald. The Study evaluates the feasibility of developing shore-based OSW O&M facilities to support offshore wind infrastructure in the Morro Bay Wind Energy Area. The Study evaluates multiple concept designs at two primary infrastructure locations, the North T-Pier and South T-Pier, and identifies five “least constrained” concepts. This Constraints and Feasibility Report evaluates the environmental feasibility of those least constrained concepts through a desktop-level analysis focused on the Study Area as a whole, as well as a refined Area of Potential Effects, addressing land use regulations, biological resources, environmental review requirements, and federal, State, and local permitting processes.
The Study Area includes the City of Morro Bay and surrounding nearshore and coastal areas and contains sensitive terrestrial and marine resources, including environmentally sensitive habitat areas, essential fish habitat, designated critical habitat, and special status species. Development of OSW O&M facilities would require comprehensive environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and coordination with multiple agencies, including the California Coastal Commission (CCC), California State Lands Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), City of Morro Bay, and resource agencies.
While recent legislation such as Senate Bill 286 provides opportunities to streamline permitting through a consolidated Coastal Development Permit (CDP), OSW O&M development in Morro Bay would remain subject to substantial regulatory review due to coastal resource sensitivities, land use constraints established by City of Morro Bay Measures A-24 and D, and public trust considerations.
Furthermore, Senate Bill 286 does not preempt the City of Morro Bay’s authority to require the necessary City of Morro Bay land use permits (e.g., Conditional Use Permits), rezoning, and land use designation changes, in accordance with the City’s zoning code and applicable voter initiatives. The following broad steps and agency approvals would be anticipated to be required to permit development of the least constrained concept designs:
City of Morro Bay and USACE adopt CEQA and NEPA documents for OSW O&M facilities. City of Morro Bay approves a land use and zoning designation change at the North T-Pier to permit OSW O&M facility development (applies to all the least constrained concept designs).
The land use element map change would be subject to voter approval, in addition to Planning Commission, City Council, and Coastal Commission approval, in accordance with Measure A-24.
Development would have to comply with Measure D use limitations, which prioritize commercial fishing.
City of Morro Bay approves land use and zoning designation change via a voter ballot initiative, to permit an Intermediate Staging Zone facility within the Vistra properties (applies to Option 4A, Split Location Variant B, and Split Location Variant C). The land use element map change would be subject to voter approval, in addition to Planning Commission, City Council, and Coastal Commission approval, in accordance with Measure A-24. Development would have to comply with Measure D use limitations, as applicable, which prioritize commercial fishing. City of Morro Bay issues a Conditional Use Permit for OSW O&M facilities (applies to all of the least constrained concept designs).
Mott MacDonald
County of San Luis Obispo Operations and Maintenance Waterfront Infrastructure and Site Readiness Plan Study: City of Morro Bay
2 Mott MacDonald Restricted
Federal and State environmental resources agencies (e.g., USACE, National Marine Fisheries Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, etc.) issue environmental permits (e.g., Clean Water Act Section 404 permit[s], Federal Endangered Species Act Section 7 incidental take statement[s], etc.).
CCC issues a consolidated CDP.
OSW O&M development is potentially inconsistent with the City’s current and recently updated General Plan, Zoning Code, and voter initiatives, all of which prioritize visitor serving and commercial fishing uses on the City’s waterfront. Additionally, with a grant from the California Coastal Commission, the City is currently updating its Waterfront Master Plan to reinforce the existing zoning and General Plan designations and to further define its vision for transitioning former industrial and utility sites into visitor serving, recreational, cultural, and commercial fishing uses. While OSW O&M development is potentially feasible from an environmental and regulatory perspective, it would potentially require land use and zoning changes following the City of Morro Bay’s entitlement process, including voter approval of land use designation changes in accordance with Measure A-24. Given this regulatory context, any future OSW developer would need to conduct significant public outreach, including community workshops to determine the actual feasibility of such facilities.
Introduction
Environmental Constraints and Feasibility Analysis Report 3 Mott MacDonald Restricted
2 Introduction
Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) prepared this Environmental Constraints and Feasibility Analysis Report (Constraints and Feasibility Report) for Mott MacDonald to inform the Central Coast Offshore Wind Operations and Maintenance Infrastructure Study—Morro Bay (the Study) commissioned by the County of San Luis Obispo (County) for the purposes of evaluating the requirements of an Offshore Wind (OSW) Operations and Maintenance (O&M) shore based facilities to serve offshore wind projects in the Morro Bay Wind Energy Area. The Study examines OSW O&M facility sites and conceptual designs in the Morro Bay Study Area (Study Area). The purpose of this Constraints and Feasibility Report is to identify, evaluate, and perform a technical analysis of the environmental planning, resources, and permitting constraints related to the conceptual designs identified in the Study for Morro Bay.
2.1 Study Area
The Study Area encompasses the City of Morro Bay, located in San Luis Obispo County, California (Figure 1). The Study Area is within the Morro Bay North and Morro Bay South, California United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles. The Public Land Survey System depicts the Study Area within Township 29S, Range 11E, Sections 11, 13-14, 23-26, 30-32, and 35-26 and Township 30S, Range 10E, Sections 01, 02, 05, and 06, Mount Diablo Meridian. The Study Area encompasses all of Morro Bay Harbor, as well as landside portions the City of Morro Bay.
The Study Area includes a total of approximately3,352 acres of land and approximately 2,931 acres of water, including intertidal or submerged lands below Mean High Water (MHW) (Figure 2).
Mott MacDonald
County of San Luis Obispo Operations and Maintenance Waterfront Infrastructure and Site Readiness Plan Study: City of Morro Bay
4 Mott MacDonald Restricted
Figure 1 Regional Location Map
Introduction
Environmental Constraints and Feasibility Analysis Report 5 Mott MacDonald Restricted
Figure 2 Study Area and Area of Potential Effects
Mott MacDonald
County of San Luis Obispo Operations and Maintenance Waterfront Infrastructure and Site Readiness Plan Study: City of Morro Bay
6 Mott MacDonald Restricted
2.2 Study Description
San Luis Obispo County, as part of Assembly Bill (AB) 178, was awarded a $1,000,000 earmark for “the Deep Water Port Feasibility Study for Offshore Wind Procurement” and the County selected Mott MacDonald to complete a technical analysis pertaining to topics related to OSW O&M facility development. The Study, prepared by Mott MacDonald, provides an analysis of infrastructure, workforce development, and environmental matters pertaining to OSW O&M sites and identifies a range of concept designs that include a diversity of nearshore ocean, waterfront, and land development components and locations. Rincon, as part of the Mott MacDonald team, is serving as the local and regional environmental planning and permitting technical expert and works as an integrated Study team member to develop environmental constraints and feasibility assessments for the OSW O&M infrastructure concept designs described in the Study.
Mott MacDonald identified potential OSW O&M facility sites in Morro Bay as the first step in developing the Study. Site options were informed by previous siting studies and the functional requirements such as area, length, depth, and capacity needed to support OSW O&M vessels, maintenance activities, material and equipment storage, and administrative functions. The sites identified for the development of concept designs included areas centered around the North and South T-Piers in the northern portion of Morro Bay. Once site options were selected, concept designs were developed based on vessel berthing and operational requirements drawn from prior studies and direct coordination with OSW developers holding lease agreements in the Morro Bay Wind Energy Area. A functional requirements Basis of Assessment (BOA), described in detail in the Study, was developed to evaluate the potential sites and concept designs identified based on OSW O&M functional requirements alongside land use, environmental, and community considerations.
Study Participants then scored the concept designs to identify the least constrained options. The sites and concept designs were evaluated and scored through collaborative virtual and in person meetings, site visits, and information sharing involving study participants including Mott MacDonald, Rincon, the County, City of Morro Bay, Morro Bay Harbor Department, California Coastal Commission (CCC), California State Lands Commission (CSLC), and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG).
The Study describes the process of arriving at the initial concept designs and additional concept design modifications, identifies the least constrained concept designs, and reviews the land use and environmental constraints, and estimated OSW O&M development costs and timelines for the concept designs to inform future siting and decision making around OSW O&M facilities in Morro Bay.
The Study considers seven concept designs (including the Do Nothing concept), some of which include multiple variants. Three of the concept designs (Do Minimum, Option 1, and Option 2) would involve use of both the North and South T-Piers for OSW O&M facilities and activities. Three of the concept designs (Option 3, Option 4, and Split Location) would limit OSW O&M facilities and activities to the North T-Pier. Additionally, several concept designs (Option 1, Option 3, Option 4, and Split Location) include the purchase or lease of space on the Vistra properties located in the north of the Morro Bay harbor for development of an Intermediate Staging Zone and/or Upland Yard. The Intermediate Staging Zone would be a secure site used for short-term equipment and material staging, pre/post vessel operations, and personnel shuttle parking. The Upland Yard would be utilized for long-term O&M facilities, including warehouses, office space, workshops, and staff parking. For a full list of all the concept designs considered, refer to Table 4.4 and Section 4.6 of the Study.
Introduction
Environmental Constraints and Feasibility Analysis Report 7 Mott MacDonald Restricted
As described in depth in the Study, Option 4 was determined to be the least constrained concept design. Two variants for Option 4 were developed to cover potential property acquisition and leasing outcomes, as described below:
Option 4A: Development of O&M facility with partial acquisition of the Vistra Waterfront Property. Existing USCG and Morro Bay Harbor Department offices would remain in place with access to upgraded finger piers. An Intermediate Staging Zone would be developed on the acquired portion of the Vistra property. Refer to Figure 4. Option 4B: Development of O&M facility without acquisition of the Vistra Waterfront Property. An Intermediate Staging Zone would be constructed in the “triangle lot” north of the Morro Bay Maritime Museum. The USCG and Morro Bay Harbor Department offices would remain in place with access to upgraded finger piers. Refer to Figure 5.
In addition, a split-location conceptual design, which would be utilized in the event that the Morro Bay OSW O&M facility would only host one (rather than three) OSW developers, was also considered in the Study. Three variants of the Split-Location concept design, all using the same base design, were developed, as described below:
Split Location Variant A: Development of the O&M facility without acquisition or leasing of Vistra property. The existing North T-Pier would be reconstructed. The Morro Bay Harbor Department and the USCG office would remain in place. A new USCG facility or hut could be constructed on the north tip of the pier head, and the Morro Bay Harbor Department would either have access to the existing USCG building or an adjacent plot such as a conversion of the public restrooms. The Intermediate Staging Zone could be located within the “triangle lot”, north of the Morro Bay Maritime Museum. Refer to Figure 6. Split Location Variant B: Development of the O&M facility with a lease or purchase arrangement for the Vistra waterfront property. Similar to Variant A, the existing North T-Pier would be reconstructed. The Morro Bay Harbor Department office would be demolished and the USCG office would remain in place. A new USCG facility or hut could be constructed on the north tip of the pier head, and the Morro Bay Harbor Department would either have access to the existing USCG building or an adjacent plot such as a conversion of the public restrooms. The Intermediate Staging Zone would be located within the Vistra waterfront property. Refer to Figure 7.
Split Location Variant C: Development of the O&M facility with a lease or purchase arrangement for the Vistra Waterfront Property and Power Station property. The existing North T-Pier would be reconstructed. The Morro Bay Harbor Department office would be demolished. A new Morro Bay Harbor Department office could either be constructed above the existing public restrooms, or a new building on the Vistra waterfront property could host both USCG and Harbor Department, with secure berths. The intermediate staging zone would be located on the opposite side of Embarcadero on the Vistra powerplant property. Refer to Figure 8.
Mott MacDonald
County of San Luis Obispo Operations and Maintenance Waterfront Infrastructure and Site Readiness Plan Study: City of Morro Bay
8 Mott MacDonald Restricted
Figure 3 Option 4A Concept Design
Introduction
Environmental Constraints and Feasibility Analysis Report 9 Mott MacDonald Restricted
Figure 4 Option 4B Concept Design
Mott MacDonald
County of San Luis Obispo Operations and Maintenance Waterfront Infrastructure and Site Readiness Plan Study: City of Morro Bay
10 Mott MacDonald Restricted
Figure 5 Split Location Variant A Concept Design
Introduction
Environmental Constraints and Feasibility Analysis Report 11 Mott MacDonald Restricted
Figure 6 Split Location Variant B Concept Design
Mott MacDonald
County of San Luis Obispo Operations and Maintenance Waterfront Infrastructure and Site Readiness Plan Study: City of Morro Bay
12 Mott MacDonald Restricted
Figure 7 Split Location Variant C Concept Design
Introduction
Environmental Constraints and Feasibility Analysis Report 13 Mott MacDonald Restricted
2.3 Purpose and General Methodology of this
Constraints and Feasibility Report
This Constraints and Feasibility Report, included as Appendix C of the Study, is intended to assist the Study Team with evaluating land use, environmental review, biological resource, and regulatory permit constraints, processes, anticipated timelines, and estimated costs for studies and permitting to develop OSW O&M facilities in Morro Bay, including the least constrained concept designs. This Constraints and Feasibility Report is not intended to select or identify a preferred concept design but rather to define and describe the environmental review and resource parameters and considerations that would be needed for the development of an OSW O&M facility in the Study Area.
This Constraints and Feasibility Report provides a comprehensive assessment of land use, environmental planning, and biological resources constraints within the Study Area based on a desktop review. The assessment of landside locations was conducted based on Accessor Parcel Number (APN) size and proximity to the Morro Bay harbor. Parcels of one to 100 acres within the Study Area were reviewed for feasibility of development of OSW O&M facilities. During the development and evaluation of potential concept designs for OSW O&M facilities, significant portions of the Study Area were removed from future consideration due to operational, resource, or land use constraints. Therefore, this Constraints and Feasibility Report also provides a refined analysis that focuses on an Area of Potential Effects (APE) based on the least constrained concept designs identified in the Study. The APE is illustrated in (Figure 2).
This Constraints and Feasibility Report contains a detailed review of 1) regional and local land use ordinances; 2) environmental planning and associated special studies needed; 3) biological resources in the Study Area and APE; and 4) regulatory agency approvals and permitting considerations for the least constrained concept designs.
Mott MacDonald
County of San Luis Obispo Operations and Maintenance Waterfront Infrastructure and Site Readiness Plan Study: City of Morro Bay
14 Mott MacDonald Restricted
This page intentionally left blank.
Land Use and Zoning Setting
Environmental Constraints and Feasibility Analysis Report 15 Mott MacDonald Restricted
3 Land Use and Zoning Setting
3.1 Environmental Setting
The Study Area is limited to land within the City of Morro Bay (City) and is entirely within the Coastal Zone. The land uses within the Study Area are governed by the Morro Bay General Plan and zoning code, as well as the Waterfront Master Plan, Downtown Waterfront Strategic Plan, Measures A-24 and D, and State Tidelands Grant conditions. The Study Area boundary and applicable land use plan areas are illustrated in Figure 9.
The least constrained concept designs include alterations and new facilities at the North T-Pier within Morro Bay harbor. The North T-Pier has a land use designation of commercial/Recreational Fishing and zoning designation of Commercial Fishing. Measures A-24 and D apply to the North TPier. The following land use designations apply to the Intermediate Staging Zone locations included in the least constrained concept designs:
Option 4A: Intermediate Staging Zone is located on parcel with a land use designation of Commercial/Recreational Fishing and zoning designation of Commercial Fishing. Measures A-24 and D apply to this site.
Option 4B: Based on the City’s land use and zoning GIS maps and concept design figures, the Intermediate Staging Zone appears to be located within City property (a parking area) within the public right-of-way (no zoning or land use designation is established for this location). Measure A-24 and Measure D do not apply to this site.
Split Location Variant A: Intermediate Staging Zone is located on parcel with a land use designation of Public/Institutional and zoning designation of Public Facility. Measures A-24 and D do not apply to this site.
Split Location Variant B: Intermediate Staging Zone is located on parcel with a land use designation of Commercial/Recreational Fishing and zoning designation of Commercial Fishing.
Measures A-24 and D apply to this site.
Split Location Variant C: Intermediate Staging Zone is located on parcel with land use and zoning designations of Visitor Serving Commercial. Measure A-24 applies to this site, but Measure D does not apply.
Land use designations within the City of Morro Bay city limits (Study Area) are illustrated in Figure 10.
Mott MacDonald
County of San Luis Obispo Operations and Maintenance Waterfront Infrastructure and Site Readiness Plan Study: City of Morro Bay
16 Mott MacDonald Restricted
Figure 8 Land Use Plan Boundaries
Land Use and Zoning Setting
Environmental Constraints and Feasibility Analysis Report 17 Mott MacDonald Restricted
Figure 9 Land Use Designations
Mott MacDonald
County of San Luis Obispo Operations and Maintenance Waterfront Infrastructure and Site Readiness Plan Study: City of Morro Bay
18 Mott MacDonald Restricted
3.2 Regulatory Setting
The OSW O&M facility concept designs evaluated in this report are located at least in part in City of Morro Bay public trust tidelands and submerged lands administered by CSLC and granted to San Luis Obispo County, which later transferred the Grant to the City of Morro Bay (Chapter 1076, Statutes of 1947). These public trust lands are required to be managed in the public’s interest for the promotion and accommodation of commerce and commercial as well as recreational navigation by air and by water. Additional trust purposes include recreational use, a public park, parking, highway, playground, and business incidental to these uses. Each concept design involves complex environmental review and permitting processes that require coordinated authorizations and concurrence from federal, State, and local agencies due to the multi-jurisdictional scope and overlapping priorities and policies.
Given the above, each of the concept designs would be subject to CCC and CSLC concurrence and City of Morro Bay regulations and policies. Any future proposals for OSW O&M development would also be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), with potential requirements for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) depending on funding sources and agency permit requirements. The various federal, State, and local regulations applicable to the Study Area are described in the following subsections.
3.2.1 Federal and State Regulations
National Environmental Policy Act
NEPA was signed into law in 1970. NEPA requires federal agencies to assess the environmental effects of their proposed actions prior to making decisions. The range of actions covered by NEPA is broad and includes:
Making decisions on permit applications,
Adopting federal land management actions, and
Constructing highways and other publicly-owned facilities.
Using the NEPA process, federal agencies must evaluate the environmental and related social and economic effects of their proposed actions. Agencies also provide opportunities for public review and comment on those evaluations.
40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500-1508 contain regulations guiding the implementation of NEPA. The regulations address the procedural provisions of NEPA and the administration of the NEPA process, including the preparation of environmental impact statements.
In addition to these NEPA regulations, many federal agencies have also developed their own NEPA procedures that supplement the regulations contained in 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508. These NEPA procedures vary from agency to agency since they are tailored for the specific mission and activities of the agency (United States Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] 2025a). It is anticipated that a joint CEQA/NEPA document or similar would be prepared, with coordination occurring between the NEPA responsible entity and CEQA lead agency, to streamline the OSW O&M facility environmental review process.
Land Use and Zoning Setting
Environmental Constraints and Feasibility Analysis Report 19 Mott MacDonald Restricted
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA was signed into law in 1970. Similar to NEPA, CEQA requires State and local government agencies to inform decision makers and the public about the potential environmental impacts of proposed projects, and to reduce those environmental impacts to the extent feasible. CEQA applies to discretionary actions undertaken, funded, or requiring a permit by a State or local public agency.
The laws and rules governing the CEQA process are contained in the CEQA statute (Public Resources Code Section 21000 and following), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 and following), published court decisions interpreting CEQA, and locally adopted CEQA procedures (California Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation [LCI] 2025).
California Coastal Act
The California Coastal Act (Coastal Act) was enacted in 1976. The Coastal Act guides how land along the coast of California is developed or protected from development. It emphasizes the importance of the public being able to access the coast, and the preservation of sensitive coastal and marine habitat and biodiversity. It dictates that development be clustered in areas to preserve open space, and that coastal agricultural lands be preserved. It prioritizes coastal recreation as well as commercial and industrial uses that need a waterfront location. The Coastal Act defines the area of the coast that comes under the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission (CCC), which is called the “coastal zone.” The Coastal Zone extends seaward to the State’s outer limit of jurisdiction (three miles), including offshore islands. The inland boundary varies according to land uses and habitat values. In general, it extends inland 1,000 yards from the mean high tide line of the sea, but is wider in areas with significant estuarine, habitat, and recreational values, and narrower in developed urban areas. Coastal Zone boundary maps are available on the CCC website (CCC 2017).
The laws and regulations established by the Coastal Act are contained in Public Resources Code Section 230000 through 30900.
State Tidelands Grant
In 1947, the County of San Luis Obispo was granted sovereign tide and submerged lands in a portion of Morro Bay to hold in trust to operate a harbor and for facilities necessary or convenient to promote commerce and navigation (Chapter 1076, Statutes of 1947; CSLC 2025). In 1960, the grant was amended to provide for additional trust purposes including recreational use, and a public park, parking, highway, playground, and business incidental to these uses. The County transferred the title of the tide and submerged lands to the City of Morro Bay when the City was annexed in 1964.
As the trustee and successor in interest to these tidelands, the City must comply with the County’s granting statute (CSLC 2025).
California Senate Bill 286
California Senate Bill (SB) 286, the Offshore Wind Expediting Act, was signed into law in October 2023 (Chapter 386, Stats. 2023). It streamlines offshore wind development by enabling a consolidated coastal development permit, allowing CCC to issue one unified coastal development permit for offshore wind infrastructure, including associated in‑zone transmission facilities and support facilities, when coordinated with local agencies. Local agencies are invited to review and participate in the consolidated permitting process, but the CCC has ultimate approval rights.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 30601.3b, the standard of review for a consolidated coastal development permit application is the California Coastal Act. However, the applicable local
Mott MacDonald
County of San Luis Obispo Operations and Maintenance Waterfront Infrastructure and Site Readiness Plan Study: City of Morro Bay
20 Mott MacDonald Restricted
coastal program (LCP) is used as guidance. SB 286, however, does not override local land use or zoning designations, including permitting requirements and voter initiatives per the City of Morro Bay’s Zoning Code.
SB 286 also designates the CSLC as the lead agency under CEQA, centralizing environmental review and promoting joint NEPA/CEQA documentation. On CSLC granted lands, such as those granted to the City of Morro Bay, the grantee may take the CEQA lead agency role. To protect ocean ecosystems and fishing communities, SB 286 creates a Fisheries Working Group charged with developing a statewide strategy to minimize impacts on fisheries, design mitigation protocols, and establish an Offshore Wind Energy Resiliency Fund to provide compensation and assistance to affected communities. Finally, it mandates a two-year stakeholder process to build long-term planning standards for permitting, environmental safeguards, and workforce development, helping California meet its offshore wind targets while considering coastal and community interests.
3.2.2 Local Regulations
City of Morro Bay General Plan
The Morro Bay General Plan, titled Plan Morro Bay, was adopted in 2021. Plan Morro Bay is the City of Morro Bay’s General Plan and LCP Land Use Plan (LUP). It presents a community vision for Morro Bay through 2040 and contains 10 elements that identify particular resources or issues within the City and provide guidance for future planning decisions. Elements that are particularly relevant to the land use constraints for the potential concept being considered in this report include the Land Use Element, Conservation Element, and Open Space Element, described further below (Morro Bay 2021).
Land Use Element
The Land Use Element outlines a framework for land uses and infrastructure are organized within the City. The Land Use Element also establishes standards for building density and intensity.
Additionally, this element addresses development within the coastal zone by identifying and protecting coastal-dependent and coastal-related uses, recreation and visitor-serving uses, energy and industrial development, and archaeological and cultural resources. The Land Use Element contains information, goals, and policies that guide the land use decisions for existing and future development within the City and its sphere of influence.
Conservation Element
The Conservation Element identifies and discusses resources including water, forests, soils, harbors, fisheries, wildlife, minerals, and energy. The Conservation Element also discusses greenhouse gas emissions and air quality impacts, and outlines a strategy to work in coordination with countywide agencies responsible for managing conservation efforts. The Conservation Element seeks to balance the City’s development plans with conservation requirements and priorities. It also addresses climate change and emphasizes policies that will avoid problems, mitigate anticipated impacts when possible, and adapt to changes when mitigation is not possible. Goals established by the Conservation Element include preservation of sensitive habitats, promotion of resource conservation, and decreased emissions and waste.
Land Use and Zoning Setting
Environmental Constraints and Feasibility Analysis Report 21 Mott MacDonald Restricted
Open Space Element
The Open Space Element establishes goals and policies to protect and conserve Morro Bay’s open space resources and addresses opportunities to expand the open space system by assessing park and trail facilities, coastal facilities, and recreation programs. The Open Space Element protects open space for the preservation of natural resources, managed resource production, outdoor recreation, and public health and safety. The Open Space Element also includes goals and policies consistent with the requirements of the Coastal Act related to coastal recreation and coastal access.
Downtown Waterfront Strategic Plan
The Downtown Waterfront Strategic Plan was adopted in 2018. It establishes a vision for revitalizing Morro Bay’s Embarcadero and downtown waterfront, emphasizing climate resilience and sea level rise adaptation, protection of environmentally sensitive habitats, improved public access, and support for visitor-serving commercial uses. The plan designates former infrastructure sites, including a decommissioned power plant and wastewater treatment facility, for master planning processes and mixed uses, with zoning aligned to balance public access, commercial and residential uses, and ecological safeguards—consistent with Coastal Commission priorities (Morro Bay 2018).
Waterfront Master Plan
The Waterfront Master Plan was adopted in 1996. The Waterfront Master Plan is a policy-level blueprint guiding land use, circulation, infrastructure, and design along Morro Bay’s waterfront, from Tidelands Park and the Embarcadero south to Morro Rock, laying out background context, historic character, public-access improvements, and conceptual frameworks with a traditional “fishing village” aesthetic. It includes development guidelines on building scale, architectural style, and visitor-serving density, along with implementation strategies and future action steps. The plan also addresses vehicular and pedestrian circulation, public access points, and parking configurations (Morry Bay 1996a).With a grant from the California Coastal Commission, the City is currently updating its Waterfront Master Plan to reinforce the waterfront’s existing zoning and General Plan designations and to further define its vision for transitioning former industrial and utility sites into visitor serving, recreational, cultural, and commercial fishing uses.
Measure A-24
Measure A-24 was a voter-approved ballot initiative in Morro Bay (November 5, 2024) that amended the City’s General Plan to freeze the land use designation of “Visitor-Serving Commercial” or “Commercial/Recreational Fishing” on approximately 103 acres of the city near the waterfront, including the former Morro Bay Power Plant site (Vistra property), parcels along both sides of Embarcadero Road, and near Morro Rock and Coleman Drive (refer to Figure 9 for the boundaries within which Measure A-24 applies). Under this measure, any future changes to the land use designations in this area require approval by a majority vote of city residents (Morro Bay 2024).
Measure D
Measure D was a citizen-initiated local ordinance approved by Morro Bay voters in 1981 to protect the working waterfront character north of Beach Street. It reserves that portion of the harbor exclusively for uses “primarily for the purpose of serving or facilitating licensed commercial fishing activities or noncommercial recreational fishing activities, or clearly incidental thereto.” The measure effectively bans new restaurants, gift shops, tour boats, hotels, or other visitor-serving developments within that designated area, preserving berthing and lease sites for commercial
Mott MacDonald
County of San Luis Obispo Operations and Maintenance Waterfront Infrastructure and Site Readiness Plan Study: City of Morro Bay
22 Mott MacDonald Restricted
fishing and related support functions unless those uses had been in place prior to Measure D. It can only be amended or repealed via another voter-approved measure (Historical Society of Morro Bay N.d.). Any future change to the land use designation in this area requires approval by a majority vote of city residents.
Morro Bay Zoning Code
Title 17 of the Morro Bay Municipal Code (MBMC) establishes the City’s Zoning Code. The zoning code was comprehensively rewritten and adopted in November 2022 and certified by CCC in March 2024 as part of the Plan Morro Bay General Plan and LCP implementation. It establishes the zoning districts, allowable land uses, development standards, overlay zones (including environmentally sensitive habitat areas and coastal overlay zones), and design guidelines for the entire city. It also defines site regulations, such as parking, signage, setbacks, and nonconforming uses, along with administrative processes for permits, appeals, and enforcement, all aligned with State coastal planning requirements and local design objectives (Morro Bay 2025).
Biological Resources Setting
Environmental Constraints and Feasibility Analysis Report 23 Mott MacDonald Restricted
4 Biological Resources Setting
4.1 Regulatory Overview
Regulated or sensitive biological resources studied and analyzed herein include special status plant and animal species, nesting birds and raptors, sensitive plant communities, jurisdictional waters and wetlands, wildlife movement, and locally protected resources, such as native oak trees and environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHAs). Regulatory authority over sensitive biological resources is shared by federal, State, and local authorities. Primary authority for regulation of general biological resources lies within the land use control and planning authority of local jurisdictions (in this instance, the City of Morro Bay).
4.1.1 Definition of Special Status Species
For the purposes of this report, special status species include:
Species listed as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA); species that are under review (i.e., those that are candidates or proposed for listing) may be included if there is a reasonable expectation of listing within the life of the project. Species listed as candidate, threatened or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).
Plant species listed as rare under the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA; i.e., California Fish and Game Code [CFGC] Section 1900 et seq.).
Species designated as Fully Protected, Species of Special Concern, or Watch List by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).
Species designated as California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1 or 2 by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS).
Species managed and regulated under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Designated as a species of concern by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) or NOAA Fisheries as Species of Concern. Species designated as locally important by the lead local agency and/or otherwise protected through ordinance or local policy.
4.1.2 Environmental Statutes
For the purpose of this report, potential impacts to biological resources were analyzed based on the following statutes:
CEQA
NEPA
FESA
CESA
NPPA
Federal Clean Water Act (CWA)
CFGC
Mott MacDonald
County of San Luis Obispo Operations and Maintenance Waterfront Infrastructure and Site Readiness Plan Study: City of Morro Bay
24 Mott MacDonald Restricted
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
California Coastal Act
MMPA
Magnuson-Steven Fishery Conservation and Management Act Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
Coastal Zone Management Act
National Invasive Species Act
Marine Life Protection Act
Marine Life Management Act
Marine Invasive Species Act
Morro Bay General Plan
Morro Bay Local Coastal Program
4.2 Literature and Database Review
Rincon conducted a literature review to assess the potential presence of special-status biological resources, including habitat for plant and wildlife species, sensitive plant communities, ESHAs, and suitable habitat for nesting birds, in the broader Study Area and identified APE for the highest ranking concept designs. The review included an evaluation of current and historical aerial photographs of the APE (Google Earth 2025), regional and site‐specific topographic maps, and climatic data (Western Regional Climate Center 2025).
Queries of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation system (IPaC; UFWS 2025a), CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFW 2025a), and CNPS Rare Plant Inventory (2025) were conducted to obtain comprehensive information regarding State and federally listed species, and other special-status species, considered to have potential to occur within six USGS quadrangles, including the Morro Bay North and Morro Bay South, California USGS 7.5‐minute topographic quadrangles and the surrounding four quadrangles 1 (Atascadero, San Luis Obispo, Pismo Beach, and Port San Luis). The results of database queries and lists of specialstatus species were reviewed by Rincon’s regional biological experts for accuracy and completeness.
The final list of special-status biological resources (species and sensitive natural communities) was evaluated based on documented occurrences within a six-quadrangle radius search area and biologists’ expert opinions on species known to occur in the region. Plants with CNPS CRPR 3 and 4 were not considered in the evaluation.
The following resources were reviewed for additional information on existing conditions relating to biological resources within the Study Area:
Critical Habitat Portal (USFWS 2025b)
Critical Habitat Mapper (NMFS 2025)
Biogeographic Information and Observation System (CDFW 2025b) 1 A six -USGS quadrangle search was conducted instead of a standard nine-quadrangle search due to the coastal location of the project area.
Biological Resources Setting
Environmental Constraints and Feasibility Analysis Report 25 Mott MacDonald Restricted
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI; USFWS 2025c)
National Hydrography Dataset (NHD; USGS 2025)
The potential for wildlife movement corridors was evaluated based on the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project commissioned by the California Department of Transportation and CDFW (Spencer et al. 2010).
4.3 Existing Conditions
This section provides an overview of existing conditions within the Study Area, including physical characteristics, soil types, vegetation communities, marine habitat types, and biological resources, including special status plant and wildlife species.
4.3.1 Physical Characteristics
Morro Bay is situated on California's central coast and is defined by a distinctive coastal topography featuring the iconic Morro Rock, a volcanic plug, and an expansive estuary bordered by dynamic sand dunes and a sand spit. This semi-enclosed embayment, part of Estero Bay, is characterized by its protected inner harbor, extensive mudflats, and critical eelgrass beds, which serve as vital habitats for a rich diversity of marine life, including southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis).
Elevations within the immediate port area range from 0 meters at sea level to the 177 meters (581 feet) of Morro Rock, with higher coastal hills forming part of the Santa Lucia Range extending further inland. The region experiences a Mediterranean climate, marked by mild, wet winters and dry summers, with a consistent marine layer often bringing morning fog. Average annual temperatures typically range from 13 degrees Celsius (°C) to 20°C (55 degrees Fahrenheit [°F] to 68°F), influenced by prevailing northwesterly winds and seasonal upwelling events that enrich the marine environment with cool, nutrient-laden waters, supporting a productive ecosystem.
4.3.2 Watershed and Drainages
The Study Area is located within and adjacent to Morro Bay and the Pacific Ocean. The Study Area occurs within the Morro Bay Watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC]: 180600060503), Islay Creek – Frontal Pacific Ocean Watershed (HUC: 180600060504), Chorro Creek Watershed (HUC:
180600060502), Morro Creek Watershed (HUC: 180600060412), and Willow Creek – Frontal Pacific Ocean Watershed (HUC: 180600060413) (USEPA 2025b). The NWI maps Estuarine Marine and Deepwater, Estuarine and Marine Wetland, Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland, and Riverine habitats within the APE and adjacent Study Area (USFWS 2025). The NHD also maps four drainages, including Morro Creek, Little Morro Creek, and two unnamed drainages, within the Study Area adjacent to the APE (USGS 2025). The Study Area is also located within the Morro Bay State Marine Recreational Management Area (SMRMA) and Morro Bay State Marine Reserve (SMR; CDFW 2025b). Figure 11 depicts watersheds and drainages that overlap with the APE and adjacent Study Area.
Mott MacDonald
County of San Luis Obispo Operations and Maintenance Waterfront Infrastructure and Site Readiness Plan Study: City of Morro Bay
26 Mott MacDonald Restricted
Figure 10 Watershed and Drainages within the APE and adjacent Study Area
Biological Resources Setting
Environmental Constraints and Feasibility Analysis Report 27 Mott MacDonald Restricted
4.3.3 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover
Ten vegetation communities and five land cover types were identified within the APE (Table 1).
Descriptions of the vegetation communities and land cover types found within the APE are provided below and locations of vegetation communities and land cover types within the APE are depicted in Figure 12. Vegetation community and land cover data and descriptions were retrieved from the Pacific Veg Map, which includes data from the Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District and CDFW (Pacific Veg Map 2025).
Table 1 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types in the APE Vegetation Community/Land Cover Type Acreage
Barren and Sparsely Vegetated 14.38
Developed 15.19
Eucalyptus 1.35
Herbaceous 0.22
Non-native Herbaceous 0.31
Pine/Cypress 0.10
Shrub 2.77
Water 183.61
Mott MacDonald
County of San Luis Obispo Operations and Maintenance Waterfront Infrastructure and Site Readiness Plan Study: City of Morro Bay
28 Mott MacDonald Restricted
Figure 11 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types within the APE and adjacent Study Area
Biological Resources Setting
Environmental Constraints and Feasibility Analysis Report 29 Mott MacDonald Restricted
Barren and Sparsely Vegetated
Barren and Sparsely Vegetated land cover consists of areas that are generally devoid of vegetation.
This land cover type includes areas comprised of 10 percent or less total cover of tree, shrub, and/or herbaceous species. This land cover type can be found across a variety of different habitats and its structure and composition may vary greatly depending on region and surrounding environment.
Within the APE, this land cover type is mostly concentrated along coastal dunes, bluffs, and beaches in the western portion of the APE, occupying approximately 14.38 acres.
Developed
Developed land cover consists of areas that have been developed or physically modified to the extent that they no longer contain native soil and habitat conditions and no longer support most vegetation. This land cover type includes developed areas greater than 0.2 acre and includes buildings, paved areas, and landscaped areas. Within the APE, this land cover type includes residential, commercial, and industrial development, occupying approximately 15.19 acres.
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus is a non-native vegetation community dominated by eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.) trees.
This vegetation community includes areas comprised of at least 10 percent absolute cover of tree species, with eucalyptus occupying at least 50 percent relative cover in the tree layer. This vegetation community occurs in patches throughout the APE, occupying approximately 1.35 acres.
Herbaceous
Herbaceous is an upland vegetation community comprised of native and non-native herbaceous species. This vegetation community includes areas comprised of at least 10 percent absolute cover of herbaceous species, with tree and shrub species occupying less than 10 percent absolute cover.
Common upland herbaceous species in the region include native purple needlegrass (Stipa pulchra) and California poppy (Eschscholzia californica), as well as non-native wild oat (Avena spp.) and brome (Bromus spp.). This vegetation community occurs in patches throughout the APE, occupying approximately 0.22 acres.
Non-native Herbaceous
Non-native Herbaceous is a non-native vegetation community dominated by non-native herbaceous species. This vegetation community includes areas comprised of at least 10 percent absolute cover of herbaceous species, with non-native herbaceous species as the dominant species within the herbaceous layer. This vegetation community contains less than 10 percent absolute cover of tree and shrub species. Common non-native herbaceous species in the region include iceplant (Carpobrotus spp.), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), star thistle (Centaurea spp.), black mustard (Brassica nigra), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), and sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare). This vegetation community occurs in patches throughout the APE, occupying approximately 0.31 acres.
Pine/Cypress
Pine/Cypress is a native vegetation community dominated by native pine (Pinus spp.) and cypress (Hesperocyparis spp.) species. This vegetation community includes areas comprised of at least 10 percent absolute cover of tree species, with native pine and cypress species occupying at least 60 percent relative cover. Common pine and cypress species within the region include California
Mott MacDonald
County of San Luis Obispo Operations and Maintenance Waterfront Infrastructure and Site Readiness Plan Study: City of Morro Bay
30 Mott MacDonald Restricted
foothill pine (Pinus sabiniana), knobcone pine (Pinus attenuata), Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), and Monterey cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa). This vegetation community occurs in patches throughout the APE, occupying approximately 0.10 acres.
Shrub
Shrub is a native vegetation community dominated by native upland shrub species. This vegetation community includes at least 10 percent absolute cover of upland shrub species, with no greater than 10 percent cover of tree species. Common shrub species in the region include coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), sticky monkeyflower (Diplacus aurentiacus), and buckwheat (Eriogonum spp.). This vegetation community occurs in patches throughout the APE, occupying approximately 2.77 acres.
Water
Water consists of areas inundated with salt or fresh water, including ponds, bays, and oceans.
Within the Study Area, this land cover type is largely associated with Morro Bay, occupying approximately 183.61 acres.
4.3.4 Marine Habitat Types
Portions of the Study Area and the majority of the APE provide habitat for a variety of marine species. Marine habitat types within the APE include Open Water with Sandy Bottom, Rip Rap/Rocky Reef and Dock/Pier Structures (Figure 13). These marine habitat types were identified using Google Earth and the associated characteristics of each habitat. Each of these habitat types is described in detail below.
Biological Resources Setting
Environmental Constraints and Feasibility Analysis Report 31 Mott MacDonald Restricted
Figure 12 Marine Habitat Types within the APE
Mott MacDonald
County of San Luis Obispo Operations and Maintenance Waterfront Infrastructure and Site Readiness Plan Study: City of Morro Bay
32 Mott MacDonald Restricted
Open Water with Sandy Bottom
Approximately 182 acres of marine habitat within the APE consists of open water with an unconsolidated sandy or silty bottom. Benthic organisms are associated with soft sediment habitat, primarily invertebrate species. Benthic organisms are an important component of the food web and are indicators of environmental quality. Benthic areas within this habitat type may be occupied by a variety of regionally occurring invertebrates, such as polychaete worms (including Mediomastus californiensis and Polydora kempi), shrimp (Neomysis rayii, Bathyleberis spp., and Euphilomedes carcharodonta), crabs (including Hemigrapsus nudus), bivalves (including Macoma secta and Transennella tantilla), seastars (including Amphiodia spp.), gammarid amphipods (including Aoroides columbiae and Corophium acherusicum), and other sessile and suspension feeding organisms.
The water column within the Study Area can provide foraging habitat for juvenile and adult fish species, such as California halibut (Paralichthys californicus), starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus), barred surfperch (Amphistichus argenteus), and rockfish (Sebastes spp.). Schools of jacksmelt (Atherinops affinis), Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax caerulea), and Pacific mackerel (Scomber japonicus) are also known to transit and feed within the Study Area. A variety of seabirds also utilize this habitat, including California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus), cormorants (Phalacroxorax spp.), and gulls (Larus spp.). Multiple species of marine mammals are known to occur in open water within the Study Area, including southern sea otter, harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), and common bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus).
Eelgrass (Zostera marina) beds have been extensively documented throughout the Study Area.
Eelgrass is a marine flowering plant that anchors into the bay floor, forming dense underwater meadows across both subtidal and intertidal zones. These meadows are vital for ecosystem functions such as providing shelter for juvenile fish and invertebrates, spawning surfaces for species like Pacific herring, and foraging grounds for shorebirds and diving birds. The eelgrass coverage peaked in 2023 at 750 acres, driven by natural growth and active restoration projects within Morro Bay (Morro Bay National Estuary Program 2025).
Dock/Pier Structures
There are several public and private docks, wharfs and piers, as well as the North T-Pier and South TPier, within the APE, occupying approximately 7.36 acres of marine habitat. Pier piles are driven into the sandy bottom and provide hard substrate for a variety of marine species, such as algae, and sessile and mobile marine invertebrate species. This marine habitat is typically occupied by various invertebrate species including California mussel, anemones (Anthopleura spp.), barnacles (Balanus spp.), and stalked tunicates (Styela montereyensis).
A variety of seabirds and shorebirds use the dock structures for perching and nesting including cormorants and gulls. There is also potential for passerine bird species, including pigeon guillemot (Cepphus columba) and black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans) to nest beneath the pier structure.
Rip Rap/Rocky Reef Habitat
Rip rap/rocky reef habitat covers approximately 11.92 acres of the APE and includes both intertidal and subtidal rocky habitat that transitions from the high splash zone to shallow rocky reef habitat.
Rip rap serves as important intertidal habitat that forms distinct assemblages of invertebrates and algae based on sea level elevation, wave exposure and substrate type. The upper intertidal rip rap
Biological Resources Setting
Environmental Constraints and Feasibility Analysis Report 33 Mott MacDonald Restricted
supports assemblages of barnacles and motile mollusks (e.g., limpets [Patella spp.], snails [Littorina spp.]). The middle and lower intertidal zones support dense assemblages of mussels (Mytilus californianus), gooseneck barnacles (Pollicipes pollicipes), striped shore crab (Pachygrapsus crassipes) and feather boa kelp (Egregia menziesii). As the rip rap extends into deeper depths the rip rap functions as rocky reef with subtidal invertebrate, macroalgae and fishes inhabiting or utilizing the hard substrate. In the APE submerged rip rap/rocky reef supports giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) and in some cases bull kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana) along a thin margin adjacent to exposed rip rap and mostly along the northern extent of rip rap. Giant kelp forms dense surface canopies and is seasonally abundant and observed to be perennial in various protected areas along the northern extent of Morro Bay. Giant kelp habitat is a Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC) and supports a diversity of fishes and invertebrates. The southern sea otter uses the giant kelp habitat in Morro Bay and extensively for foraging, rafting, and social interaction.
4.4 Sensitive Biological Resources
Local, State, and federal agencies regulate special status species and other sensitive biological resources and require an assessment of their presence or potential presence to be conducted onsite prior to the approval of proposed development on a property. This section discusses sensitive biological resources observed in the Study Area and evaluates the potential for the areas to support additional sensitive biological resources. Assessments for the potential occurrence of special status species are based upon known ranges, habitat preferences for the species, species occurrence records from the CNDDB, species occurrence records from other sites in the vicinity of the Study Area and previous reports for the Study Area.
4.4.1 Potential Special-Status Species
The literature review identified 135 special status plant and wildlife species that are known or have been known to occur in the regional vicinity of the Study Area. Of these 135 species, 98 species (46 plants and 52 animals) were evaluated as being present or having some potential to occur within the Study Area. Special-status species evaluated as being present or having some potential to occur within the Study Area are summarized in Table 2, and a complete list of special-status species evaluated for the project is presented in Appendix D. The intent in assessing the broader Study Area and not just the APE is to provide a comprehensive basis for future evaluation depending on the selected project site(s).
Mott MacDonald
County of San Luis Obispo Operations and Maintenance Waterfront Infrastructure and Site Readiness Plan Study: City of Morro Bay
34 Mott MacDonald Restricted
Table 2 Special-Status Species with Potential to Occur within the Study Area Species Name Status
Plants
Hoover’s bent grass (Agrostis hooveri) CRPR 1B.2
Morro manzanita (Arctostaphylos morroensis) FT, CRPR 1B.1 Sand mesa manzanita (Arctostaphylos rudis) CRPR 1B.1
Miles’ milk-vetch (Astragalus didymocarpus var. milesianus) CRPR 1B.2 Coulter’s saltbush (Atriplex coulteri) CRPR 1B.2
San Luis Obispo sedge (Carex obispoensis) CRPR 1B.2
San Luis Obispo owl’s-clover (Castilleja densiflora var. obispoensis) CRPR 1B.2 Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii) CRPR 1B.1 Coastal goosefoot (Chenopodium littoreum) CRPR 1B.2
Point Reyes salty bird’s-beak (Chloropyron maritimum ssp. palustre) CRPR 1B.2 Pismo clarkia (Clarkia speciosa ssp. immaculata) FE, SR, CRPR 1B.1 Salt marsh bird’s beak (Cordylanthus maritimum ssp. maritimum) FE, SE, CRPR 1B.2 Dune larkspur (Delphinium parryi ssp. blochmaniae) CRPR 1B.2 Beach spectaclepod (Dithyrea maritima) ST, CRPR 1B.1
Betty’s dudleya (Dudleya abramsii ssp. bettinae) CRPR 1B.2 Blochman’s dudleya (Dudleya blochmaniae ssp. blochmaniae) CRPR 1B.1 Blochman’s leafy daisy (Erigeron blochmaniae) CRPR 1B.2 Hoover’s button-celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. hooveri) CRPR 1B.1 San Joaquin spearscale (Etriplex joaquinana) CRPR 1B.2
Kellogg’s horkelia (Horkelia cuneata var. sericea) CRPR 1B.1 Perennial goldfields (Lasthenia californica ssp. macrantha) CRPR 1B.2 Coulter’s goldfields (Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri) CRPR 1B.1 Blushing layia (Layia erubescens) CRPR 1B.2
Jones’ layia (Layia jonesii) CRPR 1B.2
Southern curly-leaved monardella (Monardella sinuata ssp. sinuata) CRPR 1B.2 Aparejo grass (Muhlenbergia utilis) CRPR 2B.2
Coast woolly-heads (Nemacaulis denudata var. denudata) CRPR 1B.2 Chaparral ragwort (Senecio aphanactis) CRPR 1B.2
California seablite (Suaeda californica) FE, CRPR 1B.1
Splitting yarn lichen (Sulcaria isidiifera) CRPR 1B.1
Twisted horsehair lichen (Sulcaria spiralifera) CRPR 1B.2 Blochman’s leafy daisy (Erigeron blochmaniae) CRPR 1B.2 Hoover’s button-celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. hooveri) CRPR 1B.1 San Joaquin spearscale (Etriplex joaquinana) CRPR 1B.2
Kellogg’s horkelia (Horkelia cuneata var. sericea) CRPR 1B.1 Perennial goldfields (Lasthenia californica ssp. macrantha) CRPR 1B.2 Coulter’s goldfields (Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri) CRPR 1B.1 Blushing layia (Layia erubescens) CRPR 1B.2
Biological Resources Setting
Environmental Constraints and Feasibility Analysis Report 35 Mott MacDonald Restricted
Species Name Status
Jones’ layia (Layia jonesii) CRPR 1B.2
Southern curly-leaved monardella (Monardella sinuata ssp. sinuata) CRPR 1B.2 Aparejo grass (Muhlenbergia utilis) CRPR 2B.2
Coast woolly-heads (Nemacaulis denudata var. denudata) CRPR 1B.2 Chaparral ragwort (Senecio aphanactis) CRPR 1B.2
California seablite (Suaeda californica) FE, CRPR 1B.1
Splitting yarn lichen (Sulcaria isidiifera) CRPR 1B.1
Twisted horsehair lichen (Sulcaria spiralifera) CRPR 1B.2 Invertebrates
Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) SCE
Western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis) SCE
Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) FT
Monarch – California overwintering population (Danaus plexippus plexippus pop. 1) FPT Black abalone (Haliotis cracherodii) FE
White abalone (Haliotis sorenseni) FE
Morro shoulderband (Helminthoglypta walkeriana) FT
Sunflower sea star (Pycnopodia helianthoides) FPT
Fish
Northern tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) FE, SSC Garibaldi (Hypsypops rubicundus) SP
Steelhead – south-central California coast DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 9) FT, SSC Giant sea bass (Stereolepis gigas) FP
Amphibians
California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) FT, SSC
Western spadefoot (Spea hammondii) FPT, SSC
Coast Range newt (Taricha torosa) SSC
Reptiles
Southwestern pond turtle (Actinemys pallida) FPT, SSC
Northern California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra) SSC Loggerhead sea turtle – North Pacific DPS (Caretta caretta) FE Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) FT
Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) FE,
Olive Ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) FT
Coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii) SSC
Birds
Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) WL
Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) ST, SSC
Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) SCE, SSC
Western snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus nivosus) FT, SSC White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) FP
Mott MacDonald
County of San Luis Obispo Operations and Maintenance Waterfront Infrastructure and Site Readiness Plan Study: City of Morro Bay
36 Mott MacDonald Restricted
Species Name Status
California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia) WL
Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) SSC
California black rail (Laterallus jamicensis coturniculus) ST, FP Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) WL
Double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax penicillatus) WL Purple martin (Progne subis) SSC
California Ridgway’s rail (Rallus obsoletus obsoletus) FE, SE, FP California least tern (Sternula antillarum browni) FE, SE, FP Least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) FE, SE
Mammals
Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) SSC
Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) SSC
Southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis) FT, FP
Gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) MMPA
Western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus) SSC
Pacific white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens) MMPA Humpback whale – Mexico DPS (Megaptera novaeangliae) FT, SS, DEP, MMPA Northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris) MMPA
San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia) SSC Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) MMPA
Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) SS, MMPA
American badger (Taxidea taxus) SSC
Common bottlenose dolphin (Tursipos truncatus) MMPA
California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) MMPA
CRPR – California Rare Plant Rank
DEP – Depleted under the MMPA
FE – Federally Endangered
FP – CDFW Fully Protected
FPT – Federally Proposed Threatened
FSC – Federal Species of Concern
FT – Federally Threatened
MMPA – Protected under Marine Mammal Protection Act
SCE – State Candidate Endangered
SE – State Endangered
SP – State Protected
SR – State Rare
SS – Strategic Stock
SSC – CDFW Species of Special Concern
ST – State Threatened
WL – CDFW Watch List
Biological Resources Setting
Environmental Constraints and Feasibility Analysis Report 37 Mott MacDonald Restricted
4.4.2 Essential Fish Habitat, Habitat Areas of Particular Concerns, Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas, Designated
Critical Habitat, and Marine Protected Areas
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is defined as those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growing to maturity. Substrate includes the sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters and the associated biological communities. EFH for common thresher shark, krill, coastal pelagic species, finfish, and groundfish is mapped within the APE and adjacent Study Area, as depicted in Figure 14.
HAPCs are mapped by NOAA Fisheries within EFH and includes estuary, eelgrass, canopy kelp, and rocky reefs. The entirety of Morro Bay within the Study Area is mapped as an estuary, while seagrass in the form of eelgrass beds is mapped in the western portion, and kelp canopy seasonal present in the northern portion of Morro Bay within the Study Area. When a proposed action may adversely affect EFH, such as a direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alternation to habitat, consultation with NOAA Fisheries is required.
There are a number of State Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) along the California coastline. State Marine Reserve (SMR) is an MPA designation that prohibits damage or take of all marine resources. A State Marine Recreational Management Area (SMRMA) is an MPA designation that allows recreational activities, with site-specific regulations specifying limitations for each SMRMA. The Morro Bay SMR includes approximately 0.88 square miles of estuarine and coastal marsh habitats within Morro Bay from Morro Bay State Park south to the unincorporated community of Los Osos. The Morro Bay SMRMA includes approximately 3.07 square miles of estuarine, eelgrass, and coastal marsh habitats throughout the rest of Morro Bay from Morro Rock south to Shark Inlet. The Morro Bay SMRMA overlaps with the APE and adjacent Study Area, while the Morro Bay SMR overlaps with the southeastern portion of the Study Area near Morro Bay State Park.
Mott MacDonald
County of San Luis Obispo Operations and Maintenance Waterfront Infrastructure and Site Readiness Plan Study: City of Morro Bay
38 Mott MacDonald Restricted
Figure 13 Essential Fish Habitat within the APE and adjacent Study Area
Biological Resources Setting
Environmental Constraints and Feasibility Analysis Report 39 Mott MacDonald Restricted
The CCC defines ESHAs as “any area in which plant or animal life or their habitat are either rare or especially valuable because of their nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and development.” In areas where the CCC has certified a LCP, ESHA may be further defined by the local jurisdiction (e.g., rocky intertidal, beaches). For instance, the City of Morro Bay’s certified LCP defines ESHA as aquatic resources and wetland habitats, breeding and overwintering sites, and other sensitive natural communities, including foredune, backdune/dune scrub, coastal bluff, and coastal scrub habitats. Three types of ESHA as defined by the City of Morro Bay LCP in the form of aquatic resources and wetland habitats, breeding and overwintering sites, and other sensitive natural communities are mapped within the APE and adjacent Study Area (City of Morro Bay 2021). Additionally, the Study Area includes known nesting sites and coastal areas utilized by bird species including double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax penicillatus) and osprey (Pandion haliaetus), for foraging, nesting, and roosting; these areas are also considered ESHA as defined by the City of Morro Bay LCP. One known monarch – California overwintering population (Danaus plexippus plexippus pop. 1) overwintering site – Site 3076 – also overlaps with the northeastern portion of the Study Area within the eucalyptus grove near the intersection of Main Street and Surf Street (Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation [Xerces] 2025). Figure 15 depicts ESHA within the APE and adjacent Study Area.
NMFS-designated critical habitat for leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) is mapped within Morro Bay and marine portions of the APE and adjacent Study Area. Additionally, NMFS-designated critical habitat for steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 9) is mapped within coastal streams throughout the Study Area, including Morro Creek and Little Morro Creek. USFWS-designated critical habitat for western snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus nivosus) overlaps with the APE and adjacent Study Area along the beaches north and south of Morro Rock. USFWS-designated critical habitat for monarch butterfly is mapped within several eucalyptus groves in the Study Area. USFWS-designated critical habitat for California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) also overlaps with coastal ranges in the eastern portion of the Study Area. Additionally, USFWS-designated critical habitat for Morro Bay kangaroo rat (Dipodomys heermanni morroensis), Morro shoulderband snail (Helminthoglypta walkeriana, and tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) are mapped between 1 and 3 miles south of the Study Area.
Figure 16 depicts NMFS- and USFWS-designated critical habitat mapped within and adjacent to the Study Area.
Direct and indirect impacts to these sensitive habitats or protected areas should be avoided or minimized, as feasible.
Mott MacDonald
County of San Luis Obispo Operations and Maintenance Waterfront Infrastructure and Site Readiness Plan Study: City of Morro Bay
40 Mott MacDonald Restricted
Figure 14 ESHA within the APE and adjacent Study Area
Biological Resources Setting
Environmental Constraints and Feasibility Analysis Report 41 Mott MacDonald Restricted
Figure 15 Critical Habitat within the APE and adjacent Study Area
Mott MacDonald
County of San Luis Obispo Operations and Maintenance Waterfront Infrastructure and Site Readiness Plan Study: City of Morro Bay
42 Mott MacDonald Restricted
4.5 Biological Resources Recommendations
Seasonal Restrictions
Migratory birds protected under the MBTA and nesting birds and raptors protected under CFGC Section 3503 have the potential to breed during the nesting season defined as February 1 to September 15.
Construction activities should be restricted to the non-breeding season (September 16 to January 31) when feasible. If proposed and depending on the scope, dredging and pile driving may also be subject to seasonal restrictions to avoid special status fish and marine mammals (e.g., humpback whale) migration seasons.
Recommended Surveys and Studies
It is recommended to complete a biological resources assessment (BRA) and a USACE-compliant BA of the Study Area including a marine field reconnaissance survey (marine survey) to assess the intertidal and subtidal portions of the Study Area for the presence, or potential for presence, of special-status species and sensitive habitats. The marine survey would be completed to augment the preparation of the BRA and BA, as well as the cultural resource assessment (CRA), discussed below. The BRA would determine if regulated biological resources (including special status species, critical habitat, and EFH) are present and potentially impacted by the selected alternative(s). The BRA will include a literature/database review, reconnaissance field survey of the Study Area, report of findings, and recommended measures for resource protection. The BRA will analyze potential impacts to sensitive biological resources including, but not limited to, federally designated critical habitats, HAPCs, MPAs, and ESHAs. Optional surveys would include those for eelgrass and black abalone (Haliotis cracherodii), if determined to be recommended as part of the BRA. The BA will evaluate the potential effect of the proposed actions on endangered and threatened species and their habitats, including specific species and critical habitats. The BA is required under Section 7 of the FESA. The BA developed by the project proponent will be used by the USACE to consult with USFWS and NMFS. The BRA and BA would be utilized in preparation of the CEQA and NEPA documents, and would support permit acquisition. In addition, an Aquatic Resources Determination (ARD) is recommended to identify, locate, and determine the boundaries and type of aquatic resources (including wetlands) within the Study Area. The ARD will help to determine which State and federal agencies have jurisdiction over the waters within the Study Area and specific permitting needs.
Restoration
All areas subject to temporary disturbance should be restored to pre-existing conditions, as feasible.
Marine resources should be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. Special protection should be given to areas with species and habitats of special biological or economic significance.
Offshore sensitive habitat (also qualifying as ESHA) such as eelgrass, rocky intertidal, or kelp beds affected would be subject to a restoration plan approved by the CCC, CSLC, CDFW (for take or upland), RWQCB, and USACE. These agencies would require that any area directly or indirectly affected by the implemented concept design be restored to pre-project conditions (or better), including at least three years of maintenance, monitoring, and agency reporting.
Environmental Compliance Pathways
Environmental Constraints and Feasibility Analysis Report 43 Mott MacDonald Restricted
5 Environmental Compliance Pathways
5.1 Concept design Overview and Considerations
This report recognizes that any potential OSW O&M facility landside development in Morro Bay would need to be assessed on a site-by-site basis. That said, the land use, environmental review, and regulatory permitting requirements and processes are outlined comprehensively in this section and in previous sections to inform a range of potential development options.
Both Option 4A and Option 4B are modified concepts of the least constrained concept design (Option 4) that accommodate the berthing of two SOV’s at the North T-Pier and incorporate significant upgrades to the North T-Pier and waterfront commercial fishing and visitor serving facilities. The split location concept designs accommodate only one SOV and involve the co-location of the existing USCG and Morro Bay Harbor Department facilities with the OSW O&M facilities at the North T-Pier. A detailed study would be required to identify how the three facilities could colocate without interfering with one another and what structural improvements would be required to ensure adequate separation of the three. Option 4A, Option 4B, and Split Location variant concept designs (Variant A, B and C), centered around the North T-Pier, were determined to be the least constrained concept designs because their smaller spatial extent would limit impacts to community and visitor access and use and environmental resources, as well as reduce costs. The primary differences between the Options 4A and 4B are the location of the intermediate staging area. The Split Location variant concept designs reduce the distance of the new North T-Pier from shore and its northern extent, as well as its overall size, when compared to Options 4A and 4B. The Split Location variant concept designs also integrate significant upgrades to the USCG, Morro Bay Harbor Department, and the southern extension of the North T-Pier that would support commercial fishing uses. An overview of the anticipated environmental permitting requirements, constraints, and opportunities for Options 4A and 4B and the Split Location variants is presented in the following sections.
5.2 Environmental Permitting Requirements
The following sections provide an overview of the anticipated State, federal, and local permitting processes and approvals that would be required to construct the least constrained feasible concept designs described in this report. Each of the concept designs include proposed development of submerged lands in the marine environment and within the Coastal Zone. Development below the mean high tide line or mean high water (MHW) mark in waters that connect to the ocean are within USACE jurisdiction and the USACE leads interactions with the other federal agencies (NMFS, USFWS, USEPA, etc.) to address potential impacts to protected species, sensitive habitat and water quality.
The City of Morro Bay has exclusive local land use authority to determine the appropriateness of uses and vision for development on its waterfront. This authority is not preempted by State or Federal regulations. Future OSW O&M facilities would require City of Morro Bay land use permits, rezoning, land use designation changes, and likely changes to the City Waterfront Master Plan, following the process prescribed in the City’s Zoning Code, including voter approval for changes to the Land Use Element map designations in the Measure A-24 area. Following City approvals, a developer could submit to the Coastal Commission for a consolidated CDP, in accordance with SB 286 guidance. The CCC, based on SB 286 guidance, would lead a consolidated CDP process and
Mott MacDonald
County of San Luis Obispo Operations and Maintenance Waterfront Infrastructure and Site Readiness Plan Study: City of Morro Bay
44 Mott MacDonald Restricted
provide concurrence to the USACE for portions of the development(s) within CCC jurisdiction.
Additional permits from the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQB) and potentially CDFW would also need to be acquired depending on the concept design’s potential impacts. The project proponent would be responsible for the funding and development of the various permit packages and supporting technical studies for submittal to the USACE, CCC, RWQCB and the City of Morro Bay. The anticipated federal, State, and local permitting requirements are described in further detail below.
5.2.1 Federal Permitting
The USACE is responsible for administering several federal programs related to ensuring the quality and navigability of the nation’s waters. Section 404 of the CWA authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting through the USACE, to issue permits regulating the discharge of dredged or fill materials into the “navigable waters at specified disposal sites.” Section 502 of the CWA further defines “navigable waters” as “waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.” For the purposes of the CWA, the final authority regarding CWA jurisdiction remains with the USEPA.
Section 401 of the CWA requires an applicant requesting a federal license or permit for an activity that may result in any discharge into navigable waters (such as a Section 404 Permit) to provide State certification that the proposed activity will not violate State and federal water quality standards. CWA Sections 404 and 401 are typically consolidated into a CWA 404/401 permitting process and administered by the USACE. Additionally, Sections 9, 10 and 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 requires authorization from the USACE and in some cases the USCG for the construction or alternation of any structure in or over any navigable water or alterations to aids to navigation of the United States.
The USFWS and NMFS share responsibility for implementing several laws protecting the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources, including the FESA (16 United States Code [USC] Sections 153 et seq.), MBTA (16 USC Sections 703-711), and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC Section 668). Generally, the USFWS implements the FESA for terrestrial and freshwater species, while the NMFS implements the FESA for marine and anadromous species. Projects that would result in “take” of any threatened or endangered animal species, or a threatened or endangered plant species if occurring on federal land, are required to obtain permits from the USFWS or NMFS through either Section 7 (interagency consultation with a federal nexus) or Section 10 (Habitat Conservation Plan) of the FESA, depending on the involvement by the federal government in funding, authorizing, or carrying out the project. Approvals regarding compliance with the MMPA from NMFS would be required when projects could result in unintentional “take” of marine mammals. Proposed or candidate species do not have the full protection of the FESA; however, the USFWS and NMFS advise project applicants that they could be elevated to listed status at any time. The MBTA prohibits the take (including killing, capturing, selling, trading, and transport) of protected migratory bird species without prior authorization by the USFWS.
The MBTA of 1918 implements four international conservation treaties that the U.S. entered into with Canada in 1916, Mexico in 1936, Japan in 1972, and Russia in 1976. It is intended to ensure the sustainability of populations of all protected migratory bird species. The law has been amended with the signing of each treaty, as well as when any of the treaties were amended, such as with Mexico in 1976 and Canada in 1995.
The various concept designs are expected to require most if not all the following federal approvals:
Environmental Compliance Pathways
Environmental Constraints and Feasibility Analysis Report 45 Mott MacDonald Restricted
Primary Federal Approvals
Clean Water Act Section 404\401 Permit from the USACE for discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States would be triggered by sediment movement (dredging) and/or installation of permanent structures (e.g., pier pilings) in the marine environment, as well as discharges into freshwater streams, and associated wetlands when present, that have a direct hydrologic surface connection to a Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) such as the Pacific Ocean. Depending on the total area and/or linear feet of impacts to waters of the United States, the concept design would require a Nationwide Permit (NWP), a Letter of Permission (LOP), or an Individual Permit (IP). Section 401 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulate water resources differently. States certify projects based on water quality standards under 401, whereas the Army Corps evaluates ecological impacts under 404. Rivers and Harbors Act Section 9 Permit from the USCG is required for the construction of bridges, causeways, dams, or dikes within or over navigable waters. The USCG Department of Waterways works collaboratively with the USACE for any changes to navigational structures, channels or moorings as well as installation of any private aids to navigation. Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Permit from the USACE for work in navigable waters. A NWP, LOP, or IP would cover this approval as well, as it is a joint Section 404/Section 10 permit. Rivers and Harbors Act Section 14 Permit from the USACE for work that makes alterations to any USACE civil works project (navigational channel, levee, etc.). Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 USC Section 408, authorizes the USACE to grant permission for the alteration, occupation or use of USACE civil works projects if not injurious to the public interest or will not impair the usefulness of the project.
Secondary Federal Approvals and Processes Triggered by Primary Approvals NEPA Review. Given that each of the concept designs would require a Section 404/401 permit from the USACE, the responsible entity would be the USACE unless the concept design receives federal funding from another federal agency (e.g., Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). Like CEQA, NEPA requires disclosure of the environmental effects of federal actions. If a NWP is used, USACE would not be required to complete a new NEPA review. If a Section 404 LOP or IP is issued and/or an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA)/ Letter of Authorization (LOA) is authorized, NEPA review would be triggered. NEPA is discussed further in Section 5.4, CEQA and NEPA Requirements.
Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation(s). Section 7 of the FESA requires federal agencies to consult with the USFWS (for terrestrial species and tidewater goby) and/or NMFS (for marine and anadromous species) before authorizing projects that would affect threatened or endangered species and/or their critical habitat. The USACE would likely lead this consultation and request that a BA for each applicable agency be prepared by the project proponent to facilitate consultation(s).
Marine Mammal Protection Act Authorization. Authorization from the NMFS is required when projects could result in unintentional “take” of marine mammals, including activities that cause injury or significantly disrupt marine mammal behavior. The USACE consults with NMFS regarding the MMPA as part of the 404/401 process but if take is anticipated, an IHA or LOA would be appropriate to be developed and submitted to NMFS Protected Species division to approve take and avoid potential project delays. The USACE NEPA process would be expected to cover MMPA, but the USACE may request the applicant’s IHA or LOA to provide the necessary analysis required under NEPA.