AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE
RECEIVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR
PUBLIC REVIEW PRIOR TO THE
MEETING
AGENDA NO: 8a
MEETING DATE: April 28, 2026
1 Public Comment – City Council Meeting, 04/28/2026, Agenda Item 8.a Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council,
We respectfully submit the following comments regarding Agenda Item 8.a, Receive and file the Offshore Wind Operations and Maintenance Infrastructure Study – Morro Bay.
Although this agenda item addresses O&M infrastructure, such facilities are inherently tied to offshore wind (OSW) development and do not occur independently.
Biological Resources / Estuarine System
The Morro Bay Harbor and estuary constitute a sensitive coastal resource system supporting designated beneficial uses and ecological functions. We are concerned that siting industrial O&M infrastructure within or directly connected to this system may result in impacts to estuarine habitat, including areas that support marine species and bird populations that rely on the harbor environment.
These potential impacts include effects on water quality and the functioning of the estuarine system, including circulation patterns and tidal exchange that influence habitat conditions within the harbor. These impacts may also combine with other activities in the harbor to increase overall environmental effects.
Given the confined nature of the harbor and the proximity of sensitive estuarine resources, it is not evident that such impacts could be fully avoided or reduced to less-than-significant levels through feasible mitigation measures, or that mitigation would remain effective over time at this location.
Community Character / Land Use / Visitor-Serving Harbor The Morro Bay Harbor currently supports visitor-serving uses, including tourism, recreation, and related commercial activity that contribute to the local economy and the community’s coastal character.
The introduction of industrial O&M infrastructure within the harbor may affect these existing visitor-serving uses and alter the visual and functional character of the waterfront, which is an integral component of Morro Bay’s identity as a coastal community.
2 We also note that Morro Bay voters have previously affirmed visitor-serving uses for the harbor through local ballot measures, including Measures A-24 and D, reflecting community direction regarding the harbor’s long-term character and use.
Cumulative Effects
These potential impacts may also combine with other activities in the harbor and surrounding coastal environment to increase overall environmental effects.
We have lived in Morro Bay for thirty-seven years. We have raised our children here and now share this coastal community with our grandchildren. We strongly believe in preserving the character and natural habitat of our town for future generations.
Based on these concerns, we do not support the siting of offshore wind O&M infrastructure within Morro Bay Harbor or its estuarine system.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this item before the City Council.
Please include these comments in the record.
Sincerely,
Donald and Kristen Headland
Morro Bay
Attachments / References
Agenda Item 8.a, Receive and file the Offshore Wind Operations and Maintenance Infrastructure Study - Morro Bay
https://pub-morrobay.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=6521 Central Coast Offshore Wind O&M Infrastructure Study, Final Report, Morro Bay, April 2026, by Mott MacDonald,
https://pub-morrobay.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=6522
2 To state the obvious: I am against the development of off shore wind and the coastal infrastructure that would be needed to support it. However, I would like to direct your attention to a few inconsistencies and insights provided by the CCOSW O&M IS Study:
The CCOSW O&M IS relies heavily on a report by Rincon.
Rincon is responsible for writing the draft EIR for Vistra’s BESS. The BESS draft EIR was so flawed that (I suspect) it was partially responsible for the failure of Vistra to pursue their plans to develop BESS on their property.
The CCOSW O&M IS Study was prepared by Mott McDonald.
Mott McDonald also prepared the “Central Coast Emerging Industries Waterfront Siting and Infrastructure Study”, completed in December, 2022. (https://reachcentralcoast.org/wp-content/uploads/WaterfrontInfrastructure-Report-121522.pdf ) This study was commissioned by REACH, which states on page 56: “In coordination with city representatives, three areas were identified for potential waterfront facility developments:
North T-Pier, South T-Pier, and the footprint of the existing Morro Bay Power Plant Intake Building and associated infrastructure”. Who were the city representatives that coordinated with REACH and Mott McDonald to put us in this predicament? The same ones that agreed to the MOU on September 8, 2021? A few of the errors in the CCOSW O&M IS Study:
The CCOSW O&M IS Study incorrectly states that the land use/zoning of the harbor front and beach areas was changed in 2024 (pg.24). The land use/zoning was updated in 2021 with Morro Bay’s General Plan, known as Plan Morro Bay.
The CCOSW O&M IS Study incorrectly assumes (or would like us to believe) that the property across from the proposed new North T Pier is “industrial land”. As stated on page 30: “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.” It is not! Is this more deception by Rincon and/or Mott McDonald? The CCOSW O&M IS Study is based on “best case” scenarios, and openly admits to using conservative data to base their study. They weasel out of making solid recommendations by stating that further studies would be necessary.
Example: They estimate that a 600’ radius would be needed to turn a 400’ boat. Given the forces of currents and wind, not to mention harbor traffic and moored boats, it is foolish to think that a 400’ boat could turn 180° in our harbor without destroying the sand spit and the protection that it offers.
The CCOSW O&M IS Study gives lip service to the environment, our seaside lifestyle and commercial fishing. It admits that these attributes, essential to Morro Bay, would be forever altered by the industrialization of the harbor, but proceeds to rationalize the development of an O&M port, even going so far as to suggest that the infrastructure would be beneficial to our community. This type of statement echoes the draft EIR for Vistra’s BESS, which attested to “little or no impact” for everything from air and water quality to noise and safety concerns.
The CCOSW O&M IS Study fails to openly state that proposed location of the O&M infrastructure would be in a Marine Protected Area. This acknowledgement is buried in the Appendix in the Rincon-produced report (pg. 37).
The CCOSW O&M IS Study acknowledges the sea otter viewing area and nursery near the South T Pier (pg. 17). The study overlooks that fact that the otters are commonly seen in the harbor west of Coleman Beach (Mother’s Beach), directly in line with the harbor entrance. The study states that dredging and normal operations “may temporarily affect these habitats and present a permitting challenge” (pg. 42). “Estero Bay, is characterized by its 3 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” (pg. 116).
Failing to understand that the Southern Sea Otter is a protected species, and that activities adverse to their survival could have long-term (not temporary) negative impacts, is irresponsible, and that threatening their habitat would be illegal.
Note that dredging would take place at least once a year, and would displace many times as much sediment as is currently removed annually. (The exact figure is contradicted within the study.) Dredging is mentioned as one of the hazards that would threaten the sea otter habitat.
Regarding traffic and roads: the CCOSW O&M IS Study offers no accommodation, nor does it recommend improvements, for increased traffic or the size of the vehicles and/or cargo that would be needed to transport them to or from the docks or storage areas*. It appears that locals and tourists, pedestrians and recreational boaters, would be expected to give priority to O&M traffic and operations. (This type of oversight solidifies my suspicion that the needs and habits of residents, business owners and tourists have been, and will be, ignored by future developers.)
* The CCOSW O&M IS Study suggests that up to 30 acres of office and storage area would be needed to accommodate the O&M operations, and assumes that the Vistra property across the street is the viable solution to this need. Then, this begs the question: how do these items get to the proposed mammoth dock? Much discussion is undertaken to explain the displacement of everyone who now uses the North T Pier. Suffice it to say: this would be a disaster for the nearby businesses, restaurants, Harbor Patrol, the Coast Guard, commercial fishers, recreational boaters and visiting boats. No mention is made of where the Harbor Patrol or Coast Guard would operate during the construction of the proposed infrastructure. After completion, they would be expected to share their space with the O&M vessels at the new T Pier.
The newly-upgraded Coleman Park would overlook cranes and equipment instead of otters and herons.
The word “stakeholder” is used in a politically correct attempt to make it seem like everyone affected by a development has been considered. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the the CCOSW O&M IS Study, stakeholders have been loosely identified as “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” (pg. 42). Residents, commercial fishermen and recreational boaters, property owners, waterfront leaseholders, business owners, surfers, beach users and tourists . . . on other words, humans . . . have been ignored.
The projections for the cost of the project cover only the waterfront infrastructure. The estimates are laughable, given an admitted +/- 150% margin of error (pg. 11), which does not include “environmental mitigation, upland development, or costs to relocate or compensate businesses” (pg. 11). Not mentioned: cost of City staff time, environmental reparation, loss of tourism & the TOT and sales taxes that they bring, damage to roads, the cost of PACE, and a laundry list of other assaults on our community. Also forgotten is the cost of an election to overturn A-24. Good luck with that!
Who bears these costs? The County? The developers? The OSW leaseholders? Doesn’t it always come down to the “supposed” beneficiaries . . . which inevitably translates to the tax-payers & rate-payers? Now I feel as if I had just commented on another poorly-considered, Rincon-created, draft EIR . . . with so much more to say! So I’ll conclude:
Please, let us concentrate on our attributes, improve and capitalize on them. 4 JUST SAY NO to industrializing our harbor, our beaches, our dunes, our protected species and areas, our Embarcadero. JUST SAY NO to Offshore Wind Development and the Operations and Maintenance Facilities necessary to support it. JUST SAY NO to corporations, data centers, offshore drilling, commercial shipping, and any other horror that threatens to abuse our precious community.
Thank you!
Gail Johnson
AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE
RECEIVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR
PUBLIC REVIEW PRIOR TO THE
MEETING
AGENDA NO: 8b
MEETING DATE: April 28, 2026