The CA Coastal Commission provided comments for the June 24 2020 DCDEP Meeting on June 24, 2020, regarding Coastal Development Permits that PG&E will need to decommission Diablo Canyon Power Plant. The language provided in emails from CCC's Tom Luster are attached.

Zoom Chat Comment: Hello Panelists:) This is Nicole Nix, District 3 Legislative Assistant. I don't have any questions yet, but wanted you to know I'm online watching and interested in your discussion on this important issue.

Zoom Chat Comment: Thanks Nicole

Zoom Chat Comment: Thank you to all those in attendance for wearing your face coverings!

Zoom Chat Comment: Which parties can propose mitigation measures?

Zoom Chat Comment: We've heard concerns about the community of Avila and Los Osos. As a Pismo Resident, I want to challenge the board. I live less than a 1/4 mile from the Pismo Yard and I am very concerned with the noise, traffic and potential loss of property values due to the transportation and transfer of low level waste. I can literally see the Pismo Yard from my home. Has the impact to Pismo Beach residents been considered?

Zoom Chat Comment: I hope future transportation analysis will consider the effects to Los Osos community at the same level of detail and sensitivity as provided tonight for Avila community.

Zoom Chat Comment: Comment from panel website from Vita Miller (summarized): I am against any route going through Montana de Oro State Park. Someone mentioned it is possible that some of that land is sacred Chumash property and may actually be returned to the Chumash in the future. Besides that it will be devastating to those of us who love the park just the way it is.

I don't know enough about all those other forms of transport; it's complicated. Not sure I like the idea of putting any kind of nuclear waste in the ocean. One accident and I cannot imagine the amount of harm that would be done to the marine life, perhaps for decades.

Zoom Chat Comment: Don't forget the impact on HWY 101 and Price Canyon!

Zoom Chat Comment: I had the same idea that Linda ha about burying the low level waste onsite. With all the risks, expense and unknowns with barging, trucking, rail and transferring from one to the other -- burying onsite would be safer. and the GHG emissions are a concern also.

From Linda Seeley to All panelists : I think that reading the final EIR for the Topaz solar plant will give us good ideas for mitigation.

Zoom Chat Comment: Thank you for all the details tonight! As a Pismo Beach resident, we are concerned with the use of the Pismo Yard. We also live less than 1/4 mile from the Yard and can see it from our house. As it is now, we hear lots of truck noise from the Yard since the sound travels throughout the canyon. We are concerned about noise, air quality, and decrease in property value.

Public Comment: MR. WEISMAN: Good evening. David Weisman, Alliance For Nuclear Responsibility. In listening to your presentations tonight, particularly the ones from both UCLA and later the California Department of Transportation, correct me if I'm wrong, but in a large majority, regardless of the volume of material, that is to say the rubble, the construction material, the non-radioactive material for sure, anything that leaves on a truck and goes to the Pismo Beach rail yard then is placed on a train. We heard a lot about barges and the ·possibility today, we certainly heard about trucks and truck traffic, but I didn't hear anything or anyone speaking on behalf of the railroad. I know that the Caltrans has a department of rail and I would just suggest that this certainly is worthy of investigation 10 because the California Coastline Railroad, formally ·Southern Pacific, now Union Pacific, and I didn't hear a representative from the Union Pacific, would have to be amenable to carrying this large volume of waste when you consider that the Union Pacific abandoned the coastline for freight service two years ago. There were no longer any freight trains traveling between San Luis Obispo and Los Angeles or Long Beach, only the half a dozen Amtrak 18 trains a day, and the Union Pacific had even talked of abandoning this route. Now you're speaking of, as your ·calendar shows, a lot of this demolition material moving out in years like 2030, 2032, 2035, which is a long way from now, on a relatively narrow and potentially abandoned railroad, but the other reason the railroad was interested in considering abandoning the route is because in many places, due to coastal erosion, expensive abutments and restoration of sea walls would ·be necessary to keep the tracks from sliding into the ocean and here the discussion involves what will be potentially very heavy trains with large, long amounts of this heavy material. So I'm just wondering, especially to the UCLA researchers, I know you were looking at risks, but, of course, there would be the risks of remember we saw the Del Mar Bluffs collapse in the last rainy season. For the train, that would have been the one that is the same line that would carry the waste up from San Onofre had it gone a little further south.· So I'm just wondering where is the consideration of that factor and when we can look forward to seeing that.· Thank you very much.

Public Comment: MS. JOHNSON: Hi. This is Kailie Johnson. I met you all last October at the public workshop where I presented my Cal Poly architecture thesis and it's nice to tune in again and hear your voices.· My question is also about the railway possibility and I see information, but looking at the northern route going through Montana de Oro, I was wondering what would be the condition for building either a road or railway because it's not connected right now between the plant and the state park and just thinking about what are the future possibilities if a road or railway has to be built there and could it be used for public use after the material is transported out?

Please see attachment - Public Comment for the June 24, 2020 Decommissioning Meeting

Please find attached the June 10, 2020 letter written by community members and others to PG&E and the CPUC regarding the conservation of and sustainable public access to the Diablo Canyon Lands. This letter was written in response to a query by the CPUC to PG&E dated June 1, 2020, also attached.

I al for the land lease protection of the spotted snowy owl wolves. call me at 702-301-9097 for all deatils.

Hello, I think your site might be having browser compatibility issues.
When I look at your blog in Firefox, it looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer, it has some overlapping.
I just wanted to give you a quick heads up! Other then that,
amazing blog!

Hello,

For the past four years I have worked as a Point Buchon trail manager. During that time I have had the pleasure and the privilege to witness the changes to the landscape and marine environment during each season as well as to witness the abundant wildlife each day. I could go on and on about the uniquely beautiful and relatively unspoiled habitat this four mile stretch of coastal bluffs, foothills and grassland terraces provide for people to enjoy hiking and important habitat for native wildlife.
So, I’ll get to my point. I strongly believe that the land occupied by the Point Buchon trail should continue in much the same way it has been since I have worked there - providing managed access for people to enjoy the bluff trail 4-5 days each week and, provide habit for the unique and varied flora and fauna.
I would be happy to speak with anyone from the panel regarding my experience, knowledge and perspective about the this amazing stretch of coastline - one of the most beautiful in the world!
Thank you for your thoughtful, forward thinking consideration.

My comment concerns the new Tribal Land Policy as relates to Diablo Canyon lands

The very definition of which Native American groups qualify as stakeholders in this matter is also not clear to me. Are the members or leaders of such groups required to document their ancestry or historical connections to the lands? That would seem a difficult burden to meet, given the lack of record keeping at the time when these peoples were removed from their lands. On the other hand, it would seem appropriate to make sure that those claiming tribal status truly are representing the interests of such a people.

Given that plant closure will not be complete until the end of 2025, and that decommissioning will happen in stages over decades, there is no time pressure at present to make decisions regarding the adoption and application of the new policy. The CPUC should hold a workshop in San Luis Obispo County after the Coronavirus threat has passed and before the new policy guidelines are passed.

It will be important that any future land transfers be accompanied by a conservation easement, to ensure the permanent conservation of the land’s resources and the protection of sustainable public access.

I urge the DCDEP to follow this process within the CPUC closely, and to assert itself into the hearing process as appropriate.

L. Jane Swanson
janeslo@icloud.com

I wish to express the conviction that any transfer of lands by means of the Tribal Land Transfer Policy, of which I strongly approve, include a conservation easement to require the permanent protection of sustainable public access and natural resources. We don't want such transfers to facilitate movement of land from public into private for-profit ownership.

Additionally, it seems clear that there must be a pause in this process involving the Diablo Canyon Lands to allow for a workshop in San Luis Obispo after the Covid-19 crisis has declined. The residents of the Diablo Canyon area should be informed and be able to participate in this discussion process before adoption of new policy guidelines.

The construction of a nuclear power plant on the California coast adjacent to earthquake faults both on land and in the ocean has endangered these people for decades. They should be involved in the resolution of this matter and assured their lives won’t be further impacted by any land transfer agreement lacking a conservation easement.

As a native Californian I had the pleasure of traveling up beautiful Highway 1 many times throughout my childhood to camp in northern California’s redwood parks. It was appalling to me to see a nuclear power plant built on our coast, and sited similarly to the Fukushima nuclear power plant which continues to poison our small planet’s land and oceans. Great care needs to be taken in the decommissioning of this power plant to ensure no further harm comes from it.

Return ALL LAND TO CALIFORNIA INDIANS. All land in California stolen from CA Indians and needs to be returned.

As a PG&E customer for the past 50 years I, along with millions of other Californians, paid for the lands upon with the Diablo Canyon power plant is located. Now that PG&E is closing the plant, it is only fair that, to the maximum extent allowed by California law, security concerns and the NRC, those lands be returned to the people of California who paid for them with provisions for permanent public access and use. This is particularly important for the undeveloped lasts closest to the ocean. PG&E should not be allowed to sell them for residential development or other commercial development. The most appropriate use for these lands is as parks and open space preserves with hiking, biking and horseback riding trails. The existing access road from Port San Luis and the existing ranch roads provide the initial infrastructure for such public use. Do not allow this unique opportunity to be squandered.

Due to the timing of the CPUC Tribal Lands Transfer Policy adoption in December before the Diablo Canyon Decommissioning Engagement Panel was even aware of the policy, I strongly encourage that the Panel takes a step back and look towards an inclusive outreach to the local communities and indigenous tribes who were left out of this process. This policy has a direct bearing on the panel’s mission to recommend future use of the land. This is an opportunity to preserve one of the last undeveloped coastal lands with a long history of the first protectors of the land and sea, the Chumash people. The land should be protected and not to be turned into expensive homes for the few.

The CPUC should hold a workshop in San Luis Obispo (since we are directly impacted) before new policy guidelines are adopted; and

Any land transfers occurring under the Tribal Land Transfer Policy must be accompanied by a conservation easement, to ensure the conservation of the land’s resources and protection of sustainable public access.

I add my voice to the Northern Chumash Tribal Council in support of:

1. Commitment to Native American tribal government self-determination acknowledging Native American tribes with equal standing under the law with inclusion rather than exclusion.

2. Commitment to open space and public access to Pecho Coast lands around Diablo Canyon.

3. Protection of tribal resources, sacred sites and culturally sensitive grounds through deed restrictions and preservation.

4. Collaboration with the communities to create a dynamic multi-use sustainable seashore that includes Indigenous peoples, the proposed Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary, the fishing industry, renewable energies, tourism, agriculture.

I fully support the Panel's recommendation regarding the Tribal Land's Policy and believe the regulations should provide for the conservation of these lands in perpetuity.