Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

[Music] [Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music]

Hallelujah. [Music] [Music] [Music]

[Music] Good evening. Welcome to the May 5th meeting of the planning commission. Could we have the roll call, please? Yes. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Lef Fevers here, Commissioner Benfield here, Commissioner Van Antworp here, Vice Chair Moyer here, and Chair Allen here. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Do we have introductions, presentations, or announcements? Thank you, chair. I do have one introduction for you. I wanted to take just a brief moment tonight to introduce you to our new principal planner. Uh his name is Brett McNolte and he's taken over for Brian Banks who has gone back to the private sector. Uh so Brett started with us just last week. He comes to us with over 20 years experience in both the public sector and the private sector and we're excited to have him along and I invite him to come up and say a couple words if he'd like to. Welcome the button. There we go. Uh, Chair Allen, uh, members of the planning commission, I'm really happy to be here and to work for such a great city. Um, I look forward to working with you as projects come through and hearing, uh, your thoughts about, uh, the way the

city should develop or preserve or whatever projects you're working on. Um, let me know if you'd ever have any questions or would like to meet about anything. I'm available and if you have any questions for me now I'm happy to answer. Um where did you work? Um previously I was a planning consultant my own business. Um I worked for cities such as San Marino, city of Galita. Prior to that, I worked for a company called Recon uh in Galida. And uh prior to that, I worked for the county of Santa Barbara for seven and a half years as well as working in Northern California for various agencies. So, yeah. So, I'm happy to be here. Yeah. Welcome. Oh, thank you so much. Welcome. Okay. Okay. Okay, now is the time for public comment on matters that are not on this evening's agenda. So, if there's any member who of the public that would like to address us on any such matter, now's the time to come forward. Okay, seeing no one, we'll move on to our next agenda item, which is the consent calendar. Uh there's one item, the minutes of the planning commission meeting of April 7th. Uh commissioners, are there any comments? uh changes that need to be made. Move to approve. Is there a second? Second. All in favor? I Oh, I I I wasn't. I wasn't present at that meeting. Okay. You're you're abstaining. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Um the next item is the decommissioning and remediation of the Chevron carpentry oil and gas processing facility project. I am uh excusing

myself from hearing that project. I will be leaving the meeting room. I have a conflict uh under the law. I reside within 500 ft of the Chevron property. So, I'll be stepping out of the room and uh as a matter of personal convenience, I'm not going to return for the next for the last couple of uh housekeeping items. So, uh John, meeting yours. Thank you. See you. Good idea. Little switcheroo. Can you hear me? Does everybody hear me? Great. So, this is the decommissioning and remediation of the Chevron Carpentry oil and gas processing facility project. Do we have any exparte communication? Oh god. I have uh two two things to disclose. First of all, I want to disclose that I was previously employed by SRAA and SoCal Gas um which own a number of facilities uh on the perimeter of this project surrounding area. Uh it's my understanding that the decommissioning of the facilities under uh under this project is not is not contemplated and that Serra nor SoCal Gas are project applicants. Uh the FPPPC's regulations provide guidance uh when a decision may have a material

effect on a public official's financial interest. Uh based on my review of these regulations and conversations with the city attorney's office, uh the commission's action on this item tonight would not have a material effect on my financial interest. As a result, I plan to participate in today's meeting fully. Um and secondly, I would also like to disclose that I have visited the site uh and um on a number of occasions and thank you. Okay. Uh I had the opportunity gratefully to tour the area with the um applicants and the um facilities manager and three well there were four gentlemen and they were Ryan Jones, Kevin Dugane. Is that right? Uh Dugan. Yes. Dugan. Sorry. Simon Pier and Mark Mark. That's it. [Laughter] and uh they gave me a tour of the area. It was extremely helpful for orienting myself. This is a very big project and I want to thank them. I think they're u well that I won't tell you what I think it it's all good but that's it. I also toured the facility uh with Kevin and Mark and Ryan and Simon last week and it was very helpful to visually see that area. I had not seen it recently. So, thank you. And I did not I ride my bike down Dump Road almost every day, but yeah. And

uh okay, so now we're ready for the public hearing. Thank you, Vice Chair Moyer. Uh just before we get started, I wanted to make a couple of introductions for the benefit of your commission. So, uh from our city attorney's office, we have Cody Sergeant here to help answer any technical questions on the project. And then the city's consultant on this project is Luis Perez with MRS Environmental. and Luis is going to be taking the lead on the presentation tonight to walk you through the project and the EIR. Thank you, Nick. Uh, Mr. Chair, commissioners, Luis Perez, project manager with MRS Environmental. Um, let me go to the next slide. So, tonight we'll briefly go through the purpose of the hearing. Then we'll do an overview of the proposed project. And then we'll spend some time on the final EIR and the uh components of that environmental document. And then we'll move into the staff recommendation um later on in the presentation. As I mentioned tonight, what uh we'll try to accomplish is we'll review the final EI and the proposed project. We will allow obviously for public comments so that the public has an opportunity to uh present their questions and concerns on the project and then we'll attempt to respond to those issues and concerns. Um hopefully we'll get to certify the final EIR and the planning commission will get to accept the resolution and statement of overriding considerations and subsequently approve the development plan and the coastal development permit. So, a little bit of background, the application timeline, the application was originally submitted by Chevron in October of 2021. Uh, and then was found complete in March of 2022. Uh, it has

been a long exhaustive process that has looked at all the issues that resulted in the environmental document that is before you tonight. Um the notice of preparation was issued uh on August 1st and the draft was completed in November of 2023 and it had a 60-day public comment period allowing ample opportunity for the public to to comment on this important project. The close of the public comment period was in January at the end of January 2024 and now April 2025 we had the final ER release for review and obviously leads us to tonight. Again, a little bit more background with regards to the historical uh use of the site. There's been oil and gas processing equipment at this site since the 1950s. It was used to handle offshore production from the Summerland field and it began and it received first oil um from Platform Hazel in 1959. It processed up to 20,000 barrels of oil per day and 20 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas. Um again the facility consisted of offices, pipelines from offshore platforms, processing and storage facilities. The processed gas went to the S the SAL gas network and oil was shipped from the facility to other pipelines down south to Ventura and beyond. Now to the proposed project and I I wanted to point out that um before we get into the details of the onshore and offshore project is that the proposed project does not include any potential future use of the site. And you know I we saw that in a number of the comments that that we received on the environmental document and

subsequently to that. Um so I just wanted to make clear up front that there is no proposed development on the site. We are at and any proposed development on the site will be speculative at this point and therefore is not subject to environmental review. At some later date, the city is undergoing their general plan amendment and some discussion would occur there as as as to what the future use of the site will be and subsequent to that there will be some sort of application and environmental review for whatever potential future use there would be. Um we should also mention that the project is fairly extensive and is slated to occur in phases and last approximately three years. So with that uh the slide that you have in front of you talks about the main things that will occur as part of the onshore project. There will be removal of all existing above ground facilities and also subsurface piping um and all structures. Um all the concrete foundations will be removed. The asphalt oil spray and road base will be removed. And then there will be excavation and remediation of all impacted soils in accordance to a facility reme remedial action plan. There will be recycling and disposal of all materials removed and there will be restoration of the site in accordance with the site restoration plan. So this uh figure which is also part of your package shows all the onshore areas that are slated for decommissioning and and removal. And it's probably a lot easier to see in your figures than it is in this depiction, but we wanted to put it up uh anyway. As far as the proposed project offshore, all the pipelines will be uh pigged and flushed. pigging is is an

effort that puts an element through the line to clean it. Um and um they will be prepared for removal. Then the pipelines will be removed to the three nautical mile state water limit and the then subsequently the nearshore beach crossing pipeline segments will be removed. There will be recycling and disposal of all the materials removed and restoration in accordance with again the site restoration plan. Also the offshore portions of the project are under permit jurisdiction by the coastal commission that would also have to take action on the project after the city takes its action. And again we have a series of uh the figure that shows you all the facilities that are slated for uh decommissioning offshore and coming into the onshore areas. There are a number of facilities that will remain on site. They're not proposed for uh decommissioning. Um and they're not proposed for decommissioning for a variety of reasons and we'll try to touch on those um in a minute. Um in particular we um the Chevron has not proposed the removal of any of the gas company facilities, the sales gas facility in the peninsula area and the Petas Point uh facility which is at the end of the marketing terminal site. There are also a number of historic on-site idle idle wells. um those wells were not drilled by Chevron and it preceded their uh ownership of those facilities and we will talk a little bit more about those legacy wells later on in the presentation as we discuss the full removal alternative. Also there is uh no uh proposal to deal with the naturally

occurring oil seeps and we will talk a little bit about those later. uh they're naturally naturally occurring and they're considered part of the natural environment and as you all know in this area we have a number of oil seeps and attempting to remediate those um is some it's at times problematic. Also offshore there is a gas pipeline that comes onto the the facility area from platform habitat that is not owned by Chevron and therefore not the responsibility and and they're not proposing to do anything with with that pipeline. Um and then there is the platform Hazel and Haiti pip Heidi pipelines offshore and those were abandoned in place and under previous approval by California State Lands Commission. However, we will talk about those later because they will be part of the proposed uh recommendation from staff and it's also part of an alternative that we analyze in the EIR. And then finally, there are some power cables from platforms Hogan and Hoochin that also come into the facility, but again, they're not Chevron's ownership and therefore not the responsibility of Chevron to to decommission. So moving on to um the EIR itself. The EIR is a is anformational document for decision makers to be able to make decisions and for the public to understand what the impacts of a project are. It provides detailed information on the baseline what is there now before you you conduct the project. The EI identifies and assesses what the environmental impacts of the proposed action um is what what would happen if you do the activities that are proposed there. Um it also provides a number of mitigation measures to ensure that whatever impacts that occur are properly mitigated and it also identifies alternatives. Are there other things

that could be done on this site um that uh would diminish the number of impacts that occur? And we also are required to select an environmentally superior alternative. Um environmental documents for decommissioning projects are a little bit different than for development projects. You do not have a lot of choices. When you're doing a development project, you have a series of alternatives that you can come up with um as to whether you can construct a hotel that is bigger, smaller, a different type of development. When you have a decommissioning project, you're you're set to what the proposed project is, and the level of creativity for what you can do to decommission the site is fairly limited. So, the EIR, which um I'm sure you all have taken a look at, has a number of chapters. Um, excuse me. One is the executive summary that provides you with basically a synopsis of what's in the document. um we uh were required to have it, but we also encourage folks to look at the document in detail if you're interested in more detail because not all of it can be included in that executive summary. There are impact summary tables. It contains an introduction, a full project description. It also talks about cumulative project description and then it has a chapter chapter four which has all the environmental analysis and the mitigation measures. Chapter five then goes into the envir the alternatives analysis and finally you get to the mitigation monitoring program and all the appendices. So um in this slide you see the issue areas that we looked at as part of the environmental document as required by SQA. Um and you know we looked at aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources,

uh climate change, safety, risk of abset and so on. all the potential issues that could be affected by the project during the project execution throughout the EIR. We then um define what kind of impact can occur in each one of these issue areas and the type of impacts that could occur are either significant and unavoidable or class one impacts and those impacts are the impacts that cannot be fully mitigated. Doesn't matter what you do, the impact is not mitigable. There are also less than significant impacts with mitigation or class 2 impacts. And these impacts are significant, but they can be mitigated with mitigation measures. And then finally, there are less than significant impacts or class three adverse but insignificant. So uh significant and unavoidable impacts or class one impacts were found in the following issue areas. And keep in mind that this is a worst case scenario. So we have to try to analyze what is the potential what is it that could possibly happen not necessarily what will happen. So it is a conservative uh approach to analysis and with the interest of dulging to the public and decision makers what could happen as a result of implementing the project. In this particular case we have a safety and risk class one environmental impact that is related to the potential for an oil spill to occur during the time that they're doing the decommissioning of activities there. These are all facilities that have long been um in disuse and there could be um potential releases um of of hydrocarbons during the time that the project is

being conducted. As a result of those potential um oil spill releases, you can have impacts onto biological resources or water resources. And so those are the resources that could potentially be affected by the bi by the potential oil spill. So what we have here is what we described again conservatively as three significant and unavoidable impacts, but they're really one and and and the one and only potential significant and unavoidable impact, which is the risk of an oil spill. And and the fact is that we have to analyze it in the other issue areas because those are the issue areas that could be affected by that by that potential oil spill. So in order to mitigate those impacts, although we claim that they are class one and and mitigable, we also are required to come up with mitigation measures to try to diminish the level of impact in as much as is possible. And so for those uh particular uh impacts, we have a mitigation measure of a spill response planning. We also have in biology an oil spill contingency plan and for water resources a storm water pollution prevention plan. And you know we we try to diminish the level of impact in as much as as can possibly be managed with with these uh plans but we still feel that even with all of those if there is an oil spill in the ocean or into resources that could be significant and unavoidable impacts. Then we have significant and and mitigable impacts. So this is where again you have impacts that could be adverse but if we implement all these mitigation measures we feel that this these impacts can be reduced to less than significant. And here we have some impacts on aesthetics. In this particular case is related to lighting.

So we have a night lighting minimization plan. In biology we have the potential to affect sensitive species. And so we have a series of requirements that include a number of agency approvals and this project will be subject to permits by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. It will be uh required to be permitted again by the coastal commission. Noah will have to provide some permits for the project. Um and and and a number of other uh approvals will be necessary. So uh it is not just the city that will be acting on this but others al also have responsibilities for this multi-jurisdictional project. There are requirements for habitat restoration and revitation plans preconstruct construction wildlife surveys. There will be fencing to separate uh the areas where uh the work would occur. A worker education and awareness plan. also marine wildlife contingency and training plan implementation both for things that would happen onshore and also for the efforts that would occur offshore. There is also a harbor seal rrookery monitoring and protection plan and a wildlife relocation and monitoring program for bio uh 2. We have adverse effects on riparian habitats. And again, we have environmentally sensitive habitat impact avoidance, scrub mitigation, and essential fish habitat avoidance as mitigation measures. And then for biology 3, adverse effect on protected wetlands, we have the requirements of regional water and and US Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Fish and Wildlife Regulations. and compliance with those. We have wetlands pre-construction surveys, coastal wetlands mitigation plans. And then finally for Bio5, we have three

preservation policy which requires three removal mitigation uh when that occurs. Um also we have some significant and mitigable impacts on cultural resources. There are cultural resources on the site and so there will be a requirement of a cultural resources management plan workers uh cultural resources awareness, cultural resources monitoring, exclusion zones, uh data recovery of excavations, curation of project materials. And then if human remains are found um the requirements for on call forensic anthropologies anthropologist to be on site and then human remains discovery program also uh class 2 impacts uh are likely to occur on greenhouse gas emissions. So there is a requirement for greenhouse gas emissions reductions. There is uh some geology impacts on soil erosion and siltation. Um and so there is a requirement for erosion control best management practices. There are also potential for bluff impacts as a result of the pipeline removal through the bluffs. And so there is a requirement for a bluff stabilization plan and then bluff stabilization during the pipeline removal and then subsequent to that there is bluff stabilization following the pipeline removal. Because some of the material that comes out of the site is contaminated, there will be um potential impacts as a result of transportation of those hazardous materials. So the applicant will be required to prepare a contaminated soil handling program. And then um there is a potential for fire risk. So you will have a mitigation measure of fire response planning. Um and then also for noise, there will be some temporary noise increases. And so there'll be a

requirement for noise barriers monitoring and then u some curtailment of nighttime activities to prevent those u impacts. Um, so that's a a very fast overview of of a very extensive environmental document and obviously if you have questions on any specific issue areas or any specific impact or any specific mitigation measure um we'll uh try to respond to those. Um we move on to the alternatives and with regards to alternatives requires you to look at uh any alternative that continues to meet the objectives of the project but that reduces impacts to less than significant. And so in an attempt to do that we look at okay what can be done on this site again with the limitations that I spoke of earlier u as to how limited you are with with a a decommissioning project. Um, SQA requires you to look at what are the impacts of a no project alternative and that means what happens if you do not conduct the project. If the project does not move forward, what are the impacts of that? So those are analyzed in the environmental document. Um, we came up with a full removal alternative and we defined that as removing all the facilities that could possibly be removed that are on site. And so in doing so, we included the um the legacy wells that that are within the facility. We also included trying to remediate the uh some of those uh seeps, natural occurring seeps that are on the site. And we also included removal of the pipelines that were not previously included by Chevron, the Hazel and Heidi pipelines. Um, so in in the process of including that in the environmental document in the draft EIR, we received comments from both Cal Gem

and from the Department of Conservation who are uh the the ones that typically oversee the decommissioning and plugging and abandon abandonment of oil wells. Um, and we also heard from the coastal commission with regards to the oil seeps. In the case of the legacy wells, Calg made it clear that there was no regulatory requirement to compel Chevron to abandon those wells at this time. Uh they're not intending to do anything to the site that could affect those wells and so it was not uh feasible to include that as part of the project uh alternative this this project alternative. Similarly, uh the coastal commission in their common letter uh stated that they felt that the uh naturally occurring seeps were part of the natural environment, part of the natural baseline conditions and that there would be no requirement or there was no requirement for the applicant to address those. Um so in the process of preparing the final EIR between the draft and the final u we came up with a new alternative which uh which is the proposed project. So all the things that we discussed earlier plus including the Hildan Hazel pipeline removal alternative and so this is the new alternative that was that is described in the uh final EIR. Um, and then there were a number of other alternatives that we considered, but we eliminated them because either they did not meet the objectives of the project or they could potentially have more environmental impacts. And those were the removal of offshore only alternative. And obviously, if you only remove the uh items that are um offshore, you would still have all the items onshore remaining. So, it wouldn't complete the project. Um, and then the same would be

the case for removal of onshore only. Um and then we also looked at the potential for reducing impacts on the trucking destinations as an alternative. Um and again we didn't find any uh value in in in pursuing those. So after um reviewing all the uh alternatives and looking at all the potential environmental impacts we um you know and this is kind of a difficult uh table to read particularly at this size but it is part of the environmental document. It is in the final EIR page 5-14. Um and what we try to do is compare the impacts of the proposed project then to the no project the full removal alternative and then the project plus Hildan haze of pipelines alternative and as you can see um and there is a a substantial discussion within the document in chapter 5 that that talks about this but uh this is this is the synoptic version of it. The impacts of the proposed project versus the proposed project plus Hildan Hazel uh pipeline removal alternative are very similar. Um there is a slight advantage um in the geology because with the Hildan Hazel uh removal you have the reduction of the geological impacts of removing the potential for future erosion of the bluffs. And so they're very similar. Uh but the addition of removal of those additional pipelines makes that alternative um the environmentally superior alternative. And basically I got ahead of myself and this uh this slide has that discussion. Uh again the full

removal alternative is not considered feasible at this point. there are no regulatory requirements for this alternative. Um and so we could not consider it to be environmentally superior. And then although they have similar u levels of impacts, um we found that that Hilda and Hazel pipeline removal alternative results in it being environmentally superior. Now we move on to the statement of overriding considerations. And what this is is that secret requires a decision maker to adopt a statement of overriding considerations if you're approving a project that has significant and unavoidable impacts. Um again we we mentioned that those are related to oil spill and then the potential for water resources and biological resources to be affected by that potential oil spill. Um what what we do with the statement of overriding considerations is we try to come up with reasons why uh we feel that the decision makers should be compelled to approve the project regardless of the potential for those significant and avoidable impacts. And in this particular case, it is fairly obvious that a project that is attemp attempting to um remediate contaminated soil, a project that is uh taking out dilapidated unused facilities that are an eyesore, uh facilities that uh taking out facilities that are going through the bluffs um that could contribute to deterioration, erosion um in the future have a number of beneficial effects. And so in writing the statement of overwriting consideration, we have included all of those and those are part of your resolution and they're written in far more detail in your uh staff report package. Uh but I just wanted to point out what what those were and and the reasoning behind them.

Um, we also looked at the consistency with the zoning code. The the site is zone MCD and wreck and um is within the coastal appeals which means that the final city action is appealable to the coastal commission. It is also within environmentally sensitive habitat. Um, and so it meets the coastal plan development standards. It is consistent with zoning requirements uh through application of all the EIR mitigation measures that we dis discussed previously and then it has a number of beneficial effects after the project com uh completion and so staff concludes that that required DP CDP findings for approval can be made. Similarly for the general plan and coastal land use plan um there is a complete analysis in the staff report and there is a preliminary one within the final EIR that provides the uh the applicable uh policies and the consistency with those applicable policies. there are u beneficial long-term effects of completing the decommissioning and remediation project and adherence to the EI mitigation measure ensures consistency with the intent of those policies. Um also there are when we talked about all the mitigation measures all those mitigation measures become conditions of approval and those are also part of your package. Um and so there are a number of of uh conditions of approval. You have all the EIR mitigation measures are included within there. There's a requirement for a mitigation monitor and a reporting plan. Um there is a requirement for an environmental compliance monitor. So um all the items that are being um conducted that are proposed to being conducted by Chevron will also have oversight by the city to ensure that they're complying with all the conditions appropriately. There is

requirements for site maintenance. There are also requirements for an engineering permit for all the earth work and excavation. There's a traffic management plan. And we also received a letter from the air pollution control district with their requirements, some of which are already included as part of the EIR, but they're also included uh in your package um as uh as required by the APCD. And then there are a number of regulatory agency permits and approvals that we mentioned before. So with that um the recommendation from staff is to to adopt the attached resolution PC-25-00001. Um and with that accepting and certifying the environmental impact report uh for the project as having satisfied the procedural and stat statutory requirements of SQA as amended and uh we we found that there was a typo on the table that I showed you earlier with the comparison of the alternatives and environmentally superior alternative and that's table 52 and ES3. there was an added um uh numeral um one in there in in the environmental document. So we want to correct that for the final. Um and then selecting the proposed project plus Hildan Hazel pipeline removal alternative as the preferred project and adopting the attached resolution approving the development plan and coastal development permit number 21-2128 DPCDP. And I think that concludes uh the presentation. Thank you. was very thorough. So, now we'll have questions from commissioners. Thank Thank you. I I just

have a few questions and um try to be as concise as I can and if if you're not able to if staff's not able to answer them perhaps the uh project applicant uh after the public hearing is opened would would take a shot at them. So um I guess the first question I want to get clarity on has to do with the harbor seal rrookery monitoring plan. And um the you know this issue appears in the EIR document as well as in the conditions of approval for the uh development permit. Uh it's uh condition 10 I believe. And um I my question is the the it seems inconsistent and I'm I'm trying to get clarity the timing of implementation of that mitigation measure. The mitigation measure being the the monitoring plan itself is only required for six months of the year. Yet the mitigation itself really talks about any work on you know within a thousand feet associated with the project. So you know we know that most if not all of the work that has the potential to impact the rookery is to be scheduled outside of the six months during the season. So I'm my question is is is that our intent is that the intent of the AR to only have monitoring during six months or is monitoring going to occur for the entire duration of of the year.

So Mr. chair uh commissioner. Um I think the intent is to ensure that monitoring is occurring when the activities are occurring and and I think the crafting of the condition language was uh was was designed to ensure that there was no implicit approval that Chevron could conduct those activities outside of those times. But certainly I can see where there could be some u some misconception here. So we will work to amend the language to ensure that it is um consistent. Does that answer your question? And just to clarify, uh I think Luis is meeting consistent with the intent that the mitigation monitoring plan would be implemented when any constructions occurring within a thousand feet of the rrookery and not limited to just the November through That's correct. May. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that. Uh [Music] um I guess my other question has to do with um and and um Luis, you you you mentioned this during your staff presentation. as as we know there's a num there's a multitude of potential uh jurisdictional issues associated with the project as a whole. Uh our action and issuing the permit and certifying the EIR is only one part of that. So my question is um what's the you know through the conditional or through the development plan coastal development permit that is proposed for

tonight what what mechan what mechanism in there is um intended to ensure that all of the other agencies who have involvement or may need to review or issue permits uh are engaged at the appropriate time and work doesn't proceed with without that. the as you know there's a long list in the environmental document of a agencies with potential jurisdiction and the kinds of permits that are likely to be required or may be required and and I'm my question is how do we as the city of Carperia through our action um you know how do we intend to have some oversight over that and make sure it occurs when it needs to. Yes. Yeah. Mr. Chair, Commissioner, um we do have a requirement within condition um bio or the mitigation measure BIO1A that requires uh all these other agency approvals and the city can certainly uh request that Chevron provide copies of those approvals um at the appropriate times that those activities will be occurring. And I think we can um probably add some language to the mitigation monitoring program or um within another portion of the document that makes sense within the conditions that that ensures that um that that they're not conducting any activity that is not permitted by those other agencies. Okay. So, if I understand you correctly, perhaps that's something that could be incorporated into the uh mitigation management monitoring program that's to de to be developed as part of the conditions of approval. Is that perhaps an area where that might be

covered? that uh through the chair, Commissioner Fevers, that's our that's our thinking on this is that we could amend condition number 40, which requires the MMRP to include uh that additional language stipulating that copies of all the agency approvals and permits would be provided by the applicant to the city as part of as part of the MMRP. Okay. Thank you. Um, this question is really just perhaps just out of curiosity, but it does have, you know, I mean it I think it's relevant for at least discussion. So the the this has to do with the scheduling of the project activities. the in my reading of the project description uh and the environmental document, it looks like the onshore portion, you know, the the plant site portion of the work is is pro and the total project is proposed to occur over a three-year period. And um I believe that that includes a relatively small work crew. Uh I think it was 15 people, but I could be incorrect. working in the plan area um sort of counterclockwise or um doing remediation work, removal and remediation work. And I my question is was there any discussion uh with the project applicant about um shortening that three-year period uh bringing in more crews to be able to accomplish that work more quickly? I recognize that may have other impacts. um you know, more traffic, uh uh more you know,

um higher concentrations of pollution, those kind of things. But I'm just curious if that item was discussed with the applicant. Mr. Chair, Commissioner, um I mean it to some extent it was. Um, one of the issues with with a project of this magnitude is that there are a lot of variables and a lot of limiting factors. Um, you have uh monarch butterfly uh nesting seasons. You have bird nesting seasons. You have the seal rrookery uh limitations. Um, you also have tides that limit when you can conduct some of the work. Um, when some of the work offshore is being conducted, you have limitations of bad weather. um and you know winter months and and so on and so forth. So there are um quite a few uh limiting factors out there that create potentially the extension of the project. Um I you know I I in an in analyzing the project we also believe that the applicant is uh the most interested party and completing it as soon as possible. Um, and so we do not believe that they're going to be out there longer than necessary and if it potentially can be shortened, uh, we're sure it would be. So, uh, this is a worstc case kind of scenario. Um, and so it may be that the project is completed sooner than the three-year period depending on, you know, what kind of progress they can make during the times that they have those windows of opportunity. Um but but again it's it's complicated by a number of resources and and and the activities that will be occurring out there. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate those clarifications. That's all my questions for now. Okay. Okay Jay. Thank you Glenn. I you asked questions I

had. Thank you for that. Um, I have a question about the six on-site wells that are capped or plugged. I'm not sure how you uh call that, but they're not abandoned. What could happen with those? Can they blow? Can they Are they just there? I mean, what is the potential for a disaster with those six wells, if any? That's uh that's an interesting question. Uh uh you know the the reality is that some of those wells never produced anything. Um and some of those wells certainly were drilled a long time ago. Some of those wells are very shallow in nature. They're they're not, you know, the level of of potential repressurizing of reservoirs underneath those wells that they all of a sudden could begin producing oil or gas is it's very unlikely. Um you know they you know it's it's you cannot unequivocally say nothing will ever happen with those wells. But um I think if history has been any uh can give us any proof is that they have been around now for 70 80 years and they have not had any issues. Now they're not plugged and abandoned to today's standards. U but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are any an imminent danger. Um and so I think in in reviewing those wells, uh Cal Gem also has come up to the same conclusion. Um there there's a number of things that that could happen. Um, one of the things that could happen is I if there is a future um, owner or a future proposal for u some sort of development

on the site that could have an effect on the wells, they may be required by calm to plug and abandon those wells. um at minimum they will be required to provide adequate access so that if those wells uh present a danger in the future they can have they can be accessible to be plugged and abandoned. Um there is also an opportunity for the city to u in a future date to request as a as as the local jurisdiction to request Cal Jam to include those wells as part of the orphan well abandonment program. The state has funding um every year to plug and abandon wells um that are similar to to uh to these wells. Um and so at some point um they would prioritize those wells to determine whether in fact they fall within the category of of some that should be high priority um and then subsequently use those funds to plug and abandon those wells. Um, again, I I think that from all that we know about these wells, they're very unlikely to present any uh any danger of leakage or release. And uh how deep do they go? What's this the most shallow? Um I think they vary. So cuz if you're building something that required a under structure, it might affect that. Um, you know, it's the well itself. Now I'm looking at uh table 4.7.1 within the final EI that discusses the idle wells and I don't believe we have the depth of the wells. Uh but again, you know, some of these

wells were drilled back in 1913. Um the year I was born, not that long ago. Um you know, and the the one that um the youngest one of the wells is from 1951. Um so again, there's there's currently no proposal to do anything um in the areas where these wells are located. and and there are remedies in the future um if something is proposed for those wells. And through the chair, if I can just add to, you know, uh the city has some experience with the orphan well program with Calg uh previously for some of the orphan wells that have been um drilled in decades past on the sandy beach. And so, you know, we I've seen firsthand where, you know, if if there is a concern, if there is an alleged, you know, leaking well or a problem that Calgam has been responsive and has come out and investigated those and and done the due diligence to figure out, you know, is there a leak? Is there a failed uh you know, capping of a well, is it a natural seepage and so on and so forth. So, um, they are responsive to addressing problems with legacy wells if or when, uh, something comes up. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. Um, and a couple one other question is who determines when we need an overriding consideration and who uh, approves that? Is it us? We, the planning commission, we approve that. I mean, it's such a back door to environmental documents to me. You know, it's that it says, you know, if we're going to make more money doing it this way, then let's do it. I don't mean with yours exactly, but overriding considerations are usually economic. And so, who decides when and

where and how we're going to do that? Or is it always with class one um uh impacts? Yeah. Uh Mr. chair and commissioner. Uh that's exactly correct. I mean the law provides SQA provides that if you have a significant and un and avoidable impact the uh decision makers recognize that that those impacts are occurring and as such you have to come up with a statement that overrides um those impacts. So in this particular case, I think a it's an easy case to make that the potential temporary impacts that could occur as a result of the project um are worth conducting them because you're going to have a beneficial effect of removing those dilapidated facilities and remediating the soil and restoring the site. Um and so u at the end of the day it's a it's a legal requirement of of SQUA and the decision makers in this case the planning commission u gets to decide whether does that statement of overriding consideration can be adopted whether you feel that that that that what we're stating uh for you here is is adequate accurate and correct um in offsetting those potential uh significant and unavoidable impacts. Thank you. And I just have a little more. The bluffs destabilization, what does that mean exactly? When you're pulling the pipes and things out, it has to resettle or you're filling or what does it mean? So, the intent is to stabilize the bluff in as much as possible when you're taking the pipelines out. Um, as you know, uh, bluffs are by their nature unstable and we continue to lose pieces of the bluff as time goes on. There are

erosional concerns, uh, on the bluffs and that is throughout California. Um, having the pipelines in place um, create an opportunity for uh, water to run above the line. It creates a conduit, so it creates an opportunity for erosion. And so what what has been attempted uh here with the mitigation measure is to ensure that as the project is being conducted all all things that could be taken all measures that could be taken are taken to reduce the potential for the bluffs to be affected. And then once the once the pipelines are removed, then you go back and you um do whatever you can to ensure that um the activities that were conducted are are then you know remedied so that um there there is less opportunity for uh destabilization of of the bluff. Okay. I'll I'll uh not ask you the rest. I'm Thank you. I have just a few questions. Can you hear me? Okay. Okay. Um, I understand that the decommissioning and remediation is by Chevron that the goal is for unrestricted land use. And you know, we've talked about bluff stability. We've talked about um a lot of the environmental concerns. It's an

environmentally sensitive area. Um and it and I I'd like confirmation on this that the responsibility for Chevron is um it's about 3 years of actual project work and then two years post. Is that correct? So a total of uh so Mr. chair and commissioner. So there are requirements within the plans for restoration and some of those may well go beyond that period of time. So I I hesitate to suggest that there is a limit on two years beyond the the completion of the project. Um there are requirements for uh for those plans and and um depending on the level of compliance that may go on longer. Okay. So, it could be um I guess I'm I'm looking at some precedent setting uh at the Lwood area up in Galida um in which the applicant was responsible for a good 10 years. So I'm looking for, you know, where does where does that responsibility stop post remediation and decommissioning? Just I sorry if I'm I missed it somewhere. So Mr. Chair, Commissioner, the the the number of years, you know, if I if I understand your question, I I I think that, you know, there is still the remedial action plan is under preparation. We have um in the environmental document attempted to address the the maximum amount of time that it would take to conduct the

project itself. But again uh uh for future restoration and you know once the project is complete um it depends on what the level of compliance is. Um and in some cases it can be completed within the two-year period in other cases it may be longer. Um, I I frankly do not recollect the the the two-year period beyond the three years. So, I have to look for that reference in the document. Um, and it may be that it's an isolated reference to a specific plan, but there may be others that go uh beyond that timeline. Okay. I just I the reason I'm asking that is I know that Chevron is deeply committed to making sure that this project um meets all the required signoffs. all of the agencies. I I understand that. I'm just wondering if something like we're looking at the the bluffs as an example if there is cause for further erosion um within a certain period of time or another issue comes up that's directly related to the project. You know, when does that when does that sense of responsibility stop? Yeah, I see what I see what you're saying uh through the chair. Um, Commissioner, I I think if I'm understanding your question correctly, um, what what Luis is saying is correct that there might still be additional compliance required, but I think what you're potentially getting at is sort of what potential liability there would be on the applicant. Um, that wouldn't be necessarily set out in the kind of mitigation monitoring. Certainly if you know something occurred with the the

decommissioning or the applicant's activities on the site that resulted in you know spills or or additional erosion you know um I I don't want to speculate too much but if there was some damage that that resulted due to those activities there could certainly be potential liability but that wouldn't necessarily be covered in the environmental impact report or the the project conditions. Mr. Chair, Commissioner, just in just scanning the document in a few different areas here. U one of the ones that I'm finding is is for example the replacement of trees that that failed to survive within the first five years. So there is a tree replacement program that is part of the mitigation measure. Probably where I got the five-year from. And so um it talks about some that may fail to survive within this those first five years they will need to be replaced and then subsequent to that that probably triggers another five years of uh of monitoring. So I I I do not see where there is a a hard line that suggests that they will be done within a two-year period beyond the completion of the project itself. Okay. And then in terms of of future liability then um that would fall to any future developer. Um I understand I I don't I do think I remember reading there is there are um certain indemnification provisions. Is that correct? through the chair, Commissioner Vanerp. So, the city has their own indemnification language that shows up

in the project conditions of approval. I'm not sure if that's what you're referring to. It was in the conditions that would be to indemnify the city, right? Okay. Okay. Great. Lastly is in terms of monitoring [Music] um is there is there [Music] a in the conditions of approval for Chevron? Um, is there a uh a way long-term access to monitoring reports uh for the public? So, a public transparency portal uh through the chair. So, um there are various reporting requirements for some of these mitigation measures that have monitoring components. So, for example, the some of the habitat restoration uh monitoring plans have, you know, a minimum 5-year reporting requirement on them and and with those come either quarterly or annual reports. And so, as the as the city receives those and as our employ or excuse me, as our environmental compliance monitor receives those, uh, we can go ahead and and post those to the the project page on the city website and make them available to the public. Okay. And that would be like in the hot topic section. Um that's that's where the that's the easiest way to navigate to the page right now. If it continues to be a hot topic, it can continue to live there. Um you know, it may be that uh eventually the project page will get relocated just to the community development department's uh web page. But in in either case, we can continue to make it available and accessible to the public and let folks know where they can find those those reports as they're submitted. Okay. Thank you.

One more question. You okay? I'd like to ask one more question about mitigation monitoring. Uh there's an awful lot of mitigation in this project which is remarkably good. I think who how does it filter down? Does it go to the to the consultant who deals with all that? Does the city who's the point person and how does it get how does it flow through the chair? Maybe Luis can help me with this one as well. But um yeah, the way that it would work, right, is the applicant is responsible for preparing the different plans and deliverables that are called for in the mitigation measures and submitting those either to the city andor the other regulatory agencies who might have some oversight over that particular issue area. And then uh you know ultimately the city bats last in this case in terms of accepting and approving those those monitoring plans and and um you know signing them off so to speak on the mitigation monitoring and reporting plan. That's part of what that condition is intended to do is it creates this matrix if you will of all those project conditions and requirements that allows us to track and and make sure every requirement has been complied with and the timelines met and the obligations met before we sign it off. and allow Chevron to move on to the next step. And so that's part of why we included in the project conditions requirement for Chevron to fund an environmental compliance monitor on behalf of the city so that we have a point person who's taking responsibility for making sure all those boxes are checked throughout the the decommissioning and remediation phases of the project. That's perfect. I didn't see that in the report. Thank you. Done. Okay. I just have a couple of questions. one um Chevron's uh comments to the DER uh one of them was uh tier one

environment screening levels for residential uses and they wanted that uh struck and versus the standard for on-site soil remediation consistent with chevron consistent with chevron cleanup objectives. Uh does that signify a lesser degree of cleanup? Mr. Chair, uh we do not believe so. Um originally Chevron had included that language and they objected. That was part of their original application. Um, I think that in their uh workings with the EPA and with the Santa Barbara County Environmental Health Services, um, you know, different language was adopted for that. But, uh, I would suggest that that, you know, Chevron answered that question specifically. Um, that probably makes the most sense, right? And it's it's common knowledge that Chevron will retain ownership once this is done. Is that correct? Uh, Mr. Chair, to the best of our knowledge that they are retaining um ownership until, you know, they don't. I mean, those are private uh inner workings of companies that can sell land or or uh lease land or whatever it happens to be. So, we have no control over um any potential future negotiation or sale of the property. I just point that out because uh they have a stake in cleaning it up. They have a big stake in making sure that it's done done right. I I think it get easy to get into a versus such and such versus and I want to I just said

that to try to alleviate that that they're they're a huge shareholder in this future. So, and then uh I' uh this is probably for Chevron, but uh I'd like to for you to explain to me how they're going to remove the pipes on the bluff at the seal rrookery. Uh in the staff report, it says removal offshore through top of bluff. So that that's sort of interesting. And uh then uh that that could be for Chevron. And then um who pays for Hild Hilda and Hi and Hazel. It's a financial responsibility because it's not it's not Chevron. Correct. So Mr. chair. Um, Chevron is the original owner of those uh the Hilden Hazel platforms uh that were removed in 1997. And there was a the the city at the time did not object to the way in which the project was conducted and approved by the state lands commission who had lead agency and jurisdiction over the removal of those platforms. Um but Chevron is ultimately the land owner or the owner of those facilities and as such Chevron has come forward and has agreed as part of uh the the review of this alternative um to uh include that as part of their project. Great. That's wonderful. Thank you. And just to add on to that, Commissioner Moore, uh Vice Chair Moyer, there are other you facilities here that are not slated for removal as part of this project. And so, uh, the intention is that the city would work with the owners of those other facilities to to seek their

decommissioning and removal at a later time as as those facilities are no longer operable. Yeah, it was my understanding that most of those are operable still and like the pier uh access to the platforms and the boats uh that's going to go on for a while, right? So the the pier would remain for the foreseeable future here currently at least through the end of the existing lease with Chevron. Um the power cables presumably are needed to continue to provide power out to the platforms until those are shut down fully. Uh the natural gas pipeline from is it Habitat? Yeah, Habitat into the facility that's owned by a different company. And so we we've had at least an initial uh sit down with with those folks and the owner of that pipeline to talk about future decommissioning of it. So, you know, the wheels are in motion on these things, but it's it's slow and they're all kind of on their own individual timelines. Yeah. Is Habitat still producing or is it is it finished? Uh, Mr. Chair, I I don't believe Habitat has produced for some time. Yeah, that's what I thought. Okay. Thank you. We're in the public hearing process and I'd like to hear from uh the Chevron Rep. Wall-Ally D. Mazer. Is that right? Yes. Good evening. Um good evening. Hi. My name is Wally Massie. Massie. Massie. Great. Thank you. Is your green button on there? It is. Okay. Can you hear me fine? Yeah, I can, but I'm sure others could. Yes, ma'am. So, I'm the director for the West Coast decommissioning program um for Chevron. Um I was assigned to this position uh back in

2017. I moved to the area in 2018. Absolutely. Absolutely love living here and love the community. And uh so the comment that was made earlier, Mr. chair that we have a lot of stake in cleaning up this uh property which is a fantastic um piece of land in the beautiful city of Carperia. Um thank you for the opportunity to address the commission and uh for um facilitating this important process on behalf of Cheron. Um I'll be brief here. I' I'd like to also thank uh the planning commissioners, um the dedicated city staff, um all agencies, um scientists, engineers, uh attorneys, consultants, um and members of the community that contributed to the development of the U final environmental impact. act report for the decommissioning of the carpentry uh decommissioning and remediation of the carpentry um oil and gas facilities. Chevron supports the certification of the EIR final ER as proposed and of course uh there's been discussion about a few tweaks uh and additions uh as advised by the uh commissioners. Uh this is a a a crucial step uh that signifies um a very important milestone for the project and for our community. Uh it will allow us to as was

discussed earlier to obtain the additional required permits from all the different agencies and to start the decommissioning remediation um work as well as the restoration down the line. Um it will have immediately will have um um great visual impact to the community. Uh I think our first uh um work will be to remove the big tank in the big green tank and that will have um a very nice um change um going down dump road. Um, in any case, um, we can answer some of these questions that, uh, were mentioned. Um, we have a few of us here, but thank you for your support and partnership. Um, on the cleanup standard, uh, I'm I think the, uh, remedial action plan will show that we're trying to clean this, um, to high standard so it can be used for anything. We don't have plans. Chevron does not have plans to develop the site. Um and and no foreseeable change of ownership, but you know, things can change. Um uh as far as the question about uh Hazel and Hilda, who pays for that? We agreed with the city to remove those pipelines and and it's part of the project. So, Chevron will pay for that. And I can't remember what other questions that was that were mentioned, but we can answer those as well. I I was interested in the process of removing the pipes from the near the seal rrookery and the in the bluffs because the in the staff report it says removal offshore through top of bluff,

right? Um Simon, maybe I can ask you to to address that question. Thank you. Good evening. Simon Poulter with Padre Associates. Uh we're a local environmental consulting firm and supporting Chevron in their permitting of this project. Uh the removal of the pipelines through the surf zone and the offshore components. Uh and then finally the bluffs are really broken down into three components. There will be a barge offshore that will take the pipelines out through the state waters limits through the beach. We will also access the beach um from the areas down towards state parks and bring equipment down the beach where the pipeline will be cut. The bluff itself will be worked at from both the top of bluff as well as at the base. Um it'll be a short duration activity using heavy equipment. We've looked at options of actually lifting the pipeline up onto the bluff with a crane versus pulling it offshore, but the majority of the work will be done um to pull the the pipeline offshore to minimize the impacts associated with the work on the beach. But yes, the bluff um as you saw in our plan, we've done a a bluff restoration component, a study to actually identify it. Uh the Hazel Hilda pipelines were originally not removed because of consultation with the city about concerns about bluff erosion, but as uh any of you have entered the beach during the wintertime, those pipelines periodically get exposed. So the attempt here is obviously to remediate that for future use going forward. But the bluff stability plan will be submitted to the city by a registered engineer that will have performance criteria. Those performance criteria will hold us to that standard to make sure that bluffs do not have additional erosion once the pipelines are removed. Hopefully that

answered your question. I was I'm concerned about the rrookery. Uh that just the amount of activity and uh that's a I think a very precious element of the city of Garp. Well, and to build on that, um, as part of our application, we have proposed full-time, uh, both onshore and offshore monitoring, right? Our our biologists have worked historically at the rrookery. We're wellversed. We're approved by National Marine Fisheries to do that kind of monitoring. So, there will be full-time biological monitors on site through any activity on on that area as well as throughout the site. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you. Did anybody else have questions for him? Yeah, I had a while Mr. Palter is almost still at the podium. I had a couple questions just follow up. Um you mentioned the uh Bluff stabilization and monitoring plan and um just to follow up on a previous discussion, is is there a is there a standard that you go by with regards to the duration of monitoring after the work is completed? Two years, five years. uh is that something that would be included in the final and approved plan the duration post? Yeah, the the the intent is the plan the actual uh bluff restoration plan will con will include a performance standard. U bluff erosion typically is very episodic. Um it it's usually catastrophic at a better word that it doesn't occur a little bit at a time and all of a sudden a bluff slumps. One of the concerns obviously is when we pull

that pipeline out, we want to minimize the disruption to the bluff surface as as a whole. Um both the marine terminal, the um Hazel Hilder lines and the um pipelines that go right through the rrookery each are slightly different. So obviously we're going to need to make sure that no water is enhanced down that erosional area. So that bluff plan will include those criteria and we have to meet those criteria before we get sign off from the city um and other agencies that may be involved. So I can't give you a a direct duration whether it's two or five years because if we meet the criteria then that's sign off so to speak. If we can't meet that criteria, then the work would continue to to restore that bluff and maintain it. So if we experience subsidance after first rainy period, then that you would come back and correct uh restore that. Yes. Biological monitoring when we do a restoration. Typically it's 3 to 5 years based on calfish and wildlife requirements. That's what we've usually used for wetland mitigation. So that again you have to have a certain survival rate of your your uh vegetation. Once you've met that criteria, you can actually, you know, suggest a fiveyear monitoring period, but at three years, if you've met that requirement, they can approve it. Okay. You're done. Thanks. And then, um, I don't know if you had you or one of the other project uh, team members had a cared to comment on the three-year schedule and the crew sizes, those kind of things. Is that something that you considered as part of your overall work plan? and environmental impacts. Yes. And as you know, we have historically done work on the site, the former marketing terminal, for example, when that was uh those facilities were de

demolished and cleanup. So, we've used that past experience working on the site, working with the team. Um, so obviously one of the things we have to do once we take down the surface facilities, we need to get in and actually do some additional assessment to make sure that we understand any additional contamination under those facilities. Um, we have limitations. We don't want to be doing large excavations in the wintertime when we're getting water into those excavations. We also have Native American monitoring requirements. We we have developed a tribal plan which outlines how many monitors we're going to have on site. So the the the timing um I think as Louise said has been designed to address what we think is a worst case scenario. But between bird nesting season, harbor seal season, um I think the plan is designed to kind of maximize the the work windows that are available while minimizing the total impact to the community. Great. Thank you very much. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Uh, next speaker is Dustin Hosith. Is that correct? I don't. Close enough. It's Hoytho. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. Uh, my name is Dustin Hoyth. I'm the director of public policy with the Santa Barbara South Coast Chamber of Commerce, which represents businesses from Galita to Carperia. I'm here today to voice the chamber's support for the decommissioning project. Not necessarily to weigh in on the details of the project, but to speak to the commitment of the Chevron team based on my experience working with them as a regional community organization. As a chamber, we've had the opportunity to witness firsthand Chevron's long-standing role as a trusted and engaged community partner in Carperia and throughout the region. And throughout the decommissioning program, Chevron has consistently demonstrated a

commitment to transparency, environmental responsibility, and meaningful community engagement. My role often puts me in the position of community convener, helping to get the word out on various issues and topics throughout the South Coast. Uh, and I've been consistently impressed by Chevron's efforts and commitment throughout the years to educate the public about this project through presentations to our committee and our members or to our committees and members. Additionally, Chevron has supported numerous local nonprofits, uh, commi contributed to community improvement initiatives, and has consistently shown up. Uh, whether that's through hands-on involvement, sponsorships, or direct partnerships with organizations that serve our youth, our arts, our economy, and local families in need, Chevron has demonstrated a genuine investment in the well-being and vitality of this community. The next phase of this project is a significant undertaking and a milestone for the community. Chevron is uniquely positioned to carry out this work responsibly, safely, and with the same high standards that we believe they've demonstrated throughout. We appreciate the thorough work of staff and the commission in reviewing this project and support moving forward today. Thank you for your time and service to the community. Thank you. Uh, next speaker is Michelle Baker. Oh, is it miss? It's Michael. I'm That's okay. That's all right. I'm gonna be the first time I've been called. I'm gonna butcher every one of these names. It's all right. Uh my name is uh Michael Baker. I have the honor of being the CEO for United Boys and Girls Club Santa Barbara County. And uh we actually have a facility here in Carperia. And I wanted to speak uh very highly about Chevron and the significance and impact they've had on our organization. Uh not just only us. I can I'm speaking on behalf of Boys and Girls cuz I know they've impacted as Dustin mentioned many nonprofit organizations. Um I can tell you firsthand that if it wasn't for

Chevron uh and their support uh financial and volunteer support, we wouldn't have been able to reopen in July of 2020 uh during the COVID pandemic. This carpia club, they gave us seed money to help us serve the youth in in this community. uh a lot of folks weren't able to step up and support. Uh financial time times are very challenging. If you can turn the clock back to July of 2020, very uncertain times, uh Chevron gave us the seed money that allowed us to reopen the Carpandria Club uh and serve the youth here in Carpondria. um more important than the financial support, what I want to emphasize uh that's more meaningful to to me and in my world and and my role as a CEO is that Chevron not only great corporate citizen but they encourage their leadership to serve on nonprofit boards. Uh that kind of knowledge, institutional knowledge uh and experience is invaluable to to someone like me. I'm I'm trained to work with youth. Uh but when we're making strategic decisions and moving forward, having someone like Mark Corte, Nahabedian on our board, uh giving us his knowledge and expertise, uh it just it as I said is invaluable and and they've been tremendous supporters from day one. Uh even before Mark, uh serving on our board, uh his predecessor was on our board for three years as well, uh Sarah Dearman, and they've been extremely involved uh on all levels. So, just wanted to just wanted to share that with you and thank you for your continued service and um uh we support whatever we can do to to help Chevron in in decommissioning. Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker is Susan Allen. Good evening. While we all applaud the

decommissioning of the Chevron plant, we need to be mindful of the impacts to the community. Traffic, noise, impacts to the seals and recreational areas must be protected. Over and over in the documents, the term temporary or short-term is used. Those terms need to be defined so we know how those know how our community will be impacted. While I have many concerns about the decommissioning, our harbor seals are a huge concern. Please note it is both a rrookery for part of the year and a hall out 365 days of the year. Please refer to the area as the carpia harbor seal hall out and rookery. From my experience, having at least two monitors, at least two monitors is needed. It's a lot to to expect of one person to observe all that is going on and communicate effectively over several hours from the pier. It's not easy to communicate with workers below. You can best observe the seals overall from the bluff. On the beach, you can not observe all of the seals, particularly offshore. Seal watch has a long history of observing behavior and should be consulted before and during work. It is important to steer understand our seals use the sanctuary base 365 days a year. Harbor seals need to rest on land about half of the time. When work is occurring on the beach or any disturbances occur, the harbor seals flee to the ocean, but will return after time when they feel safe since they need to rest. So while it is good to start work when the seals there are no seals on the beach, it should be understood this is only because they've already there's already been a disturbances a disturbance causing them

to leave and that buying being on the beach working a disturbance is ongoing since the seals cannot engage in their natural behavior of resting on the beach. The overall seal count during the summer and fall tends to be lower only because of a greater number of disturbances. Some of the highest counts in Carperia have been during the summer and fall. And for example, on October 1st, some years ago, a high count of 365 seals. Also, please note Seal Watch has documented disturbances to the seals on loud operations north of the real road. This should be monitored and addressed if necessary. I am concerned about the potential recreational impacts to people walking in Tarpets Park, Jump Road, and other trails. I understand the impact are temporary, but neither temporary or short-term have been quantified. We really have no idea how often dump road, the trails through tarpets, and other trails may be closed. Generally, it's easy to avoid trucks on the shoulders of dump road. And I would hope some mechanism is employed to asssure that people are not stopped except in extreme circumstances of very heavy or wide traffic. Can we get some explanation from Chevron on the circumstances when closure may be needed and on the number of times this may occur? There is some ambiguity ambiguity in the mitigation measures for the harbor seals. On page 4.361, the mitigation measures are clearly stated to apply during the summer and fall months, but on the following page, perhaps it's a copy of standard measures. The uh the timing is stated as applying winter spring. 4.11.4.1

4.1 project trip generation. Please help me understand the math. How does 5,445 truckloads translate into a total of 303 trips distributed over a three-year project? Legacy oil wells will not be removed, but will the cathotic wells be removed? Confirm. Please confirm that all pipelines in the bundle on the beach and the stub to the east will be removed. And a note to the general public, decommissioning does not mean that the site is cleaned up and ready for its next iteration. There are many other items that need to be taken care of and this process will be ongoing for a number of years. Thank you. Thank you. Uh the next person is Susan. What? Maloo. Maloo. Thank you. I apologize. Yeah. I don't expect anyone to be able to do that. So, good evening. I am Susan Male Hugh. I um I study the harbor seals as a semi-retired semi-retired veterinarian and wildlife manager. I would like to let you know that I just returned from a visit with harbor seal experts at the marine mammal center in Salelo. It's one of the largest rescue, rehabilitation, and research centers in the world. These experts agree that the stresses placed on harbor seals specifically as a unique category of

pinnipeds resulting from climate change has compromised this species in carpria. Our carpriia harbor seal rrookery cannot withstand more pressure from the fossil fuel industry and the proposed activities include disturbances that will likely result in the demise of this colony. The final EIR does not understand or allow for the harbor seal normal behavior. With all due respect to Padre um who has good team of biologists in other areas, I have to say they do not understand harbor seals. their um draft EIR did a pretty um poor job of describing the nature and behavior of harbor seals. And the experts I was consulting with agree that not even Noah truly understands harbor seals. They're a very particular species and we are blessed with their presence here in [Music] Carpondria. I'm speaking out for the harbor seals of Carperia whose existence hangs in the balance because of Chevron and fossil fuel activities. Um, and yet the decommissioning proposes to release more carbon emissions as Susan Allen pointed out, all the truckloads,

um, all of the work that is going to be done and much of that is to achieve a tier one level of remediation of the onshore sites. If Chevron doesn't have plans for what's going to go in there, it does not necessitate that much. It should not ne necessitate that much hauling out. The plan designates a team of monitors. Can your team describe harbor seal groupings as an anti- predator strategy? Can your team identify flight readiness formation? Would your team record what percentage of seals are ready to flee and then place a stopwork order at that point? And if your team is not familiar with those behaviors, you will not catch disturbances in time to greatly harm the harbor seal's existence. I ask that in addition to what you must do for decommissioning, please take in reparation for the damage done and obtain the onshore and offshore area that is harbor seal habitat for a marine protected area to protect that area in

perpetuity. This final EIR is not complete. It it is not sufficient to protect harbor seals. So, thank you for your time. Thank you. Uh, the next person, Randy Moon. Randy Moon. Is that right? Hi, my name is Randall Moon and I'm here to speak on behalf of the Harbor Seals since they don't have too many voices in this room. For over hundred years, there's been Harbor Seal rookery and and people have visited this for for just about as long of a period of time. There's thousands of people who go through and observe the the seals from from up on the bluffs and and after years and years of that they've raised millions of dollars in in in in funding for the city. But money should should dictate everything. And so so it's it's important to think that that even though millions of dollars are brought in, one thing that has to be considered is is to ask if the city has prepared for a loss of of income when when this when the seal rrookery ends up collapsing from from the the work that's proposed. So the city will lose a source of funds. My concern about the EIR is that it doesn't go far enough. It's it's incomplete in in a number of ways. So,

for example, ignorance of habitat. The ER doesn't recognize that anywhere that that the seals are required to spend half their time on land and half of it in the water. That's made by their physiological demands of where they eat and where they sleep and where they do other physiological processes. And nowhere does does this show up in the EI. And so it seems that if if you don't even know where the seals are living, that they're in both the beach and in the water. If you don't know where they're living, then it's going to be hard to protect them. Another aspect of of harbor seal biology is called sight fidelity. Harbor seals are are different from sea lions in that harbor seals live in one place year round. They they they there is no season. They they live there year round and they live within just a few miles of where they were born. So that's the sight fidelity. And so if you try to take harbor seals out and and put them in in a new location so that you can continue your work in that area. They'll they'll just come back if at all. But you can't relocate them. You can't capture them and relocate them. So basically it boils down to you can have either seals or or people. And I I can understand that Chevron has the best of intentions and and wants to remove the the pipes that go through the the rrookery, but the simple fact is that that would basically destroy the rookery. You you can't always undo something that's been done no matter how much you might wish it. So, and so the only thing that we can do to that will allow the hundreds of of seals that live there, the only thing that we can do that'll allow them to continue is to leave them alone, cap the the the piping and and just stay away

from them. They're very adept at recognizing people's odor and smell and sights and dogs from hundreds of feet away. And if they so much as see a a twitch of a of a person, they will all flush into the water. And many people will say, well, there are they don't see any seals there no matter how often they come. But the truth is, a single dog or a single person walking by the bluffs and waving their arms or making sounds or walking on the beach can lead to all the all the seals flushing and they don't come back for days. And so we we've studied this nauseium and it's quite clear that the seals have a well-developed system for detecting intruders and they use that to to to drive away from the from from the from the threat and and ultimately ultimately they they will reestablish an a base of of of where to where to live. But sorry, Parkinson's is a real So anyhow, let me conclude by just saying that the rrookery is in danger of vanishing due to human intervention and activities. And it was curious that harbor seals are barely mentioned in the entire e and so that makes me think that people are hoping that the issue of of harbor seals will go away, but it won't. It's really a binary choice between doing the right thing and just leaving the seals alone on their 1500 ft of of beach or else going ahead and tearing it apart in the in the hope of fixing it. But I I'd like to ask that you please consider the

fact that harbor seals are a very unique species and a unique presence in the city and we're we're the better off for it. And so there are many people here who wish to wish to protect them and and help them survive. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Uh next person is Frank Arerodando. I'm sorry if I can I'm asking if this letter could be added to the record. Whether you guys get to read it now, but at least added. It's going to be the comments that I'm saying here today, but um there's also a great photo on page two I wish you to look at. So, my name is Frank Aridondo. I'm a chewing mash lineal descendant. What does that mean? It means that my ancestry goes back to the time of contact when the Spanish were here. I can trace back to the villages that my ancestors are from, the village of Tipu and Shalawa. I'm listed on the Native American Heritage Commission's most likely descendants list as a member of an MLDD within the Chumash territory. I'm a member of a handful of people that are designated with the disposition of human remains when they come up. I know that law pretty much inside and out. But being a member of that list, um it's a huge responsibility for me. And when I was put on that list way back in 2006, um I started to decide that I was going to look out for my ancestors by protecting them from development projects. So I went to school went to school to get a master's in anthropology, archaeology. I don't work as an archaeologist, but I do review archaeological reports. I know how they think. I know how things work. I know how the policies are. I review development projects such as these to make sure that we're adhering to all the

laws and policies and regulations that are allowed, make sure things are not mixed up. I've been doing that since 2006. Um I've worked with all of the various tribes that are in the area. Um after school, I went on to manage um cultural resource management crews and first started with the refugeio oil spill. We had to deal with cleanup. We had a 12-h hour whopper training. It was no big deal. Uh then on to Ventura oil spill. Had to do cleanup there too. Thomas fire, Rafuio, Thomas fire and Wy fire. Each one of those were eight months, six months on one and eight months on the other. Four years consecutively working my butt off in all those fields as the project lead and manager dealing with cultural resources in hazardous waste material. I've also worked on this project doing the site assessment and the soil testing since 2018. since like forever. I've been there. I think what 700 auger holes, it's enough to kill you. But um I know where everything is. And fortunately um my understanding is that tribal leadership was consulted in the creation of the culture resource management plan. People who have not worked in this industry under these specific conditions. I know one person that came on during Woolseie that was there, but that's one. I wish I would have been brought in. I'm not leadership according to them. But however, I did start my own my own little group, Quesensky Muash, and I did submit a request for consultation, but apparently that has been concluded, and I don't know what that means under AB52, but that's another discussion. Um, I am in support of this cleanup project. I am. I want it to go forward. I think it's a great idea. However, there are things that are in this environment impact report that lines are a little blurred. They're a little off. There's some

changes that need to be made just to make it flow correctly. Um, I will say that one of the items on page two of that document I sent refers to the California airport or Carpentry airport. Sorry, there's no mention of it. It was here. Like this is the warehouse is right there. This is where the parking lot was. The runway was right through there, the MTCSC Center driveway. When we did our core samples, the road was so hard because it was so compacted. But that image shows you that this was part of the airport. At least some honorable mention. It wasn't there for many years, but at least, you know, history. Um, so that would be nice. Um, I'm specifically talking about the archaeological resources. Now, title 14, section 151126.4 for talks about mitigation measures. What is a mitigation measure? It falls into two categories. Either preservations preser preservate preservance. I'm sorry, I can't get the word right. Preservation or recovery. When you preserve, you do that by either avoiding the site, you incorporate parks or green space, or you cap it with a layer of soil, or you deed it into a conservation easement, right? Um because this is an oil cleanup site, hazardous waste, there's not much preservation that's going to take place because anything you find is going to be contaminated. Um this leaves recovery. Under SQA, the only items that are recovered are things that are significant that meet the criteria of significance. If it is significant, it goes to get studied in a repository. What if it doesn't? There are things under tribal cultural resources that are super significant, but they're not required to go to a repository. What happens to those? So, there's kind of a little hole in that one. When we did the soil remediation programs, we had a

process for dealing with those. So, um, we go and look at the mitigation resources with that in mind as to preservation or recovery. And you look at all of the items that are listed there. Colt 1A talks about creating a uh talks about creating a conservation management plan. Well, that's not preservation. That's the process of um addressing personnel and monitoring. Uh 1B, it's not a mitigation measure. Oh, cultural resource 1E data recovery. That is a mitigation measure. So, you got one for that. 1 F is sending it to a repository. Not a mitigation measure. um 2 a not mitigation but rather a best management practice to identifying a resource. That's where you have a monitor and whatnot. Uh 2B, it's a law. That 2B has to do with the discovery of human remains. Under public resource code 5097.98 is a law that when you find human remains, you step out of SQA and you do all of these steps. It's a law to cite it as a mitigation measure. You're citing a law as a mitigation measure. I think that's kind of you're not supposed to do that. That's that's a breaking of the law violation. Um this is important because under SQA mitigation measures that are being imposed upon a client have a financial limitation. It's something like one or 1.5% of whatever the total cost project. Human remains are not part of SQA. There's no cost associated with it. So you can't call it a mitigation because now you're going to set up the applicant under the presumption that it's covered by that financial cost limitation. So boom, that gets tossed out. Um, and I know people have discovered that where they've had applicants who contested the amount of

money to do deal with human barrier rearials. Yeah, it's not covered under SQA. So um, so out of all that, one is a true mitigation measure. The rest are best management practices and personnel practices. A monitor acts as a liaison to all the parties. They know the knowledge of all the related laws, the conditions of approval. They know when something is supposed to go this way or that way and be able to notify all the rel uh relative parties involved. Um they're professionally qualified to identify a resource, the difference between a cobble or a mono. And um in this case, you need something that talks about the hot zone. They should have 40hour househ whopper training certified as well as the applicant should be able to provide the monitors with proper PP PPE if it's needed. When we first started doing the soil testing, we had to have fire affected clothing, FR clothing, as well as there was talk about whether or not we needed respirators. Those are things that are needed if you're going to be doing this kind of soil disturbance that particles will bust up into the air. You're going to get that stuff on you. And the question is, are you going to be impacted by that by hazardly? Why? It shouldn't fall upon the monitor to maybe you can condense it a little bit. You've gone on way too long. Thank you so much. I I was surprised too. I'm almost done. Uh so yeah, that should be included. There's an exclusion Joan that that is referred. That's has terminology that shouldn't be used. And uh let's see. I already did that. Going forward, the CRMP is going to be edited and be in line with this project. My ask and I've asked Nick over there, include me in that. I have valuable knowledge to make that a better project or better outline with my experience and all these other hazardous waste things. There's there's

good stuff that could be done. tree removal and 10 feet below surface all should be um um monitored. 10 feet below surface of soil disturbance should all be monitored. And lastly, I pray for a conservation easement to be added so those items that are not significant get reeried on some place on this property so it stays with the land and it's attached to the deed of the t the title deed so that in perpetuity is never to be disturbed. That means that if Chevron sells the property, the next owner will know, well, we can't touch that spot. Thanks. Thank you. That's all I have to say. Thank you. The next uh speaker is Whit Holless. [Music] Good evening. Uh I just have a very quick comment or two comments on a very complex project that people have been working on for very long time. Uh in a former life I had uh experience dealing with offshore and or or coastal decommissioning and hazardous material cleanup. The fact that this uh program is going to residential cleanup standard is very prudent and uh preserves options for future planning for the property which is very important for the city. And two, for whatever it's worth, my experience with Chevron is they all do what they say. They're honorable. Thank you. Thank you. And that's Do we have anybody else that wants to address the commission? No. So bring Oh, okay. Patrick O' Conor, I'm gonna unmute your microphone so you can make your public comment. You should be good to

go. All right. This is Patrick Okconer. Go ahead. Thank you. I think you can hear me now. I appreciate it. I'm speaking as a resident of District 5 in Carperia. And just a couple of thoughts. Um the uh the report speaks to the groundwater um risk as being fairly low. I can appreciate that in a normal course and I'm just curious how that gets affected in the event of a release and how the storm water mitigation plan would affect groundwater quality um out of the ordinary course. Second question has to do with project management. Um it was interesting to hear that there was a similar project on the property um where lessons learned are going to be drawn from which is fantastic. My question from a project management standpoint is are the people that were associated with that work on the site previously going to be involved in this project physically and um to what extent is the overall project work and particularly the critical phases of of work um contracted or in-house to Chevron. Um and those are my questions. Thanks and good evening. Thank you. All right, we have another speaker. Um, Rita Psalm. You can go ahead and start talking if you unmute your mic. All right. I'm a Carperia resident. Um, I want to thank Chevron for all their years of work on this project. We're all looking forward to the decommissioning. Um, I have a few concerns. uh one accidental spills which is a class one impact. Two uh if you could please tell us the number of daily vehicle trips. Someplace

in the report I can't remember where they listed 62. Um I want to know if it is 62 vehicle trips or however many it is. How long is that going to be going on? Is that going to when is it going to begin? How many days, months, or years? If you could be more specific about that. Um, there needs to be a safe passage for people who use dump road to get to the seal rrookery, the beach, or the bluffs. Disturbances to the residential neighborhood, noise, pollution, road damage. And I'd like you to describe what the most stringent cleanup means. Um, I also am concerned as many others are with the disturbance to the seals and when does Chevron anticipate that this project will begin after permits and when will the pipes be removed? Thank you. Thank you. All right, we got one more. Molly Troop, um, you should be allowed to talk. Hi there. Um, my name is Gavin McDonald. I'm speaking on behalf of my partner, Molly Chup, who's actually putting our one and a half-year-old son to bed right now. Um, but Molly is the science and program manager at Santa Barbara Channel Keeper. Uh, their mission is to protect and restore the Santa Barbara Channel and its watersheds. Channelkeeper is in support of decommissioning and removal of the Chevron Carperia oil and gas processing facility project. However, they're concerned that activities required for the decommissioning of this facility will remain significant despite the proposed mitigation measures. We know from the data collected by the Carpenter Seal Watch that the number of adults using the rrookery and hallout in Carpondria has been declining since 2004. This decline is of such concern that the ad hoc harbor seal advisory

committee was created several years ago and has voted to recommend expanding the beach closure from 6 months to year round for 3 years. In February, the city council unanimously approved directing staff to investigate the cost and consultant needs of pursuing a CDP from the coastal commission for the recommended three-year beach closure. The three-year beach closure aims to protect the seal hallout and rrookery from disturbances that would be far smaller than the decommissioning activities, though significant enough to warrant the exploration of increased protections for the harbor seals. Comment letters from harbor seal experts, particularly those who are involved in the carpenter seal watch program, have provided lengthy and detailed comments about the DEI and FIR's deficiencies in the harbor seal mitigation measures outlined in these reports. We urge that the mitigation measures in the FIR be further developed and refined with input from the Harbor Seal Advisory Committee before final approver. Thank you very much for your consideration of these comments. Thank you. And that is all public comments today chair. Okay. So when I bring it back to the commission for deliberation and um the staff want to answer any of these questions. Yeah. Okay. Does the staff want to answer any of the questions that have been Chair Moyer, could we request a few minute break just so we can coordinate on making sure that we're addressing the comments that we received and can put together some responses for you? Yeah, that was 10 minutes. 10 minutes sounds

great. All right. Thank you. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat.

[Music] Hallelujah. [Music] Heat. Heat.

[Music] Yeah. Heat.

[Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music]

[Music]

[Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music]

[Music] Thank you. [Music]

[Music] [Applause] [Music] Yeah. Yeah. [Music] Welcome back. And now we're gonna have some answers from our staff. Uh Mr. Chair, commissioners, um we are going to try to respond to some of the more salient issues that came up uh during the various public comments. Um in addition, um I believe Chevron might want to respond to some of the comments since some of those were specifically addressed uh to to them to the applicant. And also um if you feel like um there are some things that were touched on that we're not touching on as we provide our summary, there was quite a few things there. So if you if you

hear if you haven't heard something that you're interested in, please let us know and we'll try to address that. Also, um, obviously there were, uh, quite a bit of comment, uh, regarding the harbor seals. And I think it's, uh, we should, uh, let you know again that there were a number of marine biologists that were involved, not only from Padre, but also from MRS Environmental looking at um, all the issues that came up as part of the potential impacts to the seals. Um there is also um it's also important to point out that although there is in some cases limited discussion about the harbor seals within the environmental document within the the body of the final EIR um there is quite a bit of information there and then there is quite a bit of of mitigation in in the harbor uh seal uh program but also um there is appendix C6 which has quite a bit more information, more detailed information as to how the seals will be handled and that is part of of uh the information that is available to the public. Some of the things um that are included there echo some of the comments um that were heard tonight um and that we have heard in the past. Um there is a for example a requirement for carpia seal watch coordination. Um and um in the plan it says that given their extensive database of information regarding the local harbor seal population in this area the carpentia seal watch organization will be notified and consulted with prior to any of the work uh activities commencing. Um um I'm just giving you some of the flavor of some of the things that are included there that are attempting to address some of the concerns um that that were stated tonight. Um there was also um some comment about the number of truck trips

um and the maximum number of round trips uh per day would be 62 vehicle trips per day. So that that is um you know there will be some variation. Some days there will be uh fewer trips but the maximum number um that was analyzed was 62 uh trips. Um there was also some comment about the um the truckloads and how the numbers did not add up and we have an estimated total of 5,445 truckloads which is actually uh uh tons of material that will be produced. And if you take uh those 5,445 tons of material and you divide that uh at 18 tons per truck trip, you end up with the 303 uh truck trips that is stated in the document. So the math does add up uh contrary to the comment. Um there was also some comment um about AB52 consultation and to be clear the city the requirements of of AB52 consultation are very specific and um one of the things that is required is that um the tribal members that want to be consulted anytime that there is a project are required to submit um a notification or a request for notification to the city. The city then in this particular case issued letters to all of those uh tribal members that had requested notification per the requirements of AB52. So uh letters went out to all the uh the Native American groups that had put in the request um and they were asked if they wanted to participate in the formal AB-52 process. Um out of that

only one uh tribal uh group requested that type of consultation and the city proceeded to conduct that consultation. Um uh that consultation has now been concluded because it uh the city came to an agreement with the tribal group that there will be a cultural resources management uh plan that would address their concerns and the details of that cultural resources management program are part of the mitigation measure and the conditions of approval. Now, that doesn't negate the opportunity to consult with others outside of the AB-52 process. And Chevron has been actively participating not only with the the tribal group that participated in the formal AB52 process, but also with all other tribal groups that have been interested in working with Chevron. Um that effort will continue to go on and uh the city will participate in that because the city will eventually review that that plan and uh we welcome any um additional uh information that is provided uh to us um as part of that process. So hopefully that helps address a little bit of of the concern there. Um there was some question about the uh the cleanup levels and I think Chevron responded to that. The cleanup levels are uh the the highest for the highest possible use which would be a residential use. So the site is going to be cleaned up so that it can be as a residential uh as high as a residential use in the future. Um so if there were any doubts about that I think that that should clarify it. There was some um question about uh

safety for access through dump road uh for members of the public and um there is a transportation plan that is required of Chevron and um to address the potential uh safety issues that might occur as a result of uh the use the potential use by members of the public. uh um to to uh be using dump road as trucks are coming in and out which could be potentially hazardous. You know it you know those are big trucks and so Chevron is required to provide uh some plan to address that whether is a a designated path that uh separates uh the trucks from potential pedestrians and so on that will be addressed as part of that uh part of that plan. Um, I believe those are the ones I have. There was there were some other comments, but um I I'm not sure um if if the city attorney wants to address. Sure. Through the chair. Just one one other comment. Um and and Nick can also chime in. Um is there was comments on potential recreation impacts. Um those are going to be addressed in uh condition 47. um discusses uh maintenance of access. Um sorry, let me see where's that uh so there will be there will be provided a detailed traffic management plan that'll go into more detail um including requiring plans for providing access to business um coastal development or coastal dependent uses and recreational uses during construction. And so that'll go into more detail about um what you know what potential closures there might be that would impact access etc. And then likewise it also gets picked up through the engineering permit for some of the excavation and grading work including um you know any earth work there through Tarpits Park for removal

of the pipelines or across you know the the public trail easements so that we can coordinate uh when those closures occur. Try to facilitate detours where possible. Think about how we stage equipment and work to try to have a minimal impact on the public's use of Tarpitz Park and the trails through the area. Um there may be you know some brief uh you know closures when when work has to occur within a trail route but the intention is to try to minimize that as much as possible and then Chevron wanted to speak speak Mr. Chair commissioners um I will try to take the easy questions and try to answer those. I do want to provide a clarification on there are a lot of concerns about oil spills. [Music] Um the the site the equipment in the site are pretty much free of any hydrocarbons. What you may find maybe some traces. Um, since we reassumed responsibility for for the site back in 2018, we spent a lot of resources, a lot of time between 2018 and we finished in 2023, cleaning up, removing all free hydrocarbons from the equipment, from the tank, from the piping, above ground, below ground, and flushing all these lines, cleaning the tanks and all the inside inside of the equip. equipment. So, if there's any loss of containment, again, it'd be more like a trace, not an oil spill. Um, and and I'm sure um we have great mitigation plans to address any potential release to the soil and and immediately we clean that

up. Uh the other question that was asked online uh was regarding the lessons learned and the personnel that uh were involved in that work on for this site previously and and and we have the same personnel that have worked the site in the past. Uh our site manager Kevin Dugan who's here will also be involved in this. And our project manager, his name is Chris Pensza. He's not here. is on vacation, but he he continues to be involved in this project. Thanks, Wally. Just want to clarify and and build upon what um what um what Luis uh has identified and and Nick as far as some of the mitigation measures. Um the cultural resource management plan that was referenced to uh building through the mitigation Chevron has been involved in an ongoing uh communications with the tribal groups and there are multiple groups involved in that. Um uh that process has resulted in a draft plan that will eventually be submitted to the city that includes training of monitors, includes hazardous material training, hazer training, provisions of uh the appropriate safety equipment. Um, so a lot of that concern is is addressed in the EIR mitigation, but the fact is that the plan itself is the the implementation tool that the city will have a right to review and um approve. So that will provide the kind of reassurances that I think a lot of the the concerns that were raised this evening. Um, also I just wanted to briefly touch on the fact that groundwater at this site is perched and it is heavily impacted by the natural seepage. So it's not portable. Um, so we will not be um I I would actually say that we probably going to clean it up a little bit more than it is currently

just because the excavations that we're going to be doing uh is going to remove some of that natural seepage as part of the activity. So that that will not be a concern. uh I think in you know in as was raised in one question and you know regarding uh cleanup targets um one of the things that was alluded to by Luis in his comments we are actively working with the US EPA and the county health department EPA has responsibility for the PCB cleanup the county has responsibility for the non-PCB mainly hydrocarbons heavy metals and pesticides and those plans will be reviewed and approved approved by both those agencies and then subsequently made available to the city because that's will be the standard that we're cleaning up to. So there will be ongoing uh interaction with the city but also the agencies with the technical expertise to review and approve those plans and give the city reassurances that we're meeting the cleanup objectives that are established by those plans. So I think there's a lot of good checks and balances that have been developed. the harbor seal plan that was part of our original application. Uh the 2001 documentation which is u part of the attachments to the IR that again has been developed based on our past experience working there on the on the rrookery and I I think we recognize the concerns that people have raised about the rrookery. We are really looking at minimizing the time that we will be on the beach during the removal of the Gale Grace pipelines. But note that the marine terminal and the Hazel Hilda lines are actually outside of the thousand uh foot um closure zone in in this in in there. But certainly the people that are involved in the implementation of that plan have many years of experience with working around that rrookery and we do recognize the importance not only from the biological component but to the

community. So, I believe that answered the the majority of the questions, but if there's any more, I'm certainly available. Thank you, Glenn. I will come back to the commission for uh deliberation and uh comment. Who'd like to start? Okay. Not sure what I'm going to say. Uh certainly have read all this amazing material. And of course, from a land use point of view, this is absolutely great. You know, I can't see a problem only a benefit for our city. And that is my purpose here, not to figure out all the ins and outs, the legalities, the mitigation. Is this best for our city? And yes, I'm unequivocally yes, it is. Now, the big issue is the harbor seals. And frankly, somebody has to make a decision. And my decision is that we should approve this document. But I would suggest to you all who take great umbrance with that is to appeal to the city council because this is a more political issue than it is a land use issue in my opinion. I know that Los Angeles International Airport, which I know and bore you because I used to work on that EIR, but because of blue butterflies in the Elsa Gundo Dunes, those runways are not long enough. And and it was political will that made that happen. Also, there's fairy shrimp. I don't know if you know what those are, but we had to move tons

of those for the runway. Um, I'm just saying that citizens can prevail in these matters. But at this point in time, having read it all, I think this is a good plan. There's enough mitigation to keep people working for decades. And I would say I would certify the EIR and approve the project. Thank you. Thanks. Would you like to go He can't do this. I see this as a once in a generation chance for us to guide this transition um of this coastal site in a way that reflects who we are as a community. Um, I do support certifying the EIR. I think Jane is correct in um her summary of the work and the due diligence that the city and all of the appropriate agencies of which there are many um have conducted. Um and I believe that you know at the end of the day uh some of the the political uh undercurrents on some of the issues um that would should be directed to city council. Um you know this is it's it's it isn't just about removing infrastructure. Um it's about restoring

trust. Um this has been going on for decades and it's uh huge parcel of just prime land that we share. So I I I would I support this, but I at the same time am really looking for uh the long-term environmental care to remain central um not just for today's decision, but for whatever comes next. Go ahead. Thanks. Um, okay, a few comments. Uh, I guess I'll start with the comment that the project, the decommissioning and restoration project proposed by Chevron, um, I believe is a good project. Uh I believe it meets the objectives of what Chevron's intent is and I also believe that it uh meets the objectives of the city in terms of uh moving this site in u not completely but towards a state where it could potentially be uh used for some other use in the future. you know, at the time that Chevron decides they no longer need it for their their use. So, you know, as has been noted, this this has been a topic of conversation and um various actions by the community and the city for many many years. Um I

appreciate Chevron's uh willingness to uh engage at this time with the decommissioning and and clean up. Uh I I know we had a comment that the cleanup levels are too stringent and you know a less stringent cleanup might have uh fewer impacts and and um you know that that can be true but I think that uh it's in the city's best interest that we that we uh encourage and require a cleanup to the to the stringent standard that's proposed by Chevron. And I think that's I appreciate that and and I think it's appropriate for the site and and um uh the impacts that uh will be incurred are you know as noted in the IR are short term uh and I know others are struggle with the short-term uh concept of impacts um but um in my opinion there the scope of the project the schedule the uh details around the type of equipment personnel uh and the various air quality and other impacts associated with that. All of that information is very thoroughly uh described and defined in the environmental documents and um so I'm I'm good with that. I also want to say that the you know this this the final EIR um I mean we reviewed the the the draft EIR several years ago. It's been out for you know uh for quite some time and you know we did receive a lot of good comments on that and uh many of those staff has addressed and adjust made

adjustments to the environmental document um to address that input from from agencies and the community. So, I think um I'm comfortable uh with a couple exceptions here that I'll I'll mention with the with all of that in the in the final EIR. Um a lot of focus in the comments around uh protection of the harbor seals uh not just during the six-month window with the uh pingping season but also haul out season which is continuous as I understand it. So um I I'll come back to this but um I think there's a clarification is appropriate with that regard. Um and [Music] um so I guess to work towards wrapping up my comments uh I support the project as proposed. I um have reviewed thoroughly the environmental document as well as the appendices. Uh and um we have a lot of questions with regards to details around the various uh mitigations. And if you review the appendices, you'll find that there's a significant level of detail contained in many of those documents that are relevant to some of the questions that have been uh asked by uh the public and others. So, in my opinion, it's very thorough and certainly adequate uh under SQUA. So, I'm I'm prepared to um uh certify that that document as part of our effort tonight.

Um there's a couple comments I had questions on earlier that I I'd like to throw out. Um well one other comment I think the um [Music] um selected environmentally superior alternative is is appropriate. I support that alternative. I I think it's um good foresight on the part of the city and appreciate the project applicants cooperation in trying to deal with these legacy assets that are um that are there. deal with them now and um uh so that they don't persist into the future and have to be dealt with by the city or others in the future. And um I recognize that that that does create some additional impacts to work, you know, to remove some of those pipelines. uh and I believe those uh that discussion in the in the environmental document uh and the way that that work has is set up uh is done well and appropriately and um I have every confidence that the um work will be properly monitored uh and um that there's plenty of mitigation measures and supporting monitoring programs to um ensure that we're doing what we can to minimize impacts from that work including impacts to the uh seal hall out and rrookery harbor seal hall out and rrookery. So proposed project, the environmental documents and the uh selected alter uh

preferred environmentally superior alternative I'm in support of. I don't have any problem making the overriding uh considerations for the class one impacts. Um clearly a project like this is an an a benefit environmental benefit um to the community and um does have impacts but I believe they're well mitigated and uh certainly uh justifies overriding considerations for the project. I believe and um so with that I guess there's a couple things I want to circle back to if I could. Um I I do believe that some additional clarity would be helpful on uh condition 10 of the uh of our uh coastal development permit and that corresponds to uh mitigation measure BO1G I believe. And the clarification really is and I think from what I hear it's it's it's the intent is is that the you know monitoring of activities uh monitoring of the seal harbor seal rrookery and hallout will occur for the duration of the project with during and outside of the six-month window and um when activities are occurring within the thousand foot threshold. So I' I'd like to make sure that that is is adjusted to make that clear if that's possible. Um so I'll pause and looks like Nick, you have a comment on that?

Uh thank you. Yes, through the chair. Uh, Commissioner Le Fevers, I'd propose that we could address that concern by simply just changing the language under the plan requirements and timing section at the end of condition 10. So, right now it says that's the part that was creating the confusion. Right now, it says the monitoring plan shall be approved by the city prior to issuance of permits and implemented during periods when the hallout/Rookery is active and in parentheses December 1 through May 31. So I would propose that we instead uh revise that to just say implemented during periods or excuse me implemented during all project related activities within a thousand ft of the hallout rrookery which reflects the language at the beginning of the mitigation measure. So it' be consistent and would cover all activities within that thousand foot radius regardless of timing. Thank you. That's acceptable to me I believe. Okay. Uh appreciate that. And then the other clarification I think would be helpful is around the uh making sure we have a solid link between our action uh with regards to this coast development permit and all of the other uh permitting actions that may be required and I think you had suggested perhaps condition 40 could be adjusted to address that through the chair commissioner levers. That's correct. I'm thinking we can simply add another bullet to the the bulleted items there that the mitigation monitoring and reporting plan can or should include to include a reference to you know applicant shall submit all uh regulatory agency permits and approvals to the city for review prior to commencing work something to that effect. Okay. I thank you. I I would appreciate that. Hopefully those are those changes are acceptable to other commissioners. Um happy to hear, you know, if they're

not. And then I think there was one other um and you know, perhaps this is something you've already adjusted uh Luis, I believe you mentioned a typo that needed to be corrected in one of the uh uh impact tables uh that inaccurately identified a class one impact or something. I want to make sure we correct that if that's Yeah. needs correcting. Yeah, through the chair and as part of the recommendation that you see up on on the slide, uh we have included uh as amended and those are amendments to table 52 and executive summary uh three which is the same table. It's just the executive summary summarizes includes that table within it um with the changes as as I presented in the slide comparing the the impacts. Great. Thank you. Um I guess I'm hesitant to hand over the mic. It's such a significant project. I don't want to stop. But um uh I I believe that reflects the the the meat of my thoughts and content. I'm happy to discuss anything else further and um and prepared to make a motion if there's um whenever it's appropriate. I got to have my turn. I I'm amazed at the amount of work this document really exemplifies and uh you guys you've all done a really spectacular job uh hanging with it and uh I I think you know there's still a a long list of approvals that have to be made and this process will keep going on for a while longer. Uh I wouldn't doubt that it gets appealed and maybe that's

good too. I don't I don't have an opinion about that. The the things that Glenn brought up I agree with. Uh and uh I you know it's a huge project and it's got to have a little pain in it. Uh there's no way around that. But ultimately, I think it's a huge benefit for all of the people that are going to grow up here in this town. Huh. And uh just one little little side note, when I was a worm oil fuel welder working for BNC Welding, you know, I was 24. They sent me They gave me a truck and sent me I just worked there for an hour. They gave me a truck and sent me down dump road to weld a a nipple on the bottom of a tank and they had it propped up and I couldn't weld overhead. So I was under there. Finally they finally they said, "Now you go on back. We need somebody else." So that that was my introduction to Chevron and Oil. So anyway, and it's been a been a great meeting. Thank you. Sure. If we're ready for a motion, um I move that we adopt resolution PC25-00001 um approving the development plan and coastal development permit. uh 21-2128 for the Chevron Carpenter oil and gas facility decommissioning project um including the revised

um revisions noted on the board and uh revisions to condition 40 and condition 10 that we discussed earlier. And that, you know, that includes um uh certification of the environmental document uh the proposed development plan with the Hilda Hazel pipeline removal alternative as a as the um selected environmentally superior alternative. And I think that's I think that's it. I'll second I'll second that. Do you want a roll call? We could do that if the commission's ready for a vote. Yeah. Okay. Uh, Commissioner Lef Fevers. Yes. Commissioner Van Antworp, yes. Commissioner Benfield, I I mean, yes. Vice Chair Moyer, yes. Motion carries 40. Thank you. Thank you everybody. Especially you Louise. Very good. My notes. Think I'll take them. What? Pen. Oh, the the uh Yeah. Agenda. Here we go. We still have more. Yeah. Um, wait a minute. Um, here you have exactly the right.

All right, you guys. We're not done yet. You are. We can be. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Do we have matters presented by commissioners? Okay. Hey, let's wait till I clear out. I I'm so pushy. Okay, maybe I will for you. Thank you. Sorry. Do you have matters presented by commissioners? Well, I wanted to say that I had a bunch of requests from Nick last time we met and that you're so thorough. I mean, I really appreciate you took every one of those and dispelled them for me. I still a little concerned about the story polls on Dorance, but it I can live with that. So, I just want to thank you for that. You're very welcome. and they should be coming down now that the ARB has seen those projects last week. And then uh director's report. Thank you, chair, vice chair. Yes. So, in your director's report this evening, you've got the architecture review board meeting minutes from uh three of our meetings earlier this year. Looks like we had a little bit of a backlog to uh to get in front of you. You also have the city calendar for the month of May, the planning activity report for the month of April, and the building permit report also uh as of the end of April. Um probably the only thing there I wanted to highlight that was of significant note again is the 700 Lynden project, now called the Lynden Square project, is getting really, really, really close. the all of the uh the interior, you know, the the developer is is working with the tenants to try to get the the finishing touches put on the interiors so that a handful of the

businesses can be ready to open concurrently. And the goal is to have those open later this month. So excited for that. And I'll wrap it up there unless you have anything else for me. Yeah, I plan to be available June 2nd. Yeah, I'll be here and you'll be here. I'll be here. Thanks. I'm sorry. So, Jane, you said you would not be here for I will not be here. I'll be in But the others the other three will be. We're adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. [Music]